![[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. ô¿ô
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 type who will just call with a high pocket pair hoping for a 3-bet. Everyone's got calling fever. I cap the flop in that "what the hell" manner.
Sure enough, the flop comes 2-4-6 with no hearts and I ditch my worthless overcard draw. 3 bettor had QQ (with Qh)
Question 1: making a pot-building raise in a large, multiway pot with a strong drawing hand is cool. However, once I see Mr. 3-bet, I immediately put him on a high pocket pair. Given that, should I have capped?
Question 2: Even if I cap, should I be prepared to fold top pair unless I have a backup draw (3 flush, 3 straight etc)?
M.
You shouldn't have raised in a no foldem holdem game with a drawing hand. You reduce your implied odds and any deception you're trying to gain won't work because most of your opponnets are weak. Three betting was an even bigger mistake especially if you knew the reraiser had a big poket pair.
JT suited is a good suited connector but it is still not a hand where you want to invest more than one bet to see a flop if you can help it. Raising is bad because it lowers your implied odds and it invites a re-raise costing you even more money to see a flop. Capping is really over betting your hand here although it might gain some deceptive value later.
No you should not cap especially if you are quite certain the 3 bettor has a high pocket pair (QQ,KK, or AA) because if you flop top pair you are badly dominated and it will get expensive.
When you cap and flop top pair, it becomes problematic with a 3 bettor. Another problem is that you have a weak kicker so you are beat by AJ,KJ, or QJ if one of the other opponents has them. It really depends on the texture of the flop and what the betting action is like on the flop. You may have to fold top pair if you get a lot of heat.
Poker 101.
MISTAKE 1: "making a pot-building raise in a large, multiway pot with a strong drawing hand is COOL."
You want to get into this pot as cheap as you can, not raise. Once you see then flop then decide to play on.
MJ
You would not have raised the JTs at all?
Although it's been some time since I've read Sklansky/Malmuths HFAP, I could have sworn it recommended raises from middle position with groups 1-4..
of course, that's part of the reason I have come to this forum, to expand my knowledge beyond simple axioms :) .
Not when it's a No-Fold'em game. No need to. So get in cheap, if ya hit a good flop (2 flush)their gonna be in at the end to pay ya off when it really counts [3/3/6/*12*]
MJ
that the reason you raise JTs in no-foldem-holdem is to disguise your play so that people don't put you on AA or KK everytime you raise pre-flop?
As well, would you EVER raise mid-suited connectors in NFH?
M.
read scott's post below. THere simply is no need to raise with this hand in a game with weak opponents. You should get in cheaply then go from there.
But who will ever know that you varied your play here by raising with a non-premium hand? Only if you catch a good flop and go all the way to showdown will someone see your hand. This is very unlikely to happen. And which of your many astute (??) opponents is going to register this in their mind and effectively utilize it? Perhaps in a home game where you are playing against the exact same lineup each week, it makes sense to vary game with an "off-nominal" raise like this but in a casino or a public cardroom I don't think it is worth it.
one of the major benifits of a pot building raise with a drawing hand is to entice your opp to give you more action once you make your hand. this is not needed in no-foldem. by definition, they will pay you off anyway.
scott
Summing up other posts: if you can, see the flop as cheaply as possible with drawing hands. (especially in a game where you will have to have the cards to win)
6-12 hold'em at Normandie,(where they have no small blind)
I raise 2 off the button w/KQ suited spades. The blind calls, the under the gun limper calls w/9-5 offsuit! 6 bets in pot.
Flop is 9-9-10 one spade. Blind checks, UTG bets his trips without hesitation. The bettor is a retired gentleman, who I'm absolutely convinced has a nine.
I have an inside straight draw and backdoor flush, I don't count my overcards because a pair ain't going to cut it, I need a straight or flush(and I don't consider runner runner boat)
I'm confident he doesn't have a ten, because he woulda checked it FOR SURE and popped me later, just like I would have.
Anyway, I call, blind drops (I wanted this passive players call, but then I thought--well he didn't have JQ or J-10 so maybe my jacks are all live, even though the bettor certainly could have a jack.)
The turn was the 4 of spades. He bets,I consider raising for about 1/2 a nanosecond--what's the point, he ain't gonna drop, I call.
River is the 3 of spades. I make my flush. Now he looks me over, and with the expression on his face he might as well have said, "Naugh, he ain't got no flush,huh well--what the heck". So when he bet, I felt even more confident popping him one after he hesitantly bet the river.
My question is: Should I have called the flop, when I was absolutely convinced he had a nine?
I should add that I had a horribly tight image up to that point from constantly being dealt unplayable starting hands for the last 2 1/2 or 3 hours, and when considering my flop call I was somewhat influenced by not wanting the looser/aggressive players to think that I'll easily toss my hand on the flop, when bet into with certain types of flops.
Thanks for any help, Don from Orange County
If you knew with 100% certainity that he had a Nine for trip Nines then it is a very bad play for you to chase a runner-runner flush and an inside straight draw. Not only are you a huge underdog to hit a hand, but in those rare cases where you do he has a lot of redraws against you to a full house. So the answer to your question is no you should fold.
However, having said that, I think in a normal situation you have an easy call of the flop bet. A normal player would bet with a Ten in his hand giving him the top two pair. Now you have a lot of live outs to beat him with any King, Queen, or Jack plus your runner-runner possibility. Are you sure that he wouldn't bet a having a Ten in his hand? 100% sure?
Some players might bet the flop if they had an open ended straight draw here and a small number of opponents hoping to win the pot outright and having outs if they are called. Are you 100% sure he would not do this ever??
Many players with flopped trips will check to the pre-flop raiser and then raise when you bet. I am always suspicious of a player who bets out like this into a pre-flop raiser.
Jim,
You're Right, I'm not psychic. It was only an intense feeling/through deduction that he didn't have the ten. Because of my ultra tight image at that point, I thought he would have check-called the entire hand down,even if he had A-10 figuring and fearing I had an overpair.
-Don
It's a mistake, especially if your sure he has a nine because of the strong possibility that if you make your straight or flush he will make a full house.
If you were absolutely postitive he had a nine I can't believe you would call(Tight Image). If he turned his cards face-up you would have called?? I doubt it! Would someone like to tell me the percentages of Don's hand winning with runner-runner or a gutshot that doesn't pair the board. I know their not in Don's favor but I don't know how bad of a dog he was in this situation. Thanks.
Russ
Your call was either marginally correct or incorrect, no big deal. If you had any doubt about him having a nine, folding would have been a big mistake. Even if you were sure he had a nine, your call wasn't bad if, as was the case, you thought you could get an extra bet out of him if you hit.
Against three nines, you were about a 5-1 underdog with 2 cards to come, more or less. You're getting 7-1 immediately and will pay, on average, just under 3 small bets to see your draw through if you miss. If you hit, you'll pick up the 7 in there now plus another 6-10, depending on what the third player does and whether a lesser straight hits, etc. One advantage to your read is that you won't pay off a full house.
My chief reservation about your play is that very predictable players tend to check on the river when any scare card comes, reducing the value of the draw. But since this guy wasn't that sort, I can't quibble with your call on the flop.
Be honest!!!! If you knew he had a nine, he would have folded, anyone with a brain would have. There must have been some doubt in your mind. I would have been out of there.
The real concern here is that if you in fact knew he had a nine, you may have a discipline problem.
I was certainly wrong about the draw having value because Don won't pay off a full house (he might be up aginast one already, and won't know if a full house hits later), but I still disagree. I'd probably fold the KQ here as well, but not without analyzing the draw and what the third player will probably do. The idea that one should never draw to a straight or flush when facing a set is just wrong.
Don,
There is no reason to reveal the contents of UTG's hand. Unrevealed, I doubt most of us would put the player on a nine (trips rarely bet out in my experience). By keeping information that cannot be known to you at the time a secret, you will get more honest answers. That being said, I agree with Jim Brier's analysis.
Regards,
Rick
"There is no reason to reveal the contents of UTG's hand."
Rick I respect you very much but on this we disagree. (That's never happened before that I can remember, not much anyway. OK a lot then so what). I do not like incomplete hands to comment on. Certainly I may be biased in my response because of knowing the outcome but I look for more information than just what was in the other players hand. In this case the poster emphasized his belief that the opponent had a 9. I like to know what he was thinking. Some times when posters leave out the results of the hand they tend to leave out other important information also. I shouldn't have said that I disagree with your position because I do see the other side of the coin in these situations. I just like my coin heads up.
Vince.
BTW - The answer to the posters question was that if he was convinced that the better had a nine as he indicates then he should have adjusted his calling requirements accordingly. In this case the pot (6sb's) was not big enough to continue against a set. If there was some doubt themn maybe.
Vince,
I didn't realize I had anyones respect. Anyway, he could have said he was 90% certain UTG had a nine because of reasons X, Y, and Z. Now we could have argued over his reasoning. Giving away the hand gave no insight into his thinking as to why he thought UTG had a nine.
Regards,
Rick
"I didn't realize I had anyones respect. "
Excuse me Rick, but I'm not just anyone. I'm Italian!
Vince.
Vince said in the last paragraph of his post, that the pot had 6 bets at the time Don was thinking about continuing against a set, but don't you guys count the player's bet into don on the flop as a 7th bet? Also, Don hinted that he thought the blind might call(he said he was disappointed when the blind dropped), so is it wrong to count the guy in the blind as a possible 8th bet?
I guess I have a little different take on his post. I've read some of Don's messages before, and he often points out that he stinks at math(so do I), so when I read it, I picked up primarily on the uncertainty he felt as to whether or not he was mathematically justified in continuing with the hand, under the conditions he related.(as opposed to things like the accuracy he had, or didn't have, in regards to the bettor having a nine.)
Thanks, Martin D
"I raise 2 off the button w/KQ suited spades. The blind calls, the under the gun limper calls w/9-5 offsuit! 6 bets in pot.
Flop is 9-9-10 one spade. Blind checks, UTG bets his trips without hesitation. The bettor is a retired gentleman, who I'm absolutely convinced has a nine. "
Don,
the above is what I was referring to when I said adjust your odds accordingly. I interpreted this as 6 small bets and it could be actually as amany as 7 if it is the small blind that calls. You are correct to add the bet of the UTG bettor making ~8sb's. Still that is not enough to call with a gut shot straight and back door flush if you are convinced that the opponent has trips. Look at the flop. If someone calls a raise with a 9 what is there most likely other card. T or 8. maybe J or 7. Even if they call with something else as in this case you are still very far behind. Add the fact that you can make your hand and still lose the pot you would need >16 small bets to call in this case. There is a long way from "absolutely convinced" to being uncertain. Even if you are uncertain you still have the blind behind you who may have a nine. You must take all factors into considereation. If you were fairly confident that this player wouldn't bet trips in this situation then with the 2 over cards to the T and a call may be in order but I still don't like it.
Vince.
I have recently been getting J9o quite often in the 4-8 HE game that I have been playing. One time an early position player raised in a rather loose and not too aggresive game, and I just chucked the hand in the muck. Flop came J, x, 9 and then a 9 on the turn. Another time an early (solid player who I had on AA) raised in a pretty loose aggresive game I mucked 2 in from UTG and I would have made a straight on the river. Am I playing too tight with this hand or is it as trashy as it seems and the flops have just been good for the hand? What types of situations (positions) would you guys consider playing these cards?
"Am I playing too tight with this hand or is it as trashy as it seems and the flops have just been good for the hand?"
Response: This hand is trouble unless you are lucky enough to hit it dead center.
"What types of situations (positions) would you guys consider playing these cards?"
Response: In the BB with no raise. The hand is a loser.
The exception would be in a tight passive game in late position where you might play anything to steal the blinds.
Jack-Nine offsuit is a real piece of cheese and you should never call a raise with it pre-flop unless you are in your big blind. I will limp in with Jack-Nine offsuit from the cutoff, button, or small blind and only if I have at least a couple of opponents.
Why call a raise in the BB with a hand you wouldn't call a raise with on the button?
Just because you have a bit of money in why throw good after bad, also - your in worst position after the flop.
Just wondering.
Because of pot odds and the fact that I get to see three cards plus it is unlikely to be raised again. I agree that in general if you wouldn't cold call a raise on the button you probably shouldn't call a raise out of your small blind either but I see the big blind as being different. Being halfway in allows you a lot of leeway. Now of course calling double and triple raises from the big blind is definitely wrong without a premium hand, but when faced with a single raise I think you can loosen up.
Also, the BB will face more raises from weaker hands than will the button.
Could it be pot odds?
Unraised button or one off the button.
not only unraised button, but massive folded to button
I think I would only play this hand under (more or less) the opposite conditions. If an early player called and it's folded to me, there's no way I'm putting money in. But if there's 5 callers, I'm on the button, and I can be resonably sure there's no raise coming from the blinds, I'll throw in and see what the flop brings.
It better bring something huge for me to stick with it. Under standard playing conditions, I'd have to say a straight (or flush) draw to the nuts or two pair on the flop would need to be there for me to continue if there's early action.
Mike
I like J9 off suit in a couple of specific spots. If I know the flop will come with two jacks or two 9s I'm in there. Heck, I'll probably raise. Also I like it when I'm certain the flop will come 7 8 T or 8 T Q. Here again I'm probably raising pre-flop.
Sound's pretty stupid, doesn't it?
Lastly, seriously, I like J9o in the big blind unraised.
How about playing it on the button, unraised, to mix up your game? You will throw off the better players and make it harder for them to read you, since you play garbage every now and then?
How about playing it on the button, unraised, to mix up your game? You will throw off the better players and make it harder for them to read you, since you play garbage every now and then?
How will playing J9o throw off your opponents any more than J9s will? You also said you're playing in 4-8, at which point making yourself unreadable based on preflop play is of very little importance. You'll often have enough callers to make the weaker suited hands playable in late position, even junk like Q4s and 96s. (If 6 or 7 people have limped in and the pot is unraised, which often happens in very loose-passive games.)
In a multiway pot, I can't see any reason to play J9o outside the blinds. Weaker offsuit hands really stink in multiway pots because a pair will often be no good (there will often be better jacks and nines out there), and the straight value doesn't quite make up for that. Don't get into the habit of playing shoulda/coulda/woulda when you see the flop hit your (mucked) weak hand really hard--even 72o has its day when the flop comes 772.
This has little application in low-limit, but I'll often open-raise with J9o on the button (and maybe 1 or even 2 off the button depending on the tightness of the small blind and the others to my left), and will defend my big blind with it against a non-tight raise, but that's about it aside from in the blinds and unraised.
-Sean
But Joe the only way anyone will ever know that you "mixed up your game" or "varied your play" is if you catch a good flop and go all the way to the river and there is a showdown. The vast majority of time you will be mucking your hand and no one will ever know.
Both of you guys make good points, I probably will only make the play if the cards are suited, and I'm ready to bluff all the way to a showdown in case of a non-fortuitous flop, if at all. Thanks for the advice.
I've read the responses and agree that J9o is junk. BUT, and I'm serious here, what if you're on a rush. Good cards have held up and you taken in 3 of the last four pots. Is J9o on the button unraised (as well as a myiad of other holdings) worth playing to:
1) continue the rush 2) Make others believe you're lucky as well as good when you win with this. 3) Besides, you're not much worse off than 4 of the other callers in this spot.
What I mean is, you're losing only 1/5 of a small bet lifetime with the call. Not something you'd like to repeat too often; but when on a rush?
Standard low-limit holdem. I'm in the BB with Q8o. About 4-5 callers, no raise. The style so far has been pretty weak-tight, with one maniac, but he's not in this hand. Rarely a raise preflop from anybody but him. Flop comes Q62. No flush draw. I check (wrong?) and get an immediate call to my left, and two more callers before it gets back to me. I think for a moment, then muck it, figuring I'm outkicked. The outcome of the hand is irrelevant- I am just scared about how easy it was to push me off of top pair. It retrospect it seems very wrong to fold here, so the question is: Should this hand have not been folded on the flop under any conditions? What conditions would there have to have been to release this?
Mike
I see nothing wrong with your play here. With less opponents you should bet, but with this many opponents you should check. When an early position player bet and there were a couple of callers you can be pretty certain your outkicked. However if a late postion plyer bet perhaps in an attempt to steal the pot you can raise. This advice is not my own. In fact I beleive this is the advice in HPFAP in the free card chapter. Either way this is how I usually play top pair/weak kicker.
As it is you played the hand correcctly in my opinion
It is hard to say when you don't bet the flop. I think it is critical to bet the flop and see how the field handles it. You have top pair and no one raised pre-flop. You could have the best hand. I would bet. You might win without a fight. If you get called it would depend on who called and how many opponents you still had. If you get raised with several callers, you are probably beat but should still take off a card. You need to bet when you have an interest in the pot and with top pair in an unraised pot you are definitely interested. When you put yourself in a check-call or check-fold mode it is tough to make good decisions.
The problem with your statement is that your not in check and call, check in fold mode here. You're in check and see what happens mode. When an early postion player bet into a lot of players and got some callers you can be pretty certain your beat. Your check helped you gain info. If a late postion player had bet then you could raise if you think his bet is a possible steal.
With no Ace or King on the flop, I like my top pair of Queens. A lot of guys bet middle pair, bottom pair, or some kind of gutshot when it is checked to them. If I have the best hand I don't want to give out a free card and have an Ace or a King show up thereby crippling my play. This is an unraised pot, so why does someone have to have a hand that can beat a pair of Queens? I know I have a Queen so there is a good chance I have the best hand. Unless you are planning to check-raise with this hand, your "check and see what happens mode" is the functional equivalent of checking and calling or checking and folding.
But that is exactly what I plan to do if I late postion player is the first one in. In this postion I either check fold or check raise.
With less players I see your point but with this many players I think its better to check and see what happens
Your point about the number of opponents is a good one. When I re-read the post we appear to have 4 or 5 opponents. That appears to be a lot. Okay, I will agree that you are right and a check is good here. But instead of 4 or 5 opponents, if it is reduced to 2 or 3 opponents I will bet the flop with my top pair here? What do you think?
I agree.
Jim and ATWOOD,
I normally don't make this type of "Yeah, I agree" post but I thought Jim had momentarily lost his mind on his earlier posts. The number of opponents makes all the difference. A bet into two or maybe three and you can play (or bet yourself). A bet from my left into four or five and it is an easy fold for me.
Regards,
Rick
I think the check was good here. I agree that the first bettor may not have anything. However, I think we get a lot of information in that he had 2 callers who also knew there were a couple of people still to act in front of them. I would be confident in most (not all) games that I was 2nd best at best.
-- Charlie
Nit to pick on you Jim but the poster stated that this was a "standard" low limit game. That means to me that if you bet everyone is going to call anyway. So your bet won't necessarily stop an ace or a king from beating you but a check raise just might.
In these kind of games a bet or late position raise does not give protection. I only (re)raise if the bet or raise is one or two positons before me; this will get SOME protection.
A raise from late position or a check raise after most players have called just guarantees more calling through the river.
That's not want I'm saying. I talking about the case where every one passes to the last player, he bets, and now it is your turn to act. If it now turns out that you are sure that lots of people will come in for two bets then there may be a better strategy than to try to check raise on the flop. (This can include just calling on the flop and then trying for a check raise on the turn.)
In a 4-8 I play in, this is standard for myself if it is a loose player who bets. I would likely raise with any Q, pocket 9's 10's J's or with an 8 and good kicker (ie suited ace). You must act quickly here however. You must not show any weakness if you want to be head to head with the better.
Mason: Isn't there just as much chance that by betting, you will get raised, thus possibly eliminating the Ace or King, as there is that a check will allow you to check-raise and eliminate those hands? Even in the "standard" low limit game, the earlier position hands should be somewhat better than the later position callers, so wouldn't there be a greater possibility of a raise immediately to your left (rather than from later position players) if you bet (or a bet immediately to your left if you check, which is what happened in this hand), thus lowering the possibility that you can eliminate other players with a check-raise?
If you think that this is the case then the bet becomes the better strategy. This is especially true if there is a player on your left who would almost always raise with a weaker hand.
Unfortunately, a raise to your left implies a player trying to protect his hand. If it's worth protecting there's a good chance it's better than your Q-8. If it's a loose raiser then it's a good bet because you may get heads up with the raiser or you'll have a better idea of where you stand with any player who cold calls the raise.
I think it is pretty easy to throw this hand away at this point. Either that or raise as a semibluff steal, or to see where the others are at, watch out if you get called though because you might have to bet all the way to the river to get them out. Mostly though, throw it away seems like your best option. It is too easy for someone to enter the pot with something like QT or QJ in an unraised pot. Hell, the little blind my have Q6s and your running way behind. Maybe I am wrong and you should call and chase the 8 for 2 pair, but there are no pot odds and I do not think it is worth it. Another hand is coming up in just a minute.
I would check the flop in the hope that a late position would bet, then I would raise to, 1) get out those Aces and Kings, and pocket pairs (looking for their 1 in 22 shot) - in low limit you often find callers on the turn with only one overcard or pocket pair - they'll usually muck it for 2 bets, 2) guage the tables reaction - if they three bet it they have you out kicked - have two pair - or flopped trips. Either way, I see the turn and unless I make 2 pair I release. If no three bet and more than 1 fold I bet out - usually if everyone calls the raise - (again, only a raise of a late potition bet) - then I check no matter what - if I make two pair I check raise. If I don't make two pair there is a bet and it appears more than 1 call, I will muck. To see the river and call the river with Q8 and many callers is almost always a losing play. I think you mucked to early. See the turn. Check raise a late position bet. But that's me - when I have top pair, I like to win it as fast as possible - I'll usually see the turn unless a flush or straight flop - (and I have neither).
For what it is worth.
If you bet and someone calls you with a lone ace or king, since they are only getting 6-to-1 odds (or a little better if there are other callers) on their three out hand, aren't you happy they called. Wouldn't you rather have them make this mistake than correctly throw their hand away if you manage to make it two bets?
Mason,
Here is another twist. Of course I would want a singleton ace-nothing to call if I could get it head up with me having top pair. But what about having two players, one with a singleton ace-nothing and one with a singleton king-nothing calling you. Wouldn't there be "implicit collusion" here (i.e., collectively they have odds relative to your hand). This is often the scenario in low limit or loose games.
Regards,
Rick
If two people call you are collecting twice as many bets as you do if only one person calls.
I guess you are referring to Morton's theorem which states that in certain multiway situations you would like your opponents fo fold even if they are correct to do so according to Sklansky's FToP. When against multiple opponents trying to suck out on you, there exist a certain range of pot sizes where the draws cost you money even when they are chasing incorrectly (chasing with inadequate pot odds).
However, when two opponents are each drawing to a three-outer and getting 6 to 1 pot odds only, you have *not* yet entered the Morton zone. The pot would have to be somewhat bigger to worry about implicit collusion here.
You should bet your top pair in this spot. Beg them both to call. Say "please". Throw a sandwich into the pot.
For more info on Andy Morton's theorem, type "Morton's theorem" or "implicit collusion" in the field below and hit the button.
For a collection of excellent articles by late Andrew Morton, click here. He was a brilliant poker mind.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Thank-you for this very valuable post. One of the best answers to this question of playing K's or Q's no kicker from the blinds can also be found over in rgp archives, look for Tad Perry's "Some unprofitable bets in holdem" 1998/12/22.
Yes I'm happy they called. I'm even happier when they call two bets. And most of the time I'm happier when they muck - at lower limits!
My point is that in low limit hold' em, because you can see the turn "inexpenisvely" or "cheap" - I put these words in quotations because that is how these players rationalize this call- you'll get more callers. I'm not big on math - you say it's a 6-to-1 and I'm sure it is - but at lower limits you'll get that lone Ace or King calling more than at higher limits - which must go towards lowering your chances of winning.
Oftentimes in low limit games, when the pot is capped and its multiway action - your pocket pairs or AK or almost anything - if they don't flop, they are going to the river regardless - they just decide when they look at the big pot, and I've been guilty of this - "I'm going to the river with my pocket twos." (Or AK or whatever).
I just believe, and I know much of this thought process comes from HEFAP - though much of it comes from many hours at lower limits - when you play the lower limit games, you want them out as fast as possible. So when you flop the Q with a Q8, you want the A and K to call two bets - not to mention the middle and bottom pair looking for two pair - or fold.
Not to say I always do this. For example, if I am on the button w/ AK in a raised pot and its checked to me with a flop like A62 rainbow, I'll often check it, looking to raise the weaker kicker, middle pair or turn pair that bets into me - and not so much for getting more $ in the pot, though that is nice - but to drive out WHATEVER with 2 big bets and increase my chances - because I figure I'm calling the river as well. Again, this all about the lower limits, though I've used some of this at higher games. I'm sure your point is stronger the higher you go??????
Your immediate pot odds are about 8-1. I think your only out is to hit the 8. Even if we know that noone has an 8, I think that is only about 15-1 on the next card (3 outs). I think with 3 other callers, there is 95% chance someone has a queen with a better kicker. I would be out of there.
Another Mike,
The most common limping cards in low limit (actually most limtis) are jack, ten, queen, and nine. When my top pair out of the blinds is one of those cards with a lousy kicker, I tend to check. If the bet comes early (especially with this uncoordinated rainbow flop) I will fold, especially with callers in between. If the bet comes late, I might check-raise, but it depends on the bettor.
Change the queen to a king and I might bet out. There is a much better chance an unraised pot with a top card of a king might have missed everybody than a queen or especially a jack.
Regards,
Rick
However, with a king you are not as afraid of overcards so checking is not a bad play either especially if you have a lot of opponents.
Suppose everyone checked to the last player and he bets. Now it is your turn and he is the only active player in the pot. Are you still so easy to push off top pair? I doubt it.
I think it is close to either folding or calling in the situation that you describe.
Mason,
I'm trying to keep my apples and avacados straight on this one.
You wrote: "Suppose everyone checked to the last player and he bets. Now it is your turn and he is the only active player in the pot. Are you still so easy to push off top pair? I doubt it"
I wouldn't throw away top pair only because it was the last player who bet which often indicates a hand less then top pair. I like check raising but maybe calling would be just as effective given the texture of the flop.
"I think it is close to either folding or calling in the situation that you describe.
Are you speaking of the original scenario? There was a bet on "Another Mike's" left (he mis-typed it as a call but it was obvious he meant bet), two cold callers then you. What are you hoping for here? Hitting an eight on the turn? I'm lost.
It seems to me the flop bet by the player on "Another Mike's" left into four potential callers was "protected" and now you still have three opponents. I would think even at low limit you are almost always beat and if not are likely to get beat.
Regards,
Rick
In retrospect, I think the one single event that contributed the most to me folding was the early position player betting out on the flop(was this wrong? should the number of players mattered more?). As you said Rick, the pot was protected, and I seriously doubt the bettor anticipated taking the pot right there.
And to answer your question Mason, I doubt I would have folded if the only player left was in late or last position. Maybe a check-raise would be best in this case. But I guess a follow-up question would be: What if an early position player bet, and it was folded around to me?
Mike
IMO one reason you might call is if you think there is a good chance the action will be checked around on the turn.
Well Mike you have received a lot of reasons for not betting the flop here. People say don't bet but hope everyone checks to a late position player who will bet a worse hand so we can check-raise. Also don't bet because guys with Aces or Kings or just anything will call anyway. In addition, don't bet and if someone else bets and gets a caller or two then fold because you are beat.
When you check you have no way of knowing whether or not this flop will get bet. When someone raises before the flop, you have a legitimate reason for believing the flop will get bet but that didn't happen here. The fact that players with worse hands will call anyway is not a prime consideration. Whether or not some guy chooses to hang around with a bare King or Ace is his problem. The point is these guys that play any Ace or any King in any position pre-flop are not making much of a mistake if they can get free cards from better hands after the flop. Similarily with people who play gutshots. Whether or not they are getting the correct mathematical odds to take off a card is not as important as the fact that when they pay nothing they are getting infinite odds. With regard to check-raising a late bettor, it might work but I don't know that my hand is good enough to make the power play of check-raise when I am out of position like this. If the bettor has a better Queen than mine, all I am doing is making sure I come in second instead of third, fourth, or fifth by eliminating players with the check-raise. The most important reason I have heard here for not betting the flop is that you have a lot of opponents (i.e.-more than 3) and it is too easy for someone to have a better Queen. For what it is worth.
If you're always checking and folding top pair/no kicker to a bet and a couple of calls on the flop, you're giving away money, IMO.
If this is a typical low-limit game, the callers could have anything from gutshots, second pair, bottom pair, 3-flushes, one overcard, etc. So my prime interest would be to consider what the original bettor has. If he's capable of betting less than a queen, I'd call or raise. If he's the rock of Gibralter, I'd fold.
But more to the point, if this is a passive low limit game, I'd be more inclined to bet out, since giving a free card to five people on a queen high flop is deadly. I like your notion of checking with the intention of raising if a late position player bets, but only if the late position players are agressive and can be counted on to bet for you. If the players in late position are passive types who will simply take a free card if it's checked to them and they have an underpair, then your strategy is too dangerous.
I'm in early position,in a tight,passive 4-8 game,I limp in with KQc,late pos.raises,button re-raises,sb caps.Its back to me I muck(in this games I've only invested 1/2 a bet,my logic was this hand had 2nd best or worse written all over it)Flop comes 3 small clubs,just as I'm questioning my decision the river brings the 4th club,winner shows AAc.I saved myself a bad beat,but in the long run will this cost me money.
No harm mucking KQ with that many raises in.
It just isn't that strong a hand. I don't think it will cost you money if you playing smart solid poker.
good laydown!
with that kind of heat in a tight passive game, i would probably lay down A/anything suited
This is an easy fold. Anyone calling pre-flop in this spot is a fish.
Why limp in with KQs in late posn? I would normally raise.
D.
David in a "tight" game KQ is a pretty big trap hand and a weak holding. Your probably drawing dead with all the big pairs out there and the chance for a winning flush is about 20-1 so I'd think the fold is good here.
Sure raise on the button with limpers but that is a different scenario.
I was in early position
KQs is a pretty strong hand, but mostly in later position in an unraised pot and many players in. I really like your limping in with this hand, many would raise I think. Good laydown.
Nothing wrong with a raise here in early position. The trick is to lay it down for 2 more bets after raising.
Your fold was correct. Even KQ suited is not worth putting in 3 more bets pre-flop. A flush is a 20:1 shot assuming you go all the way to the river otherwise you are usually badly dominated by at least one of your opponents when a Queen or King flops. As an option you could raise pre-flop but then you still have to fold when it is re-raised and capped back to you.
How many more players would have to be in to make his fold wrong?
It depends on lots of things, most importantly the nature of the players doing the raising and re-raising. If you can put someone on AA or KK, you're calling to make a straight or a flush, with some of your straight cards gone. But there are lots of players around who would re-raise and cap with less. There is a player in my regular 10/20 game who almost ALWAYS re-raises if he's holding a small pair, and there are plenty of players around who will automatically cap the betting if they are going to play at all (and they'll call three bets cold with all kinds of hands).
It also depends on how well you play after the flop. Are you capable of laying down your hand to a flop like K83 after the small blind bets into you and two pre-flop raisers are waiting to act behind? Especially when you're looking at 17 small bets in the pot?
The hand has 'trouble' written all over it, and it'll be pretty easy to get pot-stuck with it, too. A common scenario for average players with this hand is that they'll call those bets before the flop, flop a gutshot or second pair, then think they have to call because of the size of the pot. Then they get centered, ruining all their pot odds by being trapped by multiple raises on the installment plan. But now the turn comes along, and the pot is bloody huge. So they do it all over again.
In the end, they lose half their stack on a marginal holding. Or once in a while they fluke out, rake in a monster pot, and reinforce the notion that they play very well.
20-40, I post behind the button. All fold to me, I raise with 2-2 and button folds. The two blinds are basically weak-tight; to my dismay, they both call.
Flop is 5-5-5. Both blinds check; I bet. To my dismay, both blinds call. Turn is a 4. Both blinds check; I bet. To my dismay, both blinds call. (Who has the case 5?)
River is the 4th 5, couterfeiting my deuces. Unbelievably, the small blind disgustedly soups, exposing pocket 3s, and the big blind laughs and exposes pocket 6s. tossing them into the muck! I win uncontested with the worst hand from start to finish. [Isn't is a wonderful feeling when they soup in front of you when you can't possibly win?]
Question: What should I have done had they both simply checked to me? One would have thought that a pocket pair would have raised me by now and that, therefore, it was more likely that one or both held an Ace. Yet, wouldn't an Ace have bet the river?
All thoughts appreciated.
Andy,
Funny story. I never expose my hand and this shows one reason why you should not.
Regarding your river problem. With 7.5 big bets in the pot and a (now) totally wothless hand, I would like to think I would be alert enough to follow through with a bet. I do think and ace in your opponents hand would often bet and you should be able to get any pair or medium high card hand to lay down.
Weak tight players could easily play a hand like a medium pair or KQ exactly as described. If you don't make this play you are not thinking ahead.
Regards,
Rick
Even when it seems unlikely there's often a good reason to try to steal it on the river when the pot gets big. This is on of those spots. I can't win it any way other that folding the opponents so a bet is the way to go. Head's up it's almost automatic. Three way it's a bit less fruitful.
You have to keep betting since they will call with any Ace or King frequently. Ironically, on the end you have to bet for an entirely different reason. You cannot win a showdown.
I gotta know, did you show the hand once all the chips were shoved to you? I probably wouldn't, but it would be so damn tempting!
-Zack
This is one hand I wouldn't show - I'd just say I had a nice pair. No lies here and it will make these guys, who really couldn't call a bet from the player in position, feel better about mucking unchallenged hands.
You're right Rounder, but still--I'd be soooooo tempted to show, especially if it were a super fun table.
No. I smiled and told them I got lucky, they both had me beat until the river.
Similar thing happened to me with a flop of two 4's, a 4 on the turn and on the river. I had a King and won at showdown(small pot, lot of checks). Two callers, one with a pr 5's other with a TJs. The 2 callers said it was the 1st time they saw it. Me too.
Andy,
Doesn't this prove the POWER of Position.
paul
ABSOLUTELY.
Ain't life grand? I don't think there is any question that you would have had to risk another bet at the river, because you certainly aren't winning any showdowns. You don't have to pull it off very often to make it a successful play. In this particular case, even if both the blinds had checked to you, the only way you would lose this hand after your presumed bet is if one of them tried a check-raise bluff. Then we get into all sorts of possibilites with third level thinking when you come back over the top with the re-raise bluff, etc. etc.
I hope you didn't show them your hand when all this was over. Mind you if you did, it might put one or both of them into the land of tilt.
No, as I posted above, I told them I had an Ace.
Thanks to all for the reponses. Rick N. had a key point: I should have been thinking ahead, not been dismayed about what had already happened.
Dunc,
I don't think they would have gone on tilt,far from it, infact--they probably would have slapped their hands to their faces and started laughing, at least that's the way the people I try to play with would have reacted.
Besides, I don't think wanting, or not wanting them to go on tilt should even be a consideration with why you don't want to show the hand, in this particular type of situation that is. I wouldn't show the hand here, because I don't want everybody to automatically start looking me up when I have position on them, and they are faced with what would normally be a tough call.
Just my opinion, Don from Orange County
I was in a typical 20-40 hold'em game at Commerce when this hand came up. A decent, aggressive player raised in early-middle position, folding the player between us. I looked at two red aces. I re-raised, folding the rest of the field, including the blinds. The original raiser called. We took the flop heads up.
He raises with a fairly wide range of hands, including medium pairs. He also knows that I seldom 3-bet without a hand.
The flop was 2d5c7h, one of the most favorable flops for my hand. He check-raised me on the flop. Knowing he's an aggressive player, I 3-betted. I believed that I had the best hand, and that 3-betting was the way to collect the most money. He re-raised. Now, I wasn't sure if he had an over-pair (in which case I was a huge favorite) or a set (in which case I was a huge underdog). He is capable of raising with 5-5 or 7-7, although not likely. However, he knows that I don't have a set, because he has never seen me 3-betting an early-middle raiser with 5-5 or 7-7. That's why I wasn't sure what to do. I called.
The turn was a 10s. To my suprise, he checked. Maybe he has 8-8 or 9-9 or even J-J. Maybe he put me on A-K, trying to get a free card. I betted. He surprised me again by check-raising. Now, he either has a set, or Q-Q, K-K or A-A. I can't put him on any other hand. I don't quite know what to do in this spot. I called. The river brought an 8c. He led and I called again. He showed K-K, with the comment, "I thought I finally got ya."
I felt that my play was fine till I was check-raised on the turn. I was very confused. Anyone can smart me up? Thanks.
I don't think you were confused on the turn. I think your analysis is correct; he has either a set or Q-Q, K-K or A-A (with K-K the most likely of the 3). A-A is of course unlikely with you having A-A and K-K is more likly than Q-Q given the strength of his play (he would be hoping you had Q-Q or J-J). Since he probably would have played Q-Q and K-K (and possibly J-J) the same as a set, you must call the turn and the river, especially if he know you can lay down an overpair in the face of repeated shows of strength.
I think sometime players (me included) make a mistake when we "put" a player on just one hand, but also when we think that we're stupid or confused when we can't figure out if our opponent has hand A or hand B. There are some cases when they would play A the same as B and you can't be certain which they have. I'm sure Jim Brier or David will do the math, but I can't imagine that given the money in the pot when you were raised on the turn, that it didn't make sense to call and call again on the river.
I don't think you were confused on the turn. I think your analysis is correct; he has either a set or Q-Q, K-K or A-A (with K-K the most likely of the 3). A-A is of course unlikely with you having A-A and K-K is more likly than Q-Q given the strength of his play (he would be hoping you had Q-Q or J-J). Since he probably would have played Q-Q and K-K (and possibly J-J) the same as a set, you must call the turn and the river, especially if he know you can lay down an overpair in the face of repeated shows of strength.
I think sometimes players (me included) make a mistake when we "put" a player on just one hand, but also when we think that we're stupid or confused when we can't figure out if our opponent has hand A or hand B. There are some cases when they would play A the same as B and you can't be certain which they have. I'm sure Jim Brier or David will do the math, but I can't imagine that given the money in the pot when you were raised on the turn, that it didn't make sense to call and call again on the river.
I like your play here. There's not to many other ways to go but some folks might 5-bet the flop. I would bet the turn every time it's checked to me and then call to the river if raised.
I think your play was correct. This flop does not appear to help a pre-flop raiser so your re-raise is correct. When raises again, I think a call is prudent. In the face of repeated raises, we have to re-evaluate our situation and acknowledge that maybe our opponent came in with an unexpected hand and his pre-flop raise was to "vary his play". When he checks the turn, then I would revert back to being aggressive and bet just like you did. It is okay to make confusing calls just don't get so confused that you make a disastrous fold. In heads-up situations, pocket rockets is usually a through ticket.
I think your play was fine. He made the mistake
I wouldn't say that KK made a mistake either. He played it pretty aggressively on the turn but it was not an outright blunder checking and then raising.
Actually, I think his check-raise there was the best play he could've made. You showed weakness by backing down on the flop and you admitted that you believed he could have had the boat. The check-raise simply reinforced his representation of the boat and was his last shot at taking the pot down. He was holding K's and probably also believed he still had a decent chance of winning at showdown. His betting out on the river was probably a bad play because he knew you wouldn't lay your hand down and that he was probably beat after seeing you call the last check-raise.
Does anyone find fault with checking the turn? It doesn't seem that a free card is all that dangerous given this board and the previous action. If his opponent does indeed have a set he saves $$$. If he has his opponent beat, he may very well fold for a bet anyway, so he makes no more money. A check also induces his opponent to bet the end with all sorts of possible holdings from KK to an outright bluff. His opponent is also more inclined to call a bet on the river after the turn is checked. It kinda takes away some of the guessing game. Is this a bad play in this spot?
There is certainly fault with checking the turn. If he has the set, a rather unlikely situation given the early/middle pre-flop raise, then you do save money. But this is the LESS likely situation. If he has a strong pair, then the beauty of the rockets is that he WONT know he's beat with a simple bet on the turn.
"oh, he bet the turn, and I have KK, that means he must have AA, so I'll fold"
with aggression like that, you have to play against it. If he's willing to put in money against you when it is MORE likely that you have the best hand, then do it every round all the time. Also, with so many raises early, it is unlikely that he will just drop out for one BB on the turn and one on the river.
Also.......there is also a small probability that the guy is a maniac or on tilt, and is betting and raising with the 68. While in this case a rather academic possibility, it is wrong to assume that aggression out of a bad player is neccessarily a strong pair. In other examples, the possibility of a straight draw might be more significant. And for that reason you should hesitate to take the free card. The combination of semi-bluff raises, free-card gambits (less likely but still possible because of the amount of the aggression he would know that you would fear the check-raise), and aggression could easily create a situation where someone would play the straight draw similarly to this.
so, don't check it
It certainly works out better when the guy has a real powerhouse like a set to check it down on the turn but I think against most players their check on the turn denies a strong hand like a set. I think in the long run against most opponents you win more money by betting here when the enemy shows weakness. Guys that act strong on the cheap street and then back off on the turn are really saying "I was just fooling around". Now of course that was not the case in this particular example since the guy had a pair of Kings.
In HDaP there is a chart giving the Probability of completing a hand.It states that the number of outs for a straight draw is 15.This is a novice question,but I only come up with 8 outs.(IE-I have 7,8 flop comes 9,10 blank.My outs are 4 6's and4 Jacks.)I must be missing something please clarify.
I believe they are referring to a straight-flush draw. There are 9 flush cards and 6 straight cards that are also not flush cards for a total of 15 outs.
I believe this really is an actuall "error",. The footnotes to that table should be: #1= 15 outs 54.1% #2= 35 outs 35.0% #3= 8 outs 31.5% #4= this one is correct.
Thanks,it makes sense now
Fairly loose 20-40 game. In late position, I raise with AKs. One loose player had called in early poistion. Both blinds and the early caller call.
Flop is A-K-6 rainbow. It's checked to me. I bet and everyone folds.
Obvious question: should I have checked? I can come up with several reasons to bet, but maybe I am overanalyzing it. You would of course like to get paid when you finally hit a flop this hard. How do you superstars evaluate these kinds of situations?
I give no free cards in a loose game unless you flop the stones. If your opponents have any chance at all, they will take a pivot card so you might as well make them pay.
This hand is by no means draw proof. There is nothing worse than giving your opposition a free card that either beats you or sets them up for a draw at the right price that beats you.
Take the money and mark an x in the win column for AK. It doesn't happen enough!
Problem with this is you have two legs of broadway here and I'd hate to tell you the umbe of times I had top two broadway pairs and lost to a straight. You got to assume some big cards out there - a freeby just might give a gut shot or big draw. If nothing they fold on the turn anyway nothing lost.
You were lucky to get 10sb in the pot take it and run.
Checking would be a bad play. This is a raised pot with $160 already in it. You don't want to give a free card to a guy with a Six. Furthermore, you might get calls from guys with an Ace or a King who "checked to the raiser". Some guy with two lower pair may have been trying for a check-raise so why disappoint him?
It took me one time to learn not to check an 2 pair like AK. If you give free cards, the risk of someone getting a straight or small set is too high for me. make them pay to draw out on you. Imagine that you hold a small pair or a J-T. Wouldn't you like some one to check and give you a free card? Charge them.
I think at lower limits a check is a good play.
Here's why: If you're on the buton and you check - a large percentage of the time you'll get someone betting into you - trying to be cute or even with a six. If someone has Q10 or similar broadway draw - they often go to river regardless - unless - they have to call to big bets. So, in lower limits, it's good to check - have someone bet into you and you make it 2 big bets - any potential bad beats will go away, and the check on the flop didn't make the pot any bigger - so they don't feel like calling two big bets for a medium sized pots.
That play is suggested with a big overpair and with a much larger pot in HFAP21. In that case the the chances that someone will drawout and win are much higher and "may" justify the fancy play.
With top two, it is not worth risking the longshot drawout. You win most of time anyway and to save those few times you lose is not worth giving up so much on the flop.
It is good enough to make the gutshot pay something on the flop although they have the odds to call and then pay a lot on the turn if they chose. Another problem is that people may just check it again fearing that with those flop cards you are slowplaying and then they may just all fold on the turn anyway.
D.
I agree with you - I think in some loose limit games its a good play - where there are 1 or 2 players who you feel pretty confident will bet the turn as a bluff or with a longshot draw.
The problem is flopping AK on the button doesn't happen that often - I haven't done it enough to say if its soooo profitable - though I have applied the thought process with differenct cards. I try to pick my spots and put a thought or two into it before just checking.
I think that it is important to do whatever the other people would expect you to do in many situations. Mike Caro writes about in 7-card stud if you have rolled up 3's, you probably don't want to raise the bring in, but if you have rolled up Ace's then you probably do, because people will expect the raise from the ace upcard anyway, and may be suspicious if you just call. In this case, you were in late position and raised pre-flop. It goes without saying that most of the time, the late position pre-flop raiser gets it checked to him, and he bets. A simple check here would have look very strange. If people are going to play their pair of aces, sixes, gutshot, or whatever else, they will play it for a bet, because they also will wonder if you're on a steal or not. I think this was a situation where they just had nothing and weren't interested in playing. There is also one other possibility: someone has a small pocket pair, and makes trips on the turn... now wouldn't that suck??
this 1 is a nobrainer.Queen,jack or ten can give a straight and you said it was a loose game?Make them pay to get that gutshot.If you want to slowplay/check the flop and induce a bluff on the turn all you will make is 40 extra because after your raise the better will probably fold which is not worth risking the freecard.Don't forget about a small pocket pair getting a free turn.
Without having read the other responses yet, I must say BET!!! Many players will come in with any two broadway cards (often raised or not, suited or not) and you don't want to give them a free card! One freebie to your opponents could bring an ugly card like a ten and then anyone with QJ beats you! Who cares if you sometimes win the pot right now and get no action, more often you will be correctly charging your opponents to try and beat you, and they will call. This hand is NOT strong enough to slow play.
In most of the games I play in I would be real worried about this hand holding up to the end and would want to bet and raise as much as possible. In loose games so many people are trying to outdraw you they may be a collective favorite against you even if you beat each one of them individually by a mile.
Dave in Cali
Thanks -- all good posts and very consistent. I agree and just wanted confirmation of my thinking. I made that mistake MANY times in my very early days, and man does it sting when some dude turns over Q-10 when a jack hits the turn.....
This is not a huge complex question, but I would like opinions. Mid position 10-20 aggressive-somewhat tight game. I get KK in mid position and raise. Get three callers, including button, SB and BB. Flop J 8 4 rainbow (perfect). Checked to me, bet, button check-raises me, SB and BB fold, and I pop him back - he calls. Turn 4. I check (mistake? this is my question). He checks. River K. I bet. He folds, saying "nice draw, huh", I show him my "Kings and say I didn't need it". He obviously put me on AK, and he had AJ (or other Jack).
Comments, again I think the turn check cost me a big bet. If he had re-raised me again after the flop, the check would be ok.
end
bet the turn. i would have put him on a J or a straight draw. i would want to bet against either.
scott
You should continue betting the turn. The button is highly unlikely to have a Four. His raise on the flop usually means top pair with a decent kicker. He knows after you re-raise him on the flop that you probably have a big over pair for your pre-flop raise. Checking the turn was a mistake costing you money and giving him a free card to beat you. Your bet on the end is correct and when he folds you should not show him your hand. Don't give these guys the satisfaction of knowing they played correctly on the end. After you muck, if someone asks you what you had say you had AQ suited.
I would have called the raise on the flop and bet on the turn and the river. If your opponent had flopped a set, I suspect he would have called the flop and popped you on the turn.
A more risky option would have been to call the raise on the flop and go for a check raise on the turn. However, you have to be very certain that your opponent is going to bet the turn or you have committed the unpardonable sin of giving a free card. This gets down to a judgement call - would he have called a raise pre-flop with a hand that now has a draw or is it more likely that he has flopped a pair.
"A more risky option would have been to call the raise on the flop and go for a check raise on the turn. However, you have to be very certain that your opponent is going to bet the turn or you have committed the unpardonable sin of giving a free card."
It's a rare animal who will fail to bet on the turn in a heads-up situation against a preflop raiser who just called his raise on the turn.
I am not suggesting that Rob ought to have just called the raise on the flop and then tried for the checkraise on the turn. But had he done that, it is a virtual cinch that the button would bet the turn so long as an Ace or King did not roll off.
unless the button was himself drawing. and wanted the free card for himself.
scott
Well no, my point is that even if the button was on a draw (say 10,9), he will likely bet the turn if checked to because he would put Rob on AK or AQ and would figure that Rob would fold for a bet. Remember that we are now talking about a a situation where Rob raised preflop, bet the flop and just called the button's raise on the flop and checked the turn. If Rob did that, I would bet with 10,9 without blinking (although I wouldn't call the raise preflop with 10,9 or raise on the flop with an openended staright draw when the bet is coming from my immediate right).
so you're saying that after successfully buying a free card he will never take it? i would often bet, as well. but i think a lot of people would often take the free card. you are right about him not having a striaght draw in this situation though. i just reread the post. here i am pretty sure he has a J and would therefore bet the turn. but, in general, i think that people will often take the free card in situations like this.
scott
In heads up situations I usually only take the free card if I'm against a tricky player, against a calling station, a scare card falls on the turn which I think might damage my draw, or I get a read that the turn helped my opponent and they are trying to check raise me.
In general, when faced with "standard" opposition, I follow up an aggressive semi-bluff with another aggressive semi-bluff.
- Andrew
When he checked raised, I put him on J w/ good kicker or J8. The 4 on turn is a perfect card for you. J8 is dead against him - if he has a four, then all the power to him - but I don't it. Bet the turn.
There are so many ways you could play this hand one it has been made into a heads-up confrontation. The usual thing to do is just 3 bet the flop and bet the turn. However, it can't be said that checking when the 4 hits is an unpardonable error (although it depends on why you checked). I am not suggesting that the 4 likely hit the button and that you should check for fear of being raised. But there are several valid reasons why you might want to check.
I wouldn't worry too much about giving free cards in a heads-up situation particularly with an aggressive player who will often bet the turn thinking that he doesn't want to give YOU a free card.
I might give a free card here if I had two pair or a set on the button. My thinking is that I want AK to hit an Ace or King on the river. The pot is fairly small, and my only risk would be if he has AA or KK and hits his card on the river. Also, if I check on the turn, AK may bet into me on the river, or at least check and call a bet when he would have folded on the turn.
But if I had a jack or a straight draw, I'd almost always be betting again after raising the flop.
he is clearly lying about putting you on a draw. if he thought you had a straight draw or AK, he never would have checked the turn. don't show your cards. just say 'yeah, my draw hit.' and muck your cards. or even jokingly say something like, 'i always make my draws. if i were you i wouldn't tangle with a lucky sob like me.'
scott
After you three bet the flop and he just called, you have to bet the turn. He will more often than not check behind you and take the free card if you let him, and you don't want to be giving any free cards here. Also, don't show him your hand! What good does it do you if he knows how you play KK? Three betting the flop and then betting the turn may be "standard play" but I still think it is the best move in this situation.
One other thing he said "nice draw", but yet he gave you a free card (if he thought you were on a draw). The alternate possibility is that HE had a draw to beat you and it was "nice" since you gave him a Free chance to draw out on you!
Dave in Cali
With a hand like Q8 in the bb, I generally check against several opponents on a Queen high flop. I fold if there is a lot of action. I peel one of if the player to my left bets and several players call. I checkraise a late position bettor.
I believe that most players play this way with top pair/weak kicker from the sb particularly when the top pair is a Queen or Jack.
That then leads to this question:
Suppose you are the late position bettor who put in a probe bet on the flop with say second pair. Suppose further that you are checkraised by the bb and everyone else folds.
What do you do?
In my "Reading hands" essay, I have this similar situation set out in one of the reads. The "Action Plan" for that read is for the late position bettor to now and then raise the almost automatic bet by the bb on the turn because the late position bettor can safely assume that the bb's hand is, at best, mediocre. I say this because in most cases, BB would have bet a Queen high flop with say KQ (or better).
I would like to hear comments on whether you think this suggestion is:
a. a valid one; and
b. If valid, the frequency with which one should use the play.
If the BB is capable of releasing on the turn or river I think the raise on the turn is valid if not used to excess. Whether you do so could largely be a function of what sort of card hits on the turn.
In this particular example and others like it, if my opponent's most likely hand was top with a problematic kicker, and the turn was an A, K or J, or a card that could make a flush or sraight, or card that paired one of the lower ones on board, I'd occasionally raise on the turn, although against some opponents I'd wait until the end. (Of course, I'd do the same if I improved). If it were a very small card and I thought I was behind without a draw, I'd fold. The rest of the time I'd mix it up according to my image, opponent, etc.
Chris writes: "If the BB is capable of releasing on the turn or river I think the raise on the turn is valid if not used to excess. Whether you do so could largely be a function of what sort of card hits on the turn."
In my universe there is a critical shortage of players that could lay it down after that turn raise. Heck, that's why I'm in the game to begin with. I want to play against these folks that can't lay down when thet're beat. Trying to get bad palyers to fold is not an easy task.
Let us take you first question. Suppose we go back to the post, "Fold Top Pair on the Flop", and say you are in late position with A6 suited so a flop of Q62 gives you middle pair and an overcard but no flush possibility. Now five of you took the flop including the blinds. Your four opponents check to you on the flop and you bet. The small blind raises and your other three opponents fold. There are now 8 bets in the flop and it costs you one bet to take off a card. I would say you are looking at 5 outs (3 Aces and 2 Sixes) at best since I would put the small blind on at least top pair and maybe more. Out of 47 unseen cards, 5 of them are good for you which means the odds are 42:5 against you. This is slightly worse than 8:1, but considering implied odds plus your position I think you have an easy call here. Bottom-line is that you should call.
With regard to raising the blind if bet into on the turn, I would only do this if I improved otherwise I am folding. Suppose the turn is a blank. The blind bets. There is now 11 bets in the pot and it costs you 2 bets to call. At this point, even considering implied odds, you don't have a call with a 5 outer. Unless you feel that there is a good chance he will fold a bad Queen, I think you should fold. Now suppose the big blind checks. You can check and take a free card which is worth something but I think a better play is to bet when he checks the turn. His check would tend to deny a good Queen and he might fold. If he doesn't you still have some outs if your are called. At this point it is highly player dependent.
Here is where reading your opposition comes in.
I usually lead out with a bet on a hand like this. Since I usually have a tight image I often get Qxs to fold or win it right there. I also will follow it up with a bet on the turn and river unless raised.
If raised on the flop depending on the texture of the flop I'll call or fold.
a) I think the play is strong in specific situations. b) I would use it primarily against knowledgable players, those who are generally tight-aggressive and try to play correctly. I would use it infrequently, most likely when I think I've gained a temporary edge against them due to earlier play. The problem of course is that you'll get re-raised if you've mis-read the hand, they have your hand pegged, or they've chosen this opportunity to flex some muscle. Which is why I think I would only try it if I've been beating on that player in previous hands.
This would not be a play I would use against the live one unless I was in a donating mood and wanted to give him some action. The turn would have had to have given me some additional outs to feel comfortable with a raise here and I would also have to be reasonably sure I won't be re-raised or bet into again on the river unless live one improves. Few things seem to make live one happier than catching a strong player bluffing. They never suspect the whole play was set up on the flop.
Against weak-tight I can't remember the last time I was check-raised. The situation doesn't seem to come up. This may just be a result of playing in mostly low-limit games however.
It also doesn't apply to the maniac of course as he's bet the flop and been raised twice by the time it gets to you :)
p.s. re; 64s, s.b. In your first example, flopping bottom pair, I think I remember you describing the action as rather manic and you were faced with calling a raise with 2 or 3 behind you still to act. In your friends example, he was in a game where he felt he had some control (reads), was only calling half a bet, and had only the b.b. behind him. In that situation I'll call half a bet with cards as small as 52s.
I remember plenty of times when a weak tight player check raised me and unless I had the absolute nuts I mucked my hand.
I'm getting my education in a 4-8(blinds1,2)game that is generally loose passive.5-6 players see most flops,a bet on flop usually knocks 1/2 out,raising comes with group 1 hands.I'm using a tight aggressive style that fits my personality and follows published recommendations.Problems come up with early position raises with AA,the whole table folds(other regulars clearly respect my hand selection)read recently this is mathematic catastrope,on the other hand common threads here say will cost myself money not raising.I started experimenting with non preflop raise with 10/10 and JJ early with the idea of going for ck raise if flop favorable seems to be working well,should I mix it up with bigger pairs? Any other suggestions on loose passive opponents
In a Loose/Passive game you're going to make most of your money by outplaying your opponents post-flop - making them fold incorrectly. You should keep your pre-flop play relatively tight. It is still correct to raise AA from early position. You could loosen up by playing more mediocre hands from late position (e.g. suited connectors) since you will generally be getting pot odds with so many people in. Just make sure you play well post-flop - you should be able to easily manipulate loose/passive players when there are fewer in the pot.
you play JJ against one hombre or against multiple hombres with few raises before the flop. Don't try that shite with JJ because if you don't get one opponent and you don't get trips, you often need to get out.
alex
If you're getting that much respect with an UTG raise, start doing it even when you don't have the cards. Once you get callers, tighten back up. And remember, you want to play those aces heads-up anyway.
I'll assume you've read S % M starting hand suggestions. My understanding of their advice is to raise when first in when you hold premium cards (sometimes limp but not often). This includes JJ and 10's as well as assorted other strong holdings. My experience is that this advice is correct. If I'm reading S%M correctly, they also think you should raise a limper with premium holdings and re-raise an early raiser. I've found that following these guidelines to be very profitable as well in the kind of games you are talking about. For further thoughts on correct pre-flop play, go to Abdul Jalib's sight in the 'favorite links' section of this sight and read his essay on the subject.
does S%M = S - (M * (S/M)) ?
Roy Cooke has an excellent column in the latest issue. In the hand, he draws to a longish shot and explains how good players sometimes make plays that, at first glance, apear to be the same bad plays other players make.
Rounder, check it out and see what you think of it!
D.
Sorry, but you'll have to read "AA head-up play" Dec.3,1999 to get this post.
If my thinking is completely flawed here, I hope you/others will go easy on me. To me this is a very interesting hand played by 2 tough players. I’m just trying to learn the tactical aspects of it in order to improve my own play.
What I was referring to was inducing a bluff or call on the river, which is discussed in HPFAP. I would think this is an opportune time for it. He was obviously confused about his opponent’s holding. Obviously if you knew (or strongly suspected) he had KK, it’s a whole different story, but lets say you don’t.
I agree that it’s important to be aggressive and that you must get as much value from your hands when you’re likely best. I am NOT saying to check the turn solely as a means of precaution or because you might be beat. What I’m saying is that against many decent players, a bet here might not have a positive expectation.
I am putting myself in the position of the original raiser. I’m also assuming the player who 3-bet pre-flop is a player like Jim Briar, who recently stated, only 3-bets pre-flop with premium hands. If he bets the turn in this situation, and I think I’m beat, I will fold. So he makes 0 more bets. But let’s say he checks the turn. Depending on how I’ve been playing and what I feel he thinks of my play, I may try to pick up the pot on the river. His call now gains a bet he would not have made by betting the turn. His check on the turn also makes me more apt to call his bet on the river if I check with a hand like TT, JJ, etc. because now he may be trying to pick up the pot from me (with AK for example). An added benefit is that if I did indeed flop a set (or a big draw), he avoids getting trapped. In reality, I’m a fish compared to Jim and many others in this forum. But let’s pretend I’m not. He would be put to a tough decision getting check/raised by someone he viewed as a very strong player.
I guess this is a long about way of asking… If this is not a proper time to induce a bet, why not? And then, what IS a good time to do so?
this is not a place to induce a bluff. several hands that he could beat would call. flop action is not always what in seems.
scott
Lets say you know that there is a sizable percent chance that your opponent can beat you, but if he can't he won't call. The best example is in draw.
you got a tight rep and are dealt three aces. You draw two and your opponent draws one after calling your bet, (assume a heads up proposition)
now, after the draw, if you bet he will fold if he just has two pair (most likely), but that is the best outcome because if he raises you, then you're in a can of worms about whether to reraise call or fold, and if he folds then you've won nothing on the last round.
But, by checking here, you might induce your opponent to pretend that he has the flush/straight. And to try to bluff you out. The probability that he will do that, plus the probability that his two pair/straight flush draw didn't improve, make this the best option.
You lose the percentage that he will call down his two pair against your trips, but you gain the bluff, the elmination of the problem of getting raised, and so on.
alex
I think it is better to save the bet inducing play for places where you have not shown ( and actually have ) so much strength. He may still be suspicious and not bluff the river with a bust and also he is quite likely to call or play back at you at the turn since he could have an overpair or top pair himself as he did in the actual hand.
I think a high top pair where you only raised, not 3-bet before the flop is better use of the play. And other factors need to be just right. The K high flush with 3-flush on board is also an excellent place.
D.
I have been doing very well playing the 10-20 and 20-40 hold em games at Mirage, but went and played 15-30 at Bellagio and got wallopped. There could be several reasons for this: short-term fluctuations (I have only one 15-30 session), maybe my opposition was tougher, etc... but I must admit that the different blind structure threw me off. In 10-20 and 20-40, the big blind is the small bet, and the small blind is half of the small bet, while in 15-30 the big blind is the small bet, and the small blind is 2/3 of the small bet (the blinds are 15 and 10). What kind of adjustments need to be made when playing a game where the small blind is more than half of the big blind??
D-M
Here is my take:
1. Consider raising to make the SB pay or get out a little more often.
2. Don't get got up calling all kinds of raises in the SB just because it is 4 chips only and there are a few more calls in the looser game.
3. Be prepared to play a lot of multiway action at times, more like 3-6 then a 10-20. But not all the time this way. BTW I think this is more then an essay or two to make these adjustments.
There is probably more to add ..... D.
See Poker Essays, Volume II (Malmuth), page 172. Also, S & M recommend you never fold your small blind in an unraised pot when it only costs 1/3 of a bet to call.
Also, S & M recommend you never fold your small blind in an unraised pot when it only costs 1/3 of a bet to call.
However, Malmuth also mentions that part of the reason weak players lose in 15-30 is that they call in the SB more often, and then end up with a second best hand. So be sure you are careful not to fall in love with a flopped top pair if you have no kicker, for instance.
don't call too many raises in the sb.
scott
I cannot add much to the advice you have already been given by David, Andy, DeadBart, and scott. However, I am very familiar with the $10-$20 and $20-$40 games at the Mirage before the opening of the Bellagio and I have played the $15-$30 and $30-$60 games at the Bellagio. The $15-$30 game is far and away the best game of all the them. Before the Bellagio, the $20-$40 game at the Mirage was the happing hunting ground for Roy Cooke, Cissy Bottoms, Alan Goldstein, and other top middle limit players. Now these sharks feed in the $30-$60 waters at the Bellagio. There is not much action over at the Mirage anymore with their $10-$20 and $20-$40 games frequently breaking up. However, the $15-$30 games at the Bellagio are very soft due to the presence of the $30-$60 game.
6-12 hold'em,
I'm in mid-position w/KJ both clubs, I call one early position limper(Mistake?). Four of us see the flop w/no raise. Flop comes K-8-3 rainbow w/one club. The blind fires(Normandie has no sb., next guy raises. I thought a second about either 3 betting or folding, I folded, the button folds.
Turn: is the Ace of clubs, they both check! This is when I go into my coulda, shoulda, woulda mode.
River is a 3rd club, no pair on board.
The guy who raised the flop wins with K-J offsuit.
(I'm not sure if I should tell you what motivated me to dump my hand, because of a criticism Rick Nebiolo gave to another Newbie like myself.) But here it goes anyway.
The Guy directly on my right who raised the flop had limped in two other times in the last 45 minutes he'd been there with A-K suited once, and with A-K offsuit one other time, then he would get aggressive on the flop when he flopped an ace or king. So I thought that between the two of them, one might have at least K-Queen, leaving me out-kicked.
Thanks for any advice, Martin D
i think the call on the flop was okakalidokaly, but watch out
well, because you were up against the blind w/o a raise you could possibly be up against k8, 83, 33, or any number of possibilities that would drop out of the sky. They would open with the first two, but you can rule out the last because they would reraise (which you wouldn't know for your decision)
Now, the raiser, we know to be a dumbo by the end of the hand, but he is representing that he can beat up on the the blind, a man who could easily hold a king. So he's saying that he holds king strong or better. The added possibilities are too much, especially because in this case alot of your strength comes from knocking out people. You won't be able to do so against such a board.
fergit about the flush.
alex
If you think about it the guy with KJ did exactly what you were about to do (if it wasn't raised when it got to you). He raised to knock out the stragglers and try to win the pot as soon as possible, since he had a vulnerable hand. I don't think your backdoor flush was enough added incentive to call the raise. plus you said he limps with AK etc plus the added possibilities of the unraised blind getting a free play with any two cards makes this an easy fold. I would be most worried about KQ or two pair (in the blind) beating you here. It would cost a lot to go to the river plus you will often get another club (which keeps you in for another bet) then miss on the river and then what do you do? You still have kings with a questionable kicker!
The result after your fold are inconsequential and should be ignored. It's only if you made the correct play at the time you had to decide that matters.
Dave in Cali
sorry put response under wrong post
Thanks Dave,
I feel much better after reading your reply. I guess I need to dump the hindsight torturing myself thing.
Thanks again, Martin
Nothing wrong with a fold here. You used all the available information and made the most logical play.
I disagree with the other posters. You've flopped top pair with a reasonable kicker and the back door flush potential does add value to your hand, plus you've got position on both of your opponents. I make it 3 bets, I bet the turn if they both check, and then I probably check the river if I don't help and they both called the turn.
Your pre-flop call is okay with King-Jack suited. If everyone had folded to you, then I think you should open with a raise from middle position. On the flop, given that it is a $6-$12 game and what you said about the raiser, you have a tough decision. I think re-raising is too ambitious and folding may be too timid but it is close. Another thing that makes it close is the fact that the pot was unraised pre-flop so it is not very big. I think I would call but not quarrel with a fold. The backdoor Club flush is worth a tiny bit. You do have a reasonable, but not good, kicker with your top pair. It would still be hard for me to put the raiser on Ace-King but he could have King-Queen.
I've been putting in more and more hours at the table this year and my results have been very strong. Lately I've been going in between 4 and 5 a.m. and playing until lunch time, then perhaps putting in an afternon shift depending on the game. Early to bed early to rise... so yesterday morning, for the first time in my life, I felt like I was getting out of bed to go to work. I was eager to get there, but it was still, definately, 'going to work'.
To those of you who are familiar with this sensation, a) do you remember it happening?
b)Did your approach to the game change?
c)Have your results been effected?
You mean, "Have your results been affected?"
I was playing in a 5-10 game today, and a situation came up which I suspect isn't a difficult one, but I finished the feeling unsure of myself.
The character of the game was a bit stronger than I ususally play; usually 3-4 players seeing the flop, often less. A lot of the players I characterized as "wolves" -- meek and passive and afraid of aggression, but aggressive in the face of weakness.
Three off the big blind, I get AQc. UTG (weak) calls, next folds, I raise, four fold, and blinds and UTG call.
Flop comes Tc, 4c, 9h. Check to me, I bet, BB folds and SB and UTG call.
Turn is Kd, giving me nut flush draw and nut gutshot draw. Checks to me, I bet, both call.
River is 7s. I am busted. I am afraid that if I bet, I get called by a pair; but if I check, I am surely lost. There seems to me a reasonable chance that betting will push either player out and a smaller chance both will fold. 9.5bb in pot now. What do I do?
Results later, if anyone cares.
I think you have to check. If they called you on the turn with that board, some one probably has a 9 or 10 in their hand and is going to call you on the river. If they were both on flush or striaght draws, you still probably have them both beat, unless one of them has the 9 of clubs or an 8-7. But there just aren't a lot of hands that you can beat that will fold if you bet. You might have been better served checking the flop and then raising a bettor on the turn.
My guess is most other posters will disagree with me, feeling that since you are getting 9.5-1(I count only 8.5) it's worth a shot to bet. But I think it's a greater chance that one of your opponents will call you with a better hand. If the King didn't scare them away on the turn, the 7 surely won't on the river.
Although you can beat Ace-high, with two opponents it is too easy for someone to have a pair so I think you should bet and hope they both fold. If someone has Eight-Seven or Seven-Six or just two Clubs with the Seven of Clubs they have inadvertently backed into a pair which they might fold if you bet again. Keep mind that your betting has been very strong. You raised before the flop, bet the flop, bet the turn when the King showed up, and now you bet the river. Ace-Queen is one of the weakest hands you could have for your early position pre-flop raise even though in this case your are stronger because you are suited. The vast majority of time, a pre-flop raiser will have big slick or a pair of Tens or higher. A guy who was on a draw and just has a lousy pair of Sevens or Fours may decide to fold. Not everyone plays like an expert.
Jim: "Keep in mind your betting has been very strong." Yet, they called the flop and they called the turn. With the pot now large, aren't they more likely to call the river than if it were smaller?
Yes, they should be more likely to call the larger the pot if they play well. But the larger the pot, the more desperate I am to win it and I don't think I can win a showdown against two opponents. Sometimes these guys mentally put you on a hand (e.g.-"Jim's got a big pair and I need to hit my hand to win") and when they miss their draw they think, "My pair of Fours" or "My pair of Sevens is no good anyway, might as well save some money" or "the other guy will keep Jim honest here so I can fold my baby pair and save some money". It is unlikely to work but it only has to work once in a great while to show a profit.
if you think you will not get called more than about one time in ten bluff. dont forget you may have the best hand and could win in a showdown here. adjust for that. if i checked and someone bet i would probably call if that person ever bluffs.
For the reasons Ray mentioned, if I'm in your position early in the session or against a new lineup I'll pretty much always turn the hand over to indicate that I won't always bet if I fail to catch. I can beat some garbage hands and getting caught here has negative implications later on.
However, if these opponents had reasons to respect my bet, and if neither were capable of check-raise bluffing, I'd usually bet in your position. One of them could be on some sort of busted draw that I can beat, and if that person is UTG, the SB might fold a small or medium pair in the face of two possible opponents.
I bet, both called, small blind shows A7o for a pair. Didn't see UTG's hand.
What inspired the SB to call 2 bets preflop, a flop bet and a turn bet with essentially no draw, I have no idea. Keeping me honest?
I'm a fairly new player to hold'em, and unsure what to do in this situation. I hold AdJh on the button, 2 callers before me, I raise, BB calls, other two also call. Flop comes Qc 10s Ks. Checked to me, I bet, BB calls, other two fold. Turn comes 6h. Checked to me, I bet, BB calls. River comes 4s, he bets, I call. I lose to a 58s. I have a couple of questions here. (1) Is my betting correct before the river? (2) Is my call correct after the river? and (3) How should I play this hand differently if the flop had been a rainbow?
Thanks in advance for your help everyone.
1) One of the things for which you might raise with AJo is to buy the button. Since you already have the button, you should be less inclined to raise. If you thought both blinds would be likely to fold to a raise unless they had good hands, you would be more inclined to do so. Finding out this tendency is one of the things for which you study your opponents.
2) I think you have to call his river bet. You can't put him on a flush with certainty, especially in low limit, and the pot is big enough.
3) If the flop had been a rainbow, you would have had the nuts at the end.
Technically your play was correct.
The problem is that you need to read your opponents. In a higher limit game the BB would have folded pre-flop. But you need to learn your players at the table before you attempt to raise the blinds out.
As for the call on the river... read the player. You need to be able to determine if he made his hand or not. Then decide whether or not to fold.
Ken
You certainly have to be able to read the other players, but you can look at it in terms of pot odds. At your decision time on the river, there was $42 in the pot, I believe. It cost you $6 to call the bet, so the pot was laying you 7 to 1 odds. Your call could be "wrong" nearly 7 times out of 8 and it would still be the "right" play.
You have just discribed evey 3-6 game I've ever played. That's why I've quit. But to answer your questions: (1) Yes (2) Yes (3) No differently - the 58s will call anyway, looking to catch a pair of eights on the river.
Your hand is vulnerable to a flush draw, so bet and raise as much as possible to charge them for their draw. If you think they got there on the end, you DID flop a straight so check-call just to be sure. If the flush gets there and it's bet-raise-reraised to you on the river perhaps you might think about folding. If the flop is rainbow probably don't play it any different, charge the fish to try and make their gutshots or fill their two pair or whatever. Neither hand is strong enough to slowplay.
Dave in Cali
There is nothing you could have done to get this guy out of the hand - he played this junk so he could draw to a flush - he probably loves to play any 2 suited cards. He got a dream flop and is gonna see the next 2 cards come hell or high water.
Look at the money he won here as a loan he will repay with interest.
Your only mistake was raising pre-flop with Ace-Jack offsuit when two players voluntarily limp in ahead of you. You should just call. You need at least Ace-Queen offsuit to raise pre-flop normally. Now if you are playing in a shorthanded game (e.g.-7 players or less) than it is okay to raise pre-flop with Ace-Jack offsuit. You have to call at the river and make him show you a better hand. The pot is too large to fold. If the flop had been rainbow then no flush was possible given the turn card and the river card so you should raise with the nuts and keep raising until one of the two of you runs out of money.
hey
this is jeff remember my last post "young player in a dilemma" ? well thanks for all of your responses and support. as many of you suggested, i am going to university, i would never let poker interfere with my life in a bad way.
but because im at a young age, i would like to be able to decide if poker is the type of thing i should just do for fun, or actualy get very serious about.
any pros who are reading this, could u please give me an example of your typical day? basically what its like to play for a living?
thanks alot
,jeff
O.K. Jeff, I'll give it a try.
I usually try to get up before 8:00 because the Mission stops serving us breakfast by 8:15. After breakfast, I go down to the check in desk and see if they'll let me reserve a bed for tonight. (just in case this rotten bad streak continues) No luck for me this time, since they have a four consecutive night limit. Since this is a Sunday and the blood bank is closed, I need to find some other way to raise my buy-in. I head off to the Bike and stand around by the door on the parking lot side, bumming smokes and talking to my buddies, the other "real pros", catching up on who might be running good right now and owes me for some old favors. A guy comes by who once played in a tournament with me at the Commerce back in '94 when I was running real good. He claims not to remember me when I remind him that we go back a long ways. I tell him that he must have forgot that we agreed to save 5% with each other that time and that I saw in the Cardplayer that he scored in the Omaha that next week right after. He gives me this look like I'm handing him some line of BS and walks away from me like I'm some kind of bum or something. Well, %&*# him! I don't need his money. I'm a professional, I can make it happen like magic if someone just gives me the chance to show them.
I take a chance and walk inside the cardroom without actually having any money to play. Sometimes security stops me and makes me show that I have money. Not today, and I slip right in, blending with all the other customers. Bingo! There's Big Al! I made a ton of money for Al when he was backing me regular. I sidle up behind him and tap him on the back while he's talking to some tourist. Soon as he sees me he gives me this private signal thing that he's busy and will be over to talk to me in a minute when he finishes with the "Mark". After about 20 minutes he's through with the guy but must have forgot that I was there and starts walking away in the wrong direction. Lucky it was that I saw this and hurried after him before he left or something. I quickly explained the weird series of bad beats from two and three outers that have been keeping me strapped for cash the past two or three months and remind him right away that I didn't forget about that money that I still owe him in makeup. I tell him about my brother getting my share of the accident settlement by mistake and how he is going to be sending the money out to me as soon as the insurance company's check clears his bank. Soon as Big Al hears what I'm saying and realizes that I've been looking for him to explain all this mix up, he advances me $20.00 to tide me over til the money comes. Sweet guy, Big Al. Always ready to help a fellow pro out of a temporary situation.
So anyway, I'm in action! I scout the room carefully keeping the double sawbuck folded tightly in my fist. I'm ready to flash it if any security hassles me, but I don't need to be advertising to those mutts on the rail that I'm back in action and loaded for bear. Let them find their own backer like I did. I hate it when they swarm around me looking for some kind of damn handout.
I finally spot this real sweet situation in the 1-2 Stud hi-lo game. Now, since I'm probably one of only three or four hi-lo masters that all the other pros know and fear, this game isn't going to present any challenge for me. I expect to roll over this weak field and probably double my money in the very first hour or so. Patience is my game; wait for the perfect situation, pop it hard and leave them all crying with nothing but the bare felt in front of them. The game was perfect, not another real pro in the game. I guess they were all back East for the big tournaments in Atlantic City or Connecticut. Well, their loss, like they say. I put my name on the board and wait two hours for a seat to open. Finally, I hear my initials called. I'll tell you a little insiders secret here Jeff, I use phony initials so the people in the game don't look up and see that I'm on the board and just panic and desert the game. I usually use P.P. (for poker pro). Anyway, the boardman calls out my initials and I give him the closed fist sign which is how us professionals tell them to lock up the seat. I sit down in the #5 seat and hand my $20 to the dealer, politely asking for $10 in blue chips and the rest in yellow. I put the blue chips on the table and the yellow chips in my hand with the fist on the table in plain view but the two yellow chips hidden from anyone's sight.
I ante up my .50 with the rest and get my hands on those first sweet cards. Because of one thing and another, mostly people being jealous of my ability and telling lies about me, I haven't played that much poker for the last week or so. It's hard to keep that fine edge if you are away from the game for any time at all. Anyway, my hole cards are the 3 and 4 of diamonds. In poker language, we refer to this as 34d. Now this is a good beginning! Bam! Ad up for me! This is gonna be like stealing; they won't even know what hit them. Old lady with the 4s is low and brings it in for .50. Geezer in #3 seat folds, kid in #4 calls and I pop it up to a buck putting the maximum pressure on early. The moron in the #6 seat showing a 6h makes it $2 and scares away all my customers. After the old broad and the kid fold, I've got no choice but to raise him back and let him know right away that he's messing with a stud wizard right here and right now. The guy actually has the nerve to four bet me. I just call to lull him into this false sense of security, knowing that I'll be able to milk more from him on the later streets. On 4th street I catch the 9s and the moron lucks out with another 6. Worse, it's one of my diamonds. He bets a buck and I pop him another buck to see where I'm at. He looks at me, pretending he thinks I'm out of line or something and fires a bluff raise right at me. Now I'm hot, and I fire back at him, but he raises me again. This is almost perfect, I know I've got him trapped, 'cause see, he thinks I'm almost all in. I just call and casually await my 5th street card. It's a little known secret, but it is the 5th street card that determines whether your hi-lo hand is going to be a sweeper or a split hand. I can honestly say that nobody, and I mean nobody, can play 5th street and keep up with me. Can you believe it? The dealer floats my absolute dream card over to me, that's right....the 9d! Not only do I have a bigger pair than this jerk, I have the absolutely, almost totally invisible flush draw hidden away where he'd never even suspect it. He gets the 8h which can only help him for a possible low. I have to admit that my low chances were starting to look a little bleak. I prefer a two way hand when head's up, but I knew I could play rings around this geek and was more than willing to row this boat with only a single oar. So, this numnuts jerk says "Are you all in?" This is where I spring the old trapperoo and casually open my fist showing the two yellows that I've been keeping warm just waiting for an opportunity like this one. I throw one yellow in and say, "I bet". The dummy doesn't even ask the dealer to call the floor over to make a ruling on whether my yellow chips were in play. (this is why the rubes don't have a chance against us experienced pros) He throws $4 in, foolishly trying to scare me. I flat call, knowing there will be plenty of time to get the rest of it in if I just hit another diamond. Bang, there it is the gorgeous 2d! Flush is there on sixth, but even better, I'm still super alive for my low which would almost guarantee me the sweeper. He gets Kd, probably killing off any prayer he had for a low to escape with any part of my pot. I think about checking to him so I can get in a checkraise here, but he's probably not going to fall for that old trick so I bet out using my last yellow chip. Right about now I'm wishing Big Al had spotted me $30 instead of only $20. Much to my surprise, not to mention joy, the guy raises me again. I pop it back, of course, and then he raises me my last .50.
The dealer gives us each our final cards, down and dirty, just like I like it. I squeeze the card out slowly, needing any 5-6-7 or 8 to make an unbeatable low. I see the Jh, but I'm pretty sure he isn't going to make a low anyway with his pair and that K showing. Meanwhile this smartass doesn't even check his last card. I turn over my flush and confidently wait for him to concede my pot. Now, here's the part you aren't going to believe. This lucky "fish" was rolled up with 6's on 3rd street! He had quads on 4th street! See, this is the kind of stuff I'm forced to deal with day in and day out. No matter how much you outplay them, those lucky bastards always find someway to suck out on you. I got up and quit the game, walked out with my head held high and wondered why it was always me that gets hit with this kind of impossible miracle. Do you have any idea on what the odds are against getting dealt quads in four cards? I think it's something like four million to one. The thing that separates the pros from the chumps though is that tomorrow, after the blood bank opens, I'll have another $60.00 to grubstake my big comeback to the top of the heap. That lucky idiot with the quads, his only hope is that he stays lucky for the rest of his life. If not, I'll bust his butt just as sure as God made little green apples. You know why? I'll tell you why. A pro don't need that kind of crazy luck to win. Over the long haul, the pro will always get the money because luck doesn't last, but skill always does. That's what being a pro is all about. I hope this helps you Jeff.
I like your story. You should write a book.
John that reminds me - there was this "Pro" at CP hanging around the cage on Sat. morning when I was cashing in my 4 racks of chips at 10:30AM he asked me to "spot" him 10. I said in my nicest voice "HELL NO". After the evening tournament this Pro was there again at 1AM asking me for another hand out. I said don't you remember me - he said you are not gonna give me any money are you - I said NO.
At the bar that night an other "pro" asked me to stake him in the next days tournanent for a 75% share - I said no. He forgot about the $40 he still owes me. I guess I am getting good at mucking bad hands huh.
When did the Salvation Army install computers and internet access in the shelters - in Phoenix we have to use the computers in the library.
4 - 8 game at Harrah's Las Vegas with a single $2 blind. I'm in the blind with Q-7 suited, 6 callers. The flop is Q - J - 7 rainbow. I check, one bet, 3 callers, button calls, I check raise, one caller and the button calls. Turn is a 7 so I have a boat. I bet, and only the button calls. River is a J. I pause, then bet, button raises and I reluctantly call. He turns over A-J offsuit.
Was there any way to get him out of the hand? Should I have tried check raising on the turn? I thought betting out would disguise my hand more than a check raise? Just a bad beat or a misplayed hand?
just a bad beat. you wouldn't want to give the free card on the turn because in 90% of the cases it would be a lost bet or a won pot. Bet out on the turn.
What you should think about is whether to check on the river. But it is very marginal, and depends greatly on how tight the button was.
not poorly played, maybe check the river, definitely a bad beat
I think you were destined to loose this hand - nothing much you could do about it.
Check raise on the flop was fine - problem is, button has a strong hand: top pair w/ Ace kicker - he'll pay to see the turn.
Check raising the turn won't do much - if you check, he'll probably check too, as he only has middle pair - if you bet, which you did, he figures an A or J will win it so he calls the single bet.
I believe he was incorrect to call your bet on the turn - but players make the wrong play a lot of the times and beat you. You got lucky, then you got unlucky - I know the feeling.
The player with the jack had a two outer to beat you on the turn, so put as much $$ in the pot as possible. you have way the best of it with a made boat against his two pair, problem is that one out of 23 times he will get there despite that fact. You actually WANT him to call here since he is making a big mathematical mistake by doing so. Two jacks win for him, every other card in the deck wins for you... think about it....
Dave in Cali
"Was there any way to get him out of the hand?"
What happens if you bet the flop? Just because it's not tricky doesn't make it wrong. The fellow that bet the flop might just raise you with his ?queen? and then AJ is not going to play.
Defend your flop play. Why is an attempted ck raise better than betting out? How often will it go to three bets when you bet out vs checking then praying for the chance to raise?
The reason I check raised instead of betting out is that the only thing that seems to move people out of a hand is a check raise. A normal bet and raise doesn't seem as effective.
With top and bottom pair, I have a good hand but it is vunerable. I would have preferred to win the pot right there.
You took a bad beat and there was nothing to be done. However, I think you should bet the flop with your two pair into six opponents. Someone might raise and you can make it three bets. You need to play your hand fast and not rely on someone else to bet your hand for you. You do not want to give a free card here. But I don't think it would have changed the outcome.
I disagree with betting the flop. This is not a blind flop, and so you would be figured for the two pair, or at least top pair. What raises you there without having you beat already? Middle pair top kicker, straight draws for semi bluffs. Also, by betting the flop, strange things happen. If that better turns into a raiser, you lose 3 bets, and possibly the button, too. When the turn brings your full house, of course you bet out. What would bet allowing you to check raise? Would you? The lack of a preflop raise makes you not suspect the AJ. And betting out on the end I agree with as well. The extra bet it earns you on occasion makes up for the one it costs you once every 23 times.
-Joe
I agree with the "Bet it on the flop" opinions. Your only chance was for someone to raise out the A-J after you bet.
Good things happen when you bet.
Bad things can happen when you check.
In HE a flop flush draw presents you with the following odds:
By the Turn 4.2-1 By the River 1.9-1
If you miss it on the turn, the river odds are 4.1-1
What significance is the 1.9-1 odds as far as your betting action on the flop? Later?
Thanks
If you have the Nut Flush Draw and are planing to get more than 2 callers than you should problably make the pot big on the Flop. Thats one aspect.
cv
If you are going to see the hand to the RIVER then you have 9 x 2 (18 outs). 9 on the turn. If you miss it its the Same 9 on the river.
Hence 2:1 on 18 outs and 9 outs is 4:1 (rounding up or down)
MJ
Thank you for your help. I understand why they are approximately 2-1 and 4-1 but in the decison-making process of how to act, why is it important that I am getting 2-1 by the river? Shouldn't I view both the turn and river card as two, 4-1 decisions; i.e. make the pot odds and implied odds decisions as two, 4-1 decisions?
Put another way, why is 2-1 odds by the river important to the betting on each card?
If I have not explained myself well, I apologize. I am new and trying to inculcate a lot of ideas at one time. I really appreciate the help
The odds are to see it to the river. So there are two more betting intervals. So you need to calculate effective odds:(expected total win / bets to the river) this is part of the 2:1 and 4:1 play to the river. If you miss the turn the odds shoot up to 4:1 and you may have to call another bet or 2 (if raised) to see the river card.
MJ
MJ
In middle position with JTo and am the first one in. Five players behind me including the Blinds. If I raise I figure to have a 3 to 1 chance to win right there.
I raise and get a late position caller (TA= Tight Agressive) and a Blind.
Flop: Tc 8c 5s
Checked to me and I bet and get raised. Blind folds and I call. I'm thinking that there are may draws the Late position player can have.
The turn comes a Ad.
I bet out since I may convince a the other player to Fold and I'f I'm raised again I can fold. Checking and calling is the worst play. I don't think Check raising is as good as betting out. TA just calls.
The River comes a 2c (making the club flush possible) and I check. TA turns over JQo to win the pot. I guess he wasn't so tight afterall.
Comments?
Thanks CV
n
Why play JTo? This is known technically as a POS hand. I don't consider this even good enough to play first in on the button against all blinds, only those that fold too often.
The fact that you were cold called by a QTo suggests your reputation is too loose or you're playing against a fish.
Lastly, a tight aggressive player will not likely have a draw to a five card hand on the flop you describe. Overcards are very likely but the lowest gut draw is to QJ and a sound player can't call my raises with that hand. A club draw might be out there head's up one time in ten.
Jack-Ten offsuit is too weak a hand to be opening with a raise from middle position. If your hand were Jack-Ten suited your play would be okay. You need at least Ace-Ten offsuit or King-Jack offsuit for this play. There are simply too many players yet to heard from and your hand is too weak. Furthermore, it could get raised again.
On the flop, you are correct to bet top pair/mediocre kicker with only two opponents. When raised you are in serious trouble. You could be outkicked or the raiser could be raising on a draw. I would call and take off a card. When the Ace comes, I think you should check and fold if bet into. At this point there are too many ways for you lose. Your only hope is that the raiser is on a draw in which case he will probably take a free card. Hope that he does and that it is not a Club and that your hand can miraclously hold up.
I think you played your weak hand too aggressively and lost too much money on this hand.
I would agree with you, unless we take Chris's statement at face value (that he felt he had a 3-1 chance of winning the blinds with a raise). If that's true, then raising with JTo is probably correct.
However, given the types of hands that called his raise, I think he might want to re-evaluate those odds.
When you first sit down at the Hold 'em table, what is the best (and fastest) way to get a feel for the players? Pick one or two and work your way around? What sort of thing do you notice first? (ie, is someone paying to see every flop? Is someone willing to fold on the button or BB, or will they call every raise having already invested a bet?)
Also, are there any tells that you look for? One I've noticed that is consistant is out of HFAP--that if someone thinks more than 15 seconds they will probably fold. Any others? I've been doing work on not looking at my hand until I see what others do when they look at their's, and watching players instead of watching the flop. In some cases its given me a little edge, and I would like to get better at this part of Hold 'em.
BTW, this is for a 3-6 game. Advice on how things differ in higher limit games are welcome.
BTW, this
In many games you'll just take the information from where it comes. But in most low limit games the most common error is people playing too often both preflop and continueing on the flop and beyond. In these games I start with my left hand opponent and see what opening tells he gives and then work my way around. Flop and beyond tells you take as you can.
I'm not sure I'd call the 15s pause a tell as you quoted. If the person acts in order by pauseing and folding then either the criteria for the tell is hard to ascertain (the pause is in the future) or the person acts before you so you don't need to guess at their action. But you can use the reverse behavior. If a person usu. pauses, looks at the board, looks at their hand, etc. and then folds and then one time goes through the same ritual but calls or raises then they think they have a good hand. I find the back and forth look at the board usu. acompanies a gut short straight draw. Most people find flushes easy to read and open enders not too hard but gut shots give them pause. I havn't played a lot of O/8 but in the few games I have played counterfitted lows seems to cause the same reaction if the player is clueful enough to even think to look for them.
3-6 Hold 'em, very loose game. I'm in small blind with pocket Aces. It's raised when it comes to me, I re-reaise. Preflop raising is capped, six players in for 5 big bets. Flop is Q-T-Blank rainbow. It is bet around, 2 players drop, no raising. Turn is Q. Checked around. River is T, no flush or straight possible. I can't be sure someone is not slowplaying a Q when they checked on the turn, and the river convinced me someone had a boat with the ten. I check, and it is checked around. The other players had JJ, KK, and 77. We all figured that someone must have had a Queen or Ten, which is why we all checked. Question: Should I have bet the river? I'm figuring they would have folded, but maybe not. My fear was betting into a raise. As it was, I might have cost myself 2 big bets. (The guy with 77 would have folded on a bet.)Comments?
1)Who Capped preflop?
2)Did you come out betting on the Flop? Would have been better to Check Raise if you could thin the Field.
3)My thoughts are bad luck on the turn and River. Be thankful you weren't beat.
Later, CV
It is no sin to play on the conservative side. In your situation I'd probably check and call if bet.
Knowledge of the players is the key here. I would have checked the river too.
Your play pre-flop is good. You should be delighted to play in a capped with the best possible starting hand. You would prefer fewer opponents, but life is not perfect. On the flop, I hope you led out with a bet when you say "it is bet around". Two players drop and no one raised so this might deny any one having top pair or at least top pair with a good kicker, but who knows? On the turn, when the Queen gets paired, you have to check and figure you are playing a two outer. But with almost 30 bets in the pot, you will call if anyone bets and play your two outer. When it is checked around, it looks like no one has a Queen. On the river, the board pairs again with a Ten. You cannot bet here because you are probably beat plus you are out of position. Had the river card been a blank, you should bet. You cannot bet in this in this situation and assume none of your three opponents have a Queen or a Ten.
In a capped pot, I would prefer to play against as many opponents as possible with AA. AA becomes more and more profitable as you add opponents, as long as you are making them pay the maximum amount possible to play (i.e. you'd rather play against 5 opponents calling two bets than 10 opponents calling one).
I'd rather play AA against 2 opponents capped pre flop and heads up after the flop. Big pairs just get killed by bigger fields.
Well, with all respect I think you're wrong. AA is a unique hand that gains in EV overall as you add opponents, provided that they are paying the maximum.
This has been discussed to death on twoplustwo. You might want to search the archives for some previous discussions of this.
Rounder,
You seem to be saying that you'd prefer having a 75% chance of winning 7BB's than have a 50% chance of winning 19BB's. You are consistant in stating this type of preference. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you have to put in 5BB to play your winning hands and 6BB on those that you lose. Using a trial of 20 hands, the results would look something like:
20X7X.75=105 (BB's from wins) 20X6X.25= 30 (BB's from losses) 105-30=75 (Net BB's won)
20X19X.5=190 (BB's from wins) 20X6X.5=60 (BB's from losses) 190-60=130 (Net BB's won)
Your way, you win their 4BB preflop, 1BB on flop (opponent bets, you raise, one player folds and original bettor calls. 1BB on turn and another 1 on the river. Total win 7BB. 25% of the time, your opponent sucks out on you and is able to get an extra BB from you, so you lose 6BB's on that occasion.
My way, we are 7way capped preflop and I win 12BB's, 5way on the flop with a bet and raise for another 4BB's 3way on the turn for 2BB's and 1BB on the river. Total when I win is 19BB's. The 50% of the time I lose, I too lose 6BB's.
Your way, you put in a total of 105BB's to win 75BB's net, and my way, I put in 110BB's to win 130BB's net. With family pots, I might lose twice as often as you, but the money that goes in preflop makes it up to me big time. I will be very interested in hearing your reasoning why my win/loss numbers are too pessimistic for your winning percentage and too optimistic for mine.
John all this theory makes my head spin.
I'll play the AA as best I can whatever the number of players but I'd like them after the flop against 1 or 2 players I think big pairs play better against fewer players with 7 guys shooting at you one is bound to hit on something that will beat a pair.
The facts don't back that up. AA makes more money as you add players to the pot. Even in showdown poker, where everyone goes to the river every time, AA wins 35% of all pots. Give me a 35% chance to win the pot with 9 way action every time.
In showdown poker, AA is still gaining in EV after 8 players. A hand like 99, on the other hand, makes the most money if five players are in, and after that starts to lose EV.
Real-world poker is not showdown poker, but that's to the benefit of AA, since it's a fairly easy hand to play in most circumstances, and when it's an overpair it often causes your opponents to make mistakes against you.
Most people when thinking about the number of opponents they would like against AA forget that AA can often make huge hands, like nut full houses, nut flushes, and nut straights.
You want to raise with AA because you would rather play 5 people paying two bets than 10 people paying one, because the pot is the same size but your odds of winning it are much greater. But if you raise, you should be ecstatic to see 8 other people call.
I would never smooth call with Aces, unless I thought there was a significant chance of winning the blinds with a raise. That's a big loss for AA, which has an EV much higher than the value of the blinds. I might also smooth call with AA out of the blinds if I were heads-up against a tricky opponent, figuring that the deception value of smooth calling is worth more than the extra small bet I get with a raise.
No real disagreements except when I raise with AA I don't WANT a family pot - I want folders and 2/3 callers - I can't totally agree with your assessment that big pairs don't play better in smaller fields.
BTW I'd rather win 90% of the pots with AA and 2/3 callers than 1/3 of pots with 7/8 callers.
I don't think you can bet the river.
However, assuming that you led out on the flop and were just called by your 3 opponents, I think you ought to bet again on the turn. The lack of a raise on the flop indicates that no one has a Queen (admittedly, someone with say KQ may not have raised the flop given all the muscling going around preflop but in general the lack of a raise on the flop means one thing: no one hit specifically top pair on the flop). Also, the fact that another Queen came off on the turn makes it even less likely that someone made top pair on the flop.
The pot is huge. Given that a Queen is not likely out there, you should bet to avoid giving free cards to hands such as the 77 which was out there. You obviously are not going to get rid of KK,KJ and the like even if you bet but your bet at least charges them to draw.
I'm with you. A bet on the turn here is a must. The danger is high that this board will get checked out if no one has a queen, and giving a free card up on a pot this size is a huge mistake. Much bigger than the risk of having to pay an extra bet (which you probably won't have to pay anyway, because getting raised on the turn means you can fold to a bet on the river, whereas if you're just called you have to call another bet on the river anyway).
Waiting for a table I sit at the only table open, 2-4 Hold'em. Everyone smoked. Almost everyone was eating something at the table (greasy cards). I swear the guys next to be were breaking wind. The dealer is everyone's buddy (shut up and deal). It appears like random betting. I get beat with AA off the button by a little wheel. Flop is A4K rainbow. Turn is Q. River is a 3. The guy shows 2 5 off suit in mid position. The ensuing discussion revolves around how everyone has a story of how they always loose with AA to a straight/flush, like the guy had any reason to stay. Next time I'll pull the old Ray Zee exposure trick and take my chances. So, 2-4 Holdem....I'd rather stick needles in my eyes.
If both of the greasy smokers next to me were breaking wind, I would have changed seats. Immediately.
ROFLMAO - I've been there done that. What makes these people tick - are they really human or aliens here to drive humans nuts as a sort of experiment.
I wonder if these are the same guys who rob banks and give the teller with a note written on the back of their phone bill or are the ones who to beat the train at a crossing gate.
$5-$10 Middle position pocket 9s. I raise. button calls, sb calls, bb folds, utg calls. flop 442 rainbow. sb bets out, possible 2.maybe small pocket pair. with a four I'm sure he would go for checkraise, or slowplay, maybe 35s. I raise. button calls, sb calls, utg folds. turn is Ace. no flush draw. check to me I bet. button calls. sb calls. river is a Ten. sb bets.
Comments
Pre-flop, pocket 9s is not a raising hand when someone limps in from early position, especially under the gun (utg). I would just call and not raise. I assume that when the small blind bets the flop, the utg calls. I like your raise with your over pair. The button cold-calling your raise pre-flop and on the flop really bothers me. He could have a bigger pocket pair. On the turn, normally it is good follow-through by betting when the small blind checks but I am very concerned about what the button is hanging around with. I think in this case, because of the presence of the button, you should check. When called in two spots I think you are beat. The Ten on the river now puts two overcards on the table as well as an open pair. I think you should fold here when bet into with the button still to act.
I shared your concerns about the button. I think that my preflop raise amplified my concerns when the ace fell and then sb bet out. Not that you can put low limit players on a thought, I still wondered what hand they thought I might raise with preflop and then raise the flop in the face of a button who cold called the preflop raise. One would think they'd give me AJs at the very least. When the sb bet the river after the ten fell the only thing I could fathom was perhaps TT, JTs, QTs, KTs and I had to figure the button for a weak ace. What the sb figured for the button is anybody's guess. I'd like your opinion of my analysis. Thanks for your input.
My first concern is that small blind called the turn, before I would be consider the hand that the button called with. Your play seems to be correct until the river, since you want to make any draws pay. But if small blind bet the flop with either a draw or a made hand or just to test your hand and considering you raised the flop, he must put you on a medium to high pockets or AK or AQ at the very least. So when the A came on the turn, and it was checked to you and you bet, by both the button and especially the sb calling, I would think your hand is already beat. When the sb bets on the river card, I would have to lay down, putting him on a 35 or even A no kick at the very least, plus you have the button behind you who also called the turn.
Sammy - I like your analysis and the way you played the hand (although 99 isn't usually a raising hand in this postion). I think you have to call here if it is a bluff the sb is a bad bluffer if he has XT well you'll just pay him off - It could easly be a smaller pair your up against. I'd call here I think your chances are about 50/50.
That's why you're my hero. I folded, sb and button both had pocket 77.
I had posted my response prior to looking at any of the other posts, and my thoughts were virtually identical to those of Jim Brier. When I read your comments above that BOTH the button and SB had pocket 7's, my next reaction was ,"Where is this game?" Sure, you got "outplayed" on this one, but I have the feeling that if you have players making these types of plays fairly often, you don't have much to worry about longterm.
Tropicana in Atlantic City
I don't mind your pre-flop raise, but when you get 1 cold call, plus a call from the SB, I would get cautious. Also,UTG had already called pre-flop; you weren't first one in the hand with your raise and I would have possibly wanted to see the flop for only 1 bet. When SB bets outs and UTG just calls (probably with overcards given his subsequent fold to your raise)I think the raise is pretty much mandatory. You do not want the button calling 1 bet with just overcards. When the button again cold calls and the SB also calls your raise, I would not bet the turn after an Ace hits. If the button had bet the turn and the SB had called, I would have mucked.
In this case, when the SB bets out on the river and you have the button waiting to act after you, I would think you are most certainly dead. I suspect the SB had pocket T's or,less likely something like A-T, and as he is not really worried about you holding a 4. The button most likely has some sort of A for his call of your turn bet, probably A-Q or A-J.
When I have a middle pair like 9's, I am more comfortable raising from middle position when I am the first one in.
I am sitting in Seat #3, the big blind, holding the Queen of Clubs and the Eight of Clubs. #4 and #6 limp in. #8 raises to $40. #9, #1, and the small blind call. I call the raise from my big blind. The other players call. There is $280 in the pot and 7 players.
The flop is: Jack of Diamonds, Ten of Hearts, Three of Clubs
The small blind checks. I check my inside straight draw and backdoor flush draw. #4 bet $20. #6 calls. #8 raises to $40. #9 folds. #1 calls. The small blind folds. At this point there is $400 in the pot and it costs me $40 to call. The flop is rainbow so any Nine is a clean out except that I am dead to someone with specifically King-Queen. Because this pot could grow to $800+, I call. #4 calls and #6 folds. There is $480 in the pot and five players.
The turn is: Six of Diamonds
I check. #4 and #6 both check. #8 bets $40. #1 calls. I call with almost $600 in the pot although the Nine of Diamonds could now give someone a runner-runner Diamond flush. #4 calls. #6 folds. There is $640 in the pot and four players.
The river is: Ace of Spades
I check. #4 checks. #8 bets $40. Everyone folds.
Afterwards a good friend of mine told me I made a very bad call on the flop. His comments were: "You have no nut cards and there is a danger it could get capped on the flop. Also a set means 10 redraws if you hit a Nine on the turn. If the Nine comes, you will hate a King or Queen at the river. With seven of you taking the flop drawing to the nuts is an important consideration because otherwise you can hit your hand and still lose. A very bad flop call."
Was my flop call bad?
I find that drawing to inside straights with backdoor flush potential doesn't usually pay, no matter that the odds appear to be OK to make the draw. I think it's because the longer the odds against you, the longer a streak can occur in which you miss your draw; I've used the example of the lottery before: is it a good bet if the odds are $10 million to $1 but the payoff is $11 milllion to one? I think it is not, even though mathematically, you're getting the betterof it. Most likely you'll run our of dollars before you win the $11 million.
When the pot is raised on the flop, and could be re-raised behind me, I wouldn't generally call unless I had two overcards, there was no flush draw on board, and I had backdraw flush potential, and even then I'd have to carefully consider folding. Your situation met two of the three criteria, but the crucial one is that you didn't have two overcards, and thus you couldn't make the nut straight: there was no card that could come on the turn that would be perfect for you. K-Q is a distinctly possible hand for one of your opponents to have given the flop of J-T-3.
I think your call was technically correct considering you had a back door flush draw but I don't think you're giving up much by laying this hand down.
I would have called only if I was running good - which is not very often.
I wouldn't worry about a king on the river but obviously a queen is bad news.
Your friends points are valid but your backdoor flush draw probably adds enough equity to make a call correct. (Bob Ciaffone just this week makes the insane comment in Cardplayer that backdoor flush draws very rarely swing folds to calls. He is horribly mistaken.) Andy Fox's comment is silly as we are not talking million to one shots here. Finally if you had J7s and the flop was T92 with a three card flush I would recommend BETTING yourself to increase your chances if a jack hit. The example given is an exception to this principle because higher queens must also be gut shots.
Just a general comment.
I have noticed over the years that intermediate players quickly become aware that the bad players call too much. This includes before the flop, on the flop, and on the later streets. Thus many of them who are trying to become better players look for those situations where they need to throw their hand away. Unfortunately, the frequently make several mistakes. They 1. Don't take into account the size of the pot. 2. Don't take into account backdoor draws. 3. Don't take into account additional money you might make in case you hit your hand and it is good.
For example, the original poster mentions the possibility of being against a set. While there is some chance this is the case, and you would prefer not to be against a set, there is also an upside to it. If you make your hand and it holds up, you like very much being against a set. This is because the player holding the set may put a raise in and go off for two extra bets.
Well, at least my comment was only silly, not insane. The point I was trying to make was that a long shot like an inside straight draw is less valuable than a shorter shot, even if the odds of making the draw vs. the potential reward are comparable in the two cases, because of how infrequently you hit the longer shot. I think Mason's comments about intermediate players looking for reasons to fold without due consideration of other pertinent factors, however, is certainly valid; but, below the level of expert, most of us who look for reasons to draw to inside straights are usually looking for trouble.
i am not sure if you have resigned yourself to always be "below the level of expert". but i haven't. there is lots of ev out there if you willing to work for it. it is easy to wait for the best cards and show down the best hand. and this will beat the game. but you can do better. as far as looking for a reason to call is concerned, you don't have to look past the pot.
scott
you forgot about the runner runner for broadway. that's one more out. plus the 2 for runner runner flush. plush the 4. that makes 7. the pot was big enough if your outs were good. so were they? well, the flush is very likely to be good. and it is really more than 2 outs, so i will count it as exactly 2. the gut shot is also good despite the KQ. KQ should raise the flop, but it also should have raised utg and it should not have raised two early limpers. so no one has KQ. however, it can be counterfitted if a 9 and a Q come. so i take away half an out. the broadway will not be beat, but i am guessing you will have to split it half the time. so say goodbye to a quarter out. so i count 6.25 outs. an openender with a 2 flush on board is 6. i think you had a call on the flop.
i have two other points, though. one, the preflop call. this does not sound like the jim brier i know. i know raving rick and his crazy friend skp would call. and since i play for pocket change i routinely throw money away on hands like these. but suited three gappers below K9 are not the kind of solid cards i expect of you. tsk, tsk. two, all three turn callers folded on the river? that seems strange. we know what you had. both others on draws? put one on QT or KT. maybe QJ. maybe a Q9 or a 9T. the pot was huge for utg to call with his pair, if he had one, on the river for the 1 in 15 that #8 had less than it seemed. huh.
scott
actaully the runner runner straight is only about .75 outs. so change it to 6 outs, all told. still a call.
scott
It wasn't a bad call it was a "very" bad call.
I addressed this point in a post above your playing a really bad hand from a really bad position.
Try igonring the suited aspect of your hole cards in early positionand just play the ranks. The suited part only adds 3-4% the real value of your cards is the ranks.
The lament of a broke player is "they were suited" don't fall for it.
I just noticed who made the post - I'm suprised - Jim beside my comments above way to many of your outs are also outs for better hands. I just don't like your chances of winning this pot - Of course I wouldn't even be pondering this flop call as I would be watching the action by now.
I'd point out that the texture of your gutshot straight draw is both good and bad. While it's bad that it's not a nut straight draw, it does have the advantage that it can become open-ended on the turn, giving you more pot equity (unless you are up against AQ).
This is something that I rarely see mentioned about inside straight draws. If you have 76 and the flop is K34, there is no way that you can have anything other than another inside draw on the turn if you miss, and you'll often have to give up that equity. On the other hand, if you have 76 and the flop is 59K, a four on the turn gives you an open-ended straight, allowing you to continue with the draw.
In your case it's not that big a bonus because the texture is such that if your straight did become open-ended you would be splitting with any queen if the straight comes in. I think whether or not you can call here really depends on your feel for whether it will get re-raised and capped.
Jim,
You write "Because this pot could grow to $800+". Of course, the pot can be huge. You contributed $120 out of $640 to see the river. All it takes is your "bad play" and a couple of chasing fish to make a large pot. When there is a lot of action pre-river, you'll find that you will almost always have correct odds to call on the river. Disregard Sklansky and play your usual low variance game unless you have a six-digit bankroll.
But Merle see my response to Michael's post. The $120 you say I contributed consisted of $20 that was a mandatory big blind bet and $20 for calling a raise out of my big blind when I was getting 13:1. In terms of money I put in at the point I had to make a meaningful decision, I contributed $80 for a chance to win $600+ when you consider that if I hit I collect another $40 on the end. It is really more like $80 for $600 not $120 for $640.
Disregard Sklansky? Disagree, maybe, as I did above. But disregard only at your peril.
I like your pre-flop decision. Post flop I think it's a BIG check-fold though. With that many opponents, someone could easily have KQ or even KA or QA for that matter -- drawing to a better straight. I think the expectation is likely negative at this point. Even when you make your hand, it may be second or third best.
I don't understand DS's argument - there are too many ways to lose. 20% of the pot was your money. Do you think you'll end up with top hand more than 20% of the time?
I appreciate your input but you make a flawed argument. You cannot count the money I put in pre-flop as part of the 20% since $20 was a mandatory big blind bet and if it is agreed that my pre-flop call of the raise out of the big blind was correct, you cannot count the second $20 either. You can only count the money I invested at the time I made a decision to continue on with the hand which is $40 on the flop and $40 on the turn. This is $80. The total pot size excluding this $80 was around $600 if you consider that I will make an extra $40 on the end from someone who calls when I hit my hand so it is more like 13% or 1 chance in 7.5. I think my chances are better than 13%.
Thanks for pointing out my error Jim. I still think continuing after the flop is a mistake (or I have a tough time seeing that hand hold up more than 13% of the time). But it certainly depends on your opposition. Now if a 4-flush flopped, I'd likely stick around. But again, this depends on how I size up my opponents.
Thanks for all your replies too ... the lessons I'm learning are GREAT! Really makes me think and is a great catalyst to my learning.
-Michael
5-10 Holdem
I'm in the SB with Qd 7d. Loose agressive player UTG calls the $5. Everyone folds to the button who calls. I call the extra $3 and the BB checks. Flop comes Ts 7s 2h. I bet. BB folds, UTG raises, button cold calls. UTG is the type of player who will make this raise with probably any 2 overcards (although he would have definitely raised his big overcards preflop), any 2 spades, straight draw, or any T or 7. Player on the button will likely call the 2 cold with any 2 overcards or any kind of draw or pair. I call.
Turn comes the 8c. Not really a good card for me. Should I bet here? I don't want to give anyone free cards in this situation but at this point I am most likely beat. However, should someone else bet, I probably have close to correct odds to call given the fact that the UTG may bet nothing in this spot. Anyway, I bet. UTG thinks and thinks, then calls. Button folds.
River 9c. I check (betting will not get UTG to fold a bigger pair). UTG bets. I muck.
Please help!! Lately I am finding myself in this situation often. Middle pair with a good kicker against several opponents. I think this type of hand is really tough to play correctly!
All comments/criticisms/advice appreciated.
Puggy
This is exacly the situation where it makes a big difference whether you flop a three flush. As I mentioned elsewhere, Bob Ciaffone makes the shameful statement in Card Player this week that having a three flush will almost never turn a fold into a call. What was he thinking?
So assuming I don't flop a 3 flush, is it correct to check and fold for just a single bet on the flop with my middle pair / good kicker?
Puggy
I'm no expert, but I believe a queen would normally be considered a mediocre kicker, not a good one.
Q is only just a fair kicker in this situation - BUT to look at as a "kicker" in an almost certainly lost hand is just as silly as to worry about another bet going in to give him "correct" odds to continue with a really weak holding.
I just don't like his chances here and I quiver at the thought of getting myself in those situations.
Maybe I need a courage transplant.
The reason your finding yourself in this situation is because you are calling with rotten hands like a Q7.
Most of the time these hands are pure garbage after the flop and the 1/2 bet you put in pre flop ends up costing you 5 to 8 more sb you can't win anyway.
Look at it this way - "suited" only adds about 3-4% more to your hands - the strength of your holding is in the "ranks" - ignore the suited aspect of your hole cards and play the ranks and you'll find yourself playing quality cards from better positions.
Leave hands like Q7 to unraised big blind scenarios.
Rounder,
I agree with your comments on suited cards. However, I will almost always play a suited Ax in late position in an unraised pot. I figure it is about the same as a small pocket pair. I think the odds are about the same too, flopping a set (7.5 -1) and a four flush. If you miss, you fold. Actually I like the suited ace better, as it seems to have more chances to improve on the flop (four flush, full flush, top pair with A kicker, top two pair). thoughts.
Rob,
No arguements here I will play a Axs in a lot of positions depending on the game personality.
I will almost always play it in a big field in late position. Here is a hand with potential. You can flop so many really strong hands - I put Axs real high in my list of hands I like to play - they are super in tournaments when the stakes are high and you are on the button with limpers or no callers.
Ax plays well against heads up and in multi way pots only problem is ti know when to get away from it.
I don't think Kx is even close to Ax in potential so I rarely play it at all.
. I think the odds are about the same too, flopping a set (7.5 -1) and a four flush.
Maybe the odds are the same of flopping it, but what are the odds of winning with a four flush?
Once you flop the four to the nut flush, are you happy or sad. 2-1 to make it by the river. Have you ever lost with a set? It is not a guaranteed winner either. Which wins more money, A9s or 44 in a 7 handed pot if you assume that the 44 folds if no set or no open ended straight, and the A9s folds with no four flush, top two, top pair with the 9, or trips.
My apologies for not adding an emoticon to my post. I wasn't being critical I was being hilariously funny. ô¿ô . . . or maybe my humor is lost on a lost world.
I withdraw my overly emotional response. I didn't sense any humor in your first response. BTW, my guess is that I likely have won with an Ace high four flush. Just not very ofter :)
Check and fold on the flop. You are not getting good enough odds. Since, the UTG is aggressive your bet on the flop will not make him fold. Betting on the flop with a weaker player may have worked as a bluff.
In your situation, I would want at least a back door flush or straight before I would bet out on the flop, otherwise, I would have checked on the flop and folded to a bet.
Lastly, I thought it was interesting the the UTG hesitated on the turn. This could be a clue that he is thinking you may have beat him with a straight. In this case, I would have bet the river.
Pre-flop with a $2 small blind and a $5 big blind, I would not pay another $3 to see a flop with Q7 suited. I would want at least Q9 suited or better. If you were in a game where the small blind was 2/3 of a bet (e.g.- a $15-$30 game with a $10 small blind) then it is okay to toss in another 1/3 of a bet and see a flop with your suited Queen.
On the flop, you have middle pair but in addition to the Ten on the flop there are a lot of over cards possible on the turn and river to your pair of Sevens. In addition, there are no Diamonds on the flop so you have no flush draw. You have 3 opponents and you are out of position. There is also a two flush on board. Despite the fact that your opponents frequently play just overcards and other holdings you might be able to beat here, the problem is these guys will also play hands better than yours and there are just too many of opponents here. There are also a lot of redraws to better hands since yours is so weak. I think you should check the flop and see what happens being prepared to fold if it is bet.
I would check the turn and fold if someone else bets. I think your fold on the river was correct.
wait a minute. you wouldn't call with Q8s? are you sure?
scott
rubbing salt in the wounds?
that which does not kill us...
scott
I believe there are some significant differences. In the situation where I called with Q8 suited I was in my big blind and there was $260 in the pot and it costs me $20 to see a flop. These are odds of 13:1. In this case, Puggy is in the small blind and is putting in $3 more when there is only $17 in the pot ($7 in blinds plus two $5 callers). His odds are only 17:3 which is far worse than 13:1. In addition, Q8 can play together to make a straight whereas Q7 cannot. I agree that on the surface, Q8 suited and Q7 suited appear to be suited trash and usually they are but I believe my call out of my big blind was correct given the vast difference in pot odds and the tiny difference in card holding. What do you think?
i agree Q7s is a bad call. i also agree with your Q8s call below. but i did not think that you would have agreed with it. here, Q8s is less than your recomended Q9s. so you think he should fold Q8s. i think the increased implied odd, due to the half bet, compensate somewhat for the worse immediate odds. i would call in both cases with Q8s and fold in both with Q7s.
scott
I just can't see the logic - getting involved with a hand that is crippled before you start. Implied odds or not.
When you flop to a hand like Q7 or 8 the hit has to be so hard for you to continue it seems hardly worth the effort. I'll save my chips for a real hand.
Even if it is only half a bet and even if you can virtually guarantee that there is no raise, the profit potential in Q7s must be SO small with as few callers as there are, that what expected profit there is will be eaten up by rake and gratuity anyways.
Marginal hands are just that - marginal. With a few more callers, you are getting >10:1 on your $3 and the call is much, much better. In this situation, it's such a small expectation, if any, that folding is LIKELY correct - there's no shame in losing a bit of EV in return for lowering variance.
(Blackjack players, I'm sure you can relate :)
M.
Jim - your analysis is sound(er) - personally I stay away from 3 gappers (can never have the nut straight or with Q high the flush is not certain eigther) Q8 is better than Q7 but I just won't put penny one in a pot for eigther one.
They are trouble hands and I can get in eneough trouble playing quality cards.
Puggy you say:
"at this point I am most likely beat. However, should someone else bet, I probably have close to correct odds to call given the fact that the UTG may bet nothing in this spot."
It seems to me that if you think your most likely beat you should fold you cards. Don't throw away money. Wait for a better opportunity. The reason you may have correct odds in the river (I'll let somebody else compute) is that you are trying to chase down a draw against two players (Frankenstein syndrome- you created the river odds by chasing instead of folding) . I'm a bit confused about correct odds in this situation - odds to do what? maybe to make your flush which can still be beaten by a full house or higher flush. Dump it on the flop or better yet surrender the blind.
All theory and mathematics aside, your call preflop with this rag was unnecessary and got you in a lot of trouble.
I try to look at the blinds as an ante. You had to put up the $2. You didn't have to call the other $3. Once you called, you flopped a mediocre hand in bad position - not a surprise. That is why you try and avoid these situations.
The blinds in hold-em are fundamentally different than the antes in stud. Everyone puts up an ante every hand in stud so the cost for everyone to continue is the same. When you put up a blind in hold-em you are already partially in whereas the other players have to put up a full bet to see a flop. Similarily, with raises. When someone raises on 3rd street in stud, the cost for everyone to continue is the about same (ignoring the guy who had the low card bring-in and anyone who initially called the low card bring-in). In hold-em your blind represents a bet and calling a raise out of your big blind is vastly different since your pot odds are signicantly better than anyone else's. In addition, you normally don't have to worry about re-raises after you act as much as you do when you cold-call a raise from one of the other positions in hold-em.
preflop: a fold is probably best. But maybe if you are trying to get some good experience and eventually become an expert, maybe you should call.
flop: I think in a 5-10 it is probably best to check and fold. In a higher limit game such 20-40 it might be better to bet. Since you bet and got raised AND got a cold caller and there is a two flush on board I would fold. If there were no two flush or you had a backdoor flush potential then I think you have a call.
turn: would check and fold
river: no river for me. For you a fold seems in order.
Puggy,
I'll post some of what I wrote back to you in this mornings email even though I don't have time to read the entire thread until tonight (Slow down the forum! Slow down the forum! I can't keep up! I'm drowning in threads!)
Anyway, one reason I post is to see if my current strategy is off base and welcome being flamed. I like to have my ignorance exposed and corrected by those I respect rather than pay for it at the table.
I think the preflop call is marginal against an aggressive UTG player in the standard 10/20 structure when you pay time and may be a fold in the 5/10 structure (SB is 40% of the BB) where I'm guessing the pot is probably raked. But we are talking pennies.
I bet the flop with second pair but agree with skp (from his email) that it is better if the flop is ace (or king) high as the ten is a limping card. I don't like the cold call by the button. I now would be thinking I'm either beat or likely to get beat. I would give it up there most of the time.
Regards,
Rick
I am odering a copy or 2 for presents. I go to Amazon and look at the reviews. There are 3 customer reviews. Two are very favorable, but 1 is quite disturbing. I will print it below and beg DS to comment on it. Could be a competitor--sour grapes? I am a big proponent of DS's 7CS books but have not read the Holdem set. Sorry to bring up a ball buster of a review, but I would like to se DS's reply. ===== From Amazon.com customer review: " The ideas contained in this book are outdated and useless, even harmful. The concepts were developed by Sklansky in another era for another game. The modern game typically has two to three players seeing the flop for two to three bets. When Sklansky wrote his original book based on his experiences in relatively low limit games i.e the 10-20 game at the Gold Nugget) where a tight game was described as one where around five players saw the flop for half a bet or a full bet. Another section of the new book talks about games where no one at the table takes the game seriously. Those games just don't exist at levels high enough for the player to have a chance to overcome the rake (20-40 or higher). Particularly dangerous is the book's oft stated theme of rating suited hands much higher than non-suited hands. For instance, 10 J suited is rated equivalent to A Q offsuit. Playing small suited connectors is suicide in the average high limit game (seeing the flop against one or two opponents for two to three bets). There is only a minimal difference between say A Q offsuit and A Q suited in this type of game because (1) you hit flushes very rarely (about 4% of the time when you're suited) and (2) you'll actually make more flushes with the off suited hand. Playing garbage hands in hopes of hitting a 1 in 25 flush is the biggest single error made by bad players and this book sytemically reinforces this error. This 1 in 25 shot is particularly ill advised when you play in game with lots of two or three handed flops.
The other problem is that strategy suggestions repeatedly encourage calling way too loose and raising way too tight, just the opposite strategy that consistent winning players employ. I suspect that Malmuth knows that the strategies suggested won't work in high limit games and are thus of no use (or even detrimental) to advanced players.
It is certainly true, however, that an amateur player could benefit from the book as long as they understand that the book will not turn them into a pro or enable them to overcome the rake in low limit games.
Finally, the authors discussion focused almost exclusively on structured limit games. There are only a handful of truly successful limit poker pros in the world. Anybody that can play, even a little bit, should focus on playing no-limit or pot limit. Even the authors admit that many of the really difficult situations are break even decisions in limit poker. In open limit games, however, these situations are extremely critical.
Psychology, tells, and betting strategies are so much more important in no limit that most working, practicing holdem/omaha pros refuse to play structured limit. Limit poker is great for the house, because they end up with all the money. If you have some talent (and some passion) for the game and you're trying to become a serious player, pass on this book and pass on limit poker in general."
He says you make flushes more often when you are suited than unsuited. He implies that we advocate playing small suited connectors in shorthanded pots. He claims you cannot beat limit poker. He implies Mason knowingly dissemminated misinformation. When you read four flagrantly incorrect statments, ought that not tell you that the rest of it not be taken seriously?
He says you make more flushes when you are unsuited. You have to remember that some big bet poker players have a grudge against certain poker authors who use every available platform, and, at times, specious reasoning, to lobby for the curtailment of big bet games in public cardrooms.
While I, myself, am far too decent of a person to attempt to counter Mason's anti-big bet propaganda with this type of attack, I can understand, and, too a degree, empathize with it. In the words of one of America's most celebrated victims, I plead with you: Can't we all get along?"
He says you make more flushes when you are unsuited. You have to remember that some big bet poker players have a grudge against certain poker authors who use every available platform, and, at times, specious reasoning, to lobby for the curtailment of big bet games in public cardrooms.
While I, myself, am far too decent of a person to attempt to counter Mason's anti-big bet propaganda with this type of attack, I can understand, and, to a degree, empathize with it. In the words of one of America's most celebrated victims, I plead with you: Can't we all just get along?"
My post was 2 fold. One was to at least to alert you that this was out there, and 2 was to let you grab an example or 2 and dispute it. I think you did just that.
He says you make more flushes when you are unsuited.
You have to remember that some big bet poker players have a grudge against certain poker authors who use every available platform, and, at times, specious reasoning, to lobby for the curtailment of big bet games in public cardrooms.
While I, myself, am far too decent of a person to attempt to counter Mason's anti-big bet propaganda with this type of attack, I can understand, and, to a degree, empathize with it. In the words of one of America's most celebrated victims, I plead with you: Can't we all just get along?"
"Mason's anti-big bet propaganda"
First of all I have given specific reasons why these games should not be regularly spread by cardrooms. (See my Poker Essays books.) My reasons are not propaganda which implies that they are emotional rather than rational. If you would like to discuss the subject why don't you address the specific reasons rather than make broad inaccurate statements.
Second, despite what the author of the review claimed, these big bet games hardly get spread anyway. So the best players aren't winning much money in them since they don't normally exist.
We regularly check our pages on Amazon.com since we believe that a large number of our sales go through them. (The reason why I say "we believe" is that Amazon does not normally buy directly from us but from distributors and wholesalers that carry our books.) My feeling was that the author of the review in question was probably a poker student of an old time player who didn't do very well in today's modern structure but remembers easy no-limit games which did appear at some of the tournaments years ago.
Propaganda: information, rumors, etc.,deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
Mason, you have deliberately gone out of your way to discourage cardrooms from spreading big bet poker.
You cite as one reason that big bet poker harms casinos, the debatable "fact" that poor players lose too much too quickly and thus stay away from cardrooms. Where is your empirical data to back up this assertion?
People who read your opinion on big bet poker might steer clear of ever trying it due to the fear that your warning raises in them.
Would you like it if big bet players routinely stopped by the game you were sitting in and pointed you out to out of town players as someone to avoid playing with?
"Don't play in games with Mason, his level of playing skill is higher than yours and he only plays in games where he and his friends have a huge advantage. They are all waiting for you "live ones" to sit down and then take turns picking you clean."
The comment above would be more true, in my opinion, than the one you made about poor players having no chance in a NL Hold-em game.
I freely admit that I would have no chance, long term, playing in the games that you frequent. I don't want to play in those games. I would however, be happy to sit at a table playing NL even if you were in the game. I believe that there are different skill factors at work in NL that negate some of the advantages you would have in limit. In NL, I can force you to make plays that leave you taking the worst of it for a significant portion of your stack. I can control, with the size of my bet, the pot odds I offer you when you might be on a draw. In limit, the best player makes decisions with superior information than that of weaker players. In NL, any fool with any two cards can shove it all in and force the best in the world to either gamble or turn tail and run. NL isn't a game of a hundred small edges, cumulatively overwhelming a lesser player's exploitable weaknesses. In NL, both players are equally armed; should the good player slip only once, he's just as dead as the poor player would be when he makes a poor decision. In limit, it is all the tiny pin pricks that finally kills you off. Put a bull in the ring with a matador, the bull always winds up dead. Put that matador in an open field with that same bull, absent the picadors and the others who combine to steal the bull's strength; It then becomes a very interesting contest with a decidedly unknown outcome. We both like killing bulls, you just like to do so in a safer arena. Since you are fearful that there might not be enough bulls to go around, you try to keep them all for yourself. Wherever big bet poker players congregate, someone always pulls out a tiny Mason Malmuth doll and we all take turns sticking pins in it and chanting a secret mantra which I promised never to reveal. I know for a fact that Gary Carson never leaves home without his Mason doll. We even have a secret handshake and call ourselves the Masonic Temple of Doom. I only reveal this to you in a desperate final attempt to get you to stop writing against big bet poker before it's too late.
"In NL, any fool with any two cards can shove it all in and force the best in the world to either gamble or turn tail and run. NL isn't a game of a hundred small edges, cumulatively overwhelming a lesser player's exploitable weaknesses. In NL, both players are equally armed; should the good player slip only once, he's just as dead as the poor player would be when he makes a poor decision"
Big John,
You make a great arguement and you do so elequently. But you and I both know that the above is a bunch of huey! In NL both players are equally armed! Yeah right! C'mon John. Weak players at NL have no chance at all. A weak NL player doesn't understand that J,J is not A,A but plays them the same anyway. Their extatic with A,J and marry A,Q. Weak NL players have "NO CHANCE". I repeat "NO CHANCE". You want to observe the decline of poker then force the Casino's and Card Rooms to spread NL only. That single table you end up with may not even be full. I understand that for years they played mostly NL and Pot Limit in Europe. Funny thing, I understand more and more limit is being spread over there.
I agree that there is a place for all games. Limit thru NL but let's argue with the truth.
Vince.
As for a Mason doll. I have one of those. What's wrong with that?
Vince:
John also wrote: "In NL, I can force you to make plays that leave you taking the worst of it for a significant portion of your stack. I can control, with the size of my bet, the pot odds I offer you when you might be on a draw."
Aren't these excellent arguments for why the good player has a greater advantage over the weak player in no-limit?
Another reason why I recommend that cardrooms don't spread these games is that when all of your stack can be lost on the turn of a card it is inevitable for cheating accusations to surface. Everyplace that I know of that spread either no-limit or pot-limit hold 'em on a regular substained basis seems to have these accusations. This is not good for poker in the long run.
But my main objection to your post was the use of the word "propaganda." I don't say what I say because I have some sinister reason. I say what I say because this is what I believe and understand to be true. If you see things differently, well, this is what this forum is for. But please stick to the facts and theories (as you understand them) and not interject emotionalism in the argument.
Finally, just to set the record straight, my negative comments on no-limit don't apply to tournaments and they also don't apply to side games spread at some of the major tournaments that are only spread for a relatively short period of time.
As for your comments about how foolish it would be to sit in a game with me you make a good point as long as you substitute expert in place of me. It is important in all gambling games that the advantage held by the expert not be too large. (Yes, the expert might be the house in a casino table game.) When that edge gets too large the game burns out because the weak players just don't have enough winning sessions to keep returning.
This is my main argument against no-limit. I believe that even though the expert has a bigger edge at no-limit than limit, the bad player will actually lose more at limit than no-limit. This is because he will keep returning to the limit game, but quickly quits the no-limit game.
If you don't believe me just look around the major cardrooms of Southern California (where I believe you live). I guarantee that the people who run these rooms don't listen to me. (If some of them would you would have much better cardrooms but that is another story.) If no-limit games would survive and thrive you would see them being spread. I don't need to tell these people not to spread them. My warnings are mostly for those new mangers who have little understanding of poker and who now find themselves running a new room at a new casino in an area where poker is also new. My fear is that if they pursue the pot limit path because they hear that it is "the cadilac" of poker they will see their room demise.
By the way, is that doll of me that you pocess the full size inflatable kind?
Vince:
I just realized that when I said "My main objection to your post..." I was actually referring to what Big John wrote and not what you wrote. Sorry about that.
Mason,
I like to play NL. It is a fun game. You know that you would much prefer playing a weak player in a limit game, where he really has no chance against your skills, rather than in either a NL ring game where he might beat you in a single, decisive hand, or in a tournament format where escalating blinds might make it necessary for you to have to gamble with him.
I would guess that I am probably 50-50 to have a winning session in a typical NL ring game containing one or two players as expert as you. I also know that I have far less chance of having a winning session if I sit in the 30-60 at the Bellagio. Since I am, by my own admission, a relatively poor poker player, how do you reconcile this apparent difference in perceptions we seem to have over which format is better for the weaker player?
What is it that Roy Cooke keeps repeating about edge times volume? This is what keeps winning limit Hold-em players afloat financially. In big bet, your pocket K's are vulnerable to my pocket A's when you have the misfortune of having come over the top of my early position raise. All the money is going in preflop when I reraise you. How is your superior skill going to help you here? In limit, this would be only one unfortunate hand, six or eight BB's, easily overcome by future mistakes that I'd make later in the session. In NL, one mistake or unfortunate occurance can spell disaster for anyone, regardless of their skill. Given this, how can you say that poor players are at more of a disadvantage in big bet than they are in limit? A rush in big bet can result in an overwhelming win even for the poorest player. For a poor player to sit in that Bellagio 30-60 and book a significant win in a five hour session would require almost a miracle.
I sometimes use rhetoric that seems to contain emotionalism, but my reasoning seems sound to me. I'd rather be the bull in an open field facing Manolete with a sword, than the same bull in a bull-ring surrounded by picadors and lancers where my death was preordained. In an open field, Manolete gets plenty of the horn!
The doll isn't inflatable, but when you wind it up it says, "David Sklansky? Yes, he works for me. Ray Zee? yes, he works for me too. Gary Carson? Gary Carson? No, Gary Carson doesn't work for me!"
"John also wrote: "In NL, I can force you to make plays that leave you taking the worst of it for a significant portion of your stack. I can control, with the size of my bet, the pot odds I offer you when you might be on a draw."
Mason wrote:
"Aren't these excellent arguments for why the good player has a greater advantage over the weak player in no-limit?"
Vince responds:
Excellent arguements!
Mason,
Thanks for clearing up your response. For a moment I thought I had misqouoted you. I know David said I misquoted him. I didn't. I almost thought you were jumping on me to show David you really love him. Not necessary. Just give him one of those full size Mason dolls Big John is so fond of.
BTW - Do you really believe that Big John is as poor a limit player as he claims. I know that you have said some of the big name NL tourney players are terrible Limit players but did you really mean it? Why do you think it is, if it is true?
An interesting thought (at least to me). NL poker is a great example of the problem with Caro's Insult Strategy. Losing all of one's stack is an insult to many weak players. At least I believe that a weak or inexperienced poker player experiences a feeling of seld doubt bordering on self disgust when they lose all of their money via a big bet. I believe this is a major factor in keeping many people from spending their time learning to play live NL.
Vince
Vince suggested: "Just give him one of those full size Mason dolls Big John is so fond of."
Earlier, Vince wrote: "As for a Mason doll. I have one of those. What's wrong with that?"
Sorry, Vince. I couldn't resist. ;-)
"Aren't these excellent arguments for why the good player has a greater advantage over the weak player in no-limit?"
Mason, I used the arguments that you referenced to show how the inferior player might neutralize the advantages of a superior player in a NL game. I didn't see you counter with similar arguments that the same player could successfully employ in limit. Could this be because you know that skill differences are much more safely exploitable in limit?
I see that you didn't refute my argument that a weak player has almost no chance to win in a prolonged session in a typical 30-60 played at the Bellagio. I had hoped that your respect for logic would compel you to admit that, under most circumstances, a weak player would be better off taking one shot at NL rather than taking it in a tough limit Hold-em game.
I believe that most players with big bet experience would prefer to take on superior players in the NL format rather than limit. The reason is similar to why I would prefer to make a single bet at craps rather than have the house edge slowly grind my stake up with many piecemeal bets. The single, decisive, bet gives me my best overall chance of booking a 100% positive win.
If you believed what I quoted from your post above, I have no doubt that I would have run across you playing in a NL ring game before now. You choose to play the limit games because you are convinced they offer you the best opportunity to make relatively risk-free money. You are a farmer, not a hunter; you prefer to harvest the safe and steady crop. I would respect you more if you would just admit that limit poker is your game of choice because it is much more of a sure thing for you than big bet poker would be.
John:
I disagree with almost everything that you stated. But I will only address two points here. First, I see terrible players leaving $30-$60 hold 'em games all the time as huge winners.
Second, the reason I only play limit is simply the fact that I only play limit. What I mean is that my no limit experience is very small and I know I won't play it well enough to compete with people who really do understand how to play it well. Thus I sit in limit games because I know I have a positive expectation. I don't sit in no-limit or pot-limit games, on those rare occasions that they are available, because I believe my expectation will almost always be negative.
There are several players who I know quite well who are excellent in both forms of hold 'em. Dan Harrington and Ray Zee come to mind. Whenever they have a choice, they are always in the big bet variety. This is simply because they have a higher earn in this form. I don't.
Mason,
I can only tell you that I feel much more comfortable while playing NL Hold-em than I do playing limit. My results have consistantly been far better in NL. It is certainly more correct to gamble in NL than it would be in limit. One critical difference when playing NL is that you can be pretty certain that those in the game with you are willing to gamble. It is important to my results that I not be the only one at the table willing to commit it all on a known 50-50 proposition. To be good at NL, you must have a gambler's heart. Many people have the gambler's heart but are still poor when playing NL. People without a gambler's heart do have a distinct tendency to avoid NL. I'm not sure that big bet playing experience is the only requirement you lack for playing NL.
I have gotten a lot of good out of the body of excellent work that you've written and published. With the exception of your public stance on big bet poker, I have absolutely no quarrels with you. In spite of our differences on this one issue, which I knew going in to be immutable, I continue to wish you the very best in life. This will be my final post in this thread. Thank you for taking the time to respond, and also for providing the forum that makes it possible.
Well, Well this is great! Since Big John won't post anymore in this thread I can attack with impunity. Hey you big over grown excuse for a poker player. big bet poker. Big this. What do you know anyway. Now Now John I can see you steaming but I take you at your word. No more posting in this thread. Also no fair starting a new thread that is related to soemthing someone says in another thread that you have disavowed. So just grin and bear it! I find it very humble of you to acknowledge Mason the way you did. Funny he never returns the compliment. Must not think much of you.\, huh. No don't answer, not allowed. Gee I hope I cna do justice here I may not get another chance. By the way How's s Sherwood Forest and Robin doing. Oh excuse me that was Little John. Maybe little john would describe you better. how do the girls in South Central feel about that.
You sure did get whimpish at the end of this post. Forget it! I'm the best Butt kisser on this forum so Butt out! Get it! Mason doen't like brown nosers anyway. That's why Z and him don't get along.
God I'm having fun BJ. What in the hell is this thread about anyway? Oh yeah. Big Bet vs Limit. One would think the wonder boy Sklansky would prefer writing about Big Bet poker over Limit. Math must be more important in NL? What do you think? Oh. Can't answer huh. That's too bad. So I guess i must be right. Hey, hey forget that pseudonym stuff. Your'e too honest a guy to try that and I'm too smart to fall for that. What's that? You agree. Thanks! Well enough fun for now. In the future please send me an e-mail when a few days before you are done with a thread so I can prepare better.
Vince.
Oh yeah. The ego thing! That was just a joke to see how you would respond. You and Sklansky, Big Ego's. Just a joke. Well maybe. And I've never been to Dorchester again after that incident. Yes, there were 2 of them. Wise guy!
Vince
Vince,
I spent over an hour writing a long and detailed explanation of the differences between Big Bet and limit and the reasons that limit players prefer to keep theit game the format of choice. While I was editing it, I lost my internet connection and all the writing was lost. I haven't the time or the memory to reconstruct it. I can tell you that it was brilliant and persuasive enough that even Mason would have been converted to big bet. Oh well.
Big John,
It's easy to see you're a self-professed poor player. You're engaged in a guaranteed big-time negative EV game, debating Mason Malmuth. You can't win or break even. Quit the game.
Well Scott, you may very well be right about my not winning the debate. The important thing is to have the opportunity to present my argument to refute Mason's. The fact that I have played both limit and NL and have empirical evidence to support my claims doesn't appear very persuasive.
I claim that NL is more enjoyable format to play than limit is for some people. I claim that weaker players are not at a greater disadvantage playing NL than they would be in limit due to the fact that they can win one or two definitive confrontations at critical times when their cards, the betting sequence or their position relative to their opponent's is singularly favorable. These fortuitous circumstances are determined not through the skill of the individuals involved, but through chance. I claim that playing in a $200 buy in NL hold-em game with blinds of $2.00 and $5.00 is a smaller game, less dangerous to a weak players bankroll, than playing 15-30 limit Hold-em.
Finally. and most importantly, I claim that limit specialists, like Mason, bad mouth big bet poker because they are worried that this format might appeal to their real bread and butter, the loose aggressive, deep pocket "live ones" that are currently forced to get their "action fix" from the limit games since that is all that is being spread. Absent the "loose live ones", Mason and other limit professionals would go the way of the lowball experts of the seventies and early eighties. One need only look at the 30-60 lowball game at the Commerce and watch as these guys take turns in their card catching contest daily while the house is the only long term winner. Each year there are fewer and fewer volunteers taking the places of those lowball players who fall by the wayside.
I don't think it is -EV for me to air my opinions here. It isn't Mason's mind I'm trying to change. I am in favor of big bet poker, perhaps my efforts here will spark the interest of one or more people who might want to give big bet a try. As to my being a self-professed poor player, I only poor relative to some others. As my Grandmother used to like to say, "Even a queer rabbit can back into a juicy carrot once in awhile." Maybe someday we'll meet in a big bet game and share a laugh or two. Thanks for your concern.
I played at Artichoke Joe's for roughly seven years. All they spread was no limit draw and lowball in the early 80s. No shortage of customers I could see.
Limit poker offers the fish no real hope over the long haul. It's a self weighting disaster for the poor player. Give 'em a shot for all the chips and maybe they'll quit a big winner.
Mason has been grinding the no big bet poker axe for a lot of years. He's got a point about the turn of a magic card that will often look like a scam but thats not too big a deal. The point unsaid is that most card rooms figure to drop more in limit games and that's why the big bet games are scarce.
John, my next trip to Commerce will be 1/20 - 1/24. Dinner on me if you'd like.
Best,
Scott
Scott,
Email me and I'll give you my phone number so you can give me a call when you are down here. My first public cardroom experience was in a table stahes draw game at Garden City HofBrau in 1962. Now that game was so tight, even Mason would have felt right at home in it.
jhartz@jps.net
Be careful John. Scott is underage.
Vince
Scott not scott...
Mason wrote: "If you would like to discuss the subject why don't you address the specific reasons rather than make broad inaccurate statements."
Interesting words from a fellow who censors personal attacks while employing them himself.
whoever wrote that is either an idiot or has an agenda against the authors. the book would make a great gift if the recipient is a person who can think and is interested in poker
My impression was that the writer of the review had some grudge against DS or the other contributors. Even my limited knowledge of HE was enough to find fault with 3 items the reviewer wrote.
Sitting on the button with 78s. 4 limp, raise, I call, sb folds bb calls, all call. 7 see the flop for two bets. 8h4h4s none of my suit. check to preflop raiser who bets I call. 3 fold. 2 more call. turn 8d. right of preflop raiser BETS. preflop raiser raises. I raised they both folded. Should I have just called and slowplayed it on the turn and risk one of the higher pocket pairs pulling off a mitacle card.
No, you played correctly. When the pot is very large like this one with over 20 bets in it, it is far more important to protect what is out there and bet your hand than worrying about trying to finagle an extra bet or two. At this point, a guy may actually be getting the right odds to play his two outer so your re-raise puts that play in the losing zone.
i disagree with jim. first of all, the pot is only about 14 bb. bring on the two outers. please let them call. second, when two people are betting for me, i like to let them. the first guy might reraise for me. and even if he just calls, one will bet into you an the river. i would have cold called. let them think your hoping against hope with the gut shot straight flush draw or something. if it were a few bb bigger then i can begin to see jim's logic. but still, sometimes people dwell on their own hands and don't notice a player calling along. slowplaying is almost never correct, but when two people bet for you no one gets a cheap card and "slowplaying" may actually be the way to maximise immediate action. i know that sometimes when the field is getting loose aggressive, i'll throw in a 3-bet with a strong draw (esp. on the flop) to slow the action down and not have to call 2 bets cold on the turn if i miss.
scott
But Scott, don't we have to consider the collective outs of both opponents? If they both have two outers then that is collectively 4 outs against us. If one has an overpair and the other has a Four that is 3 outs against us. Considering implied odds, as a collective are they not getting the correct odds to chase if you don't re-raise? Clearly, the guy who raised on the turn is now getting infinite odds unless you re-raise and force him to put in more money.
well, you're right. they do have 4 outs combined against you. and if the bettor just calls, then the raiser will be getting infinite odds, in a sense. but look at the ev of it. by raising you gain : the pot when the hand that would have drawn out on you folds and up to 2 additional bb by the river (if one has a 4 he will call both your bets. by the way, the 4's slowplay of the flop would have been a big mistake.). by calling you gain : 3 bb if there is no 4, as opposed to 0. (better calls. someone will bet the river and you can raise or go for the overcall.) and at least 3 bb if there is a 4 in the raiser's hand. lots of extra bets if it is in the bettor's hand. i take the 3bb and give the field their 4 outs.
scott
I agree. If one of these people has an 8 you're playing for half a pot anyway. I think I'd just smooth call. Then if I get bet into I can raise on the river. If neither of them have an 8 and they check to me, they'll probably call a bet with an overpair anyway.
Sammy bet away if you have some guy looking for the miracle I'd encourage him to call my nut hand.
You can never go wrong capping with the nuts.
hmmm...I question the call on the flop. This is a raise or fold situation. I would likely have folded.
Note that your position is terrible here even though you have the button.
skp - how do you figure his position is not good on the button. Are you suggesting cuz the others act 1st it gives them an advantage.
The importance of the button is obvious: You act last and therefore have more information to act with than anyone else.
However, this advantage is often neutralized in multiway pots when the pot is raised preflop and particularly when it is raised by the player to the immediate right of the button. This is because in many games (and I imagine that this is particualrly true in low limit games), the tendency is to check to the preflop raiser and the preflop raiser to bet automatically. Thus, what you have here are Sammy's 6 opponents all on auto-pilot on the flop. The first 5 check. The man to Sammy's right bets. Sammy on the button has gained NO information whatsoever. He could have gone for a snooze, wake up and still guess with 99% accuracy how the betting went on the flop.
On the flop, Sammy has to be thinking this:
1. Does the bettor have an overpair?
2. Do one of the bushwhackers have a 4? Do one of them have an 8 with a better kicker than mine?
And Sammy can't know the answers because the boys are on auto-pilot. Sammy's position here on the flop is not much different than say if he was on the bb and sb bet. He can't have any real idea what the others behind him will do.
Just too speculative here. I would fold. I definitely would not just call. I might raise.
The button is not the be all and end all of position. What matters more is your position in relation to the probable bettor on that round of betting.
For example, if UTG raised and you called in a multiway pot with say 77, the best position for you to be in may be the Big Blind!
skp, please remember this 5-10 not 20-40. The bettors could easily have suited overcards for their raise and betting as easily as a pair of tens or sixes for that matter. Not to even call 1 bet with top pair seems a bit conservative.
Of course, the fact that this is a low limit game also increases the exact dangers that skp refers to. These players could easily have called with J8o or 47s, both of which you are drawing very thin to beat. And remember that the 44 on board reduces your outs if an opponent has an overpair, since two pair is not going to cut it.
For one, I think the raise was correct- it's just unfortunate they both folded. Depending on the game, I would guess that many players would call with a 4, or even an overpair in some cases. Sorry to be picky, but you do not have the nuts here. You will split the pot with the other 8, and lose to pocket 4's.
Mike
just calling the flop is a mistake ,the pre-flop raiser is likely to have overcards and with a paired rag flop it is an automatic bet for a preflop raiser with over cards to bet the flop. by you just calling you have no information of where you are at in the hand and you let the rest of the field in cheaply for a flop bet with overcards and draws. by you just calling you are not protecting a hand that needs alot of protection against a large field.If their is an overpair in the hand ,you will find out only by raising the flop and seeing if youre reraised or called. when called by someone other than the preflop raiser you can check the turn since you have the button if checked to you and draw for free to your miracle 8 because when a player is calling 2 bets cold the only possible hand he can have is an overpair ,trips or an 8(you will have kicker problems). If you didnt get the 8 on the turn and someone bets into you after your flop raise you can be pretty sure you are beat and save bets and muck .if you didnt raise the flop and the 8 didnt come and 2 rags came out on the turn and river instead you could be paying off an overpair or trips by calling till the end not sure where you were at in the hand. A hand like yours is very fragile on the flop,raise the flop,limit the field and gain info on the cheap street to save you money on the expensive streets.
What you say makes a lot of sense and if I was at a $10-$20 table where people bet and raise on cards and not on ego and bluster, I think it would have a shot. Where I play, AKs on a three flush would reraise a cheap bet just for fun because how often will he be sitting with AKs. He's there to play, just like the guys who split 3s against the dealer's ten playing green chips. So a raise might cost me more money and gain nothing. If it is so important sometimes to see a free card, why is it so terrible sometimes to see the turn card as cheaply as possible?
In 21C Ed, the authors state that when there's a pair on board, you need "somewhat" better pot odds to stay with a draw. They also say that it makes a difference what the pair and off-card are.
My question is, what do they mean by "somewhat"? If a full-house is unlikely judging from the pair and off-card, do you simply take one flush card away when calculating odds?
I was in a 20-40 game in California. There is one weak player who's fairly passive. When he turns over his hand, you can't help but wonder how he gets there, or misses a raise. After a little while, I concluded that it's simply impossible to put him on a hand. Let me just call him Willie.
This weak player limps in late position, and small blind calls. I look at 7d-8d in the big blind. The small blind is decent, aggressive player. Let me just call him Sammy.
The flop is Kd-6s-3d, giving me a flush draw. Sammy bets out. I thought about folding. If Sammy has a king, then the effective odds does not justify calling. Sammy plays good enough not to give me a free card if I raise on the flop. Additionally, I don't know if Willie's going to raise. However, I do have a back-door flush draw, which should change the odds somewhat to favor calling. Willie calls out of turn, and I quickly call as well. I feel the call is a very close decision either way.
The turn is Kc. Sammy bets again. There are 8 small bets in the pot, and if I make my hand and it is good, I can probably extract at most one more bet from Sammy. But Sammy is in the small blind, and I cannot bet/raise with confidence should I complete the flush. However, Willie is likely to call the turn, and possibly the river. I feel that the decision has to be close either way. I basically flipped a coin and decided to call.
To my surprise, Willie raised. Sammy called with no hesitation. There are 8 big bets in the pot. For sure, Willie has a king. I don't think it likely that Sammy also has a king. I don't think he'd call with another pair. His most likely holding is a flush draw. If he does, then I'm in deep trouble. Not only does his holding reduce my outs, also there are not many flush draws I can beat even if I make my hand. I fold my hand.
The river is a diamond.
Should I call on the flop? Should I call the first bet on the turn? Should I call the raise on the turn?
I have asked a few friends, and have got very different opinions.
Since, you're in the BB you have no choice but to see the flop. On the flop you are getting 3:1 so a call is fine, but I would fold on the turn after the SB bet in this situation. You need to consider that you are out of position and can get trapped for multiple bets.
Let's look at the odds. After the flop betting you're getting 3:1 ($120 of which $40 is yours). On the turn the SB bets $40 (now there is $160 in the pot and if you call you would have contributed a total of $80). Assuming that you do not get trapped you still can not make the call because you would be getting only 2:1 at this point, and your odds of making the flush are approximately 4:1.
What if there were more players and you were getting the correct odds? Then you must consider the reverse implied odds.
Learning this game in the info age is a big advantage,however there are times when the info is contradictory.In HDAP it says 'Suited is a huge advantage'makes sense to me.Down below Rounder states'forget suited it only adds 3-4% focus on Rank.Lets say you are in the SB,6 players call pre-flop,from my perspective,a hand like A8suited is an easy play ,you are drawing to the nut flush,if not suited I muck.Now a more complicated hand K8suited,even if you hit you may be dead,I had this hand recently,2 of my suit come on flop,I come out betting,catch flush on turn,after more betting get to look at Ace,is there long term value in betting lower rank suited or am I just adding to my fluctuation?
It is very important to be suited.
IMO, Rounder assumes that the value of being suited kicks in only when you go on to make a flush. This is incorrect.
Being suited improves your chances of making some other hand on the river ie. other than the flush. An easy illustration of the importance of being suited is this one:
The cards arrive in this order: 8c7c3sJsAh
If you won the pot with an Ace on this one, it is probably because you were suited in clubs or spades to begin with.
Here's another example:
Suppose the flop is AcJd3s.
Suppose further that the River card is destined to be a Jack.
You can see how a hand like QcJc with a backdoor flush draw is therefore much better than a hand like QcJh. If the turn card is a club, you may be able to withstand a lot of heat on the turn and be able to stick around to meet your destiny. With the second hand, you are a goner (if not on the flop at least on the turn) if there is any kind of action and you lose out on your opportunity to make your trips.
In other words, being suited makes it more likely that you will pick up a pot in a "goofy" way i.e. spiking trips, hitting a gutshot etc. Being suited may allow you two chances to hit the classic 5 outer i.e. two pair/ trips draw.
This is also a reason why you should always be on the lookout for a backdoor flush draw opportunity. Its presence can turn an easy fold on the flop into an easy call. Thus, in the example above, you may find that you have an easy fold on the flop if the Ace had been the Ah instead of the Ac.
I see said the blind man.
No I don't see your point. Why don't you just play all ramdom cards you'll pick up alot of goofey river cards then.
skp - you are usually a clear thinker but here I think you might be guilty of fuzzy thinking.
BTW - I have a totally different feeling about Axs.
I don't know Rounder, I kinda liked skp's post.
Perhaps the exact degree of how much better the suited hand is can be debated, but skp does make a valid point. Backdoor flush and straight draws are long shots, but may occasionally make enough of a difference to sway otherwise close decisions. Plus a full fledged flush draw can in fact result in an accidental win from time to time. Face it, virtually NO ONE folds a flush draw (even good players) without having a REAL scary board.
I believe the player must simply keep in perspective what the TRUE value of his hand is and whether or not any flush possibilities are REALLY significant or not.
Dave in Cali
Dave,
I don't differ with you on this I just don't play suited cards BECAUSE their suited. I play the ranks and if the 4 flush comes I'll draw - I just avoid drawing situations in bad position it has worked for me and I am just passing it along.
skp said "It is very important to be suited.... being suited makes it more likely that you will pick up a pot in a "goofy" way."
scott says "yup."
scott
I think HEPAP says the suited aspect of big cards is a real advantge. I was reading it on the plane this weekend and have to reread alot of it.
I think I qualified Axs in a post below and think AXs in mid to late position is a good play - there are so many wayr to flop a monster with this hand and I like to play is heads up or in a multi way pot.
The problem with suited hole cards is 2 fold.
Without the A you are 20 to 1 to end up with a winning hand and without the A you are a 25 to 1 dog for a flush WIN.
The other problem with giving suited to much value is if you don't flop a 4 flush your stuck with a tough desision - do you play a pair no kicker or do you start looking for longshot draws like runner runner straights and flushes. What usually ends up happening is you waste a couple of bets on longshots and if your lucky you can get out on the turn.
Here is a worse problem - say you do flop a flush and your holding something like a T8s - now your holding your breath and hoping the 4th of the suit doesn't fall on the turn - we have all been there you get a miracle flop and you are more vulnerable than before the flop.
Now everyone with a decent card in that suit are dwawing if the 4th hits the board your more than likley dead.
Naw - I'll play the ranks and consider suited a "small" bonus - I like it better that way and it keeps me out of trouble. I'll leave the marginal hands in marginal position to the marginal players.
Rounder writes:
The problem with suited hole cards is 2 fold.
Without the A you are 20 to 1 to end up with a winning hand and without the A you are a 25 to 1 dog for a flush WIN.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say but what you wrote, taken literally, is incorrect by a wide margin.
Should read:
With the A you are 20 to 1 to end up with a winning hand and without the A you are a 25 to 1 dog for a flush WIN.
Sorry for the typo.
Now you can tear it apart.
Actually, I didn't notice the typo.
Obviously, the odds against a player winning with Axs or Xxs from flop to finish depends chiefly on how many opponents he has and the sort of hands they play.
But under any set of conditions these hands fare much better than 2 random cards, meaning that they can almost never be 20-1 or 25-1 underdogs in a 10-handed game. One must stack the deck to get these hands to perform this badly.
You don't understand me.
If you have 2 suited cards pre flop it is 25 to 1 that this hand will develop a flush that will win and if your 2 cards contain an A the odds drop to 20 to 1.
If you think about the number of times the suited cards cost you bets - and you played them just because they were suited I think I have a really valid point so reduce the number of hands you play because you happen to get 2 cards of the same suit. It happens 25% of the time - and I won't play them unless I'd play the ranks in that position.
Suited cards are severly overrated by most players and I think alot of players would be bets ahead if didn't over value these hands.
Ahh, now I see, you were referring to the odds against them winning with just a flush and not just winning overall.
But apart from being impossible to determine empircally (no one can measure or say with precision how "often" a flush wins), your numbers seem way too low. In a cold simulation, for example, T8 beats 4 other players about 20% of the time. T8s beats them 24% of the time, a 20% improvement. Now while we all know the limits to such simulations, surely the difference can't be explained by a 3.8% (25-1) difference (actually closer to a 3% difference, as the T8o can still make a flush).
So where did you get your numbers?
Wait a minute. That's it, isn't it? You're looking at cold simulations and concluding that because the winning percentages between something like 89o and 89s differ by about 4%, that the suited factor lets you win by an additional factor of only about 25-1.
But winning percentages in cold simulations don't correlate to hand value, which should be what we're trying to get at. The difference in value between these hands is much greater than cold simulations indicate. First, a flush is much stronger than most of the hands with which unsuited cards will win. You can bet it more confidently and get more action from better second-best hands. Second, the flush potential allows suited cards to proceed further and realize more of their potential, a factor that increases as the ranks of the cards increase. You can spike more hands on the end because the flush draw justified your being there.
Of course, the difference in value doesn't automatically make suited cards profitable. It does mean, however, that there are probably situations where suited connectors will show a decent profit where their unsuited counterparts will show a loss. Assuming one can identify these situations, folding suited cards in them is simply the mirror strategy to calling with unsuited cards. Both cases amount to handing money to one's opponents.
Chris,
The chance of making a flush with two suited hole cards is 16-1 assuming you draw out on the 3 flush scenario.
The odds for winning with that flush is 20 - 1 if your hole cards contain an A and 25 - 1 if it doesn't.
The 16-1 is a math calculation and I wish I could remember the the other odds but since I am interested in the suited thing the numbers stuck with me and make sense to me.
The suited aspect of your hand adds only 3-4% to your potential - this number is pretty well accepted by most poker authors and I just don't think that small edge is eneough to sway me to play the hand unless the ranks are worth playing in the position I am in.
I highly recommend re-thinking the playing suited cards out of position and if the ranks are not worth a bet.
I believe you will save a lot of bets and increase your hourly rate.
But that is just me.
"The suited aspect of your hand adds only 3-4% to your potential - this number is pretty well accepted by most poker authors"
If they're referring to limit hold 'em they're just wrong. I still think the you have to be confusing winning pots without betting with hand value, and that this flaw is so incorrect and prevalent that it merits some dead horse flogging. A suited 98, though weak, has a lot more "potential" -- if by that you mean dollars per hand -- than 98o, probably 30% or more in most games, not 3-4%. An A6s has so much more potential that it's profitable in most positions in a passive game while A6o is merely junk. I'll grant you these hands can be tricky, but ignoring their value is just slightly less terrible than overplaying them.
David Sklansky might bear some responsibility here, and one should never avoid blaming him whenever possible. I recall a caveat in Hold 'em Poker about not overplaying suited cards accompanied by the statement that they're only 7% better. I have no idea how he derived that number (I suspect some average based on cold simlutions), but the new HPFAP rightfully points out that in loose games the benefits of being suited are huge.
The 3-4% number is clearly wrong. For one thing, you can't have a fixed advantage when the other value in the hand changes. For instance, do you think AKs is only 4-5% better than AK? If so, how about 72s vs 72o? Clearly, the flush component of the 72 hand adds much more value than it does for AK, since the rest of the hand is so weak. The number of players in the hand also makes a big difference.
I'm not a big fan of showdown poker simulations, but sometimes they are instructive. Looking at 'Percentage Holdem', Q8s will earn 294 units against five opponents. Q8o wins 115. This is assuming that everyone goes to the river. In real life, the difference between the suited and offsuit cards will be much greater, because the offsuit cards often have to fold and give up equity where the suited cards can continue to call.
As the cards get smaller, suitedness becomes more important. Against five opponents in showdown poker, 76s earns 115 units. 76o loses 67 units. But KQs earns 684 while KQo earns 527. Not nearly as much difference. And this makes complete sense. I think you can see that either way the difference is much more than 3-4%.
Again, real world poker favors the suited hand much more than these showdown poker examples.
I can't argue with you guys - I just wanted to put my strategy forward and say that suited cards are highly over valued by most players - the AK vs 72 example is a little rediculous as it is intended to discuss playable hands although alot of players woll play any 2 suited cards which is clearly a mistake.
I am stil of a mind to play the ranks and treat suited cards just the same as unsuited until the flop then I have someting to base my decisions on. I save so many bets in a given session that I'd be hurting my hourly rate if I played junk just cuz it is suited.
But that's just me.
If what you are saying is that ranks of cards are more important than being suited, I don't think that anyone would disagree with you. For example, a hand like KQ off is no doubt better than J8 suited under almost all conditions. In most games, KQ off is better than 98 suited (However, in some games, I will take 98 suited particularly if the pot is raised).
In other words, most junk hands will probably retain their junky character even if they are suited. But when you are talking about hands such as connectors and Ax there's a world of difference if you are suited. A8 off is junk. A8s can be a great hand in some games and is probably playable in most games if there is no raise. 76 off is a weak hand and probably ought to be mucked in any game. 76 suited can be a very playable hand in many games.
Even hands like AK (which are playable whether suited or not) are much better when suited. AK suited can let you win with an Ace on the river when AK off might not.
I put AXs way up on my list of hands I like to play for so many reasons - when I hardley give KXs an extra look. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on the benefits of suited cards - A lot of you guys seem t like them cuz they keep you in a hand so you can hit some other kind of combo - that is not the way I like to play poker. I play a lot less hands than most but when I play a hand it is intended to win a high % of the time. Just different strokes.
I'm the single blind with Q7o in 3-6 CA. Eight players see the flop, 77Q (2d's), for a single bet. I contemplate check-raising while I check my cards to make sure I've got what I think I've got. Then I bet. Guy to my left calls. Everyone else folds except for guy 2 off the button who raises. I re-raise, first caller folds. Raiser calls. Turn is a blank. I bet, he calls. River is a d. I bet, he raises. I re-raise. He had A7d. I take it down.
Question is:
Did I play this hand properly? I mean I'm trying to win as much as possible on the pots I drag. And building a pot means you risk someone out-drawing you. So how confident should I be on the flop with 8 players in? I think a check-raise probably would have been more profitable -- but may be it would have cost me the hand.
Thanks.
I believe you played properly. With 8 players in and an open pair on board you will probably get played with and even raised allowing you to re-raise. Who knows if a check-raise would be more profitable? If it gets checked around, you have definitely missed a lick. Keep in mind that players will normally call with many more hands than they will bet with themselves. Suppose you check, a few other players check, then someone bets, you raise, and everyone folds to the bettor who calls? So maybe you get 1 extra bet from the bettor. But suppose you bet, several players call, then someone raises, and you re-raise and everyone folds but the raiser who calls. Now you have collected some extra bets from guys who called your bet between you and the raiser. I think you are better off betting your good hands when the field is large like this especially when the flop has open pairs, two flushes, or two straights.
which two on the flop were diamonds? not one of the 7's surely, for the 7d was in the opp's hand. hmmm.
anyway, i like your bet on the flop. your flop reraise is ok. but maybe call, then bet the turn. this will trap the guy on your left for 1.5bb and the button is more likely to raise you on the turn. if he does raise you on the turn, reraising here is ok. the guy has already committed one bet and wants to see the river card. and now that the pot has gotten big him folding is good, too. that is two less outs the field has against you.
scott
Yeah, good point on the diamonds. He must of made the runner runner flush. I know he had a flush and that's why he raised on the river.
I was worried about pocket queens throughout the entire hand. The guy who stayed to the river flopped trip 7's and had a backdoor flush (as you pointed out must be the case). If other players had stayed in a little longer, I would have assumed someone had a queen which would have made pocket queens impossible. But everyone folded except for two and that made me worried.
It's true, I'd much rather everyone fold when the pot got a little big. Watching him flip those cards over and being worried about QQ wasn't fun. A7 was good. I'm also glad an A didn't come on the turn or river - his Fhouse would have been bigger.
I just wish all this analysis was on the tip of my brain when I play so that I could pay attention to my opponents more! I guess it'll come in time.
Thanks,
-Michael
I ended up going to Reno for the weekend, played about 5 hours Saturday in a 4-8 game. I'm on the button in seat #9 with pocket 9's. Seat #2 (Loose Agressive) calls, Seat #3 (Tilting) raises. Seat #4 (Loose Passive) calls, Seat #5 (Loose Passive) calls, Seat #8 (Loose Agressive) calls. I reraise to get out the noise. Small blind calls, big blind folds, #2 calls, #3 reraises, #4 folds, #5 folds, #8 calls, I call, #2 calls, #3 calls. 5 players left, flop is 7-8-T rainbow. Small blind checks, #2 bets, #3 calls, #8 calls, I raise with the open ended straight. Everyone calls. About $120 in the pot, still 5 players. Turn is a 6. Small blind checks, #2 bets, #3 calls, #8 raises. I reraise, small blind folds, #2 and #3 muck, #8 calls. Heads up on the river, K shows. He bets. I call. He turns over 9-J for the nuts and collects ~$200.
My questions are, (1) should I have stayed in preflop, (2) could I have done anything better to discover he had flopped the nuts, and (3) was it right for me to call due to the size of the pot?
First of all your re-raise with pocket Nines even on the button against a lot of opponents in a raised pot is not a good idea. You need a much stronger hand to 3 bet a legitimate raise. The raiser could easily have a bigger pair than you which makes you a huge dog and even if he doesn't you are only a small favorite over AK or AQ plus it could get raised again costing you four bets to see a flop. Even though the raiser may have insufficient values you have to consider what all these other players are staying on plus these guys raise on their good hands as well as their weak ones. I normally fold pocket Nines or less when faced with a legitimate raise but I think with Nines it is borderline so a call on the button might have been acceptable. You will probably need to flop a set to have a decent chance of winning against this large a field.
On the flop, your raise is bad. With the Ten over card your hand is probably not any good against this many opponents and all you have is a draw. Keep in mind that if anyone has a Nine, your equity gets cut in half since they end up with the same straight you do so you only win half. I would feel a lot better about your raise if the flop were 8-7-6 because your pair of Nines is an over pair with some immediate value.
You have to call on the end and pay off to Jack-Nine. Folding at this point would be terrible poker.
Jim, I'm not saying that the raise was justified, but this reminds me of scott's point that raising before the flop with a middling pair against a huge crowd is justifiable because it builds a big pot for people to pay you off when you hit trips on the flop, who will stay in all the way down. Of course, his post-flop play had its faults too, but I think raising has its merits.
alex
I think it's also important to note that when you raise in this position and get callers, it increases their odds on the flop and turn for their draws. If 4 people put in 3 bets instead of two preflop, it can make your gutshot straight draw on the flop actually correct to chase.
Mike
it would be less correct if they knew you had a set. anyway, gutshots will come with just 2 bets preflop. the real point of this raise is to get people to call with overcards, as they are drawing dead to your set. and backdoor straights and flushes are welcome flop calls, even though they do beat you sometimes.
scott
Many of us on this forum have had a very lively debate going on over the past several months about the merits of playing in 3-bet and even capped pots with middle and small pairs as well as suited connectors. Scott has been a strong advocate of paying 3 or 4 bets pre-flop with these hands if you have a lot of opponents (e.g.- 7 or 8). His theory is that when you hit, the pot you win is that much bigger and you are more likely to get a lot of action post flop. I don't agree with this. I think the money you lose pre-flop over the course of year significantly outweighs the pot you win the few times you hit. I would also point out that the more opponents you have the less likely your set or your straight or your non-nut flush is going to even hold up. These hands can show a profit if you can get in cheaply or maybe not have to pay more than 2 bets in some cases. But the profitability of these hands is lost if you are routinely spending multiple bets and raises to see a flop regardless of how many opponents you have.
From the above post do you recommend only raising preflop under the following conditions
1) For Value with AA, KK, QQ, AKs in almost any position
2) to thin the field, AQ, AK,
3) for deception: suited connectors on button. ATo mid position first one in, and such
Thanks, SammyB
I would re-raise with AA,KK,QQ,AK suited. I would call a raise with JJ,TT,AK offsuit, AQ suited,AQ offsuit, AJ suited, and KQ suited. I will also raise with these hands if no one else has raised but others have just limped in. I normally fold when facing a legitimate raise holding KQ offsuit, AJ offsuit, and 99. If I am in middle position and everyone has folded to me then I will open with a raise having AJ offsuit, KQ offsuit, AT,KJ, and 99. If someone else limps in ahead of me than I just call with these hands.
Being on the button doesn't change a calling hand into a raising hand when players come in ahead of you. I do see good players occasionally throwing in raises on the button with suited connectors when many players limp in. I view this as an "action play" that increases your variance but does very little for your expectation.
I would call a raise with JJ,TT,AK offsuit, AQ suited,AQ offsuit, AJ suited, and KQ suited.
Assuming we're talking about a tight early position raise, I would much rather call with 99 than AQo. Calling tight raises with AQo can only get a player into trouble, because you're almost certainly up against a pair or AK. *Maybe* the raiser has AJ but that's pushing it. 99 may be drawing thin to a higher pair, but at least when you flop a set you'll usually be pretty certain it's good, and 99 can take multiway action; with AQo, you'll rarely know where you're at and it doesn't play well multiway. If I expect a multiway pot, I'll probably call with AQs, and maybe AJs/KQs, but the last 2 are close. I won't fault you for folding 99, but I think calling a tight raise with AQo is a really bad idea.
As an aside, I tend to 3-bet a raiser more often with AKo than AKs. While that might seem counterintuitive, AKs plays better multiway so I'd rather thin the field with AKo. (That's assuming no one else is in yet, if there are several cold callers, I'd rather 3-bet with AKs.)
-Sean
You are correct Sean, AQ offsuit should be a problem hand against an early raiser. But for some reason I find that it plays better for me than I would expect. If a Queen flops I can beat AK, JJ,TT, KQ suited, AJ suited etc. which are hands that early players raise with. If an Ace flops it beats KK, QQ,JJ,TT, KQ suited, and AJ suited. I also find that some early position players raise with KJ suited, AT suited, 99, and even QJ suited. AQ also performs well here.
With regard to re-raising with AK offsuit, I sometimes do this if I notice that the raiser does not have full values for his raise (e.g.-raises early with KQ offsuit, AJ offsuit, AT suited and unsuited, 88, etc.). I like re-raising with big slick if I think I can effectively isolate the weak raiser.
My main problem with calling a raise with AQo is that it can get expensive to find out whether or not your kicker is good when an ace flops, especially if your opponent will get frisky with any top pair, and you can't necessarily fold because he/she might have AQ or even AJ. Against this type of player, I'd rather just wait for AK and punish them then. Against the looser raises, or the very predictable or weak-tight, AQo isn't too bad.
You mentioned in one of the other posts in this thread that you tend to only 3-bet a tight early raise with AA-QQ, AKs. Do you actually get action when you 3-bet with these hands? I agree that these are probably the only hands with which you can profitably 3-bet such a raise, but that 3-bet gives away so much information that I tend to just always call, especially since these hands all play fine multiway.
-Sean
Yes, I do and I really don't understand why. For some reason the guys that play hold-em even at the $20-$40 level are basically gamblers who will pay to see a flop and then even when they know they are probably beat on the flop they will still hang there hoping for a miracle card because the pot is large. This is why I prefer hold-em to stud. Stud players at the $15-$30 and $20-$40 level don't make these kinds of mistakes as often.
the second raise does less to tie people in than the first raise. that said, your raise is being called in 7 places (assuming one blind calls, which is what happened). i do not believe that the hands this tied in raise beat your set very often. the set will be beat, but those draws would come already. i think that the raise hurts your chances of your set holding up by less than 5%. so if you feel the tie in will get you at least another 6 sb or so, it is a good raise. but if i did not know my opp to be at least somewhat susceptible to the tie in effect, i would want a substantial chance of getting a free turn to raise here.
Even though the raiser may have insufficient values you have to consider what all these other players are staying on plus these guys raise on their good hands as well as their weak ones.
Sure, but remember that this is 4-8. There are plenty of players at these limits who will play preflop regardless of how many bets it is to them. While the tilting player or one of the cold callers could have a bigger pair, there is still a very good chance 99 is the best hand, and even if it's not, you still have an 8:1 shot at flopping a set. A reraise preflop holds little chance of driving people out, but when you hold 99, you'd love for people to pay multiple bets with J9 and the other weak hands. The way I look at it is that 99 will probably win against this field more than 1 time in 6, so I'm glad to play it for multiple bets. You can make a case that calling is better than re-raising with that size field, and in fact I would call more often than I would re-raise here, but I think this is a mandatory play preflop in a typical 4-8 game.
To the original poster, I think that an open ended straight draw with 3 on board is too weak to jam because you're playing for a split pot too often. With so many aggressive players in the hand and the board connected like that (making many 2 pair hands possible), you have little chance of getting a free card. I would often simply call on the turn because at this point I'm either way ahead or drawing dead. I'd like to drive out 2 pair hands that could improve to a full house, but if two bets won't drive them out, three bets won't necessarily do the trick, and they're still drawing to only 4 outs as it is. Often a raise here will drive out everybody but someone holding another 9 and you're playing for a split pot.
-Sean
Sean you may be right in a $4-$8 game cold-calling a raise with 99. I actually think it is a borderline play. 88 is a clear fold and TT is a clear call. I usually fold 99 in $15-$30 and $20-$40.
Thanks to all who replied, the raise preflop was to try to get as much noise out, at the time 7 players usually limped into the flop even with one or two raises, and #3 was definitely praying. Unfortunately it didn't help me to get the 9-J offsuit out of seeing a flop, and I didn't get a good grasp of just how many possibilities for a split pot as well.
#2 actually held a pair of Jacks and #10 (Small Blind) held big slick, which I had reasonable reads of overpair and overcards on that at the flop that prompted my raise thinking I should attempt to narrow the field to strengthen my outs.
I think pocket 9's are good enough to play here. There is enough money in the pot that you can go for flopping a set, which is where most of your wins will be. Of course this depends on how loose the game is after the flop. You need to count on a fair amount of action after you flop your set to make it worthwhile. I'm judging by the description of the game that you will likely get it.
If you are going to play, then raising is reasonable, but I do not think it is essential. The benefit is that you could knock out overcards, then if an overcard comes on the flop AND it is checked to you, you can try to pick up the pot with a bet. However, this combination of events is not going to happen very often in a loose game, so just calling, and forgoing this bluff equity is okay.
#8 played the same way he would have played if he had a set. I would have thought this to be his most likely hand when he raised on the turn. He should have re-raised again on the turn. If he was going to just call, then he should have been going for a check-raise on the end. I don't see any justification for being sneaky here. He should have figured that if you would 3-bet the turn, then you would call to the end no matter what.
Since he is more likely to have a set than J-9, it's an easy call on the end.
Steve
I play the hand preflop but I don't reraise.
Your raise on the flop is OK with me - hoping to buy a free turn card. I wouldn't think I have the best hand. When the 6 hits on the turn and an early bettor leads into the pot, I would assume there is more than one 9 involved in the hand.
Now the question is should you raise on the turn? I would to punish all of none made hands drawing against you. I'm surprised seat #8 didn't reraise. Either way, you have to call on the end when he bets.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this hand. You got an unlucky flop and then caught the only card that will cost you 3 big bets.
I play the hand preflop but I don't reraise.
Your raise on the flop is OK with me - hoping to buy a free turn card. I wouldn't think I have the best hand. When the 6 hits on the turn and an early bettor leads into the pot, I would assume there is more than one 9 involved in the hand.
Now the question is should you raise on the turn? I would to punish all of none made hands drawing against you. I'm surprised seat #8 didn't reraise. Either way, you have to call on the end when he bets.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this hand. You got an unlucky flop and then caught the only card that will cost you 3 big bets.
Yes to 1 No to 2 Yes to 3
6-12 HE. I am in middle position with JdQd and limp after a couple limpers. Button raises, both blinds call, 6 players see the flop.
Flop is 8 2 3 rainbow (no diamonds). checked to me, I check. Goes around to the button who I can't believe checks! still 6 players.
Turn is a 9s, two flush in spades. Again it is checked to me. I decide to try a bluff to get out some dead weight and perhaps win it right here. This table has been pretty passive and most will probably fold if they don't have a piece of the flop. In reality I am really making a weak semi-bluff with two overcards, but it is possible a queen or jack might win it for me on the end. I bet when it gets to me and get two callers, the button and the BB. I am concerned that BB may be a calling station (with a 2, 3, or 8 in his hand) but is just not willing to bet.
River is 9d. Now I think it is a total no-brainer to bluff on the end. I had just bet (hopefully representing a nine). It now appears that I have caught runner-runner nines for trips. I bet and button folds muttering "big slick" (go figure how he played it! Bet the flop and I am gone!). BB thinks about it then folds. I never saw his cards but I'm pretty sure he folded the winner!
I think my turn bet was questionable as there were probably too many people in the pot and I was too likely to be called. Not a strong enough semi-bluff. Whatever, hindsight and all that yadayada.
I think my river bet was automatic. I was almost certain as I put the chips in the pot that my bluff would be successful.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Dave it is your civic duty to pick up pots that no one wants. Even though this is a raised pot, when everyone checks the flop and then checks to you on the turn it is good poker for you to bet. You could win the pot outright and you have outs when you are called. In these situations, the first guy to bet has the advantage. Your river bet is automatic. Good play.
two overcards and a gutshot is a strong semibluff. good bet on the turn.
scott
Dave,
The turn bet had to be at least marginally correct but I agree with all above that the river bet is automatic.
This kind of play occurs on the flop, especially when there is no pre flop raise. You bet a draw from early position into a medium size pot and get two or three callers. When the top card pairs, the bet is almost automatic. I do believe this play works best with top cards that are in the upper middle range. It is too easy for ace-rag, king-rag, and even queen-rag to call you down when the top card is one of these three. With very small flops, your opponents tend not to believe you could have top pair, unless you bet out of the blinds.
Regards,
Rick
I'm surprised that three knowledgable players agreed with the bet on the turn. If there were less players I can see this as the correct play and one I make all the time with less than overcards and a gutshot but with six other players I don't see myself making this play especially with a board containing 89 which works well with a lot of different hands and two spades, you have to exoect callers at this point. After the play on the turn I can see following through on the end but I would not make the bet on the turn. Just my opinion.
I like the play, Dave. Ideally, you would want one or two less opponents, but if I read your post correctly, there was only the button raiser to act after you and after no one bets the flop or turn, I think it is well worth your while to take a shot at the pot. I agree with you that the BB no doubt had you beat, but in this case being aggressive paid off for you. I also agree that after getting two callers on the turn, betting the river is absolutely mandatory. You aren't winning any showdowns.
River bluff is a no brainer. For the reasons already given by the others (and I appreciate Atwood's point), I do think that the turn bet is also a good one.
However, I am surprised that you are surprised that button checked the flop. With AK and 6 players, it is generally a better play for the button to just take the free card. Sometimes, it can pay to take a stab at the flop, knock off a couple of players and then take the free card on the turn if you still fail to improve and everyone checks to you. However, more often than not, some guy is going to raise you. It is pretty tough for an unpaired flop to miss everybody. Change the flop to 833 and AK has an easy bet on the flop.
Wondering if anyone can give me some pointers on how to vary my game. I have studied Lee Jones book and if anyone at the table knows this is how I am playing then I would be at a major disadvantage. Is there any good reading anyone can suggest that covers varying ones play ? Any good articles you can remember on the news groups ? Any personal experience that you find works well and you could share ? It just seems that when I'm playing it must seem pretty predictable what it is that I'm doing .Thanks for any help . Peter James.
In HPFAP, the authors give some examples about how to vary your play. For example, they advise to occasionally raise in early position with Ten-Nine suited. I recommend reading HPFAP-New Edition for other examples.
Now all that being said, in a casino or public cardroom with a constant changeout of players, the need for varying your play is greatly diminished over playing in a home game week in and week out against the same lineup of players. Keep in mind that for someone to realize that you have varied your play, you have to go all the way to the river and end up showing your hand. This is very unlikely to happen. In most cases when you vary your play, no one will ever know.
Jim,
Very good point. Varying ones play means very little against the constantly changing cast of characters one runs into in Los Angeles. When you move up in limits (40/80 or better), things change.
Note that some posters tend to emphasize making plays to throw their opponents off. Most of these players tend to play in smaller cardrooms against regular opponents. If you are a rounder (not the "Rounder") with a large selection of games, it isn't that important.
Regards,
Rick
In fact, low-limit mentality players are very aware when they perceive you to play loose, and varying your play will cause them to perceive you as loose or at least as tricky. In either event, you've got callers… ad nauseam. There is an overriding factor. That is, if they are running poorly or you are running particularly strong, your play style will be a secondary concern. Raising with suited connectors early in a tight game is done to cause your opponents to make mistakes not only immediately but also on future hands. In a loose game, raising for value preflop and on later streets will create enough skepticism to have them for nearly every bet and raise. In other words, they look for reasons to call. However, it is a common misconception that loose players never fold a hand and cannot be bluffed.
The funny thing is that people, especially suckers will think that your playing style is characteristic with what Mike Caro tells them what to think. Conservative demeanor implies conservative play. So, wear a clown hat. Reraise someone after shouting "ah, hah, now I've got you !!" People with so focus in on these crazy events that cost your a bb or less that they will miss the 99.9% other hands that you play the way you play.
Remember, if you're playing people who are tough enough to see past this, then you're playing the wrong people. So, all you have to do is wear an eye patch, and let a select few know "its just so people will THINK that i'm a pirate". Or you could talk like Adam Sandler in "The Waterboy". Or tell them that you are a Russian comunist who has gotten lost but has been looking for "seccrettt U.ESSE NUICLEEAR veeapons. "
hope this helps
Peter it is really easy to establish particular "table image" - If your a rock then make sure to advertise (show your hole cards) if you happen to play any junk and win even from the blinds - most players just remember you drew a straight with a 85o and forget you floped openended in an unraised blind.
Also on the button play some loose cards and don;t be afraid to show them. Win or lose.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the help, usefull and even a few laughs best of luck to you all
I'm taking a poll to help my strategy. Which of these situations make you feel best. Please rank the following situations in reverse order 5-1 (1 being the best). Someone else can run the "I feel bad - five worst feelings" poll.
Looking down to pocket aces, especially with the button in a loose aggressive game. "aces"
Making the nut flush on the turn in a large multi-way pot with an unpaired board. "flush"
Raising on the river with the absolute nuts, and then getting reraised. "River raise"
Bluffing someone to win a pot when you are certain you have the worst hand. "bluff"
Drawing out on an "axxhole" player when you should not be in the pot, rubbing it in and then putting him on tilt. (two-outers are the best for this). "bad beat"
I didn't include flopping quads, as it might have been the clear winner.
My order from best to worst is:
1. River Raise (better than sex)
2. Bluff (about equal to sex)
3. Flush (not as good as sex)
4. Aces (a distant fourth)
5. Bad Beat (a don't get a lot of pleasure sucking out on someone especially when I should not have been in the pot regardless of who they are)
This was an interesting exercise but I don't see how it will help your strategy. Good Luck!
It wont help with strategy, I just didn't want to get yelled at by Mason :)
Jim,
You wrote: "My order from best to worst is: 1. River Raise (better than sex) 2. Bluff (about equal to sex) 3. Flush (not as good as sex)"
Isn't this situationally dependent? For example, the kind of sex small caps scott probably has would rate below a small pair before the flop. On the other hand, great adult sex with the right person should be much better than a river raise with the nuts unless you are playing really big. Or so I would think.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Shoudn't you guys be busy trying to get that thing on Mars working? I'm noting your email address as I write this.
well, i love those small pairs.
scott
I'm more of a medium pairs guys myself. C cup is good.
Actually, the Mars problem is handled out of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena (near where you play Rick?). Here in Houston we worry about Shuttle missions and building the Space Station. We are have a quiescent period here in Houston until after the holidays and Y2K.
5. River Raise
4. Flush
3. Bluff
2. AA
1. BB
Rob will you post results?
1. River Raise
2. Flush
3. Bluff
4. AA
1. BB
Rob will you post results?
1. River Raise
2. Flush
3. Bluff
4. AA
5. BB
Rob will you post results?
I was 1/2 asleep on the 1st post.
I will post results. Hope to get at least ten responses. thanks
Rob,
Interesting question, I put $$$$$'s to denote my idea of the likely money won, which certainly effected my answer...
1. River raise - $$$$$ 2. Bluff -- $$$$ and the satisfaction of bluffing, but
probably less in the pot. 3. Bad beat -- $$$$, I would like this better, but
I shouldn't have been in the pot. The tilt part
makes up for it. 4. Flush -- $$$ 1/2 this isn't quite as nice, since
(a) People will run from this board, (b) Once in
a while someone will draw out the fh with 72o
and turn it into #3 above for *them*. 5. Aces -- $$, a nice hand, but loses too much.
I findly remember this giant rush at the Taj against
morons, then this guy sits down and breaks my
black AA's two hands running...
I feel like Michelin...but those are *s and forks...hehe
Mark
1. River Raise - Show me the money! 2. Flush - Just don't pair the board on the river. 3. Bluff - Can't have the nuts all the time. 4. Bad Beat - Don't get over excited, becaue what goae around, comes around. 5. Aces- Good start, just get me to the finish line.
1. Flush 1. AA 1. Raiser 1. Bluff
I love them all. It's like picking your favorite child. Though you sometimes lose w/ AA - the feeling of peeking down at those two cards is worth all the bad beats I've suffered with them.
Re. Bad Beat: In the long run I've found that these plays are self-defeating. Though I hate to lose, especially to an axx-hole, for me it brings up emotions I have tried to eliminate at the table.
I still do it from time to time - but only w/ a real a-hole and only to put him on tilt - and I never say a word.
How I try to and often do feel:
Looking down to pocket aces, especially with the button in a loose aggressive game. "aces"
3. Payday, ho-hum. Fair share time tempered by the need to avoid a mistake (less so when game is loose aggressive). Too busy thinking to enjoy myself.
Making the nut flush on the turn in a large multi-way pot with an unpaired board. "flush"
1. Good feel but preoccupied with figuring how to withdraw maximum load and seeing if I can spot 2-pairs, sets.
Raising on the river with the absolute nuts, and then getting reraised. "River raise"
2. But good feeling will hit only after the hand because I'm preoccupied with confirming the board and wondering if delaying will help and if so by how long or whether if I throw it out he'll get caught up in the momentum.
Bluffing someone to win a pot when you are certain you have the worst hand. "bluff"
4. Too busy trying to identify factors that made it work, usually a memory exercise. If I start to feel superior I've got a problem.
Drawing out on an "axxhole" player when you should not be in the pot, rubbing it in and then putting him on tilt. (two-outers are the best for this). "bad beat"
5. Here I've got a problem and am weighing that it might be time to take a walk or leave against the possibility of the bets flowing like lava. I'm trying to decide if something woke up my emotional side and whether I was so bad at ignoring it that I ended up in the pot. Or perhaps it was a simpler mistake and I'm okay. If I start to feel superior I've got a real problem.
1. River Raise 2. Flush (Multi-way is bad here, huh?) 3. Bluff (I'm yet to be that bold - but it sounds fun) 4. AA (Loose Aggressive is BAD!) 5. BB
Whenever I have the best hand (like nut flush at the turn or pocket AA), I like as many opponents as possible. Sure the board can pair filling someone up or the AA get beated, but in the long run........
5. aces
4. bluff
3. drawing out
2. raising the river
1. flush on the turn in multiway
The best of all time: the "axxhole" player has been begging to get it for some time now. A hated regular by many (also a very good player) finally loses it and says something to "axxhole" about his family. The "axxhole" slaps the regular and the regular hits him in the jaw. Both get kicked out for life. Unfortunately they both show up a few months later, but I enjoyed while it lasted.
Folding AA at the right time and saving a bet or two ranks right up there
Just to let everyone know, I am not a champion card player like the rest of you guys. I like to think of myself as an ok player and try to play by the numbers. But anyways, there are a bunch of us guys that get together enery weekend and play hold' em. Usually a 3/6 game. Two weekends in a row I have flopped 4 of a kind. Both times have been bb. First time I bet off the flop and everyone mucks. Second time I bet on the turn-everyone mucked that time as well. Is there any thoughts on how to bet properly not to scare everyone out?
Thanks guys
jas
Unfortunately very few of us have sufficient experience in flopping quads to give you any really definitive advice. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that you are supposed to check the flop and call any bets. On the turn, if the flop was checked, you are supposed to venture a bet at this point and just call any raises. On the river, you can take the gloves off and start betting and raising. But I really feel I need a lot more practice in this area. But how do I get it?
My thoughts exactly.
Actually, I've flopped Quads perhaps 10 times and this is how I think it over.
If its multiway I check for obvious reasons and check the turn as well if there is no flop bet - you want any runner-runner to hit someone - not to mention the outside chance of a jackpot - unless there is no jackpot where you play.
If the pot is short-handed, I'll bet it quickly like I'm on the steal, then check the turn if there are any callers. At that point, the other players are fairly positive that I don't have trips - let alone 4 of a kind - and lots of times they'll make a play at the pot.
I flopped 4 jacks a week ago in a 5 player 6-12 HE pot. I checked the flop, checked the turn to a player who picked up a flush draw - she bet and we all called. The river hits the flush and I bet out, there is a call and the flush raises me, there is a cold call to her left and a fold. I make it three bets, first caller folds and the two flushes call me.
I think I was lucky in that one of the players was just average and the other was like 90 years old.
For what it is worth.
I think that's all you can hope for is that someone hits on the turn or the river for, like you say a flush or full house. Thanks.
I remember the first time i flopped quads. It was my 2nd hand in the first pot limit game I ever played. I had $600 in front of me. I dont remember the details, but I was put all in on the turn. I remember one of the players having a full house and the other two at showdown had flushes. Naturally, these players didnt last that long and much tougher ones ended up taking their places.
There is nothing you can do if there is a big board and you bet into it on the turn or river - all you can do is hope your opponents have something to play with, if not, your just out of luck on this hand.
A thought - I picked up a couple of nice pots last night in Last Position some big boards came up and checked to me or limped to me and I bet or raised and got folds around. It works both ways.
Heaven is flopping (A T T flop) quad T's and having 3 opponents go all in before you have to act - This happened to me a month ago in a NL HE tourney.
That is almost the impossible dream-nice hand!!!
This one is almost as good.
Me being in blind position holding 95o(which I would never call on), but since nobody raised the blind I got to see the flop. Flop is 555. This may sound stupid but the guy to my left is holding AA(I can't believe he doesn't raise pre-flop, but this is the way it went). Everyone folds leaving just him and I heads up. This guy went off and I was paid off big.
That was a lucky one!!
If the paired cards on the board are the highest rank, it is usually hard to get any action. For example, if the board is AA4, KK4, QQ4,etc. If your board is 44A or 44K you will get a better payday.
2-5 spread limit game with 1 $2 Blind, I have the button with 67o. I limp in along with 2 others, and the blind. Flop is 7c7hQc loose player who plays evry hand he gets if the pot is not raised bets 5, I reraise 5 other two players fold. The turn is the Td, check to me I bet loose player calls. River is Ks The loose player now bets I just call thinking maybe he had K7 and just made a full house. He show's down two pair KT's. My question is was I wrong to put him on K7 without him reraising me on the flop. thx, I hope this makes sense
Pre-flop coming in even from the button with Seven-Six offsuit is probably not a good idea although it only costs you $2 in this single blind, spread limit game. I would feel better about your call if your hand was suited.
On the flop, you have Trips and raised $5 when bet into. This is correct. I would not slow play here. Of course you bet the turn when it is checked to you by your lone opponent. On the river you should raise when he bets into you. He is far more likely to have KQ or KT then K7. He is betting because he has two big pair and he thinks his hand is good. You should not assume that he has the case Seven when he just calls your raise on the flop and then check-calls to you on the turn. A raise on the river was clear.
As usual Jim a clear and articulate response - jsimilar mine so it must be good :-)
My only disagreement is if you can't call an unraied pot with 67 on the button (the only place I'd do it) when can you play connected med cards ?- in the blind unraised out of position?
Just a comment from a guy who has no respect for suited cards.
From the button I would want at least Ten-Nine offsuit. I would play Nine-Eight offsuit in an unraised pot from my small blind. I don't think I would ever pay money to see a flop with Eight-Seven offsuit or Seven-Six offsuit.
Jim your playing tighter than me in the later positions and looser in the sb where I will not play lower than 89 and rarely 1 gappers under QT at all - as you probably know I don't pay much attention to the suited aspect until after the flop.
Yes, you were wrong to fear K7, but not primarily because he didn't reraise but because he can bet a great many hands on the flop and would think that kings up would be worth a bet on the end. Also, muck 67o 4-handed on the button, even in $2-5. (If you play it at all, you need a couple of more players, a very weak lineup and a blind that never raises).
I would be a lot more worried about AJ than I would about K7.
Is this in Colorado? I swear I saw that hand on Saturday.
A Poker Guy!
Poker Guy,
Where in Colorado are you talking about?
I was at Cripple Creek .... Midnight Rose.
A Poker Guy!
I never knew a loose player who could resist raising with trips - he called you twice on flop and turn - you should have raised his river bet he would have called and you would have more money but it isn't the end of the world, not a critical error.
NO SOUP FOR YOU for 1 week!!!
:-)
Bael,
67o is a weak hand in such a small field. Your not going to get the odds required to play on. If 6 or 7 limped in then yes but just four is a bit low.
Best of it !!
MJ
A straight is not impossible. Look at his flop play. It's border line insane. A guy like this could easily show you the double runner str8. You did your best to tell him you've got a seven so what can he reasonably bet?
Lastly, 76o is a POS. Dump it pre-flop.
In a low limit game I usually put a player on top pair. My first guess would be KQ, QJ, QT, or sometimes any other card with a queen. Most players at this level do not bet out on trips on the flop. They wait till the turn to trap you. With his call on the turn I would say he still has the Q. When he bets out on the river I would definately think he has KQ. But, we can only make our best assumptions. But, since he just called on the turn, I would reraise on the river.
Greetings,
I am new to this site and found out about it from a post to the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup. I have been playing poker in the casinos for a little while now and find alot of the information on this site is very practical...hopefully I can contribute to the discussions as well in the future. For now, I have 2 easy questions about a couple of terms. I have checked the abbreviations link and they are not in there, and I have tried for weeks to figure out what they are by how they are used but I do not know for sure. Can someone please provide me these answers:
1) what is runner-runner? 2) what is a gutshot? 3) when someone is playing position (i.e. the button) does the only advantage here come from seeing all of the people ahead of you betting and thus gauging the strength of hands?
Thank you very much! --Rich
Runner-runner means a good card on the turn followed by a good card on the river. For example, suppose you have the Jack of Diamonds and the Nine of Diamonds. You see the flop which is: Six of Diamonds, Four of Spades, Deuce of Clubs. The turn is the Ace of Diamonds. The river is the Queen of Diamonds. Well, you just caught a runner-runner Diamond flush.
A gutshot usually refers to hitting an inside straight. For example you have the Queen of Clubs and the Eight of Spades. The flop is: King of Hearts, Ten of Diamonds, Deuce of Clubs. The turn is: Nine of Spades. Well, you just hit a guthshot straight on the turn.
Playing position usually means that you are the last to act which gives you an advantage because you get to see what everyone else does before you have to make a decision. Many players will play more hands from late position, like the button, because of this advantage.
i just wanted to add that jim's "many players" that play position includes all good players.
scott
thanks guys!
I forgot one... what is limping vs. calling?
Limping means just calling the blind bet or calling after others have called the blind bet. Limping takes place in the pre-flop betting round normally. Calling is the more general term that can be applied at any betting stage.
On the gutshot, make the King of Hearts the Jack of Hearts on the flop. Sorry about the mistake.
Many people claim that in no fold 'em games, position doesn't really matter much (or matters less) because you are going to get called and must show down the best hand to take the pot. Even if that is true (and I don't buy it), position is still huge because when you hit a good flop, it is much easier for you to double the pot with a raise when you are in late position. In early position, you may have to rely on a checkraise to do this and your well-intended check raise plans may fail if no one bets.
I agree totally. I should have mentioned that one, in fact that case happened to me just 2 nights ago. I had pocket Ks on the button, *everyone* SB around the table to me and I bump it...everyone calls. I get a K on the flop for trips (best other hand was mid 2-pair). So, exactly what you said, position surely allowed me to suck more money out of everybody. Good point!
--Rich
Hi,
Can some one give me an evaluation of Lee Jones' book Winning Low Limit Hold'em. I will be playing low limit 2-44-8 and 3-6 in Las Vegas next week. I recognize that it is not at the high level of SM (which I am reading) but as a novice I am looking for easy to remember guidance as I gain experience.
Also, specifically, he recommends that in middle position with 3 or fewer callers that you raise with AKs and call with QJs-JTs. What happened to KQs, or is this an oversight.
As always, thanks for the expert advice.
If you were playing in my hood, I'd strongly recommend you not read the book. But, since you'll be in Vegas I strongly recommend it. It's a very strong guide to winning.
Good cards to you.
I think the Lee Jones book is good for a beginning player who plays in low limit games. I would also recommend David Sklansky's book "Hold-em Poker" which he wrote before he and Mason Malmuth collaborated on the more advanced text "Hold-em Poker for Advanced Players". If you continue playing hold-em, you really need to move away from the Lee Jones book and get "Hold-em Poker for Advanced Players". This is the only hold-em book I have found that provides me with an in-depth understanding of how to play the game. The other books do not delve enough into the underlying concepts that are needed to make any decent money at hold-em.
King-Queen suited is a strange hand. I normally don't raise with it but I will call if someone else raises. This may seem contradictory but it works for me. I recommend that you just limp in with it and not raise but call if someone else raises ahead of you. The problem with King-Queen is that it gets badly dominated by someone raising with Ace-King or Ace-Queen. The suited aspect adds value to the hand. You should fold King-Queen offsuit if someone raises ahead of you from early position or middle position when others have limped in.
That is good advice, I also would advise playing all those off suit too.
And raise with AK from UTG, AK is such a good pre flop hand - I put it right with QQ in a ring game.
There are a few errata to Lee's book as I remember there was at least one place where a hand was left out. Personally I'd raise with KQs less then half the time in that situation if there were 2 callers in front of me but open-raise frequently.
I can't tell if your 2-44-8 was intended to be 2-4, 4-8 or 2-4-4-8 (which is probably not so inaccurate a name for 1-4-4-8). If it really is the spread limit game realize that you need to adjust your opening hand values. I believe Lee gives some advice in a chapter at the end of the book. Limp more often and raise to punish the drawing hands that would have pot odds in a structured equivalent. Be willing to limp-fold for one bet esp. if there is only a single $1 blind.
I bought the book, read it, and learned more than enough to pay for it with increased low limit poker profits. No book is perfect, but the vast majority will contain enough information of value to justify the money spent in acquisition. I have found value in reading many books, poker related and not. It is good to buy books about poker since it helps support the thinking that is a prerequisite to writing another. My entire poker library cost me less than $1,000. I've saved more than that simply by avoiding games that have people in them whose face matches the pictures on the back covers of books that I own.
Now, you have to watch out for those that read all the same books as you.
No, I'm still trying to figure out how to beat the clueless and the truly ignorant. I know I don't have any shot at being able to beat other literates.
Don't underestimate yourself. The clueless only seem hard to beat in the short run, but you will have the best of it in the long run.
I played in a hand the other day that I thought I'd share with you all, and ask you to check my math:
This is a 2/4 game in AC. I'm in late position and have 8h9h. With 4 callers, I call as well. Flop comes 8s9s4s. By the reaction of several players, it's obvious that there are a few flushes already made. First player bets, second raises, all others fold to the obvious flushes. Now the pot is laying me 10:1. The odds on pulling the boat are 4:47, or 11.75:1. So, I should be folding. Still, I call thanks to that little voice.
Turn comes 9d. First flush bets, second raises to 8, I of course reraise to 12. Both call. River comes, and it's a total blank. Again, first flush bets, 2nd raises, and I reraise.
At the showdown, first flush asks me, "Do you have the Ace high?". "Nope" I answer, and take down a pot of over 10 big bets.
God, I love this game.
Is my math all correct? Or did I play it right after all?
Where are you getting 10:1 on the flop?
5 bets in preflop. then on the flop 1 bet 2 bets (raise) and figure 1st player calls makes 1 more.
thats 9 bets in, you need to call 2. that 4.5 to 1.
So your math there is pretty bad.
However, lets look at the implied odds if you do hit. after the flop there are 11 little bets, or 5.5 bets in the pot.
If you figure you can win three bets each from the two other players, then thats a total of 11.5 bets. Thats worth it.
So maybe your math was pretty bad, but your play wasn't too bad.
Sorry. . .my poor language skills:
There were 4 callers AFTER the blinds, and both blinds stayed in, plus me, so there were 7 players/bets pre-flop. Then after the flop there was the first bet and the raise, bringing the total number of bets for me to call after the flop to 10.
You're still not getting 10-1, since you're cold-calling a raise. That's 10-2 = 5-1. Or, if you're sure that the original bettor will call and not re-raise, 12-2 = 6-1.
That would have put my call at 5:1 against an 11.75:1 boat draw.
They really need to put a password system on this site so we can retract our posts and revise them, like they have at bj21.com.
I will not post again! I promise!
I cannot add anything to what the other posters have said except that you do need to consider the implied odds here if you hit your hand on the turn. This tends to make your call correct EXCEPT that one of the dangers is that you may find yourself in the middle of raising war with the betting getting capped. Now your implied odds plummet. In addition, if the turn is a blank and the raising war continues you may get bet out of the hand although this is unlikely. Just something to think about.
I don't think you have to worry too much about the exact math in this game if you can get that much implied action when you hit your card. 2 players are betting and raising into you on the river with not even the 2nd or 3rd nuts after you 3-bet them on the turn? In that case you can loosen up a little especially on the cheap rounds.
Your flush-wielding opponents really stepped in it didn't they? Your call on the flop and your raise to 3 bets when the board paired would have sent alarms off in my head. However, you made the right play, especially if you realized that these guys were blind to your boat representation.
Nice hand.
Tight 10/20. Me in the SB with 9s6s. Four players call the BB and I call. BB checks. Pot = 60.00
Flop: 5c,7s,Kd
I have a Gut Shot to the Nut Straight and a Back Door Flush Draw. I’m first to act and Check. I possibly could have bet but if I were called I wouldn’t get a free card. That and the amount of players in the hand made me feel my odds weren’t good enough to come out Semi-Bluffing and win it right there.
The Flop is checked around to the last Player who bets. Now I’m in bad shape again because I have Four players behind me, but I felt that my chances were good that the Pot wouldn’t be raised. I also felt that the bettor might be trying to steal. Two other players call.
The Turn card is an interesting Ks. Giving me a Flush Draw and the Nut Gut Shot, I may run into a legitimate Full house, but the way the action had been playing out so far I was not too worried. I check and it is checked around to the late position player who bets again. Now it is more likely that he is trying to steal since the second King fell. Pot odds are giving me 5 to 1 on my call. More than enough to play my hand, but I check raise to try to win it right there. Everyone folds and I win the Pot.
Comments?
Thanks, CV
I don't play big lick so I better not comment here.
What would you have done if re-raised on the turn?
Well played on the turn particularly if the late position bettor uses position well.
The flop call as you acknowledge is a bit iffy but can be right if there is a good chance that there will not be a raise behind you (and really, if there was going to be a raise on the flop, it likely would only come from the bb).
well played on the turn. betting the flop would have been ok.
scott
I like your reasoning for checking rather than betting the flop. I like your call of the flop bet because if an Eight turns you have the nuts and can win a lot of money from top pair, two pair, or a set. In addition, the flop is somewhat ragged so it is unlikely that anyone will be check-raising so you can probably take off a card for the one bet.
The turn card is not an interesting but terrifying King which pairs the top flop card. If the bettor was betting top pair on the flop, he now has trips perhaps even a full house and you could be drawing dead. If he has trips, cards that improve your hand could give him a full house. I do not like your check-raise here because it is hard for you to represent a King. You checked the flop which tends to deny top pair and you didn't check-raise on the flop against a late position bettor which further denies top pair. Your check-raise looks suspicious to me. If I were the late position bettor with a King I would have re-raised you out of your seat. If I were full, I would just smooth call and then raise you on the river. However, nothing succeeds like success!
Unless the Late Position bettor had a Full House himself he possibly would have just called thinking I had Flopped a Set or Two Pair (which is now Full) and slowplayed.
CV
Possibly, but many players might lead on the flop having two pair and many others would check-raise on the flop with the two pair especially if it is the bottom two pair. Sets are just hard to come by. Again, if the bettor has top pair, which he frequently has when he bets the flop then he now has trips and you will get re-raised. Basically, you have to catch the bettor out of line here given his action on the flop and the turn in order for this to work.
But catching the bettor out of line is just what Chris was trying to do. Because the bettor was the last player, and because the king paired on the turn, Chris knew (epsecially if he knew this was a player who would bet a number of hands other than top pair on the flop) there was a good chance he *didn't* have a king.
I like the semi-bluff turn raise here given all the additional outs Chris has picked up. If the bettor does have something like KT or K9s, I think he'd be reckless to 3-bet the turn given the chance that Chris flopped a set and has, at any rate, represented a big hand. Logically, he'd have to confidently *put* Chris on a bluff to reraise. Yes the check-raise may look a little supspicious, but you can't just disregard the chance that the raiser does have a strong hand. Many players won't even be perceptive enough to think it suspicious, and I think most players with Kx will just call and try to fill up before considering raising again on the river. Even if he does reraise, unless he's full Chris has lots of outs.
I'm wondering why you didn't consider a check-raise semibluff on the flop. In a game described as tight with very passive action to this point it sounds like you didn't have to do much to take it.
This gos back to why I didn't just semi-bluff bet on the Flop. I didn't feel my chances of success were all that good, betting into 6 players, and I was worried about the other 4 players behind me after the Late Position player bet. I did say this game was tight, but it also could be tough on the Flop with players calling or Raising in position with 2nd pair good kicker or a pocket pair higher than 7's. Also I felt my hand wasn't as strong on the Flop as it was on the Turn with the added Flush Draw with one card to come.
CV
Once you have called out of the SB with this hand, I can't find fault with your play. On the flop, you might have bet out, but you have bad position and are quite likely facing a raise, hurting your implied odds for drawing to the flush/gutshot. When the flush comes simultaneously pairing the board, you might be facing a full house, but your hand is basically "made" barring the one-out gutshot straight flush. I think the check-raise is the best chance to protect your equity in the pot, and make any single higher spades lurking around have a tough time calling the double bet. You might, and I say might, even make the button muck a higher flush; something like Qs-Ts, for example. A straight call in this position is weak, IMO. If the button had called your check-raise, I would check the river, and call any bet.
Sorry, group. I mis-read the original flop. I thought at first the flop included both the 7s and 5s, not the 5c. Hmmm, let me think about this one.
On the turn, you now have the same gutshot and a flush draw, not a made flush like I first thought. The check-raise here is not going to make any King go away and might run into a re-raise. The check-raise worked here, but as they say in the NFL, "upon further review" I think I would just call the turn bet and try to hit the gutshot or flush draw as cheaply as possible.
Unless I knew that they'd never fold, I think the raise on the turn was automatic. In fact, I would say that this is a perfect spot in which to semi-bluff because you can't fold and calling places too much weight on your draw.
Folding is out of the question as you're getting paid 7-1 immediately with a better than 3-1 chance of improving to a reasonably strong hand, especially when only one player shows any strength and he doesn't have as much as three kings.
If you just call, you entice others to stay and this inherently, if only slightly, reduces your chance of winning through improvement (the 8 can make a higher straight, or perhaps you hit a six on the end only to lose to a pair of sevens that would have mucked).
But the worst effect is that you dramatically reduce and probably eliminate the chance of winning when you don't improve. Even if you are called after raising, you'll probably have fewer people to contend with on the end and will still have a reasonable shot a taking down the pot by betting the river. If you just call and a third player calls behind you and/or a low card lands on the river, you probably can't even try. Cetainly if a low card lands on the river you'll know it won't be worth it, and you'll be stuck with a hand that can't bet and can't win in a showdown.
The only problem with your play is if one of your opponents were sharp enought to recognize that the semi-bluff is more likely than your not betting or check-raising with top pair on the flop. But even if they do they won't necessarily have a hand that can tangle with you, and you'll have your draw to fall back on in any event, making the play disaster proof.
This hand is a good illustraton of why good players make more money with the same cards than mediocre players.
I think I like a check-raise semibluff on the flop better than the turn, and here's why:
- You save $$ on the turn. If the bettor in late position has a king and then made trips, you will quite often be reraised (you will if I have the king). What are you going to do then, and why would you want to put in 3 bets on the turn with the board paired?
- The check-raise semibluff would have about the same effectiveness on the flop (in this Particular situation) as it would on the turn. You said the game was tight. Not many "tight" players would call a double bet on the flop with nothing (let alone on the turn). If you get a favorable card on the turn, then you can perhaps bet again. In the case you described I would check-call the turn if the late position bettor bets again.
- you are not going to get the king to fold either way, but if you get reraised on the flop it's a whole lot better than getting reraised on the turn.
My guess is that you caught the late position bettor without a king and he thought you had a weak king and made trips on the turn, thus your semi-bluff worked.
In all it wasn't a bad semi-bluff but I would try it on the flop rather than the turn next time.
Dave in Cali
IMO, a checkraise on the flop looks good now only because we *now* know what the turn card was. I think that a better play is to just call (a fold would have been fine as well). If you hit your gutshot, you want players in. Plus, by checkraising the flop, you may commit yourself to bluffing on the turn and river if you miss. Generally, I prefer to checkraise semi-bluff a bettor to my right when I have a pair at least - I don't do it with a draw.
I am sure that Chris probably intended to just check and fold on the turn. His idea to raise probably dawned on him only after the fact (i.e because the turn card was a King).
Any Spade would have been nice too. :-)
The "book" play is to bet on the flop and the turn. The book play would have probably won the pot as well. And though it is close I believe the book play is the best play, especially betting on the flop. Hopefully we won't have to go through this once again will we?
The fact that Mr. Sklansky condones a bet here, has proven to me that I have been giving up a bit too much in some spots.
With 7 bets in the pot and a possible check/raise behind you, are we implying it's correct to draw to a gutterball and non-nut runner-runner? Of course he didn't suggest to check and call but rather bet out.
By Sklansky's own definition a semi-bluff needs to have (some) chance to win immediately and this seems unlikely here. But is there such a thing as a value bluff? Even though it's likely to be called here, the implied odds seem worth a bet if the draw is complete. So there seems to be a huge difference between checking and calling (which seems very incorrect), and betting out. Am I starting to understand some of this?
Well, you actually have about enough in the pot to call with your gut draw and backdoor flush. (Look at it as 4 outs plus about 2 for the backdoor flush - though in some spots the backdoor flush is only like about 1 out.) With that being the case, and *some* realistic chance that everyone will fold to our bet, betting becomes the better option. It doesn't have to be something like a 30% chance. Maybe just a 10% chance or so. Maybe someone can tinker with a little math to come up with a more precise estimate.
There was a time when I used to lose a lot of $$$ in loose games by kidding myself that I had *some* chance to win with a semi-bluff. The fact is, in games where people are playing any ace, your *some* chance to pick up the pot right there, could very well be zero.
However, this is an interesting hand, because the implied odds here could easily make it worth continuing with the draw(s).
You bet on flop and when top card come on turn you almost always win pot with bet. Lots of players call on flop with little and hoping you check turn. If you bet turn they believe you.
I think it's funny that you use the phrase "legitimate full house" when the board shows 5-7-K-K. I guess someone could have 5-5 or 7-7, but K-5 isn't very legitimate. When you called on the flop, I take it that you factored in the concept that since the pot was unraised preflop, it's unlikely any non-blind has a king. I know DS and MM think that's a given, and you described the game as tight. But in the games in play in, you see all kinds of loose calls, so I can't assume there's no king out there most times in these situations, so I would have folded on the flop. The call on the flop makes sense to me only in a tight game, because in a loose game, you don't really have any non-draw outs (your nine, for example, won't save you if a nine hits the turn).
Thanks to all for providing your input on the "I Feel Good" poll. I think these are the things we all dream about anyway. I will give you the poll results with my opinion, plus some commentary.
The responses clearly can be characterized into two categories - emotional responses and strictly financial serious poker thoughts. By the way, as you will see, mine are more emotional.
The clear favorite is getting reraised on the river with the absolute nuts. I think financial motivations drove most of you to like the 3 extra big bet (at a minimum) guarantee. I don't think it was the power of taking advantage of someone dumb enough to reraise on the river without the nuts. I personally have this one third behind "Aces" and "Nut Flush" - which I will explain in a minute.
The clear loser was "Aces". Maybe we get them too often or maybe they lose too often, but generally you guys put them last or second last. I personally put them first as there is something magical about looking down to those beautiful letters AA, especially if they are both red or both black. This is so special, that it overcomes the times that they will get busted. I also love showing them and taking down the pot. This is certainly an emotional response. I think "Double K" can understand.
I have a similar emotional attraction to seeing the correct suit fall on the turn to give me the nut flush - in a Cincinatti Kid type of way. The "Nut Flush" was ranked very differently by most of you. I think the possibility of the board pairing on the river scared many of you. But holding the nut flush, especially when the second nut is out there, is something I very much cherish.
A close tie for least favorite is the "Bad Beat" placed on an opponent. I agree with this ranking. The situation included being in a hand you should not have been in (which gave many of you a bad feeling) and taunting the opponent and putting him on tilt. Glad we are all gentlemen.
The Bluff to win the pot received variable responses as well, similar to the flush. It generally ranked 2,3, or 4. To me this ranked fourth. It is a mechanical, unemotional, play that I really can't get excited about it. I enjoy it, but it is not something special.
Thanks for helping me through my otherwise boring day.
I agree with you on the aces!! After hours of atrocious hands, what could be more beautifull than pocket rockets?
i get AK . fold, fold, i raise and all fold to big blind, who calls.
big blind is 60ish man who plays semi-professionally.(very tight.)
flop K J T rainbow. He checks. I bet. He calls.(uh oh.)
turn is another T.
He bets. i raise(raise or fold?) and he calls. river blank. he bets.
did i misplay the hand, and should i have called the river?
brad
Why was the turn a raise or fold situation - was a call out of the question?
Was it imposible to put him on a KQ, KJ or even an AK too. After all he is BB and has 1/2 the bet in.
I think you have to call the river here he didn't give you any indication he had a better hand.
well, i felt at the turn he might lay down two pair to my raise. ( i had an extremely good (mason) image and his play borders on weak-tight.)
as it was, i called the river and was shown a full house.(JT).
brad
If he borders on weak-tight and still bets into you after you raise him on the turn, you can lay down your AK.
I actually like just calling the turn. Against a weak-tight player there's a good chance you're beat, a raise probably doesn't gain you any protection, and if he is bluffing he may take another shot at it on the river. In any event, if I raised the turn it would be with the notion that it was my last money into the pot. The thinking here is that if I just call I'll probably have to call again on the river so it costs me two bets, and if I raise and he bets into me on the river I can comfortably fold. This is a good play against a weak-tight player, who will play his cards face up, and who you *might get to lay down a better hand on the turn.
If the player is a tricky player, just smooth calling is a good option for the first reasons I posted above. He may be bluffing, in which case he may bluff again if you just call, and if you raise and he's tricky he can put you in a tough spot by re-raising with a big draw or calling and betting into you again on the river.
Brad - You say he is 'very tight'. If a full table, I calculate five players to act behind you (plus the blinds). To put another $10 in under this situation, he may not be THAT tight! You were not in a blind stealing position, so he must put you on a legit hand.
I would 'throw' another $10 at the pot but nobody ever accused me of being tight. I would have just called the turn card.
Thanks,
Jim
How tight is very tight? If he's weak tight and won't bet without the nuts, then you can fold without regrets. I assume he's a little better than that.
If he's a good, tight player, to call a bet heads-up he's probably got two paint cards. So on the flop, you're either already behind or so far ahead you don't mind giving a free card. The only problem I see is if he has a Q and an A falls, in which case you still have 7 outs (2K, 2A, 3Q). I'd consider checking the flop to induce a bluff on the turn.
Going back to how you played the hand, the 2nd T presents a problem. I would've guessed the BB's turn bet was a semi-bluff, maybe he's on a draw. I think I'd pay the turn and river to see what's what. If it turns out he had the two underpair on the flop, content yourself with the fact that he misplayed his hand.
Brad,
I'm starting to agree with Rounder a lot lately (maybe he put something in my drink on Friday at Crystal Park). I also like the call on the turn. It is anything but a raise of fold situation. Either you are trailing big time or he is probably betting a pair draw combo hand (QJ is another possibility besides the ones Rounder mentioned). Maybe he figures the ten is a scary card for you so why not bet. I am assumimg he is better player than weak/tight.
Calling the turn often induces a bluff on the river when he misses and saves you money when he is leading big. If he had checked the river I would have bet. In addition, by just calling the turn he is more likely to call the river with a somewhat weaker hand.
This time he had the goods but in general I think you call the turn and the river.
Regards,
Rick
From the call on the flop, if he is very tight as you say, he most likely has either has a pair with a straight draw or has flopped a straight or two-pair.
The T could not have made his straight draw, but the bet implies either he has improved to a set or already had the straight. I would fold here as he definitely has you beat.
Brad,
Playing your opponent is the highest level of poker playing. Knowing your opponent is a crucial factor in making a correct decision in almost all poker situations. There are some situations that play themselves regardless of the opponent. This was one of them. The correct play on the turn was a call. The correct play on the river was a call. Plain and simple. By raising the turn you set yourself up for a reraise if he had a big hand. Then what do you do? Your opponent made a mistake by not reraising the turn. This was a situation in which he missed an opportunity that may not occur again. If your opponent reraises the turn you may decide to lay down the hand and lose the chance, however small to catch another K.
Vince.
Call or dump on the turn...Looks like A-10 or he flopped a straight.
Russ
Your raise on the turn was improper under the circumstances. You raised pre-flop in early position. A flop comes that obviously helps an early position pre-flop raiser. You bet the flop which confirms that you have top pair/top kicker or two pair or maybe even something better. Now the big blind knows all this and still leads right into you when the board pairs on an expensive street. You should call and not raise because you do not have anymore than what you have represented. You should also call the river unless you know this player very well in which case you can fold on the river.
I just came off of two days of NL Hold-em games (ring games). They often started off as limit games with people in overs, but eventually the limit players either move to overs or get broke (usually depending on their skill level).
During the first game I ended up getting killed -- there were many factors to this -- fortunately, I made up everything and more at the second game so my bankroll didn't suffer too much.
Two questions: First, do any people have any thoughts specific to dealing with the unders players when your at a mixed limit game -- obviously you often want them in (when you want to draw, for example), but you also want them out when you want to make the big bets. Thoughts?
Second: How do people calculate your hourly rate as a portion of the big bets? For example, if I'm playing 5-10 blinds, No Limit where there are three players in overs. The problem is, most of my winnings comes from the few hands where I get called on my larger bets, not from the typical $10 bets when we aren't in no-limit.
5-10 Holdem Loose / aggressive
LG - Really! loose guy, in every hand.
AG - Ace Guy (Seat 6 playes ANY Ace)
I am UTG KcJc . I limp (seat 6 plays any Ace) 7 callers. Big blind checks the option. 7 sb in the pot. Flop: 3c Kh 5c BB check,I check(don't want to lose anyone on my king flush draw),LG bets, Call around. 14 sb in the pot. Turn: 2d, BB checks, I check going for the check raise. Top Pair fair Kicker!! LG bets, (gutshot, opended,lower flush?) 2 fold (AG is one of them.)BB calls, I raise, LG calls BB Calls. River 3c ,BB Checks,I bet, LG raises!, BB calls I reraise. LG call, BB Calls. LG hits the table and throws up 46o for the straight. BB mucks. (trip 3's he later tells me)
Questions:
1. Was this a good check raise (it worked in this case)
or should I have just called till the river?
Best of it !!
MJ
How many 3c are in the deck!
The Check-raise semi-bluff on the turn is not a great play, and I don't think it worked in this case at all. The point of the semi-bluff is to get someone to fold, and it didn't do that at all - nobody folded on the turn or the river. If it was a check-raise for value, it was incorrect because you couldn't have been that sure you had the best hand.
LG made huge mistakes by calling on the turn and raising on the river (what was he thinking?) and it was his plays that earned you extra money rather than any brilliant check-raise play.
...I'll assume the river card was Tc or something that couldn't give anyone a full house - meaning when you check-raised you were against a straight and trip treys meaning you had the worst hand. (I just read GT's response about the two 3c's)
you may be right that you dont want to lose anyone with your king flush draw BUT you may want to lose as many as you can because you may win with the top pair being kings. the pot has gotten big and why let someone hit a funny hand for a little. i might want to play the hand with a small number of callers hoping to win with the pair of kings if i didnt make the flush.
MJ: I disagree with your check/call on the flop. With top pair and 7 players in, I want to take it down ASAP!
BB took all that heat with bottom pair - geesh these guys never cease to amaze me.
Your check raise was OK but what were you trying to do?
Yor are playing some real bad players the check raise isn't gonna drive them out so you must have done it for pure value which is ok.
Your river play was OK too stupid people and their money will soon seperate so why shoulden't you get some of it. Punish the stupid they deserve it.
This is true Rounder. These guys were not the sharpest of the bunch. As I took home a few extra bills '_'
Best of it !!
MJ
Lg doesn't 3 bet on the turn when he has the nuts but raises on the river after a club (which must look bad to him) comes in. Ya...no doubt that this fellow is a couple of irons short of a golf bag:)
Bet the flop as Ray says. At the very least, raise it when it comes back to you after the dude to your left bets and gets several callers. You should probably put in a checkraise here even if there was no King on the flop. You are going to make a flush 1 in 3 times. You have 7 players in on the flop. It is hard to understand why you would not want to make this a monster pot given that you have got a monster flop. These types of favourable flops don't come around often.
skp,
Thats just what I was doing. I had 7 callers pre-flop Top pair w/ok kicker off the flop and was looking at a great draw.(Best of it!!) I make this play often when the pot is a good size and it works out just as you said 1 out of 3 or 4 times. I am getting better odds than that when I hit, +EV to me. Just wanted to see what others had to say.
Best of it !!
MJ
I think skp meant you should check-raise the flop instead of the turn, and I agree with that. While the flop bets are smaller, there are often plenty of clowns that will call on the flop with underpairs, lone ace-highs, etc, and it's usually better to punish them on the flop. There's nothing wrong with playing aggressively on the turn as well, but you'll usually get more value out of jamming the flop.
-Sean
For those of you who don't remember, I have been invited into a $2,000 limit holdem private game with five other guys who have never really played holdem. The game is starting at 12:30 am after new years (hence, the $2,000 buy in). The game is officially on. The other players are my friends (who can afford to lost), and will be intoxicated. Here is my strategy. Comments are welcome.
First, as you may remember, I really don't want to lose. Since I am the favorite (they don't realize that), I may propose that the winner gets $10k and second gets his money back. This seems like a good risk reduction ploy. I think the chance that I finish first or second is extremely high.
Second, I may propose that the game become no limit when it gets down to two players. This may increase my chances of first place if I am in second when it becomes heads-up. Certainly these guys won't know how to think "no-limit".
Third, I will likely have some alcohol during the evening, but I will try to limit it. In addition, I will stop drinking at around 11-1130, except for maybe a champagne toast.
Fourth, with respect to game strategy, this will be a loose game. Probably alot of calling with two-outers, etc. Pre-flop I think loose play is in order (similar to no foldem). Tighten up after the flop, and seriously outplay the competition.
Fifth, if disaster strikes, like multiple bad beats, mentally be prepared to lose the $2k. I think I will penalize myself by skipping the Carnivale in January if I lose. If I win, I will see you there.
Comments
Starting the millenium off playing poker, in a game you consider yourself the favourite, but can't afford to lose, and your up against inexperienced players, who will most likely be intoxicated and loose, (very loose) and all of them can afford to play any two cards they are dealt, since money is no object for them. Interesting to say the least!
My only comment is;
Think of yourself as the underdog, not as the favourite. That doesn't mean you shouldn't play with confidence, but never assume these guys don't know what they are doing and don't change your playing style because of it.
Good luck and may the poker gods be good to you!
"Third, I will likely have some alcohol during the evening, but I will try to limit it. In addition, I will stop drinking at around 11-1130, except for maybe a champagne toast. "
If I were you I would forget the poker and just get drunk. It may be cheaper. Especially if even after all that first, second, third, fourth and fifth you still finish 3rd. By the way Poker is not a logic game.
Vince
I will add the one thing I mentioned before, re-read the short-handed section of HFAP21, as you will be short almost from the start.
"Third, I will likely have some alcohol during the evening, but I will try to limit it. In addition, I will stop drinking at around 11-1130, except for maybe a champagne toast. "
"Pre-flop I think loose play is in order (similar to no foldem). Tighten up after the flop, and seriously outplay the competition."
If you have to do this and I advise against it - you can't out play someone who doesn't know what they don't know. I think your in for a crap shoot - NL heads up. Heads up play is about knowing your player and not much about poker.
If you do the game - Don't drink at all and tighten up preflop not post flop. You outplaying these guys means you won't get involved in hands with cards that are real hard to win with.
WOW - I'd love to play 5 sessions like this and would feel favored to win over several sessions but one time with this class of opponent is a crap shoot.
Good luck you'll need it.
Rob,
Are ya sure I can't sit in on this one...LOL
But really do tighten up pre-flop and try not to get in a shootout if possiable. Tight/Aggressive will get the money. Remember if your gonna have a few cold ones, spend a few bucks on some food could be a good investment.
Best of it!!
MJ
Rob,
Big mistake. Don't play!!!!
1. Card will talk here, you will likely find yourself crushed by soneone(s) getting lucky. Or simply by you getting unlucky.
2. You care about the $2k, they don't (you say). That is terrible for you.
3. How many of them don't know about the game, really? I bet that one or more of them who are saying now "It's called the river? I wonder why" are more experienced than you think. You may be the pigeon, not the hawk you think. Happens all the time. I have a very funny story -but not for this post- about one such event.
Give it up, you *will* lose.
Your real friend, trying to talk some sense into you.
Mark
I don't play a lot of Pot Limit but tonight I played a 5 handed game and think I made a few mistakes and would like your opinion. First of all we could bring it in for 10 and there was almost always a straddle and then we could bring it in for 20...
I'm playing in another PL game Thurs. and want to know what to improve on. The 1st hand in question I had AQo and there was a $4 straddle. I made it $20 on the button and got called by the lil blind. He is a good player and has hardly entered a pot. We get one more caller(Straddler) and see a flop of KJ9. SB checks, straddler checks and I bet $20. Good amount? SB raises to $40, straddler folds and I call. The turn is 10(No flush possible). I bet $40 and get raised to $100. I think for about 15 seconds and raise him his renaining chips $110. He thinks for about 2 minutes and mucks his KJ. I was a pal and showed him the hand(that was his last hand before he had to move to the main game(5-10-20). Should I have bet the flop? If an ace comes on the turn do I lay it down to a big bet? Did I raise too much and should have just called his raise and trapped him for the rest?
I had Q-10h: Flop J-10-8 with 2 spades...With my pre-flop raise and his re-raise there's$120 in pot. He bets $60 and I put him all in(another 120) He turns over AKspades. Probably a bad move even though he had the hand I thought(excluding the spades)You can rib me for this play
A few general questions
1. See more flops for $2-$10 if you can.Good to see if the flop hits you between the eyes or bad because you get trapped?
2. Big quick bets are more likely bluffs or strong hands if it comes from a weak player?
3. In 1-2 play fast with even the nuts because you'll usually get called down like low-limit?
4. With KK and AA just call with 1 or 2 players and lay a trap or forget trapping?
Thanks a lot...BTW I ended up winning $255 and I liked it a lot better then limit poker.
Russ
Hi Russ,
Unlike limit and No Limit - Pot Limit is IMHO a game of trap setting and deception like no other poker.
Therefor I don't play it like the other two. I probably see more flops in PL than I do the other two and raise less pre flop than the other two. BUT as the hand progresses a get more aggressive. Now in PL all the money is in the turn and river. So ease up on your pre flop raising and flop raising there will be plenty of money in the pot on the turn and river. In pot limit I wouldn't get aggressive unless I had "IT" then pounce - after the trap is set.
Cheers,
Russ,
I don't know if you are playing in a capped buy-in game or not, but if you aren't one of the keys to pot-limit is aggression. Trapping is for small stacks, overbetting is for big stacks. Determine which you are and act accordingly.
Ideally, when you have a really good hand, you want the river bets to end up being about the size of the stack you have left.
Raising early with a small stack just gives bigger hands an opportunity to push you out later. If you are shortstacked you probably WANT to go all in sometimes. For example when you have a strong flush draw on the flop. For this reason it is ok to raise hands like strong suited aces preflop. Raising big pairs can be hard because you might very well have to fold them to heat on the turn or the river.
That said, you want to avoid being the short stack at all costs. If they let you, and if you have the stomach, buy in for several thousand and be the big bully. I know that this sounds like a bit of an overbuy, but you will be able to afford to bust out small stacks with gutshot draws when you have that much on the table.
- Andrew
Rounder,'
Give me a call Friday and I'll let you know how it went and thanks for your opinion. Yours too Andrew but I'm not buying into a 1-2 game for 3,000...It just ain't happening.
i went to a cardroom tonight. i was allowed to play. end of good news. start of bad news. well, i lost 338 over 8 hours of 4-8 with a half kill whenever the pot was above 60. there may have been 15 pots without a kill. the game was super loose. and slightly aggressive. i did not get much good cards, the ones i had got cracked. lot's of draws did not hit. the one's that did got cracked. i think i need to think through the effects of a late position blind. i never gave it much thought, but here it is on every hand. but i did not play well. i rate my overall play as barely ok. i did not play very well at all. one thing is i think i may have monster tells. or maybe i just got really unlucky. i don't know.
i lied. there is one more huge bit of good news. no tilt. none. i might as well have been a robot. sure i was confused at times, and i made tons of mistakes. but no tilt.
here's a wierd hand. the strategy is not really the point. you'll see the point. i'm in sb with A8s (of course it is a kill pot). some calls, i call. see the flop 6 handed. Kc Ts 4s. i bet and am raised. i call, and their is another raise behind me. the first raiser caps. i call, the 3-better calls, and one other guy also calls. turn is 8s. i am happy. i bet. i forget if i was raised. if not, i must hav huge tells. well other guy drops. 3 people see the river. it is the Tc. the two flop raisers are loose aggressive so they don't have to have fulls. i bet with the intention of calling if raised. first guy calls and the second guy raises. i am about to call when the woman between me and the raiser hits me in the leg under the table. like 7 times. i do not know if this means raise or fold. and i would have called anyway. so i call. first guy calls. and the river raiser's 4 T's beat my A flush. oh, and the the two guys in the pot with me were good friends. they came together, etc. anyway, she mutters to me that my call was stupid. i shrug. (it doesn't bother me as i am the tiltless wonder.) as the dealer is shuffling, he discusses the hand with the woman next to me and some of the other players. they all agree that it was obvious that i had the flush. fine, i am sure it was. it doesn't bother me at all. here is where it gets really wierd. this same woman who cheated to try save me a bet, says something along the lines of "i have to get away from this." refering to the guy who beat my flush. she tells the dealer that she will discuss it with him later and moves to the open seat across the table. then, she and the guy now next to her start whispering back and forth. my guess is that she thought the friends were colluding or something. and with this thought i got all paranoid and looked around the table and saw people who were just trying to cheat eachother out of every possible penny. the table had seemed real fun until then. i felt real naive for a few minutes, then i decided that these people probably weren't cheating (except that woman. who was cheating.). and if the whole table was better than i, they were so much better than i that they could disguise the fact very well. and if they are that good, they deserve my money. i got tired soon after that and left. i can leave a good game even when i'm stuck. i got the emotional side down. i just have to bring my strategic side next time.
whoops. some more good news. i met a poster. joe, who left before the above fiasco. he was nice and i enjoyed talking to him, which was good. and he was on my direct left, which was bad. actually, i met 2 posters. but i already knew the other from ac. i will go back. i will try again. i will keep you posted. get it? "posted"? just thought you wanted to read a pun.
scott
scott,
Are you saying they have a half kill for any pot over $60? If so does the killer act in turn or after the big blind. This I have never seen.
Rick
in turn.
scott
This was Foxwoods, wasn't it? I hit a 3-6 with a similar setup during the summer..
The message formerly in the part of the thread was deleted at the request of the poster.
Chuck
Tell them to stop using two decks at the same time! How else could you have an 8s in your hand and on the board. Anyway, in a game that's this agressive, you should only play premium pairs and draws.
"i made tons of mistakes, but no tilt".
Give it time boy, give it time.
-Zack
ABSODEFINITELY! Zack, try experiencing those types of losses three nights in a row, then have a so so winning night ,which leads you to believe the losing streak has ended, then you have another 3 or 4 nights where you keep getting killed by begginers who CAN'T STOP SNAPPING YOUR HANDS OFF ON THE RIVER.
Scott,
I'm gonna give you some fatherly advice. I have 2 kids in college a daughter pre med and a son Computer Science at Purdue so I know a little about the young adult mind set. Actually you and my boy are probably a lot alike - Brillant at math (he tutors calc.) but not so good at other subjects like like English.
I want you to think about the number of hands yo played last night - be honest put a % on it. Were you playing marginal hands in marginal positions. Were you drawing a little more than you should have to 3 card flushes, 3 card straights? Were you seeing the turn with action with bottom pair? middle pair? underpair? In other words were you "playing" to much - sounds like it to me.
Casino poker is alot like life the strong and smart survive so ling as they play strong and smart.
BTW - this woman, was she trying to tell you what she had or that you were beat like a red headed step child. How was she cheating? I got a little lost in your post with the NO CAPS & LONG LONG PARAGRAPHS.
no. the thinnest draw i took past the flop is two overcards and a gutshot. and the pots were huge. i saw a few flops i shouldn't (but not many). i was real tight calling raises. i threw away KQo when it was 2 bets to me with 7 way action.
the woman was not in the hand. the guy next to her had the quads.
scott
Scott,
seems like you got lost in the woods outside foxwoods.
Good luck on your next trip.
Scott,
Very important to write down as much as you can remember about the nite good or bad or anything. You may not look back at that nite for 6 months even though you are young and very intelligent you will have forgot something that will come up later during your playing. Get a 5 ring notebook and start or computer notebook or something. It will also show you your growth since entering into the arena. It took me about 15 visits to become comfortable with the dealer, players, tips, etc. I didn't write them down and I wish I had unless you want to be like me (crs) there is no history to my game except BB/hr which I do keep track of but I didn't start that until I was comfortable at the tables. Glad that your playing in the casino, so give it the four letter word that everyone hates T--I--M--E.
Good luck paul
I was a constant loser at a local club (back in the days I used to play there, that is) so one day, I brought in an HP48 calculator (basically, a miniature computer) and tracked every hand. Each and every one, every action in every position. Although people got annoyed and I was asked not to bring it to the table, the "damage" was done. I noticed that I was simply not playing my A-game. In loose agressive games, J9s is not exactly a good UTG hand. Going to the club straight after a shift at the casino (7pm-2am) was not good for the game, and I wasn't playing my best.
As a result, I would then go home, have a nap, wake up at 8am and go mop up :)
Moral: You will learn a LOT by honestly going over all the play you make. Like you said, if you keep getting calls every time you're bluffing and getting folds every time you have a hand, you have tells. If you keep losing money with crying calls on the river, stop calling on the end unless there is reasonable doubt, etc.
Keep passing the open windows.
C.
First of all, don't sweat it. you lost but it is not a catastrophic loss. As you play you will experience many of these losses and there's not much you can do but ride it out. Once I lost 350$ in less than one hour in 5-10 HE (OUCH!). Keep in mind the SD is very high in HE and these types of results will happen once in a while.
As for the reasons why you lost, there are several possibilities. Maybe you just got unlucky. Perhaps you played too many hands or played them too far. Maybe the other players were just better than you.
Scott, you seem like an intelligent guy, but you are only 18 as I recall. I doubt that all the players were better than you, but perhaps they are more experienced. Experience doesn't count for everything but it does help. The fact that you study about poker and post on this forum puts you way ahead of the game as far as the average poker player goes. Keep studying and posting.
If you played too many hands, you have to recognize this and accept it. If you were not bored sitting around waiting for good hands then you probably played too many hands. this is the most likely source of your loss, a steady drain of chips.
Some part of your loss just had to be bad luck so don't worry about that. If you continually lost big hands to two or three outers who called turn raises then you were just unlucky. Again, keep in mind that the luck factor in the short term is very high in relation to your expectation.
In the end, so you lost. Big Deal. We all lose sometimes. Figure out what you did wrong then get back on the horse.
Dave in Cali
Dave this kind of a loss to an 18 year old in College is a Big Deal - If I were Scottys parents I'd be real worried about him and his fixation on poker.
I see alot of broken down life long players every day looking for handouts and wanting someone to sponcer them - all these guys had potential at one time and went the wrong way. It is disturbing and am worried about young men with huge potential squandering it on a silly game of chance - just a comment from a concerned Dad.
"silly game of chance "
I thought this was a skill game Rounder....LOL
Scott,
Life at the table is very differnt than reading a book or calculating +/- EV on paper. It takes a few tries to get comfortable. Sounds like you had a tough night, but this actually is better than instant success. Do keep notes about the night, the players and hands played. It will help you in your next game..
Best of it !!
MJ
MJ it is a game of skill. I am just exasperated at the prospect of young people doing adult things to their long term detriment.
True but you also can't crush a young persons dreams. It's all about balance.
MJ
It depends on the dream. I have just as much respect and good wishes for scott as anyone else in this degenerate's hangout :-) but I for one hope the lad goes 0-20. There is nothing like a good dose of reality to put things into perspective. Like it was said before, at 18 poker should be a weekend diversion for a few hours to break the monotony of schoolwork and other life-building obligations. It shouldn't be the other way around. scott stay on track, and stay away from the fast track.
I'll add my 2 cents worth. I don't hope he goes 0/20. Let him win once.
Seriously, On the wasting your life part. I am sooo happy I knew nothing of poker clubs etc until I was about 35. Had I known of them I am sure that I would not have finished University nor been married nor have my 2 children. I would not know what I was missing. Now I can play, and have a life.
Had I known that there was more to poker than your Friday night get-together then I would be living in Vegas or Southern Cal. and dating a cocktail waitress .... wait a minute ....
So what are you saying Mike. Would you or would you not?
Also if after getting maried and having two kids do you think you could have quit a good job and play full time?
I am saying that as an unattached young adult I would have pursued poker. what would have come of that is conjecture.
I would not trade my family for poker. God forbid that it happens. I like the supplement to the income plan.
In the future, if the opportunity arises, I would like to take a shot. That means raising my children first.
I agree with MJ rounder. If the boy wants to play let him!
JP - I don't think anyone is encouraging him NOT to play - I think what the general concern is is that he keep his priorities focused. 18 years old at Columbia? That is an opportunity that many would love to have, many do not have, and I believe that the other posters are simply suggesting that he not get pie eyed "rounders" the movie fantasies about playing. Keeping the eye on the prize, which is certainly NOT the poker table, is vital for him at this point in his life. Poker should be a secondary diversion.
In many ways, I feel the sting of this loss will be great for Scott. It will enable him to rethink priorities (and I do believe that his education is his #1 priority, despite what others may believe), to rethink his game, and to become a better student (if he's not already, yeah right..) and a better card player.
My 2 cents, Tim
Remember when Fast Eddie Felson gets hustled by Forest Whitaker during his "comeback" in The Color of Money and then buys some glasses, quits boozing, and steps his game up a notch? That's our scott after his first foray into clubland after beating up the other college guys.
Come to think of it, maybe he does need glasses, otherwise how do we explain that he had the 8 of spades in his hand, AND on the board?
Rounder:
I think you are right. It didn't quite dawn on me at first, but Scott is 18 and he was playing 4-8, a relatively big game for an 18 year old.
Scott - I don't know what your financial situation is, but you should seriously consider just how much that $300+ loss really hurt you. Perhaps stick to smaller games. When I lost 350$ playing 5-10 I guarantee it did not hurt me financially (perhaps it did hurt my ego a little though...). Also don't get too fixated on poker right now, you have a long, long time to play!!
Dave in Cali
Dave,
Rounder is absolutely right on this one if my daughter lost $300+ dollars on a school nite during finals I would be out of my mind. Scott is in school to get an education that nobody can take away with a bad beat or whatever. Education is almost the only thing left in the world that they can't take away from you when you FINISH. I thought this was a one-shot deal because of his age, and hopefully he is going back to the books. I told him to write everything down because I thought he would not be playing casino poker for a while and could look at his notes the next time he decided to play.
paul
this is not during finals. we are not even in the reading weak. i am ok on time. i want an eduaction. i know what my prioritiies are.
scott
sorry i cared
Teenagers !@#@#!@!
I think what Scott is getting at is that he feels he has his priorities straight, and I believe him. I come under a great deal of heat from friends and family who still insist that poker is luck driven, and that I am a degenerate gambler. Fine. Let them think that. The thing about this forum is that it gives us more "educated" poker players an opportunity to discuss our game without fear that a person who does not understand the game of poker will accuse of of being degenerate slime balls. I think all of us have experienced heat like that at one time or another. How many of your non-poker playing friends REALLY understand? I'd venture a guess that not many do.
So, I believe that Scott is simply feeling attacked by coming to this "Oasis" and experiencing what he believes to be misunderstanding by the folks he feels should understand the most. I believe that Scott DOES has his priorities straight, and seeing the intelligence he has displayed on more than one occassion on this forum, will be a success at whatever he chooses to do - and in all liklihood that will not be a career as a professional poker player.
To all - Scott never once stated or implied that he would ignore school to pursue poker. To Rounder - not too long ago, you were experiencing difficulties at home - with your daughter if I remember correctly. (I do hope things are better now) You also said that you had bad nights at the table as a result. What would your reaction have been if many of the people that responded to your posts had said: "What are you doing away from home? You shouldn't be playing poker." Maybe the same... Maybe not. But, no one said that to you. And I am not picking on you, it is just a recent thing I can think of.
Again, I just think Scott is feeling a bit attacked. I read many of the posts as being caring gestures to a young man just starting, but if it were me, I may also feel attacked. I also think we have ALL made bad mistakes with our play - that cost us a great deal. I know, I for one have NOT repeated those errors (I mean errors in terms of playing with a short BR, playing too tired, etc.) Nothing is really a mistake if you learn from it, and you do not repeat it....
Carry On, Gentlemen Tim
"I come under a great deal of heat from friends and family who still insist that poker is luck driven, and that I am a degenerate gambler"
I don't come under a great deal of heat from friends and family.
I come under a heat from myself.
I am away from home circumstance dictates it - kids are OK and my daughters problems are sorting them selves out. Thanks for remembering. I get home every 2 or 3 weeks you can't tell cuz I have computers at all my homes and keep in touch - My situation is very different from scotts I did the clooege thing, I did the executive thing and I own 2 businesses + my poker playing career. I'm 53 and been there done that - all of that trust me - I didn't miss a trick - BTW i paid most of my University expenses by way of shooting pool playing poker and pin ball games with trust fund spoild brats - I believe in fair distribution of wealth. :-)
I just am concerned truely concerned about a young man of obvious intellect being so engrossed in a game that has ruined many many lives - I know, I come from a long line of gamblers many have wrecked their lives over it.
I wish you all alot of luck and will keep my opinion to myself about personal situations.
Rounder - please do not keep your opinions to yourself about personal situations. A man of age and experience, and obvious wisdom has a great deal to offer us younger men. Your opinions are valuable to us. AND that is what forums are for - public expressions of opinion. Again, I did not want to single YOU out, per se, it is just that it seemed to be an analogous situation. It is obivous that many people care about Scott's well-being and that is heartening, especially in a technology driven society, that sometimes seems to discourage compassion.
So, again - I was only drawing an analogy, and I sincerely hope that you continue to post your opinions. Sometimes, it seems that we simply cannot see the forest for the trees, and I was just giving a younger man's take on this whole situation.
Glad to hear that the problems are working out. Tim
Tim,
I was talking to Dave not Scott he's 18 and he's going to do anything he goddamn plz's just as everyone on this forum probably did at 18. I was addressing my daughter I have no control over Scott or anybody else and I don't really give a damn. I was talking about my daughter not Scott. He was used as an example, there is probably one Scott in a million 18 year olds that have his knowledge of cards and he still had a ruff day at the tables. This game is not EASY!!! I apologize Scott if you thought it was directed at you but it wasn't supposed to be.
Have a nice day and good luck to everyone at the tables or off the tables.
"Dave,
Rounder is absolutely right on this one if my daughter lost $300+ dollars on a school nite during finals I would be out of my mind."
Paul
The $4-$8 game with half-kill can be pretty crazy. I would tighten up in kill pots, particularly when out of position. AT this club, the low-limit game is, IMO, tougher than your typical low-limit casino game. At least half of the players have a clue and almost everybody plays somewhat aggressively. It is a bit more passive when it is regular $4-$8.
I wouldn't worry at all about collusion here. There are a lot of suspicious, grizzled veterans, even at the 4-8 level that would detect that BS in a minute. As for the lady, she probably thought you were a nice kid (you are aren't you?) that didn't realize the guy could have a full house. She liked you better than she liked him. When she said she had to get away from "this", it could have been anything from his bad play, his bad beats, his bad breath, to his farting, or something like that. If she has real suspicions of unethical play, the floor will take care of it. But I think you are reading too much into it.
Good luck next time. But take Rounder's fatherly advice to heart. I wasted a lot of valuable time playing cards when I was in college, because I needed the money. But there are much more worthy pursuits for a young person of considerable talent.
-Michael
As someone who is closer to both Scott's age and experience (26, only been playing in the public arena for a year), I'll add my two cents. I agree with much of what the other posters were saying, especially Rounder's comment on the amount of money being lost is catastrophic to a young man in college. As I play poker strictly as a hobby, and do many other things with my meager, non-profit grantwriting salary, I usually only have enough for single session play. Expendable cash, for my weekly/bi-monthly forays to the tables.
1. The loss that you took Scott, seems awfully high - not necessarily in terms of the limits, but in terms of your age and experience. I made that mistake a few times, especially after I had read some books.. "I'll run over these yahoo's," said I - Afterall, I've read a book.... One thing I didn't have, and still certainly lack to a large degree, is experience. That is what made those differences. NExt time you play, bring less $$ - maybe play a lower limit. It won't hurt so bad if you lose.
2. Another poster, I cannot remember who now, said it took him about 15 sessions to simply feel comfortable with the environment of the cardroom. I agree with this wholeheartedly. It wasn't until about the end of this past Spring, that I was able to feel extremely comfortable at the table - That made a huge difference in my play. I assume you looked very intimidated Scott, and people will run right over you if they sense that -It happened to me, and sometimes still does if I feel overmatched. Note - I said feel overmatched.... Not actually overmatched. That "feeling" will lead you headlong into defeat.
3. People do NOT always behave the way they are "supposed" to. That freaked me out for a while. Then I understood that not only are people people and behave in unpredictable ways (see "Meditatio" by Ezra Pound), but that the books are NOT Bibles - They are templates for good, sound play. How you apply them at the table is another story. How you adjust at the table is another story...
So, having said that, Scott, good luck inthe future - Follow the sound advice everyone else gave you - I have no additional advice, I just wanted to approach this from the "I understand," and the more emotional level.
See you in a few weeks! Tim
scott,
I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but your tell-phobia is probably a bit unfounded. When the people at the table said they knew you had a flush it's probably because you took so much heat on the flop and bet out when the flush came.
You seem to imply that the flop was at least four way. If this is the case YOU should have been raising as well. Also with as much action as there was on the flop, I think you pretty much have to check and call the river. Betting out is a mistake, the pot is big enough to win already, you're not worrying about extracting extra bets from your opponents.
As for people who say "get a life" don't worry about them as long as you are doing well in the rest of your life. I spent my entire college career pursuing a 30+ hour a week hobby. I got out magna cum laude without any problems. If only my hobby had been able to net me 2 big bets an hour instead of costing $50/week.
- Andrew
I know that for me, at age 22-25, with money in my pocket from a decent job, I would have let poker take over. It's hard enough now. That's me however. Many can deal with it easily. Some can walk a tightrope and others will fall over the edge.
the action was 4 way. i though a cap would have lost the cold caller, who seemed to be on a non nut flush draw or QJ. i did not think my A was good. but i agree with the check call. you might be right about the tells. i certainly did not try to mask what i had. but there were other instances as well. i brought this one up because of the womans attempt to save me $12.
scott
scott,
One more thing. I would seriously consider trying out IRC poker and when you can dominate there, go for the other online poker places. They aren't a fun as a live poker game, but they are profitable and they are cheaper in terms of travel costs, rake, and tokes.
- Andrew
Hey, scott, maybe this lady was trying to hit on you, you virile teenage stud, you. She took one look, thought she would try to help you out with a "motherly" nudge under the table.
As far as your experience at the tables goes, I've won lots of golf tournaments after a double-bogey on the 1st hole. Hang in there, and consider carefully much of the sage advice from the others on the forum.
Hey Scott!
It was really nice to meet and talk to you at the game last night. I'm sorry you lost.
Let me tell you that this game is a lot tougher than it appears to be, experience counts for a lot at this club I have found. Like Michael 7 mentions, there are some players there that are good and some that will stay in with anything. That alone makes it very tough since you can easily be whip sawed with a marginal calling hand between a tough aggresive player and a loose weakie with a longshot draw. It took me a lot of time to be comfortable with the game and I still have problems with it sometimes, and I think I am a pretty good player.
The 4-8 game with a half kill easily becomes a 6-12 game most of the time, as you noticed, and the standard deviation is very high. Losing 338 in 8 hrs. seems like a lot (and I really hope it is'nt to you), but that is probably correct for a bad run of cards, maybe it could be a little low, you (one) could possibly lose much more.
I know you probably won't abandon your collegiate studies to pursue a life of hold-em playing, I know the game is great and a lot of fun to play, but do take heed in some of the other guys warnings about spending too much time (and money) playing, the game is easy to get compulsive with.
Some guidelines to consider are to play when you a) have the time and are feeling good b) have enough money so that a loss would not mean much c) are comfortable with the surroundings you are playing in and d) when it wont interfere with your studies. I feel that you had a problem with c) last night, you might have played a little more conservatively until you got your bearings and a better feel for the players in the game.
That lady that you mention, don't worry about her. She's a regular and a fairly good player who loves to discuss hands and other players. She is not a cheat, but is a hot-head who will pay out a lot when on tilt.
Also, if I am a good player (you know, more rock like) you want me on your left since if I raise you can easily throw your hand away in marginal positions.
Anyway, good luck with your studies. I will send an e-mail to you sometime in the future and you can let me know if you intend to go back and maybe I can give you some insights.
you may be right about starting off very tight. and only loosening to normal after i feel comfortable with my image and the table.
oh, and you want dumb rocks on your left. smart ones on your right. i wanted you on my right.
she wasn't cheating for her benifit. but it still seams dishonest. the whole thing just knocked the wind out of me.
scott
i do not begrudge people who tell me not to quit school, etc. i do value your advice and do not feel attacked. that said, I WILL NOT QUIT SCHOOL. you don't have to worry about it. suppose that poker went great. instead of losing, i crushed the game. and moved up to 1000-2000. and crushed that game. suppose i could win a grand per hour whenever i wanted. I WOULD STILL NOT QUIT SCHOOL. if i made the nba, i would still continue my education. the promise of easy money will not entice me from school, because i do not study to get good money after college. i just value an eduction. on the other end of the spectrum. if i go broke, my parents will continue to pay my tuition and my room and board. i will simply not be able to afford movies and liquor and music. I WOULD NOT QUIT SCHOOL.
ok. on the bankroll. it is a little tight for 300 bb at 10-20, which is my medium term (6-8 months) goal. it is super sufficient for 4-8 or 6-12. and even if i bust, i am not starving.
scott
*************** HE'S NOT QUITTING SCHOOL ************
Can we move on now with Scott's life....LOL
Back to poker.
Best of it !!(Scott) MJ
'
Scott, take it from someone who's seen you play.
I think most of your poker profits come from your willingness to be super aggressive. In the games you've been playing in, people know you and respect you more than they should. I think that's why you like to play looser than me, because you can generally make up your questionable bets by driving everyone out on a later street.
In a low-limit casino where you look young and nobody knows you, your usual style of dominating the table isn't going to work. I had the same experience my first night at the Gila River. I got no respect and kept getting drawn out on because I couldn't raise anyone out. Around 11:00, the people at the table stopped changing. Once they realized how tight I was playing my hands held up better and I was able to resume my usual style of play.
Basically, I suggest you revise your style, or buy in for like $3000 and watch the fear in their eyes.
you are right. i also have to crack the prescnce of a late position blind. i am working on it.
i also got bad cards and tough losses. but i'm not worried about that.
scott
Neils-
Nobody in 4/8 is going to fear a $3000 stack cause you can only hit them $8 at a time. In no-limit, a huge stack is like wielding a 2x4. In limit, it is like wielding 3000 toothpicks.
That being said, your comments about image are valid. That is one reason it is often tough to crawl out of the hole, even if the game is great.
OK, point well taken. But I was actually thinking about the new players who would sit down at the table and see a smiling Scott sitting behind a stack of chips bigger than him.
i don't know about your "average" 4-8 player, but i learned pretty quickly playing at that limit that big stack != good player...
Scott -- as others have mentioned that loss is well within normal limits for a game that was effectively 6-12. Not a biggie. As MJChicago said, it's probably actually a good thing. I think players starting out (And starting out in casinos is enough of a transition that in many ways it's like starting out.) who begin with a good run of cards and wins that come easily may often be lulled into a false sense of confidence, and as a consequence don't do the necessary work on their games. When their streak ends they've got big problems.
Just enjoy familiarizing yourself with the cardroom norms and atmosphere. Nothing at all wrong, and maybe a good idea to play a little extra tightly for a while as you get used to it. It will keep the fluctuations down and increase your percentage of wins as you get used to everything.
This is 100% true. The best thing that ever happened to me was getting my butt kicked the first seven or eight times I played casino HE. Everyone- and I mean EVERYONE- I know that killed the game when they first started has completely ceased growing as players.
Good for you Scott! Welcome to the arena. I've read about half the posts that have been put up in reply to yours. When I was a freshman in college, I had already done my hitch in the Air Force and was old enough to gamble legally. I was in Reno, Nevada at the U of Nevada. I liked 21, craps and bingo type pinball machines. I tried to get my children to go to U of Nevada also, it being a great party school and having tons of wholesome and healthy recreation close by. I stayed fairly broke during the entire five years I spent in Reno, loving that 24 hour a day lifestyle.
I am not at all worried about this little poker results setback you had. I have read enough of what you have posted to know, absolutely, that you will be a success at poker. I do worry, a tad, that you might be too enamored of some of the chemical substances you use to enhance your immediate reality. I believe that a large part of the college experience should be the social opportunities. It is a time when you are making the transition from child to adult. College should be a semi-protected environment where you try on the various roles you will be playing throughout your lifetime.
I am assuming that this loss didn't put too large a dent in your bankroll and that you have the necessary self control to prevent yourself from getting in over your head. Regroup, focus on the positives that you learned from this experience, and go tear them up during your break. Win or lose, enjoy the experience. I have seldom regretted the things that I've tried as much as I've regretted the things that I failed to try due to lack of confidence or nerve. BTW, I have to admit that I envy the prospects that all you "Young Turks" have in front of you.
You've got enough advice, but I couldn't resist throwing in my two cents. I am a young player as well, who use to dominate my home game. I began to read as much about poker as I could and felt I was ready for casino play. I started at 5-10 and got crushed. At first I thought my play was sound and chalked it up to bad luck, the thing I slowly realized is, it's not bad luck, I was just bad. While most of my game was fairly solid there were enough leaks in my game to account for signifigant losses. I got better with more expereince and now consistently beat slightly larger games but don't just wrtie this first experience off as bad cards and bad luck, be honest with yourself. I'm sure bad luck played a part, but being intimidated by a new setting, lack of experience, and bad play probably accounted for a lot of the money you lost. I believe that is one of the most important things new players should do when thay analyze their sessions, BE HONEST, lying to yourself and saying its bad luck is not going to help, make it your mission to find weaknesses and correct them.
8/16 at casino san pablo nor cal. Very 1st hand and they make me post 1 before the button. oh well, I get Kh, 2h. It goes, bet, call, raise, I see it looks like button and SB will call so screw it I call. Never do normally but first hand let'em think I play bad... flop is KK2 (2 spades)...gets checked to the raiser he bets, I decide not to slow play and make it 2 bets, surprising for this game no calls till the raiser pumps it back....we go heads up for 5 bets capped. I think he has K w/ace or flush draw. turn comes 4s. He bets, I raise, he 3bets I 4 bet, he 5 bets, (I wonder if he has K4? I stop there(heads up is NL to raise. need less to say, he bet river I raise he calls I take fat pot. Should I have stopped betting on the turn? Was I as foolish as i think too raise the flop in stead of waiting to the turn?
YES & YES
You shouldn't have put him on anything but an AK he raised pre flop and unless he is a complete maniac as in Southern California/Phoenix style. I'd have to say I have the best hand and butt heads until he or I am out of chips.
Give me maniacs or give me death.
I think the call of the raise was borderline, even with your forced post, but once you're in there, I can't imagine hitting a better flop. I would certainly raise when the raiser comes out betting. Make his presumed AK or AA and any dead flush draws pay the max. You got it perfectly set up when you go heads up with this guy. By the way, what was the river card? If it was anything about 9 or less, he's going to get at least 5 bets out of me on the river. If he's raising with K4 or some sort of trash like that, it's going to take a big chunk out of the bankroll, but IMO he's more than likely thinking his AK or KQ is HUGE and isn't stopping to think about what you might be holding for all your action. Take it down.
YES, I pretty much agree with all you said. The river was trash, board played out like Kc, Ks, 2s, 4s, 6d. Later in the evening I asked him about the hand....I thought he had AK but he made a flush on the turn! God I gave him way too much credit!
While playing 8/16 tonite I got involved in a hand in BB. UTG raised it. She's Loose aggressive by my standards but by some in nor Cal she would be thought tight aggressive. anyways, the hand comes down to 4 callers to me, I have KQh, I call. Now I know she'll bet no matter what....and she'll raise If I bet. Flop is Q rag, rag. I want heads up so I bet, she raises, all but one fold, I call, turn and river were rags she bet both I just call both other guy out on river. She shows her AQ off suit and takes pot....no prob, but she mentioned something about it being such a good hand before the flop and how it should be raised. I tell her not in that spot, First to act, It's trash. She seems flabergasted as most in this area would too. Most of these people never play in LV or against "players".....Or is it maybe I'M JUST TOO TIGHT?
What is AQ worth?
Larry asks:
>What is AQ worth?
It's worth a raise UTG in any game. The lady was right (as they usually are).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Larry AQ IS a raising hand in many situations. - It is not trash against weak opponents - It is trash against quality players when your on the button and the pot is capped when it comes to you.
You're not to tight but you have to look at hands like this in the light of the opposition you're playing
It's a rare occasion to see me absolutely agree with Rounder.
Yes, most of the time, it's a question of who you are against. While AQo is strong enough to open with a raise UTG against *anybody*, you should think twice before playing it against a tight raise. You gotta know your man.
BTW, most of the time, when against a raise with AQo, it's either reraise or fold. Don't call. Show some style.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
AQo is a good hand but raising under the gun with it is a borderline play. My tendency is to often raise in tight games and just call otherwise, especially in action games.
To always or never raise with it UTG is too inflexible, but erring on the side of calling is better except in tight games.
If AQ looks like trash to you, even UTG, you must be a very patient man.
AQo can only play well heads up or very shorthanded. In my experience, it's a very poor hand multiway, especially from early position. Calling with it UTG would just encourage people to limp in behind me and create a multiway pot. I would either raise or fold never call. Simply calling with AQo UTG is unthinkable.
I think this reflects the idea that AQ is a bad hand multiway, and I think that's just wrong. AQ loses much of it's value multiway but it's still a premium hand that needs only fear AA, KK and AK. One might choose not to raise a bunch of limpers when raising will just make the pot bigger (and I'm not so sure about that), but folding it UTG because you're out of position and fear too many callers has to be incorrect.
Maybe I should mention this particular game was 6-8 handed most every hand. Almost always for 2 bets before the flop. This was the main reasoning behind my comment....This part I did not comment during the session...nor would I try to alienate a *live one*, gotta love them!
A side comment - why are you arguing with this lady about her play? She's either right or wrong, and you lose either way. Don't educate the other players. And don't annoy the live ones.
But AQ off is not 'trash'. It's a very good hand. It's only trash if you're playing it against AA, AK, KK, or QQ. So, you might consider chucking it if a tight player raises in front of you, but if you're first to act it's not a bad choice to raise with it, especially if there is some chance of winning the blinds with the raise.
I think that you can raise to limit the field. OR call because it's a decent starting hand OR fold because it's not super and you're in poor position.
It's not an argument anyone can win. It's too close. Folding is probably the worst option.
The question is what do you do once raised or reraised. Even that depends on who, where and how many are in.
Dan Hanson brings up a very good and too often overlooked area of play. Why educate the other players you are trying to beat. And why get mad and make a live one nervous or ready to quit when he makes a dumb play and draws out on you. I see too much of both at all levels of play.
No question about it. The worst part is, a player will lay into a live one when the live one is winning (because the "good" player has just been snapped off and is angry about it) -- many times, the live one will take his chips and leave while he's ahead because the snap-ee has driven him off.
I have seent this happen too often as well. A guy with pocket nines gets his last nine on the river (with a pair on board) and this lady with a made straight on the turn lights into him about how bad a play it is and how she can't believe he stayed in, and then he's gone in ten minutes with the chips. I got really pissed at her since I want him drawing like that against me, and probably paying off.
I was sitting in the 6-12 at the Commerce one time, not playing many hands at all, when I got into an unraised pot in my BB. I had 8-5o, a hand that I would not have played if I had to contribute more money to the pot. The flop came 9-7-x rainbow and I check my "second nut" gutshot straight draw. It is checked all around and the turn brings a Q. I check again and it is again checked around. River is the 6, no flush possible, and I bet, guy to my left raises and all others fold to me. I didn't put this guy on 8-10, so I reraised him and he calls. I show my hand and he shows pocket 9's. The guy limps 1st in with pocket 9's, flops top set, checks the flop and the turn, allowing himself to be beaten, then, as I'm stacking the pot this guy is going ballistic, he's telling me, and everyone else within a thirty foot radius, about how badly I had missplayed my hand. I listened to him with a look of mild puzzlement on my face, hoping he was going to explain exactly where I'd messed up in my play. He didn't cite any specifics and finally he wound himself back down and shut up. I sat quietly for another round not entering a single pot until it was my big blind again. I told the dealer to deal around me because I was leaving the game. While I'm racking up the guy with the set of 9's asks me "Aren't you going to give me a chance to win my money back?" I look at him and say "No, I feel terrible about that hand I won off you before. Today is the first time I've played Hold-em and I only brought $500.00 with me hoping to try and play a little and learn the game. I'm sorry for whatever it was I did, I sure don't want to ruin the game for you by making that kind of mistake again. I'll just go back to lowball, since I kind of understand that game a little, although I usually lose about $1,000 a nite playing that."
Several players at the table tried to convince me that I should stay and learn the game with them. After I got up, they seemed to be angry with the guy they thought had driven me away. I've done pretty much the same thing several times since then. I think of it as my little contribution to poker civility.
Good for you, stick it to 'em when they whine and complain. Especially this guy who flops a set and does'nt have the sense to bet it out, what an idiot. Then saying you misplayed your hand. Of course, I never get irritated when someone draws out a two - four outer on the river, but then again I'm charging for it. LOL :)
I'm not so sure I agree with others. AQo is a dangerous hand to play in a raised multiway pot. If the game is tigh and you feel your raise UTG will signifiganlty limit the field, by all means raise, but if you feel your going to get a lot of callers its better to just call UTG.
"AQo is a dangerous hand to play in a raised multiway pot. If the game is tigh and you feel your raise UTG will signifiganlty limit the field, by all means raise, but if you feel your going to get a lot of callers its better to just call UTG."
If the game is tight then you "shouldn't" get a lot of callers, and most of those callers will have hands that are either dominated or even money (smaller pocket pairs) with your hand. A/Q plays well heads-up, even unimproved.
If it is a loose game where many players will call 2 bets cold then a raise seriously hurts the implied odds for many hands. In that case a raise followed by aggressive play when the flop hits you pays off well in the long run.
Therefore, it seems to me that in both tight games (because you will limit the field and will often have the best hand going in) and in loose games (because you wreck other player's implied odds and you should win more than your fair share of the hands) a raise is a good idea.
Read the "playing AQ" chapter in HPFAP
>Read the "playing AQ" chapter in HPFAP
Then take a big red marker pen and write across the text in big red letters:
---
Izmet Fekali (will these AQ debates ever stop?)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I hardly think the advice is outdated, it was first published this year in the 21st century addition and IS correct
meant to write edition, sorry I'm very tired
The chapter was probably written about a year ago. I would trust the advice then. Not anymore.
The advice (of limping early with AQo in loose games) is debatable.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Yea, your right the games have really changed in the last 12 months, thanks for warning me... What are you talking about? you're an idiot
The games have not changed. Our beliefs have. It's difficult to remain a true S&M believer after a few hundred of computer sims and after lending your ear to other hold'em preachers. I chose to reconsider my views on this game in the last year and have not regretted it since.
Don't get me wrong, I do have some sincere respect for the people that helped me make my first steps in poker. But to follow blindly, that's just not my style.
Yes, the last year was a year of new revelations. Sue me. I'm an idiot.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Very aggressive borderlining on maniac game 6-12 HE. One hyper aggressive is on my right (7 seat), another is two to my left (no seat change coming anytime soon). The player in the 10 seat likes to cap it with any draw on the flop and will often raise the turn if he picks up an open ender or ANY flush draw. In general these two players make the game more like 18-36 with all their raising. Dangerous game.... Most flops cost two or three bets on the flop, turn, and river.
I am BB with 88. 10 seat raises, as usual. 5 players are in when it gets to me and I call.
Flop is 8d 6d Js. A good flop for me but not without its perils. If there is a flush draw out there, I can count on them going to the river no matter what. It's up to me to charge them the max to try. Same deal for straight draws. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find 57 or 79 being played in this game. Checked to me, I bet. 10 seat raises. two callers, including SB. I reraise, everyone calls, 4 players.
Turn is 8s giving me quads. Nice! Again checked to me, I bet. 10 seat raises!! Other player folds, SB cold calls, I make it three bets. Wow! I wish every powerhouse hand would play this way! Both call.
River is the Ad. SB actually comes out betting again, I can't believe it. No overcalling here, I'm raising your ass! I raise, both call. Unbelievably, 10 seat has AsKs (and raised with his flush draw on the turn) and SB has pocket 5's and made a full when I made quads.
Comments welcome
Dave in Cali
I assume from your Monikor you play in Calif.if so is this game typical,by the way where in CA.I play in Vegas but plan to play a lot in Cali this summer at the level you mention,everyone I talk to has the same story about the aggressiv/crazy games.Your description seems to back it up.Any strategy tips on approaching games like this?
Strategy tips? Hold on for dear life and play good hands. Since most hands will be raised, you have to be able to withstand a raise BTF on almost every hand you play (ie don't limp early with trashy hands).
Sometimes there will still be lots of players despite raises. In these cases you can play some drawing type hands but beware they will have a higher SD than usual. I like big suited cards best in these games (don't we all) or pairs. Flopping a set in these games is very profitable over the long run because you will get so much action.
The general strategy I use is to play tight BTF and raise my ass off when I have something good. I use maniac raises to isolate players or check-raise and build a big pot (which ever is most useful at the time). I virtually never slowplay anything. I Call on the river more, since the pots are so big, especially if maniacs are doing the betting. (Sometimes you are forced to call down a maniac when you are pretty sure you have the best hand, yet he keeps on betting).
There is no getting around the fact that the SD is high in these wild games and you will have big swings....
Dave in Cali
Southern california gives the word "maniac" a whole new meaning. Is it something in the water, the smog or the fear of falling off the world in a massive earth quake that gives them this death wish mentality on the poker table.
Big John help us here we need to know.
"Today I signed a very lucrative contract to be Gary Carson's literary agent." BIG JOHN
He doesn't have time for you anymore Rounder.
paul
SB had 5-5 or 6-6?
I am thinking about moving to SoCal. I played in some games at the Bicycle Club when I was out there that were even better -- not as crazy but with all kinds of chasing and overplaying. It's fun!
I wouldn't have done one thing differently. I dream about action like this and when this type of hand comes along, it is imperative to get the maximum return to make up for some of the suck-outs. Nice pot.
PS. I'm sure by now someone has pointed out the typo. SB must have had pocket 6's, or else there was a 5 on the flop, not a 6. No big deal; I got your point.
f
Feliz Navidad!
Hi,
I am reading Poker Essays by Malmuth. He says that a key to learning poker and becoming an expert is to think about issues b/4 you sit at the table. Bad thing to say to me; I'm thinking about hypotheticals in the shower now.
I have tried to post this question before and am coming to the conclusion that this Minnesota Swede is just too dense to figure it out. Here goes again.
You flop a nuts flush draw.
Odds: 2-1 by the river
4-1 on the turn
Leaving implied odds aside.
1. Does this mean I call (raise?) if the pot is giving me better than 2-1 or should I make my decision based on 4-1? Ex. If the bet is $3 do I need $7 or $13 in the pot to be making a correct pot odds bet.
2. If I miss the turn, what odds do I use to determine by actions on the river?
The odds of making the flush in the next 2 cards is about 35% or 3-1 and 5-1 on the river. It is difficult not to have those odds in the pot - You bet it on turn and river who knows they may fold if not you win most of the hits and it is a good bet.
Flush draws are just about the best draws you will ever get in holdem. I.E. the nut flush draw...
Say you have As2s and limp in late position. 6 people take the flop. there are 4 small bets in the pot.
The flop is 5s 9s Kd. SB bets, everyone calls to you.
NOW there are 11 small bets in the pot. you are getting 11:1 odds to call RIGHT NOW. The odds of you getting a flush ON THE NEXT CARD is 4.2:1 against. Obviously you are getting more than enough to call right now. BUT - can you raise for value? In this case, the answer is yes. If you raise and everyone calls, you will be putting in 2 small bets and getting 5 others to do the same, making your immediate pot odds 5:1. (In this particular case you may be also buying a free card if you miss on the turn, which would be another reason to raise).
If you plan on staying in to the river trying to make your flush, your EFFECTIVE ODDS are somewhat different than your IMMEDIATE ODDS. If you are planning on calling all the way to the end, your odds (on the flop) of getting a flush by the river are about 1.9:1 against, or about a 35% chance of getting there. You must consider that you will probably have to call another bet on the turn when you don't get your flush card. SO lets say you raised the flop and everyone called.
The turn card is a blank. There are 15 small bets, or 7.5 big bets in the pot right now. SB bets again. only one person calls, so when it gets to you there are 9.5 big bets in the pot. your chance of getting a flush on the next card is now 4.1:1. Again you are getting more than enough to call.
Should you raise? If you raise and they both just call, you are putting in two bets and they are each putting in two, plus what was already in the pot, makes for your odds being 11.5:2. If you don't raise, your odds will be 9.5:1. In this case the second choice (not raising) gives you better overall odds so I would choose not to raise on the turn. If there were still 5 callers on the turn then I would raise again! Four or less then I would just call.
In general, you can often raise a flush draw for value on the flop, but not very often on the turn. It always depends on the number of players and size of pot.
I think it is best to usually consider your draws on a card for card basis. you can't say " well it's 2:1 that I will make my draw by the river" and then use 2:1 as an excuse to call a turn raise in a small pot. Your pot odds will often be much worse on the turn and some draws should often be abandoned (i.e. gutshots).
One last example: Sometimes a even a flush draw should simply be thrown away, because you are not getting sufficient odds.
Say you have 8s4s in the BB and only the button calls, everyone else folds. Flop is As Kd 2c. You check and button checks. Turn is 3s, giving you the flush draw. You consider semi-bluffing, but you see the button getting his chips ready to bet and you fear being raised. You check and he bets. There are 2 small bets plus one big bet = 2 big bets in the pot. NOW your odds to draw to the flush are 4.1:1 against but your pot odds are only 2:1. Fold your draw, it is simply not worth it. (There are not enough implied odds to justify calling, but implied odds will be the subject of a different post!)
I hope this helped. I tried to assist pyramid in conceptualizing this whole odds thing. If anyone sees flaws or any other problems with my post, please don't hesitate to blast me... (I know you won't hesitate!).
Dave in Cali
For one if you back off of betting every time someone defensively reaches for their chips, you're probably not winning as much money as you should when you do take the pot.
Secondly, raising the flop when you're on the button with a draw and the initial bet comes from way up front is not automatic, especially if you think there's another flush draw between you and the bettor or if the bettor himself has the flush draw. If the flush gets there on the turn and you can count on your bettor to continue betting, then the non-nut flush between you and the bettor will likely throw a raise in there and you can three bet it with 3 people. In fact, in Texas if it's three bet with 3 or more people, you know it's going to be capped, whether it's before the flop, on the flop or on the turn. (Not nearly so often on the river for obvious reasons)
So, depending on who's sitting at the table, implied odds and pot manipulation are not always set on the flop. While raising the turn and 3-betting the turn are definately going to put more of your chips at risk, doing so at the right time will put more of your tablemates' (enemies?) chips in your stack in a hurry and it is no great detriment to your table image either.
Jim Brier gave us some very specific guidelines he employs when faced with a legitimate raise in early position. Perhaps, someone could share with us lower limit players some guidelines against players who would raise in early or middle position, regardless of previous limpers with JTs, T9s, T8s, Axs, Kts, small pockets, A9, A8 QTs, QJo, I feel if you know your opp has looser requirements for preflop raising, you could be folding hands that could easily be better than the raiser.
Any thoughts?
My tendency is to play much tighter when you have a maniac raising all the time. His action tends to blow the game wide open which means trouble for top pair. It doesn't matter that you may have a hand better than the raiser. What matters is your chance of winning against the field of players being drawn into the pots by this loose action.
It's group I and II only unless you can slide in for 1 bet in late position.
Sammy if your playing quailty cards in the right position you will naturally be calling and reraising inferior hands with your better hands.
When I am in a game with a loose player who is always raising I just ignore his reises they are usually meaningless and play my best game. It works.
The first thing I'll change about my response to a raise from a maniac is that I won't make the ultra-tight folds that I might make if a solid player raised from UTG. If you know the raiser has AK or AA or KK and you're next to act after he raised, just about any hand is an easy fold.
Against a maniac, hands like KQs become playable because it still stands to be the best hand after the rest of the field calls.
But some aspects of raises don't change no matter who's raising. Your variance goes up, implied odds go down. So you still have to make an adjustment, even if the raiser would raise any two cards.
Also, offsuit cards that don't usually make big hands are dangerous, because games with maniacs in them get tricky. If a good player called the raise, you have absolutely no information about his hand. So I tend to avoid hands like QJ, KJ, KQ, even though I know I've probably got a better hand than the raiser.
Versus a loose raiser in a multiway situation, you want to play hands that play well multiway. These hands include medium-big pairs, big suited aces, and big suited connectors. Offsuit hands stink multiway, so be more inclined to play a hand like ATs than AQo. You probably couldn't go wrong by mucking all offsuit hands but AKo to the loose raise if almost all pots are contested by a bunch of players. Be more inclined to reraise the loose raise if you can get heads up, and if you notice that most players are ignoring the raises and playing their usual trash (J7s, T9o) to a raise, go ahead and reraise to trash their implied odds. It's fine to pay 3 bets with AJs or TT in this kind of game. An expert player can probably call with weaker hands like small pairs and suited connectors in such a multiway situation.
If most pots aren't multiway, then you can reraise with more hands, especially offsuit hands, but you want to hold the better ones unless you're in late position. If the loose player raises, no one else enters, and you're in late position, go ahead and reraise with AJo, but you won't want to do this in an earlier position because AQ/AK will call and you're in trouble.
I like Abdul Jalib's recommendation (his charts can be found on http://www.posev.com) that you should have a hand 2 notches better than a raiser's minimum to call his/her raise.
-Sean
Playing in a 3-6 hold em game on the net. Game is very tight with around 3 players seeing the flop on average, and maybe half the games ending with a bet on the flop. Game is also fairly passive.
I'm in middle position with Ah8hs. One caller to me, I call, and there are 4 callers behind me including the blinds. Wow, 6 people seeing the flop, probably the most all night. I'm somewhat happy with my suited ace. $18 in the pot.
Flop is Ad As 2c, none of my suit.
Checked to me and I check. I'm almost certain everyone will fold to a bet unless they have an A, or a high pocket pair. With no one raising pre-flop I can discount the chance of a high pocket pair, leaving me to contend with Ace & a better kicker. My check is intended to induce bets and calls by late position players on the flop and/or players on the Turn who don't have the A. Comments?
Turn is a Qc, two clubs on the board (I don't have clubs). BB bets, fold, and I call. The queen helps my hand some as I can use it as a kicker unless someone is playing AQ. I call, wanting calls by the four players still to act (even the four flush is only getting 5-1 on his call, and I still have redraws against him), and if I raise I only expect calls from players with a better A. Everyone behind me folds. So much for getting more calls. I am heads up with the better. Comments?
River isn't important to the hand so I will give it here so you don't have to wonder. River is the case A, giving me quads. BB bets, I raise, he calls, and he mucks when he sees the quads.
I'm most interested in comments on the flop and turn betting. What is the best strategy with decent hands, kicker trouble in a game that is super tight (especially considering it was 3-6) and somewhat passive.
Thanks,
PRC
First get out of that Tight 3/6 game and move to greener pastures. The rake will be doing lots of damage at this level unless the game is very loose.
I think Raising on the Turn would have been better since you are almost positive you have the best hand and you don't want to give any Club Draws proper odds to call. I think with your redraws their Odds of making a good Flush are 5.7 to 1, but you will have to pay it off on the end so without a raise on the Turn I believe they are getting good odds for their draw. Also if a Club doesn't come on the end the Draw isn't going to pay you off where they would have on the Turn. If the bettor has a Pair of Queens he's going to pay you off on the Turn or River. He also could have you beat, but thats the breaks.
Later, CV
In a game this tight, I think you need to be raising with hands like A8s in middle position with only one caller before you. Even though the game is passive, there is a good chance she doesn't have an A.
A raise in a tight game should frequently get you the blinds or heads up. Heads up you've got a pretty good hand. You might even get a late AJ (sometimes AQ) to fold, so that flops with an Ace are that much better for you.
Eric
I prefer a raise on the turn in this spot. If you're opponent is on a draw you'll likely get the call. The folks yet to act are not too likely to join the action.
The queen alone does not help your hand. Your kicker still sucks.
I think you should bet the flop with this many opponents. You don't want it check around because you miss collecting some extra bets and you run the risk of giving a free card to a crowd of players which is not a good idea.
On the turn, a raise is clear. You want to make the flush draws pay since you probably have the best hand.
As an aside, the Queen on the turn only helps your hand if someone else has the case Ace and the board pairs on the river, especially a Deuce thereby overcoating your opponent's kicker. It really should not be a consideration in your thinking.
I'm not so sure the Q doesn't help my hand. Before the Turn, hands that can beat me include AK, AQ, AJ, AT, and A9. When the Q comes on the turn, I pick up extra outs against hands that are less than AQ.
For example, if my opponent is holding AJ, any K now means we will split the pot. Splitting the pot isn't great, but it beats losing. If the opponent had AT I have picked up 8 outs: any K or J.
Ironically, this reasoning supports a raise on the turn when the Q hits because I can play my hand more aggressively. If the BB doesn't have the A I potentially win more by raising, and if he does have the A, the extra outs mean I will lose less with this hand over time.
PRC
You make some good points. If someone has the case Ace but with a lower kicker you are hurt by these cards because now your equity got cut in half. So the Queen followed by one of these other cards can hurt you as much as help you in those situations where you have the best hand. Since no one raised pre-flop, I would tend to rule out AK or AQ so it is really AJ,AT, or A9 vs A7,A6,A5,A4, or A3.
And you make an equally valid counter point. I hadn't thought of those aces with a worse kicker, and as you say, that includes a great number of hands.
Thanks for the insight.
You say you were playing on the internet. If it was either PP or Paradise you should just keep betting. Bet the flop, bet and raise the turn. The thing is at 3-6 no one is going to believe you anyway. Make them pay for that besides drawing to the flush as Jim said. If there's anyone there even with a deuce, much less a higher pocket pair you'll have a donator til the end. If no one has anything they'll still fold the first time you bet. So bet away and just hope there are hands out there.
First the disclaimer: Most of what follows should be classified as "thinking ahead, away from the table", as I didn't think of all this at the time. That is why I posted the question; in retrospect, betting stratey in a tight game seemed an interesting problem. Also, I'm still not sure I am right but I wanted to present some other ideas.
1) betting on turn: The flush draw has 7 outs because the Ac and the 8c makes me a full house. Giving him credit for knowing the cards in my hand that gives him 7 out of 44 cards for a winner, or 5.2 to 1 if my math is correct. After the BB bets and I just call, the pot is giving him 5 to 1 to call, so I still make money. However, there were 4 people behind me, and they all can't be on flush draws (if so, there odds are even worse and I again welcome their calls). A gutshot is roughly 10 to 1; any Q is basically drawing dead. If I call, their calls are incorrect, and if I raise they might not call. I think the play comes under the principle of top pair, weak kicker. It is better to collect multiple bets from many people, than multiple bets from one when you raise. That way, you win the same when you hand holds up, and lose less when you hand is a loser.
2) betting the flop: or, in other words, "Internet 3-6 can be very tight at times". I don't know why, but every now and then you find a game where there are very few people seeing the flop, and most hands end on the flop. When this game goes this way, I would guess that 90% of the flops that contain a pair end to a flop bet. That is why I didn't bet the flop, as I was pretty sure any action I got was going to be by an ace with a better kicker.
I generally make my money in these games by picking up blinds with a pre-flop raise, or picking up pots on the flop. It isn't much, but it is profitable.
Thanks for all the resonses:
PRC
I find it interesting how the definition of a tight game changes from area to area. I have played in LV only once. It was exactly how I expected. I found rarely more then 3 players seeing the flop as expected. I held my own most of the time the 5 days there but eventually ended with a slight loss. Which considering the quality of players(grinders) was ok. But in Northern California Tight is 4 players seeing the flop. Most will play any suited, and many will play any connected. The problem with this is the fluctuations from one of the 6 players in the hand sucking out on you. Yes I love this game but it can terrorize me too. I've actually found I do a little better in a little tighter game where it is 4 players not 6 seeing the flop...now I say a little tighter when by my definition I would call 4 a loose game.
I define a tight game as any one that I'm sitting in where my blind raise, UTG, without having touched my hole cards is not reraised. A loose game is one where it is routinely capped preflop and 6 or more average seeing the flop. A great game is a loose game (see definition above) where 3 or more routinely fold to any flop bet. In a 9 handed loose game there should be a minimum average of two racks of chips per player and one of the tall stacks should be saying that he wants to get all in this hand.
Much has been written about starting hands in loose games....Lowering your standards and such. But how much? Played 3 sessions this week in 8/16 Loose game in which there was one pro (a last table player from world series back a few years.)and the rest were "gamblers" I'm grinding it out. in The BB, J7suited. utg raises 5 players in the hand to me...I'm getting 11-1 no prob I'll play to see the flop. Flop comes JJ4. I know Lady to my left will raise so I say thin the field make the flush draw pay and prob no one will believe her anyways. I bet, she raises, 2 callers, Here's where I flat call. Turn comes J, I check my quads, she bets 1 caller I pause, look back at my hand, Raise!, She reraises!, other guy takes his time, and calls!, I repop it both call. river comes unsuited to the board 7 or 8 not sure, other guy out of turn throws hand in muck in disgust out of turn , I bet she calls, "send it"!.....she had pocket 10s. Now this is very rare and usually I wont call a raise with that hand pre flop in loose game BB...Button ok (only when button is 1 forced small bet already. But how much should starting hands change in a loose game?
Lower your standards in a loose game at your own risk.
I think you should do the opposite.
I think it more depends on the aggressiveness of the table than the looseness... If people are popping a lot of raises on trash pre-flop, you definately want to tighten up and pound them...
However, if table is generally passive, then loosening somewhat is not out of line, IMO. Do your loosening in later seats (maybe several catagories at the max?) keep pretty tight in front still.
Again last nite in 8/16 loose game, I'm in BB with Pocket Kings, I raise the 6 players in the hand. Flop is 8s, 8c, 7c,....I bet anyways Maybe I shouldnt. Next guy raises I call.(reraise?). oh we are now 4 handed. Turn comes 10s, Very bad card...another draw out there, made straight who knows....I check...raiser bets, two callers I call. Make a comment to a very tight player as I show him my hand how much of an underdog I was going into this hand with these rags. The gods must be crazy....redemption! Kc hits the river! I check raise 2 callers both call. One ahd flush other had straight. Should I have mucked on turn?.....often times I will.
IF you know you'll probably get two callers on a river checkraise THEN you are getting just below true odds on your draw.
There are a few advantages that make it, and many calls, worth "just below implied odds":
IF you hit the king, as you did, you might also slow the betting down in future rounds by taking a bit of wind out of their sails. Then again it could generate a hurricane of hot air.
If you miss you can show your kings and advertise a bit.
You crave action and you get it...
I would have folded on the turn given the open pair on board and two cold callers on the flop when you lead and get raised. I would have figured you were playing a two outer.
This is a situation that came up in a loose 15-30 game I played in recently. I'm curious to see how others would have played this.
UTG calls, the next guy raises, folds to me. I'm one off the button with pocket nines. I call. The button calls, both blinds call, and UTG calls.
The flop is 10-9-6 with two diamonds. SB and BB check, UTG bets, preflop raiser raises. My question is what to do here. I have a hand that is probably ahead. Do I call, waiting to lower the boom on the turn? Or should I raise and make sure that the gutshots drop?
Raise.
There are a number of reasons to raise but primarily getting more money in the pot is your primary objective. If you win the pot right there that's not a bad thing either. You figure to have the best hand but there may be a lot of potential draws out against you. It appears from the play so far that UTG got a piece of the flop but does not have a made hand. The preflop raiser seems to be proud of an over pair. I don't give him a set of Tens or else he may just call at this point. There is the possibility that the one of the blinds checked with a made hand (straight in this case) but that's a small possibility. The fact that UTG bet and there was a raise makes this pot big enough to go after. Slow playing small/mid sets in situations like this with a lot of players is a mistake.
Vince.
Your cold-call with pocket Nines of an early position player's raise when someone had limped in under the gun was very marginal. I would have folded.
On the flop with 15 bets in the pot, you should re-raise and protect the pot that is out there. It is especially important when a two flush flops since you want the drawing hands to pay through the nose.
I was only going to read the responses and not post but Jim's response makes me quiver. How can you possibly say FOLD? He has the 6th best starting hand. He is a favorite with position over everything but Pocket 10's thru A's. Let's find out what this guy that raised raises with. If he'll only raise with pocket 10's or better then a lay down is okay but not mandatory if the player is someone who would lay his hand down if he did not improve. What about the players yet to act? Are they going to call and give you the correct odds to call...Does this guy raise with anything? How about a re-raise and get him heads up! Surely he doesn't have 78 or a gutshot. I have read a lot of your posts Jim and this robot response doesn't sound like you. I play with very few players who I can make a snap judgment of what to do based solely on their action and not considering the rest. There is 1 girl that I occasionally play with who will never raise with anything besides pocket A's in the blinds... If I'm in the BB with pocket Kings and she raises her SB I'm laying it down unless there is a lot of players in the pot and I can put them on a hand and know that if the flop is scary and bet that they will raise and knock her out for me. Just my 2 cents worth and a lot of words to say your call was correct assuming the above.
Russ
But Furious, an early position raiser is usually marked with a good hand. Usually AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT, AK, AQ,AJ suited, or KQ suited. Your pocket Nines is a huge dog to many of these hands and only a small favorite to the others which makes you a long term money loser in this situation. You also have the under-the-gun limper to worry about as well as the other players. Medium pocket pairs like 77,88, and 99 are normally not good hands with which to be calling legitimate raises. Would you yourself raise with these hands in early position? Even if the raiser doesn't always have what he should for his raise you still have to consider the presence of the other players. A medium pocket pair is normally not a strong enough hand to get involved here at these prices.
Now change the situation. Let us say you are on the button and everyone folds to a middle or late position player who opens with a raise with everyone else folding to you. Now I think I might call the raise with 99 if I could be fairly certain that he was raising on shaded values and it would just be the two of us.
Middle position raise to me on the button with 99, I would normally make it three bets, calling must be a mistake here unless you know the blinds are going to call 3.
D.
If a guy opens with a raise in middle position and I have good reason to believe that he is doing this on shaded values, I would re-raise also from the button. In this case, I want to drive out the blinds and get it heads up with the middle player who raised. However, I will usually fold if I know the player to be a tight raiser who does not lower his raising standards based on his position.
But that is althogether different than this problem where some one comes in under the gun and another guy raises from early position. I have seen players cold-call the raise and even re-raise but I think they are making a mistake. I think you need to have a quality hand to 3 bet pre-flop in the face of an early position raiser.
There is not much positive to be said for being in a 3 bet hand with pocket 9's. I don't like it.
Vince.
So you fold? or call and you beleive it is better to play against 3 other players in a rasied pot that you will most likely need a set to win?
3-bet in late position, heads up and you have an actual pair is not so bad against a lot of those raising hands. Not only does it win a fair share at the river but they will have a hard time seeing all the cards to the river.
So you don't like it and call? or you fold?
D.
I was responding to what you wrote:
"Now I think I might call the raise with 99"
about the different hand not the original hand. So the "althogether different than this problem" is actually the problem your wrote in your note.
So you wouldn't call afterall, that is what I thought.
It is a raise or fold situation but usually a raise I think unless against an exceptionally tight raiser.
I think once you are in there and have a chance to make it three bets on the flop, DO IT. Make the flush or straight draws pay the maximum, right now while you probably have the best hand. You may or may not get a chance to raise on the turn. By reraising the flop, you ASSURE that at least 2 1/2 big bets per person are going into the pot (your reraise on the flop plus your assumed bet on the turn if it's checked to you). Since your hand is vulnerable, play it as fast as possible as soon as possible.
Dave in Cali
You want to get more money in the pot, but you would also like to get some longshot draws out immediately. If you three bet the flop, then SB, BB and perhaps UTG, who has to call 2 bets, will get out.
If you call w/ the intention of raising the turn you take a big risk. The SB & BB might call two bets and UTG might just call - then the field in not narrowed.
The turn card changes everything. Though you may think that by just calling the raise, the raiser might bet into you on the turn - there is no guarantee that he will.
If he does: You raise and the SB, BB & UTG must cold call a raise - but the turn card and the fact that everyone saw the turn for 2 bets (bigger pot, wider eyes), might make such a call attractive, and perhaps correct. What if SB or BB had Ad and a 6 - giving a back door flush and a pair - if you three bet it, he'll likely fold on the flop. Many players will call w/ 2 bets. (when the turn is a diamond it will be difficult to get that Ad out now).
See the reasoning? It all goes to the texture of the flop. 923 rainbow or similar is far less dangerous than the one from your hand. Maybe w/ 923 rainbow you just call hoping that someone with 2 overcards or bottom/middle pair w/ overcard calls as well - then if they hit on the turn, you'll get all the action you need.
There are so many ugly cards to hit the turn with your flop that you don't even want to think about it - just raise, raise, raise and get them out. Just of the top of my head: any diamond, any K,Q,J,7 or 8 for a straight. Not to mention whatever big pair the raiser might have - that A will beat your trips, though AA will likely see the turn regardless.
Then you got to think of the chances the raiser won't bet into you on the turn. People raise flush draws and open-enders on the flop all day long. He checks to you and you likely won't get any reasonable drawing hands to fold - they'll only have to call one bet.
When in doubt, raise (or fold). But that's just me.
Since your getting protection on your hand from the preflop raiser, I would reraise at this stage without a seconds thought, maximize now, because you might not get the chance to lower the boom on the turn. Make all the draws pay, forget the gut shots, there's more likely open ended and diamonds to be concerned with and if the board pairs on the turn, well that changes your strategy doesn't it!
George
I think it is aclose decision. I would probably not raise and let the gutshot play. More importantly the flush draw is going to play so i would wait and see if the turn brought a diamond. If no diamond i would hit them with raise/reraise when the diamond draw is a big dog to your hand. Also, by raising on the flop straight/flush draws are going to play no matter what you do so you tend to knock out hands that you welcome such as gutshot draws, overpairs,top pair. In addition, if a diamond comes you can either raiseon the turn since if he has a diamond but not the top diamond he will only call scared you have the top diamond or just call and hope you fill up.Good luck Ice
I'm surprised Ice is the only one who recommended calling. I think arguments can be made both ways, but there are merits to calling. Such as...
The turn was the deuce of spades...almost EXACTLY the card I wanted to fall. The raiser is indeed on an overpair, but the earlier posters who said that he might not bet the turn are wrong. If he's not raised on the flop and a blank hits, he HAS to bet. If I 3-bet the flop, he almost certainly checks. I'm not saying that there's no reason not to 3-bet...punishing the gutshots is a good one...but there are reasons to call.
Following my call on the flop, everyone called. On the turn, SB, BB, and UTG checked, and the raiser bet. I raised. All folded to UTG, who called. The raiser called.
Alas, the river was a five of diamonds. Both checked to me. I was shortstacked, so I bet my last $30. Both called. UTG raked the pot with a king-high flush that he failed to bet into a $500 pot against a shortstacked opponent. Go figure.
I've become more disciplined, so I'm comfy folding garbage and hammering the monsters. However, it seems the way to stay in the black is to somehow mediate the suck-outs bleeding my cash between wins. What are your weapons for mitigating damage?
It depends on what limit you are playing.
My rules for the road are the lower the limit the tighter you have to play.
If you are playing 20-40 and up, you must then be ready to play many short handed pots and playing the player instead of the field. Stealing blinds and protecting blinds comes into play as well.
All of this is an acquired taste gained through experience.
Can't somebody think of an alternative way of phrasing whatever it means to "suck out"? I mean I know what it means in the real world, just not in the world of poker, if you get my drift?
Nancy
"Sucking out" in hold-em means to draw out on someone. One of the characteristics of hold-em is that when you have the best hand on the flop or the turn you are normally way ahead of your opponent. In hold-em we use the term "outs" to describe the number of ways a chaser can over take the leader. A hand with a dozen "outs" or so is considered a good chasing hand (have to consider pot odds of course). But even a dozen outs from about 47 unseen cards means that there are 35 "non-outs" so the chaser has to be very lucky to win. A guess an alternative would be to use the term "drawing out" like they do in other poker forms.
It's a lot more fun in the real world, if you catch my drift.
In a nutshell, charge them for the opportunity of sucking out and narrow the field.
When you're unexpectedly raised or bet into on the end, consider which hands your opponent could have made and (in broad brush fashion) the respective likelihood of each hand based on the way he plays and his play throughout the hand and his proclivity for bluffing. The same drill will also help you identify cases where you should raise and cases where you just can't tell.
When it's obvious you're beat, you must balance your desire to fold against the need to avoid giving the impression that they can run over you on the end. It's cultivating the desire to fold that's the hard part. Most players just pay off too often and tell themselves that the "pot odds" demand it, a prevalent leak. Instead, do the analysis.
I'm in the BB with Ac3c,only two others call the button and sb.The flop comes,2,3,4 rainbow with one club.Sb cks,I bet,button calls,and SB makes a very unchararistic ck raise.I play in this game a lot both opponents are daily regulars.The ck raiser is an experienced solid player,but I've never seen him ck raise.I call,so does button.Turn blank,SB bets.How would you play it from here,I'll post what happenned at end of thread.
I like your flop bet with middle pair, an inside straight draw, an over card, and a backdoor flush draw when you have only two opponents neither of whom raised pre-flop. When the small blind check-raises after the button calls, I put him on at least two pair and maybe a straight.
When a blank comes on the turn there is now 11 bets in the flop (3 pre-flop, 6 flop, and 2 from small blind) and it costs you 2 bets to call. At best you have 9 outs with any Five, any Ace, or any Three but neither an Ace or a Five is a clean out. You could even be drawing dead. You have a clear fold here.
From the small blinds actions I would say he has flopped two pair. You are getting correct odds to call his check-raise on the flop and call a bet on the turn. You have 9 outs that will make your hand a possible winner on the river (3 Aces, 2 threes, and 4 fives). If I do not make my hand I will fold to a bet on the river, otherwise, I will reraise the SB if he bets.
I suspected 2 pr in the SB with the check raise on the flop, but a 5,6 is a real possibility. I would have raised in the SB with 2 pr and called with a straight possibility. An ace on the river may kill you. A five is as bad. I think you should have folded.
Also, the 3 may not give you an out. His 2 pair is a favorite to include a 3. This reduces you to an A or a 5, and neither of these may give you the best hand. You may need runner-runner, and you may already be dead meat.
Fat-Charlie
I think it is unlikely that the SB has 2 pair. Would you call with only 2 other players in in the SB with 23, 24 or 34? Maybe if they were suited, but a short handed pot like this really isn't the place for these hands, even when the button shows weakness by only calling. A5 or 56 are more likely to be called with, especially if suited.
David
My guess is that the SB flopped a str8 w/A5s. He could not raise pre-flop with the weak Ace but could limp to see if the flop came up in his suit.
MJ
You nailed it pretty good,he had 5,6 flopped the straight.Given this opponent I made an error and bet the turn,river blank he bets I fold.Thanks for the feedback
In the latest issue of Cardplayer (12/10/99), the following hand is discussed in Roy Cooke's article:
"I limped in under the gun in a passive $30-$60 game with the Queen of Diamonds and the Jack of Diamonds. A player two to my left raised, another player called, the button called, the blinds folded, and I called. There is $290 in the pot and four players. The flop came: A-Q-8 rainbow with one Diamond. I checked, the pre-flop raiser checked, the first caller checked, and the button bet $30. I called, the pre-flop raiser now raised to $60, the first caller folded, and the button folded. I called. (At this point, Roy put the button on a weak Ace who bet and then decided to fold when raised). There is $440 in the pot and two players. The turn is: 9 offsuit. I check. The pre-flop raiser bet $60 and I called. There is $560 in the pot. The river is: Jack. I bet and he called. He shows A-K."
Since the purpose of this post is not to critique Roy's play, I have omitted all of his rationale and explanations which are well documented in his article. I leave such a critique to another poster.
My problem is with the pre-flop raiser. I think his failure to bet the flop was terrible poker. Here is my rationale:
1. This is a raised pot pre-flop with almost $300 in it.
2. His hand on the flop was top pair/top kicker which is an excellent hand but it is far from invulnerable.
3. With only 3 opponents, one of whom has already checked, he cannot assume that someone else will bet especially given that flop.
4. He cannot afford to be giving out free cards to bottom pairs, middle pairs, double belly buster straight draws (J-T), or inside straight draws (T-9, K-J, A-T, or J-9).
I think the pre-flop raiser should bet the flop with big slick. In this particular case, it might well have made a difference. If he bets, the caller and button will probably fold. He raised pre-flop and now bets this flop so based on the narrative in Roy's article I think they will fold. Now what does Roy do? There is $320 in the pot and it costs Roy $30 to take off a card. Roy put his opponent on AA,KK,QQ,AK, or AQ. Given Roy's hand and the flop there are 3 ways for AA, 6 ways for KK, 1 way for QQ, 12 ways for AK, and 6 ways for AQ. With AA, QQ, or AQ Roy is practically drawing dead. This is 10 ways. The other 18 ways with KK or AK, Roy is playing 5 outs and even then his opponent has redraws against him. So his call would be no where near correct and I am certain Roy would have folded. What does everyone else think?
Since the pot is moderately big, if you bet the only players who will fold out are those players that you wish had called with the exception of someone holding an ace with a weaker kicker. Specifically middle and bottom pair will probably call, and anyone with a gutshot will call. (They also will be correct to do so given your hand.)
So your bet won't get these players out of there. But your check might if the bet comes in last position. Or, your check might allow you to get a raise in on the turn if the player on your right now bets -- this will usually happen if no one bets the flop.
In HPFAP-21 we have a discussion on how to play in big pots where we give some extreme examples of not betting hands on the flop that virtually everyone will bet. It's in the loose games section and you may want to look at it.
By the way, even though the pot here is large, it is really only moderately large. Thus it is only beginning to reach the point where these extreme plays begin to make sense. Specifically, a bet on the flop will offer your opponents approximately 9-to-1. Thus I would probably make it. On the other hand if my bet was offering let's say 15-to-1 I would be much more inclined to check. However, it is clear to me that checking is not as bad a play as you think it is.
But Mason why does the concern about whether or not someone else is or is not getting the correct odds to call take priority over protecting the pot and betting your hand? If no one bets these guys who are chasing are getting infinite odds so to speak. Isn't better to make them pay something even if they happen to be getting correct odds as opposed to letting them get infinite odds? In addition, sometimes when faced with a bet they make the wrong decision and fold. By betting you give them the chance to make a mistake. When you check, they have no decision to make.
In addition, according to the Theory of Poker by David Sklansky, one of the criteria for attempting a check-raise is the likelihood that someone else will bet. With only two opponents yet to act coupled with the pre-flop action and that board this may not be very likely.
I do agree that betting is probably the better play in this spot but it is close. But you miss the point which is if you bet and you know they are going to call and they are right to do so, there might be a better strategy available. This usually occurs in large pots against players who rountinely call with weak hands for one bet. In HPFAP-21 we give an example where you are last to act, have the best hand but not what most of you would consider a slowplaying hand, and check.
The point is that by checking you get a chance to make it a big 2 bets to many of the players on the turn and prevent one round of drawouts on the river. So you wouldn't be hoping for a check raise on the flop but for the flop to be completely checked!
I played a KK this way recently and it worked great, anecdotal I know but it gives you a sense of doing something to save your hand when you know many players will otherwise call and call again.
D.
But David, you don't want the flop checked around. You could be giving out free cards to three opponents and your hand is simply not that strong. Someone might fold a gutshot if you bet or at least they have to pay some money to stay with their hand. When you check, there are a lot of cards that could crush you. If a Jack turns, someone with T9 or KT makes a straight. If a Ten turns, someone with KJ or J9 makes a straight. If a Nine turns, someone with JT has a straight. If an Eight turns, someone with bottom pair now has trips. If a Queen turns, someone with middle pair now has trips. This is 18 cards excluding those on the board which is a big chunk of the deck. While betting the flop does not guarantee anything, at least you are making the pot bigger when you have the best hand and forcing your opponents to make a decision about whether or not to continue. If a blank comes on the turn and you bet and win the pot outright it will be smaller because you failed to bet the flop and collect those extra bets.
I am not arguing that a check is for sure correct in this hand but are you against EVER making the play from HFAP21 loose games section? You give up some on the flop but gain a lot by the river when many of the drawouts fold on the turn to 2 big bets.
Your 18 cards are still available after the turn but a large number of players will fold, even incorrectly to two bets on the turn.
D.
No, I think the check-raise as described in HPFAP can work out well especially those discussed under the section on check-raising. But the key is that someone has to bet. Now the more players yet to act, the more likely someone is going to bet. In addition, if there is a pre-flop raiser who is yet to act then that would be a good indicator that someone might bet. I am not arguing against the concept just its application here.
I think I must not be communicating well.
The idea I am talking about is Checking top pair on the flop with the intention of making it two bets on the turn. This is in the loose game section of the new edition. Mason mentioned in his post that this may be why the player checked. The check raise that actually occured was a side effect.
D.
But again, I would argue that with this board given two cards in the playing zone (an Ace and a Queen) it is a serious mistake. Although the concept may be different, this would be the functional equivalent of a slow play wherein one deliberately allows a free card because his hand is very strong and he wants his opponents to catch up. But his actual hand is not strong enough nor is the texture of the board right for this maneuver.
Why would middle or especially bottom pair call with 9-1 pot odds?
Because someone with bottom pair figures they have 5 outs (2 cards for trips and 3 cards for a second pair). Five outs from 47 unseen cards is slightly less than 9:1 against. The flaw in this argument is that his outs are not necessarily "clean" outs in the sense that if he hits a second pair he still has to go on and win the pot from there. But the real point is that when you bet you force him to make a decision and he doesn't always make the correct decision. Another way to look at this problem is to look at the number of "collective" outs that might be against you with three opponents. By betting some of your opponents may fold which reduces the likelihood of someone sucking out on you.
By checking the flop with top pair here there's little good to come from it. It's quite possible the player to your left bets, who knows how many more call before it's back to you for your check-raise and then no one folds. Mission definitely not accomplished.
Let's say it checks around. Even worse, IMHO. Death by free card is a huge mistake. Now you need Roy to bet so you can raise, a possiblilty but not guaranteed.
I'll be betting the flop. Not tricky. Not fancy. Not wrong by much in the worst case.
Jim:
Another one I would add to the list of reasons to bet is that since you raised preflop, your bet does not necessarily signal a strong ace. Most players will follow up on their preflop raise even if they don't have an ace in that situation, provided they are still fairly strong (e.g. K-K, K-Qs). That raises an interesting question -- with three callers, do you bet with say K-K on that flop in that position? My guess is that you would. So why not bet A-K? I would bet unless I am very sure the button will bet for me.
SW
I'll vote for the bet the flop choice here. The button might even raise helping to narrow the field.
Several casinos in Vegas offer a spread limit 1-4-8-8 hold em game with a single $2 blind. I think quite a lot can be studied about this game (if anyone was interested.
Here's a few thoughts and ideas:
1)Should you loosen your play up, or tighten your play up?? For example, it's only 2 dollars to call before the flop unless it's raised (it can be raised up to a total of $6). So the price to pay for that 5,7 of spades might be only $2, and you might win a bundle if you flop something. On the other hand, you can play very, VERY, tight, and you only lose $2 per time the button goes around. Maybe you could limit your play to only A,A; K,K; A,K... I doubt that you would lose action as a result of it, the way the game is played (no fold' em hold' em ya know!).
2) When would it be proper to bet less than the maximum bet? I think there is a certain amount of feel to this. Maybe you have the nuts, but you know they won't call 8 on the river, vbut youre pretty certain they'll call 4. Also, when I have four to a flush and am in early position, I like to bet 4 on the turn, so I don't have to call 8. This establishes me as the bettor, and maybe gets me a river card at half price. Actually, I could probably think of a million situations for betting other than the maximum bet.
Any thoughts, anecdotes, etc...??
D-M
As an occasional tourist my experience shows tight play doesn't work too well here. My personal style is too tight and passive (based on what I read in this forum). I'm also uncomfortable in maniac games. 1-4,8,8 with many passive retirees who play poorly is common. With my cost of $2 per round until I get good cards I would think these games suit my style.
My experience is limited to about 500 total hours over the last 10 years on trips to Vegas, but I DEFINITELY do better in the 4-8 structured game. The 1-4,8,8 game always has a family pot, and people show you anything at the showdown. It's tough to tell what anyone is doing.
Now, I don't say this game is unbeatable; good players will probably kill the game. I am saying for players trying to learn how to play better poker, these games aren't so good. Many poker skills don't seem to apply. You can learn hand evaluation, but books can teach it too.
Fat-Charlie
My trick is on the river if the flush or strait makes it i bet 4 if it raised to 12 and i have only top pair i am beat and fold. I will occaisionly pay off the manic type players because they like to take a shot at you. But in general you are beat 99% of the time.
For what it is worth PokerPL
Gary Carson has mentioned elsewhere that in these games it can be at least ok if not good to play too tight _or_ too loose. Maybe he can talk more about this here, IMHO it is the sort of question that he is good at.
In my experience, you can be more likely to limp with small pocket pairs, because you implied odds become really good when the post flop bets are so much bigger than the blind. This also applies somewhat to suited connectors and other drawing hands, _but_ the problem here can be that if the game is (semi)tight you will only barely have odds on the flop to call. IE, if only 3 people see a flop, then someone bets $4, you are only gettin 2.5 to one, which is not as much of an overlay as you would like. And if you miss on the turn you are getting 22-8, which is slightly better in true odds but you don't get as much implied odds since there is only one more round of betting. You can probably make it up in implied odds from here, but you want a bigger overlay when you actually do make a draw to make up for the times you see a flop and miss.
David
I haven't played in Vegas but there are a few places where 1 1 4 8 is spread and i liked it. (although in a few places the options on betting was only on certain rounds) (for example i played in one place where one could bet 1-4 prflop and on the flop but bets on the turn and the river had to be 8 dollars).
I think alot of proper stategy depends on the table. it may seems odd but it seems very often in games like this i have noticed rasies get alot of respect. ( the last time i played (in a game like this) if someone raises preflop there was a pretty good chance they would they could win it there. (even if others called the 2 dollars bet).
The value of drawing hands depends on the propensity of the table to call after the flop. if the flop gets alot of callers then the suited connecrtors and small pairs worth playing.
It seemed to me the way a few of the tables played this game was similar to 1-5 stud where you had a good cahnce to get it close to heads up if you bet the maximum on the first round of betting and i liked this alot.
just some thoughts...
I'm in a 10-20 game last night and find kk in the small blind. Middle tight player raises next person calls, button raises i cap it. We go to the flop 4 handed. Flop comes Q 5 2 rainbow. I bet all three people call. Turn card is J i bet get two callers. River is T no fluh possible both checked to me i check they both show me AK for the straight. Did i make a mistake by capping pre-flop and making the pot to big giving all kinds of crazy draws a chance to draw out on me? On the flop was i right to come out betting and to keepbetting the turn? It appears to me that with the pot so big they actually had odds to draw to the straight with the pot at 11 bets on the turn and the possibility that they might also hit the Ace. Of course they wound up splitting the pot which definitely hurt them in retrospect. I ran this hand scenario on poker probe and i was a huge favorite about 15-1 on the flop and a 13-1 favorite on the turn. All comments appreciated. Good luck Ice
First, i would not have capped before the flop. You have to figure an ace or 2 out there and possibly AK, KQ, QJ. The flop did not help you at all (important). I'd check here. You were beaten with the AK without the straight. I think the SB sucks for high pair except an ace. I only like sb for a drawing hand and 3-4 others still in or a cheap "in" with a mid pair. If I am in the SB and not head up, if the flop does not help me, I am outta' there.
You have to read more carefully. The guy had pocket Kings. The flop may not have helped him, but it sure didn't hurt. I can't think of a much better flop for KK than Qxx with two players, unless of course, one of them has Aces.
These guys were drawing mighty slim on the flop, but might have thought their overcards were good. (Not too smart since you capped it.) Tough break, get'em next time.
Capping pre-flop with KK was absolutely correct. Unless someone happens to have AA, you have by far the best hand. In the actual situation, KK was a huge favorite over two guys with big slick. They were drawing dead to one of the two remaining Aces (two outers) and to specifically having Q-J-T show up on the board which is a very small probability.
You were also correct betting the flop and the turn. You simply got unlucky.
I do not doubt you guys and, that's why one reason i was loosing my money. that's funny because i usually raise or cap if i can with AA, KK and sometimes QQ, and nobody folds. the flop comes and the betting begins. it seems like everyone improves but me.
my latest turn of action is to fold if i get no help from the flop if 3 or more players are in irrespective of what i have except AA. my results have been positive in every game. Only making about $7/hr over 45 hrs, but never a loosing session in 3-6HE.
of course i play about 1 hand per round. it's boring but i cannot argue with winning.
I just started playing 3-6. I have about 60 hours of 2-4 under my belt. I've read the books. I conclude that in low-limit one should ALWAYS raise for value. Never raise to thin the field because it just aint gonna work. I prefer to see the flop for as little as possible. You can have KK, but if the flop comes all one suit, you're screwed. Again, this is because there were no folds to your raise! If the flop comes rainbow with a K or less, then start charging people to draw. Maybe even wait till the turn to charge double and let them start folding then. I think it's important to loosen your starting requirements (you just need to be slightly tighter than your opponents to get the money) and see the flop for as cheap as possible. When you hit a flop, charge them to draw. You may try and check raise the flop depending on your position and where a likely first bettor might be ... this should thin the field, but many players will still cold call 2 bets with horrible drawing hands! It SUCKS!
Mind you with all that said, I'm a loosing player ... please help! :)
Interesting strategy. You seem to be advocating being loose-passive pre-flop and tight-aggressive post-flop.
I would be interested in seeing what others have to say about that approach. It would seem to suit Caro very well.
In the LL games I've played, I've found that tight-aggressive all the way through works for me. Of course I've commented before on the difference between LL games described here and LL games I've played in.
Eric
Regardless of the number of callers, you are having way best of it when raising/capping with KK (or TT or better, for that matter). It is the high variance of loose games that clouds your reasoning. Big pairs lose often when against a big field, but they still earn a lot on average. When they hold up, they tend to do some serious damage.
Going to the flop cheaply with any hand is no way to play hold'em, especially against the fish. You should be punishing them for their weak preflop play by raising with big hands. Do not be afraid to lose with a monster. Shit happens. Get used to it.
By all means, build big pots with your best hands. The fish are swimming uphill.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
If that means you're checking and folding an overpair like KK just because more than three people are in the pot, you are losing a ton of money.
Whether you should cap or not with a hand less than AA depends on who is re-raising, and how many callers you have. If the re-raiser is someone who would never re-raise with less than AA, you don't want to be putting more bets into the pot until you see the flop if you have KK or QQ, because you know that you're a big dog. But if the re-raiser would do it with a smaller pocket pair or a hand like KQs, then cap away.
In low limit, if i'm in the sb, i will call only with AA, KK, QQ, JJ. If it is raised once early and only 2 people + myself, I'll call with AA, KK. If it is raised 2 or 3 times, I'll call with AA or suited with A thru 10. I know some advocating playing small to mid pairs, but until I feel I can maneuver players better, I will play cautiously. No doubt i might be loosing money by not maximizing the posts I do win, but i consistantly win small amounts with little risk.
You are losing money if you are not putting in as many bets as you can with AA. It is not just the best hand, it's the best hand by a pretty wide margin. And it plays just fine in large multiway pots.
I agree with Jim Brier that capping it out of the SB is correct with a small field of only 3 callers. You also do not want the BB getting in relatively cheaply. You bet the hand fine, IMO, but I'm confused about the river. You said they both checked to you on the river, but you were in the SB, and had to act first. What did you do when the Q-J-T ended up on the board. I assume you checked, but I can't believe BOTH your remaining opponents checked down Broadway. What really happened?
one thing to think about when worried that you gave the others good pot odds to continue a draw, is that to not bet and let them draw free is giving them unlimited pot odds. it costs 0 to draw at a winner. i think you played it correctly to cap it and continue betting it given the flop that came.
Michael
Thanks for correcting my mistake. I was on the button when i capped the betting. They both did check to me hoping to checkraise me since i am a very aggressive bettor.They were all screaming at me why didn't i bet and were not to happy.Good luck Ice
Actually, it was me, not Michael, who caught your little faux pas. No big deal. Michael is the 3-6 veteran with 60 hours of experience who doesn't seem to recognize that raising with KK is a value bet.
Anyway, if you were on the button, that's even MORE reason to cap this puppy out pre-flop. Not only do you have what is most likely the best hand going in, you also have position over everyone and it is your sworn duty to attack those blinds with every weapon in the arsenal. Nice play at the end not running into the failed check-raise.
Dunc,
Was that a shot? I much prefer contructive criticism. I apologize for the way I come accross in writing. I don't know how else to write. I concede it's a bit crass.
I see what you're saying - raising with KK is a raise for value. But still - big pairs don't play well in a large field. So while your raise is a value raise, I thought the intention of that raise was to thin the field. If there is that much value in the hand, wouldn't you welcome the multi-way action?
I like reading your responses to the questions posted here. I don't like you passing judgement on my views of the game. After all with only 60 hours experience, I have a lot to learn.
Your point is that KK is hard to make stand up in Low Limit. This is true. But how often do you see the draw artist hit his overcard to win with 1 pair. KK holds up enough to make a value raise worth while. Also even in low limit a few players fold to a raise so your chances of winning a larger pot is increased.
The trick is to know when your KK is no good on the river or is drawing dead.
regards Mike N
Lee Jones points out that in no fold'em hold'em it normally takes at least a straight to take down the pot.
It's implicit collusion. Not a single one of them is a winning poker player, but collectively they drain your bankroll.
-Michael
Michael it may be true that when I lot of players always go to the river, the average winning hand will almost always be something that can beat a pair of Kings but when the Kings hold-up either because they improve or because others miss, they win a huge pot. When I played low limit, I won some huge pots on AA,KK, and QQ because they happen to hold up or I would catch a second running pair on the turn and river beating out other two pairs or make set or even a big straight or a big flush. The pots that I won more than offset the numerous times my big pair got cracked.
You have heard that some hands play better against many players and some hands play better against fewer players. In an unraised pot this is true but when pots start getting raised the premium hands like AA,KK, QQ,AK when more than their fair share of money and are very profitable. Pocket rockets will always make more money than Jack-Ten suited in the long run, I don't care how many players choose to play.
Lee Jones points out that in no fold'em hold'em it normally takes at least a straight to take down the pot.
Lee Jones is wrong.
Sorry, Michael I didn't mean that to come across like it did. I can see where you would think I was giving some attitude. I'll leave that up to Vince (Just kidding, Vince!!!!)
I play at the 3-6 and 4-8 level all the time, so I know exactly what you mean about getting those quality big pairs cracked. Just last night, for example, I raised pre-flop with bullets, got a flop of A-9-3 rainbow, and got run over by some clown who called the raise cold with 8-5 offsuit, and he stuck around to hit runner-runner 2-4 for the wheel. I had to take a deep breath after that one, but I knew it would be only a matter of time before he churned the money back into the game. He was broke within 2 hours; the problem was that I didn't get any of it!
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that taking aggressive action with a hand like KK is trying to accomplish two things; 1)get the most money possible into the pot so that when they do hold up, you've got reserves to handle those 8-5 callers, and 2) if possible thin the field so that players with marginal hands worth 1 bet, but not 2, get out. It's hard to get the best of both worlds, but you've got to try. Sitting there hoping to flop the nuts is no way to play.
Like Mike Nelson points out in his post, the biggest reason most low-limit players seem to hate big pairs is they get married to the pot and don't recognize when to bail, and they fail to make those value bets,raises, check-raises, etc. that maximize their profits.
Again, sorry for the perceived sarcasm. I have learned a ton here in the past six months or so and I certainly wouldn't want to drive anyone away from contributing because I was a smart-ass for a few seconds.
Apology accepted. And next time with KK or better from any position it'll be a raise or a cap from me!
And I'll try to pay attention to my opponents and not sit there and ADMIRE my hand calling raises on the end.
That raises another question - How do you know when to lay down a hand? I've laid down KK twice only to see QQ and JJ take the pot. And, of course, I've had AA cracked.
Is it a matter of knowing your opponents?
It is a matter of how many opponents you have, what the betting has been like, and what the board is like to name a few. There are no hard and fast rules.
You also have to consider the size of the pot in considering whether to call. The larger the pot the greater the mistake in folding an overpair unless you are absolutely certain that you are beaten.
People have a skewed perception of how much they win and lose with AA because it's just so damned memorable when you get them and lose. So the rundowns stick in your head, and all those times you dragged a pot with them fade into obscurity.
AA simply wins more money than any other hand, against any number of callers, and the second-best hand isn't even close.
In showdown poker, where ten hands are dealt all the way to the river, AA STILL wins 35% of all pots. That's the absolute worst-case scenario. And that's a big, big number.
It's a myth that big pairs don't hold their value in multiway pots. The EV of AA and KK actually goes up when more people call, provided they are paying as many bets as you can make them pay.
But still - big pairs don't play well in a large field.
It is a myth that big pairs don't play well against a large field. They might lose a bit of their value against such a field, but they'll still win much more than their fair share, and will occassionally drag some huge pots when making top set against a smaller set (or sets.) Any pocket pair plays well against a large field because you have proper odds to try to flop a set, so it follows that big pairs play the best of all because they'll rarely/never run into a bigger set.
So while your raise is a value raise, I thought the intention of that raise was to thin the field. If there is that much value in the hand, wouldn't you welcome the multi-way action?
Well, yes and yes. It's better to play KK against 3 opponents for 2 bets than 6 opponents for 1 bet, but 6 opponents for 2 bets could be the best of all.
-Sean
...could not have been the small blind the way you describe the river. You must have been the button. Make sure your facts are straight.
Gus
You are correct i was on the button. Thats what happens when you play until 3 in the morning and post on 5 hrs. sleep. Sorry about the faux paus, however, the point of posting this hand was to find out did i make a mistake by making the pot to big. On the turn there were 11 big bets in the pot so with one card to come to hit the straight was about 11-1 plus the chance that an Ace might hit which improves their odds and would appear to make their call correct. I chose to keep betting not wanting to give my opponents infinite odds. It appears to me that as the pots get big it is very difficult to thin the field because some of the crazy draws are getting the right price to proceed. But being on the button and nobody betting i am almost forced to bet rather than give a free card.
Fellow 2+2ers,
6-12 hold'em. Pre-flop it's folded to the cutoff seat. A guy opens for a raise with a pocket pair of 8's I found out later. The loose-passive button cold calls with anybody's guess. I dump my rags in the small blind. An extremely tight player makes it 3 bets in the big blind. The initial raiser says out loud, "I've never seen you do that before", then dumps his hand, button calls.
The cutoff seat was convinced the big blind had pocket aces, or at least KK, and he was right it turned out, because the button caught a piece of the flop, and hung on to the end losing to the guy's pocket aces.
My question: Was the guy who dumped his hand correct in doing so for just one more small bet, with anticipated odds of just over 8 to 1, with my single two dollar chip in the sb.
(I want to point out, that I stepped up my aggression against the guy, 2 seats to my right, who dumped his hand so easily by 3 betting many more of my hands against him when I was on or near the button, up until he got a table change.)
-Ben
He should have called. I'll let Mike Caro elaborate.
A call is mandatory given both the pot odds and the fact that we are talking about seeing the flop of three cards. While pocket Eights is a huge dog to pocket rockets at this point a call should be made. In general, whenever you call a bet or raise a bet and then someone raises behind you, you should call unless you were on a complete bluff with a hand of no value. Now if it gets raised and re-raised back to you then that is althogether different situation because now you are calling a double bet back to you instead of a single bet.
He should call. He is almost getting the necessary odds plus he'll almost certainly will get decent implied odds if he hits a set. Also players will notice his weak play and will start taking shots at him (like you did). You almost never see someone raise and than fold pre-flop to just one more bet, and with good reason.
7:1 to him at the time and if the button call it's 8:1 He should with out a thought see the flop.
No set no bet !
Best of it !!
MJ
Not true. He could flop a 5,6,7 and have both a straight and set draw.
Russ
I am looking for a game in Jackson, WY. It could be 5-10 hold'em ring game or a 2 or 3 way 500 buy-in no-limit freeze out. I haven't played since I moved here from Texas and I can't find a game. Any help would be appreciated.
thanks,
Chris
.
i played this 5-10 hand today, and i am unsure enough about my analysis that i wanted comments from the board. dunno how interesting it is, but it's simple enough in the telling:
i'm the sb, with JhTh. 4 fold, the last two call and i call. bb raises, all call; 4 handed.
flop: 8c 8h Jc -- i bet, bb (raiser) folds, both call.
turn: Ts -- i bet, next calls, last raises, we both call.
okay: first question here: should i reraise? this didn't even occur to me when i was playing, but then i realized i've got a good but not invincible hand (far from it), a chance to isolate the raiser, and the hands that dominate me badly are probably not out there. i'm not worried about any pairs from TT on up; they'd have raised preflop. 8x or T8 would probably have raised the flop, and i've got a T, making that less likely. there's a straight possibility, but Q9 isn't one of those hands i want to lose any sleep over. if i didn't know already what the raiser had i'd probably guess maybe T9, for 2 pair and a stright draw.
river: 7h -- what do you do here? action was the same as turn, exactly. what do you put these guys on? there is $172 in the pot now.
i also thought that in the spirit of the turn raise maybe i should have checkraised the river, though i am doubtful of this. but it is a loose low limit game and with that many chips in the pot i am willing to take a risk to make them mine...
outcome later.
Pre-flop, the big blind's raise after three of you limp in denotes a strong hand, frequently a large pocket pair. Of course you call to see the flop.
On the flop, you were right to bet out with your two pair and backdoor flush draw. The big blind folding tells me he raised on two big cards. Having two other players call usually means someone has trip Eights or a Jack with a better kicker than yours although it is possible they both are on draws.
On the turn, you now have the top two pair so you are ahead of guy who had QJ, KJ, or AJ. Your bet on the turn is fine. When raised I think you should just call. It is too easy for someone to have trip Eights or a straight. You might have the best hand but the board is too dangerous and I don't think a re-raise is right.
On the river, you should check with four parts to straight on the table plus the open pair of Eights. If any one bets you are almost certainly beat but I would just check and call because of the pot odds at this point.
Jim,
Your analysis is right on the money as always.
MJ
I wouldn't raise here because the chance is too good that the raiser has an 8. It really depends on the game, but there are plenty of "tricky" 5-10 opponents who'll wait until the turn to raise with 87 or something similar.
-Sean
I am preparing for a shorthanded (6 players) private round of 10/20. I expect the round to be quite loose.
Now I am a bit sceptical about the shorthanded advisors of Turbo Texas Holdem.
If I set up simulations and put him in, he does not do very well, especially in loose rounds. I noticed that a player profile called "Renfield" nearly always does very well at these settings. There is no possibility to set him up as your advisor, is there?
Now, what do you think are the main errors of the advisiors for shorthanded rounds? When to trust them and when to adjust there play?
Thanks in advance, Harry
"There is no possibility to set him up as your advisor, is there?"
Yep. Just go to "Game Setup" then "Advisor Setting". Change the setting to "Manual" then click the "Change" button. You will be able to select any profile as your advisor.
Shorthanded advisors are excellent (but 6-handed is usually not really considered shorthanded).
However, if you need to change the profile advising you, go to "Game Setup" and click "Advisor Setting". Choose "Manual". You should be able to set up your own advisor profile no sweat.
I am assuming you have Turbo 3.0.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Thanks for the hints about advisor changing.
Now I still do not think the 6 handed advisor does a good job.
For example I set up a more or less average round, including ADV_6, did a simulation, 300.000 trials, 10/20, and here is the result:
___profile________style________result___
Dr. Strangelove...loose........$16.053
Regular Rube......loose........$22.110
Myopic Mike.......tight........$48.761
Harry the Horse..average.......$75.110
Renfield.........average.......$58.191
ADV_6............special.....-$220.228
Smashing, isn't it? Doesn't look profitable to follow his advice.
I am new to this game and still looking for the significant blunders he does, which I could change in his profile.
Comments appreciated, thanks,
Harry
Ooops, looks like I made an error in the toughness settings. I had "Skip before the flop" checked, which gives seat 10 a serious disadvantage. Bob Wilson helped me to fix that problem, I corrected the setting and now the Advisor does *very* well,
Thanks for the excellent support Bob,
Harald
5-10 loose passive. K8o in BB. 4 limpers and me. Flop JsKs4d. I bet out here. I could very well have best hand with no preflop raisers. All call!! Turn 2c. My feeling is there could be some draws out there so checking seemed wrong, although betting into four callers seemed a bit risky as well. I bet. 1 fold the rest call. 9 bb in pot. River is Qs. Now I'm pretty sure I'm beat, although I figured my kicker wasn't good anyway. 2 check, button bets. Comments.
Someones is sure to have a drawing hand here out of the other 4 players. 10 bb in the pot after the button bets. That gives the gutshots a valid call. The flush draws are looking very good if not already made, you have just a pair of kings w/weak kicker. I would have to say that a fold is the only thing you can do.
Best of it!!
MJ
Folding is almost certainly ok on the river because out of that field, someone probably has a flush, straight, or two pair. Although if the button is a chronic bluffer, I might call or even raise.
In a loose-passive game against even 4 opponents, I'm not entirely sure if betting twice is a bad idea. They could easily hold flush draws, straight draws, second pair, and even bottom pair, a smaller pocket pair, or a lone ace high. Not to mention that Kxs is a popular hand in these games so you could have them outkicked. In the loose-passive game, it's very hard to know where you're at, because many people will limp with AK/KQ and won't raise the flop with less than top pair/top kicker. But I don't think checking and folding is viable simply because a bunch of loose players called your bet.
-Sean
With all that action currently in the pot, I think I would have put in that final call with top pair. Throwing away 10 big bets when I'm not totally sure I'm beat is worse than giving away one more. Throwing away winners in this situation would be lousy. I guess I'd also take into account the betting tendencies of the other players to determine how they bet with made hands.
I guess what I'm saying is, I probably would have called.
shooter
Sammy,
I'll respond before reading the other comments so far.
I like to bet a weak king out of the blinds in a small unraised pot (Note: I might even checkraise if the late pre flop callers tend to bet too much when it is checked to them.) But this play is better when the flop is a little more ragged, you have one or two fewer opponents, and the flop is not suited.
But you did bet the flop and it is not that bad a play. Unfortunately you did not get the desired result (no callers). Instead all four opponents call. The turn is a total blank. One could argue that now is the time to check but it would depend on the players. If they really are passive, weak, and not too tricky, the bet is OK. But I would not call any raise.
Now the river comes a very scary Qs which could easily make one of the three remaining opponents a straight, flush, or two pair (e.g. QJ). I think checking was correct. However; the first two opponents checked and the last player was the one to come out betting.
I might make the bold play of check raising here if I thought the last player would bet a busted draw or weak hand once in a while after you showed weakness. In addition, the last opponent is the least likely to have made the straight or flush since he probably would have made the "free card raise play" on the flop with a draw (unl;ess he had a weak inside straight draw such as AT or T9). It is risky but the hand plays itself from that point. If reraised you can fold. The benefit is that you may get one of the first two limpers to lay down a better hand.
Flames, comments, etc. are appreciated.
Regards,
Rick
Nice analysis Rick...you might make a good Canadian after all:)
skp,
At least I wouldn't have to worry about health insurance. OTOH, I think they still only have about five CAT scan machines for the whole nation.
Regards,
Rick
they probably stole those five from us.
scott
Hey,
And if I need surgery, I want it right away. No waiting lists, please.
Rick
I don't agree with betting into 4 callers with a K and bad kicker. I would have checked the flop and see if anyone bet if the last position player bet i would raise thinking he might be trying to steal and get head up with him. If the bet came from a middle position player and was raised i would muck my hand. If the middle position player bet and got no callers i probably go ahead and play. But again it depends on the players . Good luck Ice
Ice,
Reread my first paragraph and perhaps the first sentence of my second. I think we are in agreement.
Regards,
Rick
These type of hands are always tough to play.
The most important piece of information missing is knowing the other players in the game.
I think you can gain more information in a passive game by checking this hand and seeing who bets. Betting your hand UTG allows weak players to call without indicating anything about their hand. If a passive player bets in early position I think you can dump this hand. If the button bets, then you have another decision to make - is he betting a draw or a pair. Based on your knowledge of the player, you can either check-raise or dump it.
Regardless of anyone's inputs, in this hand I think you are beat and should not call on the river. Is a passive player really going to bet into a possible straight and flush without having a hand?
This situation is addressed in HPFAP. They recommend checking the flop. If a bet comes from early position, you have to respect it and fold because the pot is protected. A bet from a late position player deserves less respect and can be checkraised to limit the field. (Both these ideas are, of course, subject to change if you know the players very well.)
This idea is especially important in the low-limit games, where a single bet on the flop won't knock anyone out.
Your play was fine except you have to call at the river. Two of your three opponents checked and it is too easy for the button to be bluffing at this point. You have to call with all that money in the pot knowing you are probably beat.
"You have to call with all that money in the pot knowing you are probably beat."
In reguards to the FTOP wouldn't this be a big mistake.
In the FTOMJ if I know I am beat then I get the heck out. 90% of the time my instinct is correct. It's when I go against it that I say "man I knew he had me"
Why call when you know your beat?
Best of it !!
MJ
As you quoted me accurately "knowing your are PROBABLY beat". Probably is not certainty. I would argue that many people will be betting a busted draw or something that you can beat more than 10% of the time in this situation when everyone checks to them on the river. I know I do occasionally when betting is my only chance to pick up the pot.
If you make a mistake of calling when beat, you lose a bet. When you make a mistake of folding the best hand, you lose a pot and start tilting. It's a catastrophe when the pot gets big.
Making good laydowns is not the way to beat limit hold'em.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
Certainly making laydowns aren't the way to beat limit hold'em, but they can turn a slightly losing player into a slight winner. But I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
-Back door me Bob
When the pot is big, you should think thrice before laying down a possible winner. Be quick to overcall with a somewhat weak hand, as other players generally have the same idea (= they often call on the river with hopeless hands in gigantic pots).
I must disagree a bit with you, Bob. To "turn a slightly losing player into a slight winner", the player would have to make *a lot* of good laydowns to significantly boost his results. Make a mistake once and you'll feel *really* stupid. You'll spend the next half hour thinking of all the hookers you could have had with that money. It can seriously affect your game.
In terms of EV, close calls/folds are not that much important if they are truly close. When close, any decision could by definition go either way with no long-run consequences. However, I strongly advocate to err on the side of calling for other reasons than notching EV up a bit.
For example, you should often call on the river (within reason) to stop opponents getting smart on you. The most stupid mistake I can think of against good players is to show them what a monster you just (correctly) layed down expecting a standing ovation. You do that once, they will start taking shots at you for sure, and you do not want to play a guessing game with the smart ones. If you must make a good laydown, NEVER show your cards. It's dangerous and it's stupid. Ego shall feed you not.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I called.
Button showed QTo.
Thank you all.
This post is in regards to an old post (actually it was posted last Thursday but that is now ancient history here) by Another Mike titled "Top Pair on the Flop".
He wrote in part: "Standard low-limit holdem. I'm in the BB with Q8o. About 4-5 callers, no raise…. Flop comes Q62. No flush draw. I check (wrong?) and get an immediate call [this should have been "bet” - Rick] to my left, and two more callers before it gets back to me..
Another Mike folded and wondered if that was right. The thread diverged at many points but in the end most agreed that is would not be correct to bet into four or five opponents with this board and to overcall an early lead better and two callers was ill advised. The rest of the thread discussed variations (such as what would one do if the lead bet came from the button – most liked a check raise).
Late in the thread (Sunday, 5 December 1999, at 5:12 p.m.) Dan Hanson remarked: " If you're always checking and folding top pair/no kicker to a bet and a couple of calls on the flop, you're giving away money, IMO." Dan did go on to qualify his advice somewhat.
In a newer but related thread started by skp on (Friday, 3 December 1999, at 4:16 p.m.), he said in part: "With a hand like Q8 in the bb, I generally check against several opponents on a Queen high flop. I fold if there is a lot of action. I peel one of if the player to my left bets and several players call. I checkraise a late position bettor." He then goes on to discuss a different twist.
The only connection I could make was that both posters, generally known as bright guys (but not superstars like Vince, John Feeney and scott), live in Canada. Maybe there is something new in the water or food that effects their thinking :-).
The flop is Q 6 2. After our hero checks his Q8 in the BB (correctly by consensus), an early position player who had limped pre flop bets into four or five potential callers (including our hero). Two of the pre flop limpers call. Our hero did in fact fold. But our two Canadian posters say that would call (skp said generally, and Dan said he would call unless the bettor was the rock of Gibraltar). There may have been one or two others but I just feel like picking on Canadians today (I think Celine Dion annoyed me in a recent interview).
I would almost never call here. This board doesn't contain much in the way of draws. I would think that that at least one of the three opponents has a hand of some sort. With this board, the lead better very likely has a hand that includes a queen or beats a weak queen badly. I would also worry about a small set or two pair (e.g., Q6 suited) held by one of the callers since the board does not show many logical draws.
It is about 14.7 to 1 against and you hitting your kicker and there are only about nine or ten small bets in the pot. If you hit your eight kicker you would have a good hand but one that could be vulnerable to redraws (for example, one of the callers had an A6 and picks up a flush draw on the turn). You also could have been drawing nearly dead if the set was out. Did our Canadian friends temporarily lose their sanity? Or am I being persnickety again?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I've been too busy to post much lately but should have time today and this evening to answer any flames.
Well, here's flame No. 1:)
Firstly, I say..Oh Canada!
Secondly, I didn't say I would call in that example. In that hand, there were only 2 callers on the flop. As such, I am not getting proper odds to try and hit one of my 3 outs. I would fold. I would peel one off only if the bet comes from my immediate left and *several* players call.
I think I explained my position a little more fully in the E-mails I exchanged with you and Puggy. Basically, the situation is that there are 6sb in the pot preflop. On the flop which is Q62 rainbow, UTG bets and gets several callers...let's say 4 of them. So now, there are 11 sb in the pot when it is my turn to act. It's about 15 to 1 against that I will hit an 8 on the turn. However, if I do hit an 8, I can get in a checkraise on the turn. In other words, I have got good implied odds. Of course, I make the call on the flop knowing that the betting on the flop has been closed i.e. no one can behind me can raise.
Now, I didn't say this in my post here but did say it in my E-mails. Whether or not I call the flop also depends on my read of the 4 callers on the flop. The flop is extremely raggedy and offers no draws. So what the hell are these guys drawing to? It certainly is possible that one of them has flopped a big hand like a set. If so, that person is probably the bettor or the first caller. I would consider foremost how solid the first caller is. If he is a solid player, it would make absolutely no sense for him to just call a bet from his right with a pair. If he has a Queen, he likely would raise. If he has a 6 or 2 (which is unlikely given that he called preflop from early position), he would fold because the bet coming from his right puts him in a vulnerable position. Thus, if the solid player is the first to call, I would strongly suspect a slowplay. I would fold.
On the other hand, if the solid player is the 3rd or 4th caller on the flop, I can feel confident that he doesn't have a set or something because there would be no reason for him to slowplay given that there is already a bettor and a couple of callers ahead of him. I would therefore put him on a hand that I can overtake if I hit an 8 on the turn.
Notice that if there is a set out there, I will find out pretty quickly on the turn i.e. if I hit an 8 on the turn, I am likely going to try for a checkraise. However, if the betting comes back to me raised, I would have to soup my top 2 pair i.e the jig would be up.
Bottom line: Whether or not I call depends a lot on how solid my opponents play. If all of the callers on the flop are solid, I would fold in a heart beat. However, if at least the first 2 callers are loose gooses (geese?), I would probably call.
I wouldn't worry too much about redraws in this scenario even if I do hit an 8. Also, it matters a lot that my kicker (8) is higher than the 2 lower cards on the flop.
Another overlooked point is that by calling, I may get 2 cracks at hitting my kicker for my 1 sb investment. That is, the betting on the turn may get checked around if say a King or Ace hits and no one bets.
only two good things have ever come out of the tundra. the kids in the hall and tom green. the kids in the hall are gone and we have usurped tom green. so you are left with nothing. nothing.
all the hockey players flee to america. everyone knows hockey sucks. why do people in russia and canadia and devastated ex-soviet bloc countries play hockey? because the nhl takes care of their immigration.
the only reason we have not taken over your pathetic shadow of a nation is that we have enough trees. you have all the worst attributes of france without the food.
face it. canadia sucks.
scott
You forgot...
safe schools
safe streets
a greater acceptance of muticulturalism
health care
less pollution
a leader who can keep his pants zipped up...need I go on.
i forgot these as what? as good things that have come out of canadia? no, they're not. as reasons canadians play hockey? no, they're not. as reasons we have not taken over your country? no, they're not.
you must be listing reasons why canadia sucks. i agree.
scott
Oh..I thought you also said something about Canada having no good attributes...sorry...oh, you did...I take my "sorry" back...
i said nothing good has come out of canada. it can have tons of good characteristics for all i know. i've never been there.
and after reading dan's messages, i fear even that might be wrong. niel young? really? huh.
scott
A leader who can keep his pants zipped up
Well, given the way Chretian looks, I'm not sure he has a choice.
You're just jealous because your beer tastes like water.
Molson is swill.
The U.S. has some of the best microbrews in the world. I will take a Sprecher, a Gray's, a Sierra Nevada, or a Summit anyday.
there are so many good beers in the pacific northwest it's not even funny. mac and jack's (50 years away; i can smell the hops right now), redhook, kemper, pyramid, pike street, deschutes (oh for an obsidian stout right now)... nationally you have sierra nevada and that company in denver that makes fat tire...
and from canada, we get molson ice and kokanie. not exactly overwhelming.
plus william shatner. ouch.
and the drivers in vancouver are some of the worst i've ever seen. that includes new york and london.
give it up.
redhook and kemper and what?....hmm, world famous brews they must be.
Gotta agree with your comment on Vancouver drivers though. The most common vehicle in town is a "Courtesy Car".
come down to seattle sometime and i'll introduce to the "and what?"s. then we can go down to my favorite casino and play some poker.
i do like vancouver, though, drivers and radio stations aside. i've never played cards there. one of these days.
Comparing US microcbrews to Canadian corporate beer... now there's a quality argument!
"the only reason we have not taken over your pathetic shadow of a nation is that we have enough trees. you have all the worst attributes of france without the food.
face it. canadia sucks."
I have allways considered Scott's posts to we worth reading and usually demonstrate wisdom beyond his youth . That is up until now.
I also am generally very tolerant towards good natured jabs with the intent of humour and quite often even enjoy some of the bantering that goes back and forth.
Some might accuse me of being overly sensative at the above quote, but I consider the above quote to be too harsh and blunt, even said in jest.
I also question any you who might read such statements written about whatever great nation you are from and also not be offended.
I will not resort to indiscrimate attacks on Scott's nation, that would be just as wrong.
As I said earlier, all of Scott's post's have demonstrated witt, intelligence and excellant poker knowledge. But the above post is indefencable, it is wrong, hostile and has caused me to change my opinion of him. He is nothing more than an immature asshole.
Jodder, I am sure that scott was just kidding the whole way along but he just refuses to use the smiley faces.
you are correct.
scott
i am sorry to have lost your good humor, but i assure you that no harm was intended. i am also of the belief that noone was harmed.
and if you want to make fun of the usa, go ahead. i would not be offended at all. you can make fun of me, my mom, my culture, my religion, my country, my writing, my hairstyle, anything. (alexb may retaliate but he is not offended either.) but my lack of offense does not give my license to offend others. i should not rationalize that 'they should not be offended.' even if that is what i believe. i will not tell you how to feel. i thought i chose my audience appropiately. i do not think that i offended skp and dan and dunc mills, but i clearly offended you. i apologize.
scott
OH YEAH, YO MAMA!
Wasn't it you dismissing the use of smiley faces in internet posts a while back?
Think again about that.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
yes. and my attempts to write better will not include smiley faces. i would rather be misunderstood.
scott
Naah. Give smileys a try. They *are* useful. They do make life on the net simpler, trust me on this one. Example:
If I write:
Scott, you are a sick mother*ucker.
Easier to append a smiley :) than to apologize afterwards when hit by a flood of flames and damage has already been done.
Of course, AQo sux big time ;)
---
Izmet Fekali, adding a line of hold'em content, trying to avoid deletion.
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
You go to far in criticizing someone for offending a country. Did you hear that? A country? A country isn't a person, it isn't a dog, or a tree, or mailbox. It is an indefinite concept that does not take offense at his jests. Anyone who is unable to take an acrimonious joke about a country has such an undeveloped sense of humor that he would have problems venturing to the neighborhood store without wanting to mail a package bomb to a person he disliked. You aren't the unabomber are you?
Anyhow, you are are wrong to say what you have said. Anyone who takes offense at such comments must be so jingoistic that they would probably be quite an asshole himself.
How can you say that it was hostile. perhaps you aren't familiar with hyperbole or humor, but even if you weren't, we must be led to believe that you would think "gosh, I now feel ashamed to have trees in my country", "gosh, I now feel like scott's criticism over an Internet chat group has hurt my feelings".
As to its being wrong, we will analyze it point by point. One, do you have a lot of trees? Yes. Two, do you have a heavy French cultural influence? Yes. Three, do you have food as good as French food? No. (Haven't seen many canadian cook books on the market recently) Four, could the US absorb canada militarily? Yes. Five, has Canada ever had a major presence in any war, ever? No. So, you have not rebutted any of his contentions, and I'm left feeling that your anger at scott is just a freudian projection of your realization about how dumb your country really is.
I have a sense of humor. I enjoy scott and all he contributes to this forum, but I too was taken aback at his post. Of course after reading the give and take with skp and others I took it for what it was. But, my initial reaction was disappointment. As for scott saying he chose his audience, no, he just chose his sparring partner. The audience was the forum.
I think you would have a valid point if you complained that Scott's post was inappropriate because he was taking time away from people who wanted their visit to this website to be a quick and efficient manner in which to receive poker advice. As such, Scott's message could easily be condemned as inappropriate because it indirectly caused inconvenience to someone.
But, as a purely inappropriate message, you cannot criticize it. His message hurt nobody, and caused no one any harm. His message could even have been interpeted as superior to others because it was acrimonious, and it sparked feeling. The fact that you became affected by the message is a testament to its potency.
As regards his audience. What does it matter? The forum wouldn't have read the message if they weren't interested, and if they were interested and offended, then they wouldn't read his messages in the future. Who cares if he insults Canada, who cares if he insults you? Social condemnation of unpopular speech is much more insidious then any risque joke I've ever heard.
He judged a country (jokingly), you now presume to judge a person.
Arguing with teenagers about respect and decorum is fruitless.
I do respect you, as I do everyone. Nor do I judge you, just as you have just judged scott and presume to do the same to all teenagers. It makes me sad that you focus on trivial issues (such as scott's comments about canada), but seem comfortable in making a statement such as you just have.
at first you thought i really hated canada? how could someone hate a county? you must have thought i was a lunatic.
the problem was in my writing. if my comments were not clearly a joke, then that is my failure. and i will try to write better in the future.
i know the audience is the forum. i thought i chose my audience.
scott
Pamela Anderson Lee Crown Royal The fuel cell Alanis Morrisette Snowmobiles Vancouver Lake Louise
vs
Joe Clark Unionized hospitals Minus fifty degrees Fahrenheit Hamilton Tiger Cats Yellowknife Jolt Cola Rene Levesque
hmmmmmmm....
good point with the whiskey and the chick. and i can see how snowmobiles could be fun. but you should have put alanis in the other list.
scott
poker winnings are tax-free in our great wet north. next. spitball
Don't start with the Canadian bashing! We kicked your ass back in 1812, and can do it again. The Rangers would have never got off the schneid without Messier (also from Edmonton, by the way), a Canadian invented the telephone, discovered insulin, and don't even bother talking about the NBA, 'cause another Canuck INVENTED hoops. We apologize for Alan Thicke, but that's about it.
As an aside, I would also dump Q8o after an early position bet and several callers. Dan's a good friend and has helped a lot with my poker, but we disagree on this one.
do you even have nukes? you're lucky you were of strategic importantance during the cold war, or we'd just have given you the ruskies. domino effect or no domino effect, noone would follow canadia.
scott
We would also apologize for Celine Dion, Bryan Adams, and Loverboy. But only after you apologize for Hootie and the Blowfish.
if they are proved to be american, i will immediately apologize to the world communtiy.
scott
come on scott, if that isn't the lamest comeback... gotta do better than that!!!
well, damn. in that case i apologize to the world community on my own behalf.
scott
And disco, and rap, and Michael Bolton, and Mariah Carey, and Regis Philbin and...
Be nice to Canada. We gave you guys The Band, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, The Tragically Hip (which you're still to stupid to really appreciate), SCTV, The Kids in the Hall, and about half of the other Comedians in the US that are worth a damn.
Oh, and the beer. Let's not forget the beer.
i already mentioned the kids in the hall. i was unaware of niel young. i will have to give this issue some more thought.
scott
Uh, I may have miscommunicated somewhat. The point I was trying to make was that I would really want to know the character of the bettor and the callers.
This is a theme I've been harping on lately, and perhaps this isn't a good example for it. I see way too many questions around here that say things like, "I have X hand, and there's a bet and two calls. What should I do?" Poker is a PEOPLE game. It's a game of imperfect information, and any question about strategy should invariably involve the nature of your opponents.
In this situation I can't argue with Q8o hitting the muck. But the games I've been playing in for the last year are agressive and fairly tricky, and probably half the players at the table would bet anything from a pocket pair to second pair to an AK if it's checked to them. But 4 callers would scare the bejeebers out of me, given that there are no quality draws on the board, and I'd expect that at least one of them is lining the original bettor up for a raise on the turn. So me and my poor Q8o would be out of there.
Now, if there were fewer callers, and those callers were loose players who will call with as little as a gutshot or an underpair, I'd take a card off, and be prepared to bet out on the turn if a scare card lands (an A, K, Q, 6, 2). Since I'm in the blind, no one knows what I may or may not have.
This also a good place for some Abdullian math, because I think the decision is a little closer than you do. To simplify the problem, calculate the EV if your opponent has a queen with a bigger kicker. Then calculate it if your opponent has worse, like TT or something. One will be negative, one will be positive. So there will be a breakeven point which represents the probability that your opponent would bet less than a queen on this flop. If you think your opponent would, you have a +EV call. But it gets much more complicated by the other callers. Anyway, if the other callers would usually raise with a better hand than top pair, the calling decision comes back around to the probability that the first bettor has a queen with a better kicker, which is what I think I said in my first message. If the other callers are tricky players, you have a weak hand, probably beaten, and a ton of unknowns, all of which are bad for you. Time to get out of Dodge.
Dan,
I think Chuck Weinstock is ready to shoot me by starting a thread with a title that has generated so many responses that aren't really poker related. Pretty soon he will have to do the archives by the week rather than the month. I hope Mason pays him by the hour.
I do like a call of the UTG bettor if there is no one else calls and you are now head up. As you mention, the fact that you got a free play in the blind makes a lot of turn cards very scary to a hand such as QJ or QT. I don't know if "Abdullian" math at the table is within my capabilities, but I would just figure that there is a lot of dead money and I either have the best hand (let's say the UTG opponent would bet a pair of tens), can make the best hand (I hit my kicker), or I can blow his slightly better queen out of the pot with the right move. But as you mention, you need to know your player.
There is one other factor in your favor if it became head up by the turn. There is a good chance the UTG player might check behind you. This would give you an extra free shot at hitting your kicker to take down a better queen which you could safely value bet on the river.
Regards,
Rick
"There is one other factor in your favor if it became head up by the turn. There is a good chance the UTG player might check behind you. This would give you an extra free shot at hitting your kicker to take down a better queen which you could safely value bet on the river."
This seems to happen more often in multiway pots. If it's just UTG and me in the bb, UTG is much more likely to bet (no matter what card comes on the turn). He is more likely to check if an Ace or something hits in a multiway pot which then may give you a second free crack at your kicker.
skp,
Thank God there was no internet when I had a Dilbert type job in the eighties. I wouldn't have gotten anything done. I'm here writing checks for personal bills while I have the sneaking suspicion some of you guys are on the clock :-).
I disagree on this one. On the turn in a multiway pot, someone is likely to bet even if the original better is less likely to because he is scared. Overall, you are more likely to see a bet. If it gets head up, a lot of players who are not sure where they are at (especially against a single blind who could have anything) may check behind in order to make sure they avoid being trapped for a check raise.
But then again, I play in California, land of the check raise with almost anything.
Regards,
Rick
Rick writes: "Maybe there is something new in the water or food that effects their thinking :-)"
You need to visit. The Vancouver game that SKP frequents is unlike most any other I've seen. The looseness of LA combined with a spoonful of macho bravado and overall polite, friendly folks makes for quite a game.
10 Reasons Canada is Superior to US
1. Most Canadians can find their country on a globe.
2. Canadians don't have a heritage based on slavery.
3. Canadians don't have people living on the street in cardboard boxes.
10 Reasons Canada is Superior to US
1. Most Canadians can find their country on a globe.
2. Canadians don't have a heritage based on slavery.
3. Canadians don't have people living on the street in cardboard boxes.
4. Shooting your classmates is not considered an extracurricular activity in Canadian schools.
5. There is no region in Canada where marrying your sister would not raise eyebrows
6. Canadians have not blown all their money on enough explosives to wipe out humanity.
7. In Canada they will not let you bleed to death because you don't have health insurance.
8. In Canada they do not elect leaders because they were in cute chimp movies.
9. In Canada there are no housing developments resembling warzones.
10. In Canada they know how to play Q8 out of the Big Blind.
OK - STEADY NOW. Originally this thread was very funny - and it even had some poker in it - but now you're all just scaring me. How about we all take a collective deep breath and .....move on?
But before we do which of you bastards said that London is full of bad drivers? We're just ..determined. Tight and aggressive if you will. And anyway if we're comparing countries, England just beats the crap out of.....
Sorry - lost it for a moment there. OK - back to reality...............
mike cunningham
you can't possibly be serious. are you? serious i mean? You think that these are jokes? maybe. But, pretty much I could find fault with any of your points, some being too dumb to counter, some being just misinformed.
Let me let you in on a little secret. It is our explosives that have kept you Canada, and not say Germany, or Russia, or Japan.
A good number of your complaints about the US center around its desire to not socially equate all human services. Well, if you're a socialist then you would probably believe this. But, its wrong. Just plain wrong. Socialism is a drain on an economy, saps happiness from most of the people in order to give a vague impression of egalitarianism.
As regards to the question about education, I think it is rather irrelevant. People aren't forced to go to school (as they are in your neck of the woods), and as a result many simply choose to not become literate or familiar with a globe. You shouldn't blame them for it, or the US for not forcing them.
As regards the slavery issue, every country in the world has its skeleton's in its closet. Canada should not get the record for not wanting slaves however, because when the British government outlawed slavery, a gigantic faction of the Canadian french flagrantly disobeyed the order to maintain their slaves. So, Canada too had slaves, but they gave them up in a second when the school yard bully of the hour told them too.
Now, I think that your 10 points about Canada are ridiculuous. But have you ever thought about the serious contributions of both countries? I am a still little sleepy and a little hungover, but I will attempt my own list of valuable things that came out of the US that I don't think canada could match.
The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, A splendidly progressive University System, Herman Melville, JD Salinger, Richard Feynman, Hemingway, Abraham Lincoln, TS Eliot, John Steinbeck, Martin Luther King, Eisenhower, Malcolm X, Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Gettysburg Address, the 14th amendment, FDR, Upton Sinclair, Stanley Kubrick, Bob Dylan. I have to go to the bathroom.
don't feel bad if you haven't heard of these guys. It's more important to locate canada on the globe. The reason you don't have the problems is that you aren't a country. Canada isn't alive, it isn't progressive. It is a stale, politically and economically stagnant backwater relic of the post-war French socialist experiment.
and now to the can.
alex
And Alex, since this is a gambling forum, I'll bet your dad can beat up wgb's dad, right!
Excuse me Alex, but I am an American.
When you assume you make an ass of you and me (especially you).
I assume you have only played there a few times. I have played there for 3 years and I am embarassed to say that I could not have described the game as concisely as you have. The Vanvouver game is a beauty...no doubt about that.
Hi, this is Jeff
Im the 15 year old guy whos been posting lately. All of your responses have been great. My last post asked the prose here what its like to be a pro. What your day is like, etc.... I got a few reponses but, hardly anything (the ones i did get were great)
Could any of you please give me a response to this question:
"What is it like to be a pro? What is your average day like?"
I know its the same question as before, but any responses would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Hey,
You're on the wrong forum.
Wrong Forum Man
Jeffrey,
It really is the life, as long as you don't mind living with your parents until you're well into your forties. And you can forget about girl friends. There's something about a thirty five year old whose living with his mom, that just doesn't seem to go over well with the babes, I don't get it--go figure?
But looking at the bright side: There's nobody telling you what to do. Nobody asking if you wouldn't mind staying late, or to come in early. You can be as social or as quiet as you please, because whose going to care?
Yeah, I recommend it highly. You'll have to excuse me now, I've got a suicide note that needs tending to.
Good Luck, Zack
Zack,
That was a low-blow to Poker Professionals, funny yes, but definitely below the belt.
-Donnie
Dude, rent is much cheaper that way, plus, parents rule.
Grinder,
I agree with what you say, but having to be in by 10:30pm SUCKS! Hopefully that'll change on my upcoming fortieth birthday, wish me luck.
Robert
Post deleted at author's request.
"Dumb reply"? I thought Zack made an incredibly important point in a very funny way, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME TRYING TO PLAY POKER PROFESSIONALY. STAY IN SCHOOL, AND HAVE A NORMAL LIFE!
-Jack
Post deleted at author's request.
I see nothing wrong with being a pro poker player, but I'd give the same advice (stay in school, get a degree, etc). I've been a pro player off and on for years. I just did a full year of doing nothing but play poker. And it always bores me after a while, and annoys my wife, even though the money is pretty good. So I get antsy, and start looking for something else to do.
If you're into computers, a nice hybrid is to take short-term consulting jobs and pad the time in between with poker. It gets you a steady income, a career that keeps your resume alive and allows you to get bank credit and such, and still gives you that entrepreneurial freedom.
But young people can rarely handle the unique pressures of a gambling professional, and if their bankroll gets busted they have no way to recover. I know a bunch of guys like that, driving cab or working construction to build a bankroll, then trying to claw their way back up the poker ladder from the lower limits. It's a tedious grind, and since they are usually overbetting their bankrolls they keep crashing them to zero and starting over again. Eventually they come to believe that they are born losers because they can't figure out why they keep busting out of the game.
Dan said;
"-their bankrolls keep crashing to zero". "Eventually they come to believe that they are born losers"
You said a mouth full. You've just explained my whole life, not to metion the origin of my name.
Sincerely, Zero
Steve,
I think Jeff, and a lot of others, would like to see the many phases a poker pro's career goes through. Maybe divided into three sections. What's it like being a successful pro when the bankroll is high, the big titles recent, and the day to day play is profitable? What's it like when you are running only so so, the bankroll is getting thin and you need to start making decisions about picking your spots and trying to keep afloat? Finally, what's it like when you have come up empty, the bankroll is gone, and there are no assets other than your playing skill and a reputation as a solid former winning player? I tried, in an earlier post, to give him a humorous, and possibly exaggerated, look at the day to day existance of the "wanna-be pros". You have been around long enough to have seen and experienced all the many phases of a poker professional's life cycle.
Jeff,
Do you hear how angry this Badgner chick sounds, no hint of a sense of humor, right? That's what poker can do, so take heed. Stay in school.
-Jack
Badger,
What kind of irresponsible fool are you to try and encourage some kid into becoming a proffessional gambler? Do you have kids? If I ever caught some idiot like you trying to encourage my kids like that in person, I guarantee you it would take major surgery to pull my foot out of your ass, that's a promise.
Have a nice day A-hole
look. there is nothing wrong being a professional poker player. it is a hard profession, but most are, including all the good ones. poker may or may not be one of the good ones, depending on what you are looking for.
all badger did was be honest. he did not tell jeff to be a poker pro. jeff will make his own decisions.
i don't understand all of you who are so set against people taking up poker. do you play? how can you play if you think it is such an evil endevour? if you love the game, how can you not understand that others may as well?
i don't have kids and i am not yet a professional anything.
scott
Who ever mentioned the word 'evil' in this thread?
As for your question as to whether or not we play poker, I do, and I suspect everyone else in this thread does. But playing poker for entertainment purposes is one thing, and trying to play poker as your sole source of income is another. I don't have kids, but my sister does, and I would not EVER suggest to her kids that they should seriously consider playing poker for a living. Not only because my sister would kill me, but because it seems like an incredibly unstable profession. I say 'seems' because I've never tried it myself, and have to take the word of others I know who wouldn't wish the life of a poker pro on their worst enemies.
-Nancy
Post deleted at author's request.
What's so horrible with poker being a profession that you would resort to violence to stop it? Do you feel the same way about lawyers?
Jack,
I suspect this Badger fellow didn't like Zack's post because it's not a flattering depiction of a poker pro. But not being a pro myself, I have to admit it cracked me up. I agree with you Jack, the kid should stay in school. And if he does play poker, keep it as a part time thing at most.
Sincerely, Sydney
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
If you say my post was moronic, then I guess it is. You being the arbiter of all that is true, right? I was just wondering, could you have any less of a sense of humor? I don't see how? You just sound like an angry dude.
Lighten up, Zack
Post deleted at author's request.
Hay Badger,
Blow me.
Post deleted at author's request.
Like I said
Badger wrote:"I got a great sense of humor"
When is that? It certainly doesn't show in any of your posts in this thread.
-Matt
The freedom of the entrepreneur, the frustrations of a struggling actor, the artist's creativity, the mathematician's logic, the psychologist's empathy, the factory worker's feelings of boredom, the athlete's focus, the politician's need for rapport, the assassin's sense of selective timing, etc. If you're a poker pro, you get to experience all of these parts of your personality - and then some - literally everyday. I wonder how your career counselor would respond to this post...
Kojee's post is one of the best I've read in a long time,given the name calling nonsense above it,it came at a good time
dfjbjkdbsnbjsdb
bjk sb huiosd f h hfuih; ldsf
sh ui ;; sio' ;i o
scott
You "play" when it suits your schedule the best AND when/where you can find the best (usually profitable but also social)game. You schedule your food and social breaks around the game and you sorta schedule TV/stock watching (most rooms have visible tv's) around a game if it's slow or automatic. On any particular day you go knowing you can lose and then you often play longer to "earn" back some of your loss. If you win a fair amount quick you might decide to go to the beach or a movie or a long walk before playing again later. If the game is great or very profitable you might put in a fair amount of "overtime".
...oh yeah, when you're not playing you're often thinking about the game, reading about the game, talking about the game, playing the game on computer software to quicken your reflexes and reading and posting messages...
...and it's a business and you spend years learning it and reviewing it and planning and you spend decades getting better
Hi Jeff,
I read all the posts to your great question, and they are all jewels of wisdom. They are all true, even though the posters may disagree with each other.
At 15, most are not capable of handling professional poker, imo. So, my advice is, go to school, get secure financially with a job, then consider it. You will have a bankroll then, and will be older, thus perhaps more emotionally capable of handling the game.
Forget the glamour image of poker. It is a grind. The best poker players AVERAGE double the big blind bet per hour in holdem. I am not sure of the other games. However, that is average. You need a big enough bankroll (and emotional makeup) to handle the inevitable long drawdowns. At 15, I am quite confident that you have neither. No insult intended.
Hope this helps, and DO carefully read the other posts. They are exquisite!
No such thing as luck in the long run.
Phil
we are all dead.
This hand was dealt to me last week, and for some reason I feel stupid playing it the way I did. First, I had been running bad all night and feeling rather passive in my play since my good cards were getting cracked like nuts most of the night. I have AJo in second to UTG position and there is no raise (including from myself) around in an 8 way pot.
Flop comes J, 8, 8. LB now bets out and the BB calls and UTG folds. Now I am thinking that there is no way that someone is not holding an eight out there and I feel obligated to raise with top pair and best kicker to flush him out, especially if he is afraid of his kicker. I figure he will have to re-raise to avoid being drawn out on.
So I raise, all fold to the BB who re-raises, now I fold and BB shows 84o.
How would you other guys play it? Should I have tried to suck out runner-runner style? Or was my reasoning correct?
Obviously if you are absolutely sure that there was an 8 out you should have folded on the flop. But I suspect that you had some doubt.
Your play is correct to raise and then fold for a reraise providing that you are very sure that this player would only reraise if he had an 8. However, if there is some chance that he would reraise with AJ (like you have) or a weaker hand like KJ then folding is a mistake. Many of the players that I play against will make the reraise with one of these hands.
Your biggest mistake was not raising before the flop, in which case you would have gotten the 84os out (unless he was an idiot).
I think the pot was well-protected with all those players and that people would be afraid to re-raise without an 8, although sometimes when you are running bad, people will take a shot at you, as the bb might have done with kj, qj, or j10. I think a good fold in the long run.
I think your biggest mistake was to play this hand in early position. AJo is trouble if you get a lot of action and it is not good enough to raise in early position.
If the hand was not good enough to raise coming in, in early position, I don't think you should play it.
This hand goes along with the phrase that I'm sure has applied to all of us, "Running bad, playing bad".
The topic of AJo in early position has been debated ad nauseum in this and other fora, and (along with KQo) it's possible to make a case for a raise, call, or fold. I think it really depends on the toughness of the game. In a game that's fairly passive without too many tricky opponents, I think limping with AJo is ok, especially against plenty of opponents who'll limp in with weaker aces after you. It can't be wrong for a novice to fold AJo or KQo in early position, but I'll play both every time in a 3-6 or 5-10 game.
-Sean
Hmmm. I don't know about playing AJo in Early Position in a game that is either too loose or too aggressive. I would probably muck it from early position, if I expected alot of Limpers, unless it was suited. The problem with AJ off is that it usually only makes one Pair Big Kicker without any draws to big hands. That is a very crappy hand for Loose Hold'em games.
AJo Early in a Tough Aggressive Game sucks too since that unless you flop a Jack high you won't get any action, and it will probably cost you 2 Bets to see the Flop. Also you can't give yourself any free cards.
The only time I play this hand in Early Position right now is in Tight Passive games.
Comments?
Later, CV
I agree with you about the aggressive game. In the loose-passive game, I still think it can be ok. While offsuit hands don't play well multiway, there are still plenty of people willing to play Axo in this game, so you stand a good chance of having the best kicker, and if you're outkicked or get drawn out on, it probably won't be too expensive and it will often be fairly obvious that you're beaten. But again, it's marginal and you can't be giving up much by folding.
Re: suited aces, in a loose-passive game, or especially a game that's loose-aggressive postflop, I'll probably play any Axs in early position. This hand just makes too much money from smaller flushes to fold.
-Sean
Moron, I really like the point you made here. Normally, I usually do not play a hand upfront that I will not call a raise with or raise with. Heck, I will sometimes limp in with AA's to get some disguise for my hand and then raise the flop (providing I like the flop). I could save some cash by just playing this way.
JOE,
I'll just add one or two comments. As Mason pointed out, in the tougher games you will often be three bet on the flop with a jack and a weaker kicker out of the blinds. The blind understands that you know he could have anything while your hand (assuming you are fairly solid) usually will fall in a narrow range. Although you could have an eight, it is more likely that you don't having entered in early position.
I also like the blinds play here. Too many blinds play their trips slow. When they come to life on a later street, they almost announce their hand. In addition, against observant oponents, playing a strong hand strongly out of the blinds from the get go allows you to steal some pots you otherwise wouldn't be able to. This adds much more to your EV than the extra bets gained by a slowplay.
Regards,
Rick
I think your flop play is reasonable. However, with AJ i might smooth call the flop and raise the turn. If reraise on the turn I could reasonably muck my hand. And if you have position and the opponent checks to you on the river, just check it down and hope your AJ wins the showdown.
One comment, however, if you know you will have 8-way action, you might want to muck AJo in early position, since there are very few 'strong' hands you can make on the flop and there would be many draws against you in most cases.
carlos
I think it is okay to limp in early with Ace-Jack offsuit. I would avoid games where it would be technically incorrect to do so.
Your raise on the flop was mandatory with the top two pair and top kicker. You have to force the rest of this crowd to call two bets cold or fold. When everyone folds and the bettor re-raises you have to call. The pot is too big and you cannot be certain the bettor has an Eight. He might have Ace-Jack,King-Jack, Queen-Jack, or even Jack-Ten and have re-raised.
Say you are in early position and flop a set in a multiway pot. You bet and reraise a late position raise and the flop is capped. The turn card makes a 3 flush. Now do you check or bet?
My thinking was that a check is in order for the reason that there is very possibly a flush out and when they raise you are going to wish you hadn't bet since you have outs and will call. HFAP discusses this: tend to check hands with outs and bet hands with no outs on fourth street. This would seem to be one of those situations.
The thing is that if everyone checks, a hand with a small suited card might get to play for free where he might fold to a bet and if another suited card rivers it could cost you the pot. The large-pot arguments suggest that even saving the pot a small percentage of the time is usually worth a bet.
So when the pot gets really large should one forget the "check hands with outs" idea in favor of the protection?
David
Well, when the pot is large, the small suited cards will often call anyway. As a general rule, I tend to bet sets into flush cards, because if I get raised, I still have plenty of outs, but I'll check two pair more often because I'm drawing much thinner.
This works well for me especially since there are a couple of idi^H^H^Htricky opponents I regularly play against who'll never raise/check-raise a flush on the turn, even a small flush. They'll wait until the river card comes and then bet out, or raise. They're slowplaying, you see. They do the same with nut straights when there are possible flush draws. God bless fishy 20-40 players.
-Sean
I think you need to bet your set in this situation First of all, it is possible that no one has a flush. By betting you get more into the pot when you have the best hand. In addition, once and awhile some guy will fold something like the third or fourth nut flush draw because he is worried that he could be drawing dead given a bettor and all those other opponents. What occasionally happens is that no one has a card in that suit so the guy that had a real draw folded. This actually happened to me this weekend. I flopped a set of Fives from my big blind and bet. It got raised and I re-raised. Four of us went to the turn. At this point the board was Ace of Hearts, Seven of Diamonds, Five of Hearts, Deuce of Hearts. I bet and the next guy raised. The third guy thought awhile and finally folded. The fourth guy called. I just called. The river was the Three of Hearts. I checked. Both my opponents checked. My set held up since no one had a Heart and both opponents had two pair. The guy who folded groaned that he had held the Ten of Hearts and the Ten of Spades.
Secondly, even if someone has a flush you have ten redraws to beat a flush so your bet cannot be far wrong in any event.
I agree with Jim. Another thing to keep in mind is that even if there is a flush out there, you may not necssarily get raised. A guy holding a non-nut flush may put you or someone else on the nut flush and just call. Sometimes, the guy holding the nut flush just calls to suck in players behind him. I have also seen some guys with the nut flush in last poaition just call because they figure that (a) everyone might fold for a raise or (b) they want to save money in case the board pairs on the end - seriously, some guys think like this.
I was thinking along the lines of what you and Jim are suggesting however it does seem to be at odds with the strategy in HFAP, check hands with outs- bet with few outs. Perhaps that idea is only good up to a hand as weak as 2 pair and with the stronger set other factors take over.
D.
This site is great! This is my first visit, and after reading many of the posts, I think I'd better introduce myself, and hopefully we'll be great friends.
My name is Ryan, I'm 22 years old, living in New Jersey (near NYC, not AC, unfortuneately). Been playing dealers choice with friends for a few years, read my first poker book about a year ago, played my first casino game in September, first online game about a month ago.
While I want to tell everyone about why this is such a great forum, and great group of people, I don't know where to start. You all know anyway.
I also had trouble deciding what topic to bring up first. I'd love to discuss online vs. casino poker and TTH. I want to ask about The Diamond Club, and what poker book I should read next and on and on.
But the main thing that's concerning me lately is the trouble I'm having moving up from (please don't laugh) 2/4 to 3/6. I've played 40 hours of 2/4 (mostly online) for about +$6/hr, but in my 44 hours of 3/6 (all online) I'm -$8/hr.
I understand that it's not a large sampling of results, but its also a huge swing that I cannot explain.
Any comments and insights are more than welcome. I promise to share knowedge and insights of my own, once I feel like I've acuired some.
Thanks, Ryan
All you have to do is submit a few hands you have played and quickly find out where the leaks are in your game.
A few hints about submitting hands.
Check the problem thoroughly. Never let the 3c show up in your hand AND on the board. Keep track of the board cards. What might be a "blank" to you might have made a difference to the experts. TRy to be in tuned to the personality of your opps. A weak tight player or a loose aggressive player will change the texture of a hand dramatically when deciding to raise, call or fold to a bet.
If the all knowing, all seeing David Sklansky should throw a derisive comment your way then, Welcome to the Forum, just bring a thick skin.
Don't say anything nice about Rounder's approach to poker. It's a sure path to hell.
You're on the right track when you mention the small sample size. Low-limit games tend to have a very high level of variance, and being down ~$320 for 40 hours of play is not out of the ordinary at all. Plenty of winning players have suffered far worse, and that's why the general bankroll recommendation for $3-6 is $1500-$2000. It is also generally recommended that you have 500-1000 hours of results before you can determine an accurate win rate. At your level of experience, the other poster is correct that you should be less results-oriented and focus more on your specific plays.
One more comment, in $3-6 and especially $2-4, the rake can be difficult to overcome. Some of the online low-limit games can be very tight, and a tight game raked like that is very difficult to beat. In other words, be sure to exercise your game selection skills and look for looser games. Fortunately, there are still plenty of loose online games. (I played in a 20-40 recently where T8o flopped a straight in a capped pot, cracking the capper's AA. Now that's the sign of a good game.)
-Sean
There shouldn't be much difference in the games. I suspect that you were luckier than you should have been in one and the opposite was true in the other. Swings in poker tend to be larger than most people realize.
Thanks for your replies. I guess with under 100 hours, the results don't really mean that much, I just feel as if I should be able to roll over these low limit games with no problem, and its proving to be harder than I expected...
I'm actually in the middle of a game at Paradise Poker right now, (I know I should be watching the play of my opponents intstad of reading the message board, but I couldn't wait to see if anyone had replied) so maybe I'll pick out a hand to post here later on.
By the way, Mason, its very exciting to recieve a reply from you. Thanks... I'm definately hooked now
Ryan
Ryan - Welcome to the forum. We have a good time.
Mason is too modest here. It probably shouldn't be your first book, but eventually you are going to want to get Mason's Gambling Theory and Other Topics. In his essay titled, I think, "How Much Do You Need?" he discusses standard deviation, ups and downs, and bankroll requirements.
We had a thread about this recently on the General Theory forum - Here's the link:
In my contribution to this thread (PS - I'm not too modest) I created a set of random numbers which illustrate just how violent the swings can be. That post also contains a link to my poker page, which is oriented to low-limit poker. Check it out.
You will NOT be able to "roll over these games" just because you are a better or better-informed player than all the others. As you follow this forum and read the books on low-limit poker you will understand the reasons for this better.
Dick
Dick,
I just called the airline, and my ticket to Vegas is non-refundable. Luckily, I was able to cancel the check I wrote as a deposit on my apartment there.
lol
Very interesting thread, thanks for the link. Your site looks promising too, but its a little late for that tonight.
While the h.r. thread, and other responses I've recieved, have certainly put my concerns in perspective, I'm also pretty discouraged. Now, besides working to improve my game (we haven't even gotten to that yet!) I have a whole new set of concerns:
Even playing ideally (I don't yet)can a poor boy like me build a miid-limit bankroll just by playing low limit poker?
I don't think I'm keeping detailed enough records. Is there any software you (the group) reccomend? Or an excel template I can dl?
What should I consider when deciding what limit to play?
Obviously, I am not the first person to have these questions, but if you, Dick, or whoever, has a link or book to suggest, I'm all ears.
Ryan
Zee and Sklansky have pointed out that there are some hands in Hold’em that don’t matter much how you play them.
What % of the time do you think that this is true?
AQo in loose games is an obvious axample. All the arguing about this hand preflop is a matter of a general concept (raise the fish!).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
If you include starting hand decisions, 90% are completely obvious for a decent player. Of the remaining decisions I would guesss about ten percent of those are very close even after taking psychological considerations into account. That's one percent. That means it is about 9% of the decisions that seperate the men from the boys.
I'm in middle position of a 4-8 HE at the new Hawaiian Gardens casino on Thursday nite. UTG raises, next player 3 bets, next cold calls, I muck AQo. In the process of taking a last look at the hand before tossing it, I accidently showed it to the dealer. I thought she was going to pass out from her shocked reaction. Six players see the flop which comes Qxx rainbow, dealer gives me this "I told you so" look. Bet and three calls. Turn x, bet and one call, river J. Bet and a call. UTG shows AA, caller QJo. I say nothing. Next hand I get KK and win a very nice pot. I used to play AQo for 3 bets cold until recently. I felt a pain and itching this morning on the side of my neck. When I checked in the mirror I noticed one of my gills had scabbed over and was healing. Tonight I'm going to play fewer hands out of position. I hope this damn itching goes away.
if the dealer WAS shocked then the dealer doesn't play much poker or the dealer couldn't believe that YOU would fold such a hand; i've had similiar experiences and, yes, it does stop itching
I think I know why the guy is dealing and not playing. See if you can encourage him to join the game in his off-hours if he is willing to call three bets cold with AQ offsuit but tell him to keep the day job.
0%. It always matters.
I'd SWAG 5% of the time the difference in immediate EV for 2 of your options are within half a %.
- Louie
SWAG: Scientific Wild Butt Guess.
"Good laydowns are not the way to beat limit hold'em". With this bit of advise in mind I seek opinions on a recent hand I played. 4-8 HE, I'm winning and my table image is strong. After three limpers, I call one off the button with J7s, button and blinds call. 3s,7c,9s flop, all check to me, I bet, button folds as does SB. Four callers. 5d on turn, BB, a conservative experienced player bets, two callers, both experienced and tight, now a raise from 'action', the most aggresive player who is an experienced no-limit player who has never successfully adjusted to limit play. In this instance I think he's hit his open-ender. Should I fold , call, or raise? Before I acted, I shared my hand with the player on my right (who had folded pre-flop). He's very successful at limit hold-em and we often discuss hands. He disagreed very strongly with my play.
With the flush draw still there, 9 big bets in the pot, Pot odds indicate it may be worth a call. Especially if you believe he may be taking a shot at limiting the field with over pair, two pair, or top pair with a kicker, as often will happen with a higher limit player IMO.Catch him a few times and he'll slow down.
I agree with you that higher limit players tend to overplay their hands and one needs to hang tough and bang away with them at times. Two rounds later he raised the blinds from one off the button, button folded, I re-raised with K4d, BB folded, he re-raised, I called. 9c,8d,4h, on flop, I bet, he raised, I called. 2h on turn, we both checked, 5d on river, we check and the fours stand up.
In the hand I posted about, I was confident 'action' was betting a made straight. This is indeed what he showed down after the river.
Call, you can't play a draw for a flush and then fold on the turn without any kind of read that you will not win if you get there. Is there some better flop you were hoping to see with J7s?
Borderline fold before the flop though and you wouldn't have such a ragged flush draw to be tied into.
D.
Granted, I don't call with this weak a holding 19/20. I played this one this time because I had position on several tight players and all the holdings I'd shown to this point had been strong or premium. thx spitball
Your "laydown" should have been made pre-flop. J7s... come on.
If you're going to assume your jack-high flush draw is no good and lay these four-flushes down, you've got no business playing J7s. If you folded it, I'm assuming you thought one of the other callers was holding a bigger flush draw. If you didn't, then you have to call.
J7s with three callers is a bad call anyway.
I would agree there are many good reasons to lay down this hand at this point, e.g. a)if you think there likely is another flush draw, your draw is less likely to get there, b) you may be drawing dead to a higher flush, c) you are the first to act after a raise so with three yet to act and one of them the lead bettor, you could be facing two more raises if you just call, d) you could make the flush, it could be the highest flush, and still lose if the board pairs.
I also agree that J7s is a weak call but I felt I needed to 'step out'in a hand because my play had become predictable. I felt this was a good time. In retrospect perhaps you're right, with three limpers I could wait until I faced better odds. However, of the three limpers, the first two are tight and likely playing big cards, unsuited, (AKs, AQs, or KQs would be raised pre-flop, Axs is the only likely possibility). 'action' is playing anything, confident he'll outplay us after the flop. thx spitball
Actually, I didn't say that there were a lot of good reasons to lay this down - as I count it, there are 21 small bets in the pot. You're going to have to give me a pretty good reason to lay down a jack-high four flush when I'm looking at raking in perhaps 15-20 big bets if I win.
My point was that if you are a very conservative player who's often abandoning draws like this, then playing J7s is even worse than if you are the type of player who likes to scratch out every drop of EV that he can.
If I wanted to mix up my play to get rid of a tight image, I wouldn't choose a hand like J7s. If you hit a jack on the flop you're not going to surprise anyone anyway, since anyone could credibly hold a jack from your position. I'd rather play a hand like 42s and really fluster them if I make two pair, a straight, or a board set. But I'd want to make sure that I was getting the button, and that the blinds looked like they wanted to fold or just call. And, I'd want lots of callers. AND, I wouldn't do it very often. Advertising plays are much overrated, since weak players rarely remember what you had anyway, and since you have to make quite a few of these calls before you hit a flop strong enough for you to be able to show down the hand in the first place. It does you no good to 'advertise' with J7 if you're throwing it face down into the muck.
Three callers is not enough to make this playable and if you thought that two of the callers were extremely tight and likely hand two big cards, all the more reason to lay it down with this few callers.
You don't know what you are talking about. There are already 21 small bets in the pot. He doesn't need ANY callers to make a call profitable.
Folding this hand was simply a bad idea.
I think Atwood was taking about folding preflop NOT folding later on.
Great flop for this poor hand.
As other's said this hand is worth a call if it is the only flush draw. You have no particular reason to fear a bigger draw, partly since then checked-called on the flop. Also, a J or 7 can realistically outdraw the better and raiser, as can a 9.
Do not fold.
Since you very realistically can have the raiser beat and have no reason to believe the BB has a straight (although of course he might have called a small pot with a small gut shot) I'd say RERAISE; some of the time you will snag this pot with just your pair 7s since conservative players don't like calling turn 3-bets with 2nd two pair. And, of course, it supports your strong image.
- Louie
I looked at it as a fold or re-raise proposition. If I re-raise then I lose at least two, perhaps three, of the others. I put the raiser on a straight and my read turned out to be correct. If I re-raise in that scenario then I must make the flush to win. I also assume that one of the other callers, trapped between BB and 'action' is also on a flush draw (I've been playing against some of these people for nine years). This reduces my outs in this scenario. BB would call my button bet with a small pocket pair and he would bet out if he hit it. He would also call with 64 and would also bet out. Also, if I re-raise it will be capped. In this scenario. Unless my math is wonky, I've got seven cards to hit, and of them the 5s may be no good. I'm looking at an investment of four big bets in a pot which will top out at nineteen. And I could be drawing dead. I didn't really consider just calling as I was wary of a re-raise by the opener and facing two more big bets. If one of the two tight players cold-calls in this situation I can be very sure they have a bigger flush draw. I'd rather re-raise and try to force out any other spade draws. I did fold, everyone else just called, and the five of spades fell on the river. 'action' showed us his 86c, and the pot was scooped by the 'little old lady' with her 84s. To the shock of more than a few of us. My friend laughed and told everyone what a terrible laydown I'd just made. I did the honorable thing and lied, 'It was a good laydown and I'd play it the same way again in the same situation.' But I won't. thx spitball p.s. my strong image was somewhat re-built by a good finish to my day, but I clearly need more work.
You lost me on the 're-raise or fold' idea. Why would you want to re-raise, especially if you think you're against a straight? You say to force out other spade draws, but IMO that ain't gonna happen. Most players are incapable of laying down four flush at any time, let alone when the pot is this big. And if you did manage to get one to lay down, it would probably be a small one, which you definitely want calling.
The proper play in this case is to put on your seatbelt and call. Even if you put in four bets on the turn you still have a +EV call if you have the best flush draw.
You are correct, in this case just calling is correct. This is the biggest weakness in my game and the reason why I posted this hand. I have trouble calling two big bets when I am certain I am drawing to a hand. Especially when I suspect I'm drawing so thin, to seven or perhaps six cards. Funny, I will call the single bet without batting an eye. Truthfully, I was concerned about how foolish I would feel if the action was capped, the spade came, and I was drawing dead all the way. And we get back to why J7s in the first place...
A re-raise would knock out a Q-high draw in that situation but only that hand and only against those specific players. Ironically, by narrowing my options like that, I convinced myself to fold.
Thankyou very much for your continued interest this post Dan. I've missed your input in this forum and I'm glad you're back. thx spitball
I do not agree that your realistic options are raise or fold.
So, you strongly suspect you are up against a made straight, a set that may cap it, and a likely big spade draw. This looks like a GREAT time for Caro's FPS "Fancy Play Syndrom" and RAISE the other draw out.
Vrs made straight and little old lady with two random spades: I count 9bb in there now and you can expect 2 more now and get paid off twice on the river if you make your flush. You risk 2 to win 13 or 6.5:1 odds. If you had the Q draw you would be even money vrs the lady; so with the J I'd say you are about 3:2 dog to have the higher draw.
Out of 44 unknown cards you can account for 6 spades or there are 7 left in the deck, so will hit a spade 16% of the time. Only 2/5 of the time will you win; 16%*2/5 = 6.4% or about 14:1 underdog; which is much lower than the 6.5:1 you need to justify a call. Its worse since it may get capped and you may have to pay off the lady and someone may have trips reducing your outs by 1 or 2.
Easy fold vrs a known straight and known random flush draw.
Even if nobody has a flush draw you are a 5:1 dog; not that much better than the 6.5:1 you need. So if you SUSPECT a draw I'd say fold.
(All the above vrs a known straight. But action players don't need straights to raise ...)
- Louie
Some friend embarrasing you, eh?
at least I got the advertising I was looking for:)
Because of analysis by you and Dan, I've loosened my play a little on the turn. In the short term I'm way ahead. Thank you again, Louis. spitball
At the risk of just echoing Dan, I cannot contain myself on this one. With this very large pot, you have a flush draw Jack-high against (your read) a made straight. Consider this. It makes no difference whether your opponent has a straight or just top pair. If you hit your flush you beat him for sure in either case.
In my 4-8 game, I live for draws like this for winning a big pot. I cannot think of any reason to drop even a 32s with a 4-flush draw.
I suggest that you widen the range of possible "drawing" hands your passive-calling opponents could have. 4-8 players could have a low board pair with an overcard (just like you do in this hand), a different straight not yet made, or they could be slow-playing a set or top 2 pair. You just don't know.
You have to call and draw to this flush.
Dick
Sorry, I have to disagree with the other posters: a sure way to be a loser at hold 'em is to play J-7s and then call a raise on the turn with a draw to the 4th highest possible flush. What's wrong with a jack high flush draw is that you can lose to a queen, king or ace high flush draw and, if you hit your jack, you still may lose. You have nothing, a draw to a hand that may lose if you hit it, and there's been a bet and a raise already. Fold.
You're missing the important factor here, which is the size of the pot. There are likely to be close to 40 small bets in this pot on the river. You are getting about 10-1 on your call. So this call is +EV even if there's a 50% chance that you are up against a bigger flush draw. And since there is 4-way action, your odds don't get much worse even if it's re-raised and capped.
The big mistake here was playing J7s before the flop, but JTs would have been a fine call, and he'd be facing the same decision. Also remember, this is a loose game, with loose players. They can show you anything.
If this were a tight, tough game, and I was in the same situation, I would be much more worried about a bigger flush draw. And if the pot were a lot smaller, such that I was only getting 5-1 on my raise call, I might consider letting the hand go. But not in this case. The decision isn't even close.
Good points. But I still think calling a raise with a draw to the 4th highest flush is unwise. Perhaps even more so in a loose game, where players will play, say, Q-6 suited, so your chances of drawing to the best flush are diminished. I sure want to be drawing to the nut flush if I'm going to call a raise on the turn, almost irrespective of the size of the pot.
If you play that way, then hands like JTs become almost unplayable, and you should fold them before the flop.
It's crazy to assume that you're up against a bigger flush draw just because there is a raise on the turn. Remember there isn't a flush on the board, just a two-flush. So if you're folding 'irrespective of the size of the pot', you must think that there is ALWAYS a bigger flush draw out there. And this just isn't true. In fact, it wasn't true in this situation at all, because an 8-high flush dragged the pot. The fold in this case was a 2-3 big bet error. You can make fishy calls with crap like 64o all night and not cost yourself that much money. In loose, agressive games, weak-tight players are the fish.
If you play in tough games, you're going to be facing raises and re-raises on the turn all the time. If you're throwing away four-flushes every time this happens unless they are Ace high, you're going to get slaughtered.
I don't think that, in a tough game, you should be throwing away four flushes "every time this happens." I thought it should be folded in this situation. Nor do I think that playing "that way", that is, folding a J-7 four flush when there's a raise in front of you means that J-Ts is an unplayable hand. Nevertheless, your points in your posts have made me think harder about the hand in question and I appreciate your analysis.
Why did you call the hand before the fold, you called for the flush potential, Not top pair, not for a straight, those are your backups with a hand like that. I would have raised or called, depending who the better and raisers where. raise if they are weak players( weak players always have a need to pay you off to see the hand)(Just call if they are Strong players, this might give them a feeling that you might be buying the pot) If and when the flush hits, you bet out and will get at least 2 callers. Would the right play be, get as much money in the pot if you are on a draw? Why did you not mention what the river card was?? I think I know why!
It is customary not to reveal the conclusion of the hand in the initial post in order to get unbiased advice. In the hand in question, Tom bet out on the turn 5, teacher Bill called as did Olive, and Nicky raised. I correctly put Nicky on a made straight and Olive on a flush draw. I incorrectly assumed Olive for a better draw than J-high. Oh well. Next time I'll be calling. Today I hit three thin draws on the river out of eight tries. I'd more than likely have folded last week. Yipee! I love this forum. spitball
Thurs eve, No. Cal. 8/16 game starts up. I have a pretty good idea who plays what & how. The main attraction is one I'll call "King of treys". Plays a pair of treys like quad aces. This game will be wild and I know it. Got 2 "white shirts", 2 calling stations, The King, 2 just play too many hands players, 2 solids, and myself. Game is fast & furious. 2 solids bail in the first hour one is even, one is ahead 1/2 rack. ($2 chips). Most every hand is capped 5 bets 7-9 way action before the flop, capped 5-8 ways after the flop, usually down to 3 for the river. The king raises every single hand. I play the least of all at the table. After a few hours I have found myself only 2 racks ahead, which in this game is only winning one hand. Most pots run from 400-$600 but often are 600 to $1000.00. So the fluctuations can be deadly. I tightened up but seems with these category 1-2 hands I rarely win...mostly too many players to suck out. By the end of a 12 hour session I'm ahead 2 racks still. A couple players have taken 1-2000 out of the game and the King has bought 20 racks. Most are in the game $600 or more. Throughout the nite I never won a pot over $600 and only one of those. Played an average of about 1 hand per 1 1/2 rounds to the flop, maybe the turn, but each time it'll cost a stack per round of action 2 stacks on the turn. How do I beat this game for 5-6 racks when they gamble that much? The suckouts for 2 pair holding a duece and a trey are amazing!
"How do I beat this game for 5-6 racks when they gamble that much?"
Just play like they do and you will have a (small) shot at it.
Seriously the best an expert can expect to do is about 25/Hr in the long run and will expect huge swings along the way.
In many ways this is not the best kind of game to play in. Two big reasons, for me, are the larger swings and the fact that it can be very boring. You can virtually never bluff or play a single player a certain way. About the only interesting hands are where you must consider a few complex decisions to help secure big pots you are in.
BTW is this the game at San Pablo?
D.
Yes it is the San Pablo game. How'd ya know?...BTW I pretty much agree with ya on playing this in this type of game. The fluctations can be huge. I won't gamble as much as they do. Oten times I do much better in games not to wild and with 4-5 decent players at least.
I have only been to that place once and I played in the game. It seemed like the one you describe.
D.
Couple things - if playing solid poker is boring to you you ought to find a new past time as you should be a spectator at least 75% of the time in hold'em. I would also find a new game it is impossible to beat a table with more than 3 very loose players. I prefer 2 myself but more than 3 is a crap shoot and that is no way to play poker.
Patience is my nickname. Last nite I went 6 rounds and played one hand. Kinda sucks at times watching the blinds eat ya up, but thats the breaks. Course last nite when I starting getting premium hands to play, 3 hands, pocket K's, AQs, KQs all with position in a row they were all no good!...hehe that happens too.
Omigod, here we go again.
I have played at tables with 11 loose players (12-handed hold'em is a *real* test of patience) and enjoyed their money very much. Even if I'd choose to agree with you that some loose games are a crapshoot, I'd say it again: but so what?
When you have the best of it, crapshooting is nothing to fear. Casinos are doing very well shooting craps against all comers, thank you very much. Crapshoot is good for you. As long as you are on the right side of the odds, that is. The only problem is the variance, easily taken care of with an adequate bankroll. Stop living in fear. Smart poker players are feeding off the idiots. It has always been so. More idiots, more fodder. It's as simple as that.
And please, stop giving misleading and plain wrong (I refrained from using the word "stupid") advice. Any man publicly writing a statement like "it is impossible to beat a table with more than 3 very loose players" should have his genitals tied to a hand of a retiree with a Parkinson's disease.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Oh Enema man you are tooooooo much.
Table selection is an important criteria for any successful player. Are you saying table selection doesn't matter and yes I like my chances a lot more in a game with fewer (I do wnat some) rather then more loose players.
Of course table selection is important, but that's beside the point. The point is I find your notion about the games with more than three loose players being unbeatable unexeptable.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Loose players by definition make bad calls. If you can't find a way to make money off of that, then perhaps you need to improve your game.
Loose passive games are the most profitable games around. Loose agressive games are much tougher, but can still be beaten. You simply have to adjust your game.
I can certainly believe that you can't beat them, though. After reading your advice which it consistantly too tight and too meek, I would suggest that you stay far away from agressive games, because I'll bet you make folding errors like crazy. I can believe that you have a hard time beating very loose games, because you don't value bet your hands enough, and you don't raise your draws for value when you should.
Wild games are not necessarily easy to beat. The pots are so huge that the players are getting the odds to draw to just about anything. You will be forced to make a lot of tough decisions by maniacs raising and re-raising each other. Bad laydowns are devastating given the pot sizes, but bad calls cost you a lot of money, so your variance goes through the roof.
The primary way to beat these games, IMO, is to see flops with hands that are easy to get away from if they miss, but when they hit they hit hard (pocket pairs, big suited aces, and premium hands). You have to play very tight, and stay far away from hands that will force you to make tough decisions (like KJ, QT, etc).
But your best bet may be to look for a softer game.
Too much money is going in early to make "speculative" hands worth much. Small pairs retain some value since so many players are taking the flop. With so much money going in early you need premium hands, Axs, and the mentioned small pairs. Suited connectors don't seem to be big money winners, but I may be wrong.
Get this "suck out" notion OUT OF YOUR HEAD. Play hands that win showdowns and forget the order the cards appeared in.
If you play selectively and go to the river with any draw or any top pair or better you'll win.
The real problem is that the action will dry up either if you are in or if you are asserting yourself. If they'll cap it if you are just calling but flat call if you bet; well then don't bet. While this is a "No Duh" notion I admit I have difficulty with it in practice.
- Louie
or, better yet, bet you your draws and enough of your hands to cover your draws. especially if the action picks up again when you slow down.
scott
8/16 game fairly tight aggressive. I'm utg with pocket aces, I open for two bets. 3 callers, 3rd to left from me is a tight/passive type, button is solid aggressive but tilting right now. This makes him dangerous. Flop is Ac, 4s, 5s. I bet tight guy calls, button raises, bb mucks, I reraise, we go to 5 bets capped 3 way action. Turn is 9h, I bet, call, button raises, I 3 bet call, he raises, I flat call from here. I'm thinking it's possible he cold called two bets with 5,2, But probably has a set of 4's or 5's. the middle man is what bothers me....I think he's on a flush draw. River card is Ks! Damn....I check Middle man comes out charging to bet. Button takes a long time looking at his cards finally mucks showing pocket fours. I've thought it out and figure middle man wasn't flat calling with pocket kings, had to be spades. I tell the button he didnt have a monster to lay down as I muck my aces face up. We never saw the hand but this guy will call 4-flush to the river every time....even if it's a small one....an area of weakness for him. But he also could have been just calling with pocket kings....I think I layed down a loser but should I have called because of pot size alone?
s
i am sure the table said "wow! what a great laydown! you two are both great poker players. can i have your autograph?" and then proceeded to take shot after shot at you for the rest of the session. whether your not you lay this down, whatever. if you do, don't show it to the table.
scott
Actually, knowing this, I made sure they knew they couldn run me over. I made a few calls that I read correctly and took a few pots away from them...they then were more afraid to caall me and I ran over them for a few pots.
Scott
It takes a good player to lay down a good hand - he may have been wrong to lay down and show but I am not sure.
I want the table to know I can lay down a good hand it can be more intimidating than calling when you are beat.
Yeah! I've always been terrified by players I can bluff.
How does that intimidate anyone? You can't win pots after you've folded. It intimidates them because you're showing how good a player you are?
Frankly, this logic baffles me. Back when I started playing poker and had no experience at all, the first thing I learned is that some people will fold a real hand and some won't. The folders were attacked, the calling stations weren't. There was no intimidation factor.
If you want to intimidate someone, value-bet him with a weak hand. Call a bluff on the river with Ace high and be right. Raise-bluff a habitual stealer and show your hand. THAT is intimidating. Folding a big hand shows weakness.
No body runs over me and I want them to try, I have never regretted showing a big lay down in the right circumstances.
I think seeing someone lay down a good hand when they're beat (three-way action - everyone sees the result). And also seeing their hand after a successful bluff is VERY intimidating. It demonstrates a well-rounded player who is playing the people and not only looking at their cards.
After all, you have to know:
Who is capable of laying down a hand in the face of a bluff and who isn't.
Who only value bets.
This is tricky, but I believe this is significant in setting the winners apart from the losers.
You have to call, even AK or a bluff on a 67 is possible given the loose kind of game.
Showing the hand was a gross error.
D.
You should have called. You were probably beaten, but this pot is huge. If there's an outside chance that the middle player had a smaller set, A5d, or most likely, 67, then you HAVE to call.
If I had been in that middle seat with 67, looking at that giant pot with only one person to act behind me, I might have taken a shot at the pot with a bet. Hell, if you bet I might have tried a steal by raising, especially if I knew you were capable of laying down three Aces. Since you mucked your aces face up, I'm guessing that I'd know this.
Incidentally, never, ever show your big laydowns again.
Ihear ya Dan. Loud & clear. Thanks guys.
I would have raised every chance I could and called the river, and if I lost to a flush with this hand and had trip aces early next hand, I'd do the same thing. My guess is that he has 2 pr with either aces or kings ot trip kings
i dont see any reason to stop raising on 4th street or not to call on the river. even if you wrongly believe that it doesnt cost you lots of money to show a big laydown like that. what happens is that the bad players learn its right to slow down betting or fold hands that look good but arent. and that costs you big time.
There's nothing else a tight/passive (keyword passive)player could've had. I make this laydown, but I DO NOT show the table.
how about a bluff. dont even the tightest players bluff some. the pot is piled up with bets. why cant he be a bad player and called all the way with ace king and then bet out just because it was checked to him. dont say this doesnt happen.
As the nite progressed I very closely watched this player as I was concerned if I made a bad play. Which I believe I did just cause of pot size but I think I was still beat. Anyways, this guy seems to get stuck on flush draws thru the nite, and when he makes them he bet in the exact same fashion as when I had my set. I believe this to be a tell because he isn't sophisticated enough to realize how he changes when he makes a good hand. I've since played with him 2 more times at the table and every time he made a hand I was able to call it out before it showed. As far as being able to get snowed because of a scare card. I'm usually able to pick up a few pots a nite cathcin some...mostly from situations obvious to me that it may be their only way to get the pot.
You must be in the wrong business. Mucked 3 aces and showing it off just because you got scared of a possible flush? You get scared too easy, I can assure you right now your hand was still the winning hand.
I think a call was in order if your opponent has the remote possibility of a bluff on the end. He did call a lot of bets and almost surely had the flush... Even though you think you made a good laydown, don't muck face up...It will tend to make people run more bluffs at you on the end.
Russ
Yesterday in my regular loose agressive(is there any other kind?)pot limit game 5-10 blinds utg raises it to 40,four people call behind him and I call with pocket 4's in the bb.There is now 240 in the pot.
Flop is Q,J,4 all hearts.The utg raiser could very easily have flopped a higher set.The rest of the field I am almost sure did not flop a set because I have played with each of these players for a while and they reraise preflop with atleast jacks to protect their hands because once one player calls a raise the rest follow like sheep just for a chance to win a big pot.
A plus is that the utg raiser only has 100+ in chips left and cant do too much damage to my 2600+ stack.The rest of the callers have between 1000 to 5000 in chips. I heard somewhere that the chances to flop a flush are like 119 to 1.
You are first to act and the dealer says "up to you".O.K. now given you have all the information I had what would you do in this situation?
Opinions greatly appreciated,C.M. I'll let you guys know what happened in a later post.
Hey dude, I'd bet out. your chances of quads plus the full boat is worth the play. plus the trips might stand up. too bad the utg dude didn't have more dough. play them if you got them my daddy always said. Do the pot and kick some ass
Check with the intention of raising.
"Check with the intention of raising"? lol Another heart could kill your hand. You should bet it out and hope if he does call a heart dont come and if it does that you fill up.
He can't fill up if another heart comes unless there's two jack of hearts, queen or 4 of hearts and then it's a worn deck.
I would raise the pot $240. Unless the Ax or Kx of hearts is present, any other two-hearts has to consider you on Ax or Kx....as well as other hands...and would find it hard to call.
As always, if QQ and/or JJ is out, then you are dead no matter what. Take the initiative and find out.
I have thought about this hand after the hand was over and have found that there was not one perfect way to play it.
A bet will gain you information because in this game a made flush will raise the pot to protect their hand and if they are up against a higher flush ,oh well.A player in this field will also raise with a set.
On the other hand by me being the first to bet into a field of five into a preflop raised pot and am not the preflop raiser I should have some respect from the players and should be put on a made flush.So a higher set would only call fearing a reraise if they raise.A medium flush would also be inclined to just call it to the end fearing a higher flush(king at the most,ace high flush would check:)) from such a big bet from first position first to act(a pot limit bet on the flop in a "big pot" is ofcourse a much different bet then in limit poker where the strenghth of the hand should not be taken as serious as in pot limit).
So by all this reasoning a bet should be the way to go.What am I missing?hmmmm...Oh yes I am up against a field of very aggressive "ego" driven players that have this mentality of raise or fold and most of them fall in love with hands that they can't fold(these players are almost all limit players and they base their calls or raises on their limit experience) for example when we first started playing they never layed down flush draws which cost them dearly.When you are calling 600 to win a 1200 pot on nothing but a draw you are throwing away money.
Here's how the hand went I bet the pot 240 and got called for 140 allin by the utg raiser and it was folded up to the last guy who raised it to 1100 making it 860 for me to call.I mucked he had K,Q offsuit with the king of hearts,so he had top pair with king high flush draw.In limit poker a good raise.
A check could give me a turn for the 140 that the utg was allin for and if their was a raise on the flop making it like 660 for me to call cold i could muck. the fear i had in checking was that i would'nt gain info and their could be a free card .
A check raise would be pretty risky because a made flush in this particular field would not lay it down and maby even top set would'nt fold(was playing with guys with money that liked a gamble/challenge) C.M.
Im in the BB with 5,6os,three of us see the flop,3,4,7,rainbow.I bet,1 caller,turn blank,I bet,he raises(don't know this player)thinking he has set,I call the raise.I'm thinking ck raise if river blank.It's blank he does'nt fall for it and shows A,Q.I cost myself 1 maybe two bets.Is this a major error? if I had to do it over I'd re-raise on turn.
"if I had to do it over I'd re-raise on turn. "
Words to live by. In this actual hand you might not get a call on the turn re-raise but consider this possibility. You just call his turn raise and he's really got a set. On the river a 5 or 6 hits. How much action will you get then?
I agree with Mr. Horton.
You were hoping to get two more bets by check raising on the river. Why not re-raise on the turn and bet the river?
If the board pairs you can check and call.
I've found that even in the low-limit games players are a lot more cautious on the river than on the turn, as a generalization.
Not a major error I doubt if he is putting anymore money in on just 2 over cards - if you were to reraise he has to fold or you have a fish here.
I would have reraised him here and hoped he called but I doubt he whoud call a reraise here.
David Sklansky writes:
In the case of 98 suited he says that the idea of calling a double bet on the button in a multiway pot is "revolting" and will cost you a half a bet in the long run.
Bob Ciaffone is not to far off on this. I will leave it to others to expound.
This is not exactly what I would call a meaningfull post.
In contrast, I say:
In the case of 98 suited the idea of calling a double bet on the button in a
multiway pot is "revolutionary" and will earn you a half a bet in the long run.
I'm not that far off on this. I will leave it to others to expound.
- Andrew
Andrew wrote:
This is not exactly what I would call a meaningfull post.
In contrast, I say:
In the case of 98 suited the idea of calling a double bet on the button in a
multiway pot is "revolutionary" and will earn you a half a bet in the long run.
I'm not that far off on this. I will leave it to others to expound.
Vince writes:
This is not exactly what I would call a meaningfull post.
In contrast, I say:
In the case of 98 suited the idea of calling a double bet on the button in a multiway pot is "revolutionary" and will earn you a half a bet in the long run except of course when it is revolting as Ciaffone claims in which case it will cost you half a bet in the long run. Now let me add that if you only do this in the short term then you will be correct in one or the other situation and will then be able to say "I told you so".
I'm far off on this. I will leave it to others to expound.
Vince.
that was perhaps the least worthwhile post I've read ever since I was born.
It was the second least worthwile post for me.
-Carl
I'll only play 98 in 1 off or on the button in an unraised pot. As you know I am not the least bit swayed by suited middle cards until the flop comes and the suited portion of the hand has little bearing on my calling the bet or not.
Except for Bob's comment about backdoor flushs (which I may have misinterpreted since he could have conceivably meant when that is your only out), Bob isn't that far wrong about the other things he advised. But he is certainly wrong.
Why don't you substantiate this opinion with some facts? Ciaffone did.
Spielmacher
This hand is from a medium to loose 10-20 game. 3 to 5 players see the flop on average. A loose player limps in. I raise from late position with red AKo. Both blinds defend and these two are also too loose. Flop comes 7 5 4 all clubs. It checks around to me, which is somewhat unusual since all three of these guys would definitely bet a club draw. I don't think I can steal it here with a bet so I check.
Turn comes a red 2 and the big blind bets. I put him on a very modest holding, 2nd pair, 3rd pair, a 6, a middle club maybe. The player between us mucks and I raise, figuring I'm drawing to at least half the deck. Small bind mucks and the BB calls, too bad.
Heads-up river comes a red 7. Not a bad card if my read is correct. He calls my river bet without a lot of thought and takes it down with 64, no clubs.
I may have picked the wrong customer here, I didn't know the guy but for maybe 20 minutes so he could be a lifetime calling station. Perhaps if I had bet the flop my play would have been more consistent. I wonder who thinks my turn play was out of line? I hate making a good read, my best play, and then getting nothing.
Loose players are looking for a reason to call. In addition, they are going to put you on a hand they can beat. Your check on the flop was correct. I think you should have dumped on the turn. I personally think your raise on the turn, though valiant, was suicidal.
Good read, bad decision.
You were there, so would know better your chance of picking up the pot on the flop, but in general, even given loose players, I would tend to bet that flop. The single suited flop will look dangerous to anyone who doesn't have a reasonably high card of that suit, giving you some extra leverage on a steal. The pot was laying you 8-1, so you don't have to steal that often to make the bet correct. Moreover, your AK may well be the best hand on flop. (We know it wasn't, but that's hindsight.) After betting the flop, if you were called the rest is judgment, but planing to bet again on 4 and show down for free on 5 would be one common approach.
You're probably right in thinking that a flop bet would have made a bet or raise on the turn look less suspicious. As it was, the raise on the turn still had merit, but probably wasn't as convincing. It's close, but maybe just as well to muck. At that point, you have to worry about the combination of possibly being beaten or being drawn out on if you're not. (You have some possible outs, but some are likely negated.)
You might have considered just checking on 5. It's hard to purge my mind of knowing what he had, but was there reason to think that he would call with less than a pair or would lay down a pair?
(btw, Scott, when you come to LA in January, why not come down to Oceans-Eleven for a day - about 1.25 hours drive south on I-5? You'll find an especially friendly casino, 9-18 through 40-80 games, and I'd buy dinner but the dang casino is so friendly they'll probably beat me to it. Happy to chat. Email me if you think you'd get down here.)
I think my tendency here would have been to bet this flop. Then depending on the result of my bet (if I don't win the pot), I have the option of betting again, or taking a free card. If I took a free card on the turn, I'd be prepared to call a bet on the river if there were no overcallers.
If I bet the flop and only get one caller, I'd bet the turn again unless the caller was a complete calling station or I had some other reason to believe that he would definitely call me again.
Im my games this is Perfect advice.
Scott,
My take is a little different than the others. This is actually a very, very interesting problem. Also it illustrates why playing Hold'em at a top notch level requires a high degree of skill. I believe that this is a fairly complicated problem in determining the right play. IMO what you have done is represent the slowplay of a big flush on the turn. One question to answer is how often does a club help you on the river. What I would do in determing the right play now is go through the various decision paths and determine the EV for each one based on the various factors involved. This may seem like a trite answer but it is not meant to be. At least for me this would be a time consuming albeit a very worthwhile excercise which I may even get around to doing. It is also the kind of problem where the players who read the 2+2 books have way the best of it because the tools necessary to solve this problem are contained within these books. Especially relevent is the Theory of Poker. Also, as Sklansky has written about in other places on this forum, it is the type of problem that players like Abdul,Izmet,Gary Carson and others, who are excellent at analyzing poker situations but have their own ideas, can offer insightful and cogent analysis that you probably won't find in other sources.
Tom Haley
FWIW if all the other guys would have bet with even a medium club, perhaps they think you would have as well. This would make a bet on the flop almost mandatory if you're looking to steal on the turn if a club hits.
I would likely not bet the flop here and wouldn't try the turn raise either.
One big problem I see is that many players will play as if you have AK given the preflop raise. They will call you all the way to the river with a small pair. With no draw myself except to a pair I don't like all the draws that could be out on the flop coupled with 3 opponents, 2 of which are on the blinds and could have a wide variety of hands.
However I think this is right near the borderline and against 2 players or with some better read on the players I might try something.
D.
I like your check on the flop because you have no pair, no draw, and really no hand but you do have 3 opponents and the board has flopped all of one suit.
When bet into on the turn, I think you should fold and not try to bet your way out of trouble here. Anyone with a Club is probably going to stay and hope you don't have one. In addition, aside from the Clubs, the board is highly coordinated with all the cards clustered together making two pair quite possible especially from the blinds. If someone has two pair they are not going to put it down.
The other problem is that your check on the flop, which I agree with, denies an over pair so you are really telling them that your raise was based on big slick or just two big over cards. This makes it easy for your opponents to stay with you on any pair.
I don't like the check on the flop. Why let a hand worse than yours have a free card? Why let a player with, say the 9 of clubs, or an 8, or J-T stay in, when, if you bet, he would probably fold?
Plus, if you bet the flop, you probably won't get bet into on the turn and you can take a free card there, probably against fewer opponents, if you think it's correct. Once you checked the flop, and the small blind has already checked twice, the big blind figures that his one pair, with a draw to a straight, is the best hand. Your turn raise looks to him like a bet with two high cards, one of which is probably a club. So this is why his call on the river is done "without a lot of thought."
I would have folded the turn. There's simply too many possible hands for the blind to have to fold to your implied strength.
It's a rare fella who having called the raise on the turn would fold on the river if he had a pair. I would probably have checked it down on the end. I would think I have no chance of bluffing out a better hand and no chance of having a worse hand call.
Tough 10/20. Me: Ad,Qs first in Early with a Raise. All Fold to the SB who calls and BB Folds.
Flop: Jc,Kc,8c
SB bets and I fold. Easy? I had to curb the overwhelming urge to Raise on the Flop, and I would have if either my Ace or Queen were Clubs.
I felt that this person (that I don't know that well since he doesn't play many hands, I guess I'd call him Typical Tight) would need to have a good hand to call my raise in the SB, though he may be trying to semi-bluff or steal on the flop the only cards that would help me were an Ace or a Ten plus no more clubs. Just not good. Am I weak or solid?
Thanks, CV
It's a no-brainer laydown. It's ok even if you are wrong. The dealer will deal a new round in a few seconds. Don't give it another thought. I've seen people raise with pocket kings and have a heart attack when an ace flops. So what. Fold and move on. The next hand is always around the corner. Learn to fold without pain. Learn to fold early.
There's a good chance you've been semi-bluffed out of a pot by a competent player. Big deal. It happens. You'll get him next time. A lot of money is lost when people can't stand the thought of being bluffed. When the pot is small, call down habitual bluffers only. Call if you make it to the river.
I've been bluffed a lot. I'm still standing. I bluff them too, see.
But keep in mind you have some options available when headsup. If you have reason to believe the guy is on a move, call and fold if the club hits. Call on the river too. Raising him won't work, as he is probably drawing to a flush. On the other hand, if he does have a hand, a club could be an out for you, if he's a weak player. If this is the case, you have lots of outs.
Bottom line is, I like your fold. But if you decide to fight for it, that's ok too. You should know best as you know the guy. There's no substitute for that.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Not weak to lay down a hand you don't flop to, actually it is weak to stay with a loser to long.
I agree with a fold here, too. However, what if you held QQ or had an open ended straight (holding Q,T) draw with only you and him in the pot.
Would you raise the SB? His chance of having club(s) is exactly same as yours, and he might suspect you as having the flush or the draw. Do you think that he thinks your early raise says "pair" so he will be confident to call or raise you.
Knowledge of the other player is important here.
Ratso there is a huge difference between a gut shot draw (4 outs) and a straight and flush draw (15 outs + 2 for the A) If I have the QQ I am in the pot not raising unless I think I can win it right there and if there is not to much heat.
My thinking exactly
Izmet,
Do you have students you teach personally or over the computer? And if not, are you planing to possibly one day take on students?
-Pat
You flatter expertly, young man. I'd love to help, but you should realize I live in a very small European country, Slovenia. Far, far away from poker reality.
So unless you plan to spend some vacation here (it's a beautiful country), I doubt I can be of much help. I'm coming to Vegas in January, however. Bellagio is the place to be for an eager-to-learn-some-more Albanian with an excess of spending money. I'm also coming for David's and Mason's scalps and I plan to take them down with some AQo preflop raises :))
But if you ask away on this forum, I'm sure you'll get some answers to think about. That's the main thing - thinking about the answers, NOT following them. There's much bullshit written anywhere, 2+2 forum is hardly an exception. Learn to trust your own judgement, as long as you think hard about things.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
Well if you do ever decide to set up stakes in Southern Cal., away from--what in the heck was that made up place you're from, Slovo Land, maybe you'll consider teaching--I hope. Anyway, thanks for your advice about the bullshit.
-Pat
PS: Make sure to send in a picture of Mason's severed scalp to Dick from Arizona's photo gallery. See ya.
Although it is possible you are getting played with, the problem is that the pot is small and your hand is garbage given that flop despite the inside straight draw. Good fold!
I regularly play in a great 10-20 game, very loose, 6-7 callers pre-flop, sometimes raised by weak hands pre-flop, rarely re-raised pre-flop. Almost all hands go to the river. I've done very well so far, but have noticed 2 problems I encounter, and I'm looking for some advice on fixing my play:
1. Playing when the board is paired on the flop. In situations where I either have higher pair or lower pair (in my hand), or when I have paired the 3rd card on board, I always seem to go too far with this hand. I'm thinking I would not be losing too much if I mucked everytime in this position.
2. Playing with middle pair (8,9,T,J) preflop when it is raised from my right. I seem to be struggling with re-raising or folding versus certain players, and thus far I have gotten caught very often with 2nd best hand. In this game, a raise doesn't scare many players off, and often I can still expect the hand to go 4-5 handed.
Any and all suggestions welcome.
Thanks.
My Answer to Question #2 Extra Outs and Position are the Big Key factors to betting, calling, raising, or folding when you are faced with Middle or Low Pair decisions. The more outs, and better position you have the more you bet, raise, or possibly just call.
Later, CV
I should clarify in #2 I meant pre-flop, with a raise from my right.
Here's my take:
1. You definitely can't fold everytime the flop comes with a pair. With an overpair you are going to have to figure out where your at. With the lower pair in a many player pot you can frequently fold but there may be times when your hand is pretty strong, say pairing the third card with a high overcard kicker. I would suggest playing with caution but its going to far to just muck. The board will be scary to the other players too.
2. If you 3-bet and are going to get many callers then the play doesn't work. If you expect 5 or more players to call, then just calling a raise is ok. You probably have to throw the hand away in earliar position if you can't figure out that there will be likely enough callers.
Pretty simple rules to follow - don't play under pairs in games like this where there are several callers and muck under pairs in the hole - no set no bet. You will be alot of money ahead if you just dump these loosers on the flop. If you go fishing for the 2 outters you are gonna be behind the other losers in the ATM line.
It seems to me that the key to both problems is the number of players contesting the pot. Obviously, if you walked away from most of these hands in short-handed situations you'd be giving up too much value. On the other hand, if your game were so loose that you always needed top pair or better on the end to win, you'd consider these hands nothing more than thin draws to be played in position for good odds and otherwise wouldn't waste time with them. You appear to be somewhere in between.
The answer might be nothing more complicated than identifying the more attractive of these situations according to hand strength, position, number of players and type of opponents. For example, in the second situation, consider dumping your middle pair hands for a raise unless you have an A/K kicker and a 3-flush and opponents capable of releasing before the last card, in which case you'll usually reraise. Otherwise almost always fold.
I'm not suggesting that there's a formula here, but only some way of identifying say the best 1/4 of these situations while avoiding the rest. Until you get more comfortable playing these hands on a case-by-case basis, you might develop some hard and fast guidelines that you can use at the table.
Hello every one! Been reading a lot of posts but haven't contributed yet. I've played quite a bit of low limit in Tunica and the gulf coast (military) in the past but now live too far from any casino to book any table time to speak of, only soft, profitable home games ($27/hour in a $3 limit game - yes, that profitable). Going on a 33 day military deployment to Vegas next month. Plan to play 4-8, possibly 10-20 if I find the right game (10-20 is over my BR). What I would like from you all is some advise on where to play. Are there certian card rooms that have better games than others or they all pretty much the same? I love this forum and look forward to sharing some hands with you all when I return. All comments welcome. Best of it, Tuck
If you post this in Other Topics you'll get better responces.
CV
Try the Mirage Casino
I play in a $10-$20-$40 game at Lake Charles, Louisiana. This is a $10-$20 game except that at the river you can bet or raise either $20 or $40. So if someone bets $20 on the end then someone else can make it $40 or $60. If someone bets $40 on the end then a raiser has to make it $80 not $60. In general, this is a loose, passive game. I have played over 800 hours of this game and I only average about $12 per hour. This is my worst performing game. But I think I have discovered the reason why. I believe I am betting too much on the river when I think I have the best hand against one opponent when I am out of position. Consider the following:
1. Hands worse than top pair or top pair/top kicker usually won't call a big $40 bet on the end so there is nothing to be gained by trying to bet these hands for value like you would in a normally structured game.
2. When you bet $20 on the end out of position, you are risking a $40 raise. In other words, you are risking $60 to win $20. When you bet $40 on the end out of position, you are risking $80 to win $40. These are not very good pot odds.
3. It appears that even two pair is not all that great for betting on the end out of position. I think you need a hand close to the nuts to bet on the end in this game out of position. Something like a flush, a straight, or at least a set.
4. With a decent hand like top pair/top kicker or two pair out of position, I think you are better off checking and trying to induce a bluff from your opponent rather than betting yourself.
What do you guys think of this structure and what strategy changes would you incorporate into your game if you had to play in this structure.
If people won't call your $40 on the river, it seems to me like it would be a pretty good time to bluff.
There's a boat in the midwest that has a $3-$6-$12 structure. Same deal, you can bet 6 or 12 on the end. If I've been betting all the way and get called on the turn I check on the river if I am out of position (unless I'm holding what I believe to be the best possible hand). They're are players that wait till the river to raise in this type of game instead of the turn. If the games real loose and a lot of players are entering the pots I don't play the small suited and unsuited connectors. I actually play a lot tighter with this structure.
I don't have any experience with the sort of game you're talking about, but your logic seems flawed. If the game is loose enough that you expect your river bets to be called, the implied odds for your suited connectors go way up, especially in late position.
You may think my logic is flawed, but my records prove otherwise. I will not play small suited connectors in a game where several people are playing 93 suited and I'm holding a 65 suited. It seems like I get trapped with these hands. I quit playing them and my game became more profitable.
mah - you are correct not to play the small connected cards in real loose games - keep to the big cards when you get the flush it will be a monster not hanging out there with 54 and losing to a 62 - I keep my rate up there by not blowing tons of sb's on garbage like 65 - it more than pays for the times I may win with it.
Lots of these poker math wizards have no idea of the negative value if these little cards played in the wrong position.
I totally agree. Having good odds is not worth squat if your hand is second best by the time you get to the river. In these loose low-limit games, I want a draw to the nuts, so I can win a giant pot.
First, if people won't ever call river bets with top pair unless they have top kicker, you should be stealing a fair number of pots.
In these kinds of games, hands that have big implied odds go up in value. Pocket pairs, suited connectors, etc. You get to draw cheap compared to the money you can make if you hit your draw. Hands like KJo go down in value.
Make more thin draws on the flop, if that draw is to a big hand. An obvious example would be a gutshot to the nuts, which is playable if you are in a good position, even if there aren't anywhere near 10 small bets in the pot. But these calls will increase your variance.
When you have a hand that you'd rather not pay the double bet on the river with, you might try a raise on the turn to get a free showdown on the river. This is the best 'free card' play around, because it protects your hand more rather than giving someone a free draw, while still saving you a bet on the last round.
Finally, don't be afraid to value bet your decent hands on the river, because you're giving up a lot if you have the best hand and lose 2 big bets.
Dan has some good advice here. one thing that is happening to you is that in such a game you wiil get raised more on the river than 4th street by good hands as they make more that way. you need to be less inclined to bet on the river. last position helps alot too and maybe with the structure you are playing too loose up front. try checking on 4th street and betting out on the river with some of your decent hands. this way they think you have a bluff or made a hand on the end and will not raise you for value. dont overdo it.
Thanks for a great response Dan! Your points are excellent, especially about raising on the turn to get a free showdown at the river.
Your first point about stealing pots is in fact something I do on occasion with a higher degree of success in this structure than a normal structure. The problem is that normally I am the one in the lead and my opponent is either chasing or sandbagging a powerhouse.
Your point about implied odds is right on the money. I find myself limping in a lot in middle and late position with pocket pairs and suited connectors which I frequently don't do in a normally strucure game.
On the flop, I now believe you are correct. I normally don't chase with bottom pair, gutshots, and other horrid stuff especially when a two flush flops, but maybe I should reconsider my position on this for this structure when it doesn't look like the pot will get raised on the flop. For this structure, I would start to lean towards viewing a backdoor flush draw the way David Sklansky does versus the Bob Ciaffone point of view as long as it was part of a hand where I had some other outs.
Maybe I will start posting some hands that I lost in this structure and get some feedback on my river betting.
Thanks again.
I would just add that many of these suggestions are also applicable in games with "overs" buttons.
I'd like to add to Dan's general advice about higher implied odds by noting that gutshots and double gut draws, at least against certain players, might have much higher implied odds.
My guess is that the big raise threat encourages more players to check and call with winning hands on the river, as you indicated they probably should, and that they do so even more when a third third suited card or third face card lands. Thus, while the larger bet might give you higher implied odds for your flush draws and big straight draws, this is compensated somewhat by the lack of action on the river.
On the other hand, the implpied odds for a gutshot or double gutshot draw might be tremendously increased as two-pair hands and sets might not recognize the threat. When you bet into one of these hands (or when they bet into you), the two pair/sets might just end up losing eight small bets!
This effect should make it correct to play and call preflop raises with more offsuit connectors and one-gaps, one of the most prevalent leaks of weak players, while diminishing the advantage you have over them from playing better cards. This in turn should magnifiy the importance of skilfull play on fourth street.
I'm on the button with J10d, UTG limps, one other limper and I call. sb and BB call. Flop comes KQ9, all clubs. All check to me and I bet. I'm not sure I'm best, but I'm not giving any free card here. Both blinds fold, UTG and last opponent call. Turn 5d. Check, check, I bet again and both call. River is 3d, UTG bets, middle guy folds and I pay it off. UTG shows A2c and makes some smart remark about how bad I play. Half hour later, I've got AA, three bet it and 5 of us take the flop of 988 rainbow. Same guy who won with the A2c is now BB and he bets, two calls to me and I raise. Original bettor and 2 others call. Turn is 5s, all check to me and I bet. BB and one other call. River is 5c, both check, I bet and get raised then reraised. I fold and both show hands. 84o in BB, 8J for UTG. BB makes another comment about how terrible I play. 15 minutes later, same guy and I get in a pot where flop give me an open ended straight and there are two spades. He checks, I bet, he calls. Turn card is a blank, he checks and I check. River makes my straight, but is a third spade. He bets, I raise and he reraises. I pay him off and he shows nut flush. He makes comment about never having to work again if all players were as bad as me. At this point I am stuck about $170 in a 4-8 game and not all that sure he is mistaken. I've had enough of his needle though and fire back a few witticisms of my own, pretty much in the same vein as his.
I finally start getting some of my hands to hold up, including a few draws, mostly against his top pair, weak kicker and two pair hands. After each one of these, although the pot was giving me good odds to make these draws, he would give me the "Nice catch", "Sucked out on me again" and finally, "You wouldn't have any chips at all if it weren't for the river." He is becoming belligerant and giving me these smoldering looks that I guess I'm supposed to feel threatened by. I use the old "Let me stack the rest of your chips while I think of something clever to answer you with." This sets him off a little, but he finally shuts up and plays on tilt while he burns up his remaining chips. I now have 16 stacks of chips, each twenty high in front of me when he mutters something about blind squirrels finding an acorn. I laugh and say "Yes, and even a queer rabbit occasionally backs into a juicy carrot." This is a line I use that I think is funny. He didn't see the humor and asks me if I like little boys. I must admit that comment, which wasn't said jokingly, threw me a little and I asked him whether it was his little brother he was talking about because soliciting isn't legal in a cardroom. The whole table was kind of sitting around waiting for the fight to erupt, but nothing happened. Eventually, the guy went broke and left. I didn't like the way I let this guy get under my skin. I didn't go on tilt and play differently, but I know I shouldn't have kept egging him on either. The last thing I said to him as I was converting from stacks of 20 to stacks of 25, was: "Hey, seat 3, have you ever had so many chips that you had to stack them higher just to make room for all of them?" Then, "Oh, no, of course not."
All of this was written as background to set up the question I wanted to ask. If someone like me, who knows better than to do this sort of thing, does it anyway, what can I do to make sure I don't just repeat this sort of game hurting behavior. I believe this is a legitimate question to pose on this theory and strategy Hold-em board. I run into people like this a lot in the smaller games. They are usually not very good players, this guy was probably a better player than most who do this; but they seem to need to make comments about the poor play of others on almost every hand. When they jump in *my* face a couple times, I usually find a way to let them know I don't like it and won't stand by and let them continue doing that to me. Sometimes, I'll jump in when they are berating someone else also. I'd appreciate comments and thoughts from others who are better at dealing with these type of situations.
I'm just learning and I would appreciate any help you can give me, thanks. Now what did I do wrong?
I've used this a lot, partly because it's true but it really changes the tone dramatically.
That is good.
BTW, I really tried, letting three or four comments made about my play, on hands that he had won, pass by without comment or reaction. With most people, saying nothing in response is probably best. I am particularly vulnerable when I start to think that I am being hammered by someone who is getting sadistic enjoyment from turning the knife. I can revert to being childish and fighting fire with fire when that occurs.
Executing what you plan is called discipline. Everybody slips at some point in their life. Just an honest realization that you are slipping is often enough to help you the next time around. The fact you posted here is a good sign.
Personally I can usu. ignore shots like the one your "buddy" was giving you. Be aware that its never the better players that are berateing you. Its almost always the losers. This might help you ignore it. I'd keep the guy to your right so you can benefit from his misguided anger towards you. More generally in life realize that those who show anger towards things they can't control are losers. Take pity and don't let them under your skin.
Now that I've given my opinion I'll tell you of a situation I got myself in that I wasn't able to smooth over or ignore my out of. Its a rockin' Friday evening and I head off to the local card club. After a short wait I get the 5 seat in a good enough looking 6-12 HE game. The guy to my left is a nice VERY loose player who drinks a fair bit and usu. plays to lose his buy in. Several other players at the table make me lick my chops. Soon after I sit down a gentleman who I can only describe as having some sort of neurological or like disorder sits down in the 9 seat. He isn't a horrible player. He is chatting up the table attempting to portray himself as a lot looser then he really is. I throw in a word or two to keep the conversation going and somewhere in there he complains about how bad off America is becoming commenting on some tragedy of the day (Its not too long after Littleton so it might have been that). I made the comment that there are some places in the world that are not too bad to live in and provide different tradeoffs from America. Oops. Suddenly this guy is berateing me for compareing America to 3rd world Asian and African countries, yada, yada, yada. I attempted to be quiet for a while. I attempted to apply a little reason. I attempted to apologize and shut the conversation down. Ultimately he is offering to kick my ass. It turns out that buried deep down this is a very angry individual. As a young adult he had traveled the world as a martial arts instructor. Now he is showing the symptoms of MS. The lesson I learned out of this was that there are some situations in which retreat is the best option. What started out as a wonderful table turned into a dirge. Ultimately I got up and left but if a similar sort of thing ever happens to me again I'm exerciseing my option to leave early.
While your situation turned out to be profitable in the short run it still might be worthwhile to get up and leave if the needler starts causing you to react. At least consider it as an option.
I run into this same problem occasionally, usually with someone thats been losing or drunk. If they ask why I play those two cards, I tell them I thought I would get lucky. If they really get on my nerves, I leave and find something else to play, like a good low limit Omaha 8B for some easy money.
"The whole table was kind of sitting around waiting for the fight to erupt, but nothing happened."
I may be wrong but the idea of picking a fight with Big John strikes me as a decidedly -EV game. A little short of seven foot tall and safely under 300 lbs, hard to figure you for an easy target.
Best, Scott (a little short for my weight)
At age 57, snow on the roof, and a fondness for sitting, I'd make a better department store Santa than I would a fighter. On the other hand, I wouldn't have made him the favorite in an encounter that would probably last fifteen or fewer seconds with the security present. I'm not the man I used to be,(probably never was) but if stamina wasn't a factor, I'd probably do O.K.
John if they are smaller and older (preferably on oxygen) than I am I invite them out in the parking lot to settle it like "MEN".
I have a few come back lines too but I hate to disrupt the table besides I rarely get accused of "sucking out" usually it's the "you lucky" thing and it doesn't make mad cuz I know I'm not lucky.
Rounder,
Why would being called lucky piss anybody off? I know you said it didn't piss you off, but you said it like you could understand somebody taking offence at that type of comment. When somebody announces to the table that I'm lucky, I could just kiss them, "you bet your ass!" I'll usually say.
-Paul
No disagreement here - if you don't know by now I am not usually in drawing situations as I don't usually play suited or connected (mid) unless in real late positions.
Hey Big John,
Similar thing have happened to me. I just ask the person something like, "Is this your first time playing poker for real money?" I have been invited "outside" more than once. I have managed to get a--holes tossed out of the casino. Often other at the table thank me and tell me that the guy was doing it to them too. Only 1 guy really freaked me (and the rest of the table out). He was a true nut...growling and finally barking as the security escorted him out. Scary.
you did great. can i steal some of your lines. when a jerk starts that stuff he is open season to say anything back, and i usually do. everyone at the table is going to be with you as well. its the same as thinking about hands in advance so you know what to do in a particular situation. its important to plan your attacks backs in advance so you can say just the right thing to drive him nuts. poker is suppossed to be fun isnt it.
Big John, I think you should try to encourage these guys to make the game $10-$20 or maybe $20-$40 instead of $4-$8. Your critic seems to be clueless as to how to play this game.
In the first hand he comes in under the gun with Ace-little suited. Well, maybe in a passive $4-$8 game where no one ever raises before the flop this play might be okay but if there is any kind of pre-flop raising going on, it is pretty weak poker to be coming in under the gun with this hand. Furthermore, on the turn he should come out of the woodwork and bet his hand having the nuts and a third player in the pot since he cannot be at all sure you will even bet the turn. You could have been betting the flop on a Club draw hoping to win the pot outright and if not, planning on taking a free card to the river if the turn is a blank. He might have missed some bets here.
On the second hand, when you 3 bet with your pocket rockets did this idiot pay a double bet out of his big blind to see a flop with Eight-Four offsuit? And the other clown came in under the gun with Jack-Eight?
In the future be very nice to these guys and try to get them to play higher. The next time your critic is in the game, ask him if he wants to play against you with an "overs" button.
Guys like this are common in low limit.It amazes me that the mind set is apparently,when the're winning they are geniuses,when lose it back because you were lucky.I was warned that when you become consistant winner,many will hate you.I had the perfect situation tha other day,when I sat down a very aggressive oriental player was running all over the table with hyper aggressive play.I happened to hit four draws in 1st 1/2 hr of play,in all hands he tried to attach with inferior cards,when you hold the nuts its easy to re-raise.All the time he is talking I don't say a word just smile nod my head and take his stacks down.He left very quickly and quitly,and my table image with regulars was cemented as someone not to mess with.
Big John,
There are a couple of guys in the cardroom I play at that must be some relation to this guy. I never confront them, but let them shoot off their mouths ( regulars at the room take the same tact) Why on earth would you want to take the chance of driving these fish out of the game. Let them throw insults and chips at you. BTW, it is very rare for good players to exhibit this behavior.
Another reason to add to the Canada VS. US list (See Rick Nebiolo's 'Q8 in the BB...' thread from Friday).
Here in the Great White North we would be much more polite. No one ever needles another player, maliciously or not. We always thank the player for coming to the game, and wish him better luck next time. And if you belive all this BS, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona....
Seriously, great restraint in the face of an idiot, John. I usually say nothing when someone mutters about how "lucky" I was, but once in a while with the right individual I might say something like, "I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you for all the noise these chips were making as I stacked them up."
When a player grouses after being beaten in a hand, it almost never bothers me. In fact, when he is voicing incorrect beliefs about playing theory or strategy in his complaints, I usually enjoy it. My problem comes into play when someone is winning and still feels the need to give the needle in an attempt to make the rest of the table, and most especially the loser of that hand, realize that he is a "world class" player. It is especially galling when they are unaware that their comments are having the opposite effect that they intended. I sometimes *need* to express my strong belief that their opinion of their great skill isn't shared by at least one person in the game. I'm hoping to overcome this need and to be able to just settle for the satisfaction of watching their stacks of chips dwindle down to nothing. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't enjoy giving and taking some needling from friends when sitting in a game. Friendly needling is something that I've always felt improved a game. It is the mean spirited taunting that I'm opposed to.
"Yes, and even a queer rabbit occasionally backs into a juicy carrot."
hahahaha that's freakin hilarious
-Joe
How good es Big John? My wife Maria say he bedy bedy good en thee bed. Anyway, thas what she hear from her puto brother Arturo.
Meddy Cdeesmas, Juanito
Big John is good - a solid player who plays "ONE" over card better than anyone I have ever seen.
I didn;'t read all the responses but what you did was very bad for the game. There is nothing better than the table thinking you are a fish. Don't let your ego get in the way. The object is to win money. Usually, if you say something nice they won't continue. You would prefer things not to get ugly anyway.
If they say you were lucky agree! Let them think you were lucky! Go for a walk when you are mad!
I'm not try to lecture but I really believe what i say is true.
Take it easy!
Ps the raise on the river when you make the straight is bad.
The first hand you were unlucky...
Not a strategic issue, but I saw this happen at a game I was in (I was not involved in the hand) and wondered what others think:
Late position raiser is cold-called by the button; small blind calls and big blind folds. They take the flop 3-handed. Late position raiser bets the flop of Qd-ts-6d and both other players call. Turn is 2c and both other players again call a bet from the late position raiser. River is 7d.
Small blind taps the table with his cards and pushes them forward, an apparent fold. The late position raiser now checks and the button bets.
Small blind does nothing; after all, he has already folded. The late position raiser calls and turns over Kc-Qc. Button turns over Qh-7h, two pair, an apparent winner.
After this happens, the small blind says, he now wants to call, his hand didn't hit the muck, and he pulls his cards back. The dealer, who has already messed up by not mucking his cards (twice) when he apparently folded, says nothing. Late position raiser, who cannot win the hand anyway, says, "OK, go ahead and call." He does and shows 5d-3d, a winning flush.
Incredibly, button says nothing and the pot is awarded to small blind.
I know a hand is not dead until it hits the deck, but after the small blind folded, there was a bet, no indication that he wanted his hand back by the small blind,a call, and two hands turned over. I know if I had the two pair, there would have been quite a dispute. Would I have a good case?
Andy,
It would seem like the small blinds hand would be dead, especially after letting the action go by him on the river, just waiting to see if he's up against a bigger flush like that. I'd of called a floor man for SURE, why didn't you?
Even if the floor man ruled for the angler, he would at least be warned, so that way, if he does it again an hour later, you will have a stronger case.
-Paul
I guess one had to be there how far did he push his cards in - sounds like a check to me when he tapped the table. So it is a judgement call as to how far he pushed his cards in.
somehow you got the story mixed up. no one is going to check and fold ahead of the action after making a flush on the river. plus if he did just check, which is probably what happenend, the other players deserved what they got for turning over their hands with a hand still on the table within reach of a player.
He definitely checked and folded ahead of the action on the river. I don't think the other players got what they deserved at all. There was a cheater and an incompetent dealer. But it does point out that you have to be alert and careful at all times.
The main issue here is dealer sloppiness. I'm getting pretty tired of careless dealers. If a player makes a half-hearted signal, either to check, bet, fold, etc., the dealer should clarify it. If a player throws his hand away, the dealer should immediately scoop it and muck it. The dealer shouldn't award a pot until all hands but the winner's are in the muck.
I find myself having to do the dealer's job more and more often. I regularly get signalled to act by dealers and have to say, "I'm sorry, but that player in seat 2 hasn't acted yet.", or stop the dealer as he is about to turn a card before everyone has acted, or read the best hand on the table, etc. They seem to be getting worse.
I wholeheartedly agree. The dealers need to be trained better. Basically, they just don't pay attention. I play at one of the largest clubs in the world and there are a number of dealers who I am sure are high when they deal. They simply don't focus on the game. I think it's management's fault as much as it is the dealers, if not more so. But of course it's we players who tolerate it.
Andy as long as the guy has his cards face down and they are not mucked I treat them as live. Usually when someone folds, particularly when there is no betting action, it is pretty clear that they are out of the hand because they flick their cards away from them sometimes face up and sometimes face down and frequently they don't hit the muck. From your narrative it sounds like his cards were face down but still in front of him.
I assume that the "move" or "angle" here is to induce another player to bet a worse hand so he can now check-raise.
I recently moved up from 2-4 to 3-6 HE in CA. I've been of the opinion that in low limit you should see the flop as cheaply as possible (no fold'em hold'em effect). You guys said that when you have a premium starting hand, you should build the pot ... if they don't want to be chased out, so be it ... your hand will hold up enough times so that the extra money in the pot more than off-set the bad beats you experience. Well you're right! I had KK and raised and then capped pre-flop with Eight opponents. Board ends up 2, 3, 3, 4, J with three hearts. There were around 5 players in until the river where I bet and another guy raised. The pot's about 150 now. Everyone folds where I call. He had AKo. That was VERY NICE!
Same type of stuff happened again and again. I won't bore you with another long story though. Thanks for the great advice!
I also laid down QQ from early position when I raised and someone re-raised. There were about 5 players (including me) in after the flop and by the time the action got back around to me it was raised. I paused for a long time and looked at my opponents (had about 3 hours in against most of them), and laid it down. My hand turned out 3rd best!
This forum's GREAT!
You won with KK against eight opponnents without a K hitting the board?? G-d bless you.
This will not happen very often. More often than not you will raise pre-flop with KK and lose horribly.
When playing low limit, you can pretty much assume you need to flop trips with a pocket pair, no matter HOW high that pair is. Sometimes your pair will hold up by itself, but against 8 opponents, that pretty much a miracle. Congratulations.
You should give more thought to the "cheap flop" approach to low limit. In low limit hold'em the two most important factors to your success will be your starting hand selection (regardless of whether or not you raise with it) and your post-flop play. If you play badly after the flop, you can raise KK and AA all you want every time and it definitely won't matter.
Also, if you play well after the flop, you can smooth call KK and AA before the flop and make a ton of money anyway. It's not always the best idea to raise pre-flop with premium hands. For example, it's almost never a good idea to raise from the big blind with hands like AKo,JJ,QQ AQ. Maybe KK or AA and not even with those hands if there are more than six or seven people already in the hand. You are just going to give them the odds to stay in the pot after the flop, and unless you flop trips, they are a collective favorite to beat you.
natedogg
Nate,
That was my opinion. And I still believe it to have "some" validity. But Lee Jones has even said that AA has a 35% chance of holding up against 8 opponents who call the river. Not that Jones is g-d or anything, but he is simply relating probabilities which I assume are correct. KK can't be toooo far behind AA. And actually I liked my hand better when there were many opponents calling after the flop. The flop was 2,3,4 with many opponents, this meant to me that people held single A's and single K's as no one was raising until someone on the river thought he'd try to buy 150 pot for an $6.
Michael,
I had a copy of Lee's book (gave it to a novice a couple of years ago) and I remember that he made a statement about AA holding up. Are you sure he didn't say that AA will win 35 percent of the time, period; or maybe he might have said "this includes play against 8 players" meaning that all situations were covered?? In my experience, I would guess they would hold up maybe 10-15 percent of the time against 8 players.
Lawrence Hill is a computer simulation expert who writes a regular column for Cardplayer magazine. He ran extensive simulations with one player having AA against 9 other players holding random cards and going all the way to the river. AA held up as the best hand about 31% of the time in his simulations. Of course these in no way resemble reality since players don't go all the way to the river holding random cards.
My understanding is that AA will hold up 35% against 8 players and 85% heads up. This includes both unimproved and improved holdings.
KK is a little behind since any flopped ace can win and a few more straight possibilities when you make a set. Also your 4 card flushes will lose more often (obviously since the A makes the nut flush).
This seems to correlate with my poker experience. I think I might start recording AA and KK history.
Regards
I'm 2 off button in loose 10-20 game. There are 2 limpers. Player to my right (who appers to be one of the few decent players at the table), raises.
I called. Button and blinds called, limpers called. Flop with an A and a Q and I ended up releasing, raiser won without a showdown on the turn.
My question is:
Should I usually re-raise or fold in this position? When is calling ok? In this game, a re-raise would not have eliminated the limpers, and likley would have gotten a call from at least one of the loose players in the blinds.
Any help appreciated.
Also - I've posted my "Canadian" two cents on the Exchange Forum. Please have a look.
What was your hand? Incomplete problem.
Sorry! I overlooked the title of your problem. I gather you had pocket Tens.
In the face of a legitimate raise as opposed to a steal raise, just calling is correct. Your hand is not good enough to re-raise. Only re-raise with AA,KK,QQ,or AK suited. Furthermore, it could get raised again and pocket Tens is not a good enough hand to play in a capped pot. Folding would be too conservative. The raiser could easily have a larger pocket pair which makes you a huge dog. If not, you are a small favorite over big slick, big chick, or other over cards he might have raised with. You do have a decent hand and position over the raiser so you definitely want to play. Whether or not a re-raise would have eliminated the blinds and the other 2 limpers is hard to say but it should not be a dominant consideration for re-raising anyway. Your hand is simply not strong enough.
I understand what you are saying but offer this as a counterpoint:
I think that by reraising and seeing whether your opponent caps it, you define your opponent's hand further making it easier for you to release your hand later on if the flop comes with 3 cards all smaller than a 10. Plus, odds are that the raiser has 2 high cards instead of a pocket pair so in most cases you will be best preflop with 10,10.
Yes, 10,10 is just a small favourite over Slick and Chick but that assumes that Slick and Chick will stay to the end. By 3 betting preflop (and possibly representing AA or KK which cripple Slick and Chick), Slick and Chick may not be around after the turn and may not even be around for the turn if you bet on a flop of 983 or whatever and the guy with 97s in the bb raises you.
See my comments below your post. I did not see your response when I made my post under your post. At any rate, to add fuel to the fire, the information you are getting is costing you a lot of money and is probably not worth it. Furthemore, big slick and big chick will not stay to the end if they don't catch a flop especially given your re-raise. If they do, they will bet and you are instantly reduced to playing a two outer. If they don't, they will check and you will bet as the pre-flop re-raiser and they will probably fold. But had you just called, they would probably make a flop bet anyway especially against one or two opponents and you would raise if your Tens are an over pair to the board and they will either fold or call. You get about the same amount of money with less risk.
The whole dynamics of the hand and the mindset of players changes depending on whether or not there is a 3 bet.
Let's take this example: Assume that the pot will be contested 3 ways no matter what I do preflop. Assume further that the flop is a favourable 9,8,3.
If I don't 3 bet it preflop but raise on that flop, it is LESS likely that the bettor will fold his AK. In the games that I play, it is literally unheard of for AK to fold to a single raise on the flop gainst a shorthanded field. I would say that about 40% of the time, AK will call the raise on the flop. He will raise the other 60% of the time. In other words, there is a very high percentage of the time when AK will outmuscle me post-flop even if I get a favourable flop like 9,8,3. The whole mindset of the guy with AK changes though if I 3 bet it preflop. I am now driving the action. While it is still unlikely that AK will fold for a single bet on the flop, he is way more likely to fold on the turn and he is way less likely to attempt a semi-bluff raise on the flop. Plus, he is way more likely to fold on the flop if I bet and the third guy in the pot raises.
Now, let's assume all of the above except that we now give my opponent KK instead of AK. I 3 bet it preflop. If he caps it, I can be fairly confident that he has a big pair and can release on the flop. At the very least, I can minimize my losses even if I appear to get a favourable flop (i.e something like 9,8,3). Even if my opponent doesn't cap it and just smooth-calls for deception, I can take his checkraise on the flop to really mean something. I no longer have a doubt as to whether or not he is just trying to outmuscle me. If he checkraises me, I can be pretty sure that I am beat and can lay down.
Sorry for the rambling nature of the post... I am actually trying to get some work done today at the office and don't have time to reorganize my thoughts.
I think 10,10 is on the cusp. That is, I would routinely reraise with JJ and routinely call with 9,9. With 10,10, I tend to routinely reraise in my games because of the overwhelming tendency to check to the raiser on the flop. If that is not a feature of your games, one of the advantages of reraising is gone.
Pocket Tens.
Routinely reraise if you think that you can get the pot heads-up or perhaps with 3 way action. Note that JJ is a better hand to do this with as it leaves one less legitimate raising hand for the 2 bettor.
If you think that a reraise will not knock out anyone, either a call or reraise can be correct. I tend to reraise when in a game where everyone checks to the 3 raiser. If you just call in such games, you are put in an awfully tough spot if everyone checks on the flop to the guy to your immediate right and he puts in his automatic bet.
skp, I don't understand why you want to pay 3 bets to take a flop with the risk of it getting capped holding only pocket Tens. So what if you eliminate some players? All that means is that you are more likely to come in second place instead of third. So you increase the likelihood of winning the place money instead of the show money. Furthemore, who knows whether your re-raise will eliminate players or not? It is function of the hands they happen to hold and what they choose to do. You are making a major commitment of money here for a marginal benefit. The more dough you throw into a pot pre-flop the more committed you become post-flop. Unless you have some reason to believe that the raiser is playing substandard cards (e.g.- perhaps a maniac, a straddle, etc.) your re-raise is bad poker.
Jim
I routinely 3 bet this hand in my 10-20 game. As a matter of fact it has won me a lot of money playing it that way. I think putting pressure on your opponents in the right situations is the key to winning in these games. Normally, if i three bet and the original raiser comes out betting on the flop he's probably got a big pair. But in my games many players will three bet AK,AQ, and all pairs down to 99. Also, when your opponents see you three betting with a pair of tens you tend to get a lot more action on very good hands. In otherwords, you don't always have AA,KK,QQ, when you three bet it makes it much tougher for your opponents to put you on a hand. And if you get lucky enough to hit a set with it you'll make a ton.Ice
I haven't read the others yet but I bet they ream you a new one for dumping the TT hand. I made a great call and lay down a few months ago of a QQ and I was made to feel look a mope by these guys who play 74s.
My opinion is if you know or have strong feelings you are beat - LAY IT DOWN - most poker players are lucky to lose only 2 bb per hour and these guys are the ones advocating the look see be a winner -
KNOW WHEN TO FOLD 'em
Are you seriously advocating a fold of TT when facing one raise, while in late position, with at least 3 other players in the pot and probably four or five?
If so, you're giving away money.
I'm not sure I like skp's advice of usually re-raising here. The way I see it, TT is either a small favorite, or a big dog. If it's a big dog (i.e. opponent has AA, KK, QQ, etc), I want lots of other callers because I need to hit a set and want the odds. If it's a small favorite, that doesn't help much, because it's a hard hand to play well after the flop. It's a dog if you are willing to fold it if the flop has anything higher than a ten on it and the raiser bets into you (which he surely will if it's checked to him). If you're going to jam with the hand against the pre-flop raiser, you'd better have a good read on him, because if you're wrong you're going to lose a good stack of chips.
Plus, this was described as a loose game, and very few loose players will release a hand for a double raise if they are already in for one bet. So I would mostly call with this hand.
Dan, I like your views.
Dan I advocate folding hands that you KNOW are beat.
That's all!
5-10 Holdem Loose/passive
PRE-FLOP:
I am in the middle with 88. 0 callers and it's to me I call (guys behind me have been raising on and off), cut off calls,BTN calls, SB calls, BB calls
THE FLOP: 8s 9s 2c (5 sb in the pot)
I flop trips, {2 flush has me a bit worried}.
sb checks,BB bets,I call, fold,fold,SB folds (7 sb in the pot / 2 = 3.5 Big Bets)
THE TURN: Kh 3.5(big bets)
BB Checks, I bets, BB calls
I put him on Ax suited(spades)
THE RIVER: 5.5(big bets)
yup u guessed it 3s, not the card I wanted to see.
BB bets,I call , He flips 2s4s and comments "Now that's a Big Blind Hand"
Question:
I called on the turn because this would knock the odds down to 3.5 on the turn. If I raised for value then BB would then get the correct odds to call (9 sb / 2 = 4.5) I belive the best play was to raise pre-flop but did not want to get re-raised.
Any other thoughts
MJ
Pre-flop you could have considered opening with a raise from middle position with pocket Eights but I prefer your call.
On the flop, you have a set of Eights which is better than trip Eights (when you have a set of Eights no one else can have three Eights). You should raise with your set when bet into and there is a two flush on board plus four opponents. You might even get re-raised if the bettor thinks you are raising on a draw.
On the turn, of course you bet when the bettor checks to you.
Nothing to be done on the river when his ship comes in. All you can do is call and payout.
MJChicago said: I called on the turn because this would knock the odds down to 3.5 on the turn. If I raised for value then BB would then get the correct odds to call (9 sb / 2 = 4.5) I belive the best play was to raise pre-flop but did not want to get re-raised.
So? When you are ahead, you make more money when your opponent calls correctly in a large pot than when your opponent folds correctly in a small one. For that matter, you make more money when your opponent calls correctly in a large pot than when he calls incorrectly in a small one (you make the same amount from his call in either case, but you profit more from having had more money go in earlier when you had the best of it). In general when you are ahead, you usually want to get as much money as possible going into the middle, whatever it takes to get that to happen.
The only real reason to slow play the flop here is if you think you can get more money in the pot that way without hurting your odds of winning proportionately. If you believe that just calling on the flop will induce your opponent to get extra aggressive on the turn while still behind, it might make sense to call. If there are other opponents you want in the pot who will call one bet but not two, then it might make sense to call. But in general, particularly with the flush draw out there, it makes sense to drive your trips as hard as possible as long as you think you are ahead. Go ahead and charge the draws full price. You may lose more when the draws come in, but you will make more when they don't - and in the long run, you will make more money that way.
1) Raise pre-flop would have been better than call. If several players have already passed, and you're first in, you want to raise more often than you call.
2) Raise would have been better on the flop. Not only was the flush draw there, but also a possible straight draw. At this point, your opponent isn't probably going to consider whether he's getting 3.5 or 4.5 to 1. He's going to continue with a draw to the end, so make him pay.
3) Nothing you can do about the river. Hopefully next time it will be a flush card for him that also makes you a full house.
10-20 hold-em. after 10 hours of good solid play two pros leave a 30-60 game and sit in. One is clearly on tilt. First hand dealt I have A-J Hearts. I raise and pro on tilt calls. Two way action. Flop is Jo, 10H, 7H. I bet, pro raises, I call. Turn is rag. I bet, pro raises again I call. He says, watch me get rivered again. River is A spades. I miss flush but now i think i have a monster with aces over jacks. I try to be slick and check raise. Sure enough pro re-raises. He shows a 8o,9o. He flopped a straight. I completely missed this. after so many hours of good play this is the only hand I can think about. Was i too greedy in this situation?
Pre-flop the pro on tilt made a bad call of your raise with Nine-Eight suited. I don't want to get into the Sklansky-Ciaffone debate on the merits of cold calling a raise on the button with Nine-Eight suited, but here it has to be wrong. The pro is not getting the big multi-way action this hand requires and he is paying a double bet to take a flop against an opponent who came in early with a legitimate raising hand. Very bad poker on his part.
Your plays are fine except on the river. I would bet and when raised I would just call. You are known to have a strong hand for your pre-flop raise and subsequent betting action. The pro probably put you on an over pair or at least top pair/top kicker.
On the flop, I would have re-raised, and he no doubt would have capped it (3 or 4 raise max?). When the blank hits on the turn, I would have still bet out, but now only called his raise, suspecting trips as the most likely candidate. When I get raised again, I have told this guy as loudly as possible I have a good hand, and I'm still getting raised. So on the river, Ace hitting or not, I would probably check-call. Bad luck about the 9-8 (offsuit, Jim Brier, not that it makes much difference). Did the "pro" stay on tilt and churn back all the chips? Or did this put you on tilt and burn up your stack?
dunc, the pro now felt better, but played only about a half hour more with no real action. i recovered immediately,(something i have just recently mastered). however, i have realy never played on tilt, just super discouraged and wanting to whine, but noone wants to listen. it never made me play a hand any different though. your right, the 8-9 were off suit, even a worse call of my pre-flop raise. but, i completely missed the possiblity of a straight on the flop. that is what aggravates me. oh well, live and learn. mike
Sklansky / Malmuth indicate that in short handed HE it is appropriate to loosen up on your starting requirements. This makes sense and this is what I do. But I've been doing it only when the game is short handed due to empty seats at the table. Should I also be loosening up when I am in late/middle to late position and everyone on my right has folded?
Is it safe to assume that others on my left have also loosened up since the number of opponents for this particular hand is few? Or does my bet cause them to tighten up? Or should I assume their starting requirements remain static?
Thanks,
-Michael
Mike not the same thing - short handed is six or less players. Some consider 7 or less short handed.
The fact they all passed to you means little as far as the short handed rule.
"The fact they all passed to you means little as far as the short handed rule. "
You are not totally correct here o round one. In fact Sklansky and Malmuth in HPFAP are very clear about loosening starting hand requirements based on position. That is what hand groupings are all about. The answer to this question is that you can and do adjust your starting hand requirements in a similar manner to that of short handed play when you are first to act depending on the number of players reamining to act.
Vince.
Vince is of course right. There are however two small differences between being let's say first in a five handed game and sixth in a ten handed game where the first five players have passed. For one, it is slightly more likely that there is a good hand yet to act in the ten handed game, because presumably the first five folders had a disproportinally higher number of low cards. This "bunching" effect is however small. Secondly is the fact that in shorthanded games players tend to think they should play faster. That being said, if you stick to the ring game strategy where the relevant number of people have already folded, you should do fine.
David,
I agree with you. I believe that it is obvious that my thoughts are not my own but were instilled in me by Sklansky and Malmuth then verified by my own experience. So credit where credit id due. One thing though. This "bunching" thing. I assume somewhere along the line some "logical thinker" said something like " A-a (Canadian guy) one must take into account the likelihood that there is a better hand in the remaining hands because..." You hear this all the time. Be cautious when you try stealing blinds beacuse of this "bunching" factor. I love your explanation above. You say "presumably" and "however, small". This point may not even be worthwhile debating except for the fact that that there are those that will literally not act appropriately for fear of this "bunching" effect. That is, they will not act in accordance with the S&M recommended positional hand grouping strategy. It's a human thaing. "Fear". Something I don't believe you can associate with o mighty one. Seriously though, I believe it may be better to discount this "presumed" bunching affect since I do not believe that there is anyway to verify it's existence. Just a thought.
Vince.
In a full ring game, opening requirements change dramatically as players fold to you. For example, take the hand of Ace-Ten offsuit. If I am under the gun in my $20-$40 game, I normally fold this hand. If I am in middle position and everyone has folded to me, then I open with a raise holding Ace-Ten offsuit. I could easily have the best hand and I want to put pressure on the remaining players and get position over the blinds if they choose to play. I will just limp in with Ace-Ten offsuit if someone has limped in ahead of me. If someone has raised ahead of me then I fold Ace-Ten offsuit. Hands like Ace-Jack offsuit and King-Queen offsuit become raising hands if you are in middle or late position and everyone has folded to you. Normally they are just calling hands pre-flop. Similarily with pocket Nines and perhaps pocket Eights.
"For example, take the hand of Ace-Ten offsuit. If I am under the gun in my $20-$40 game, I normally fold this hand."
My problem is that I don't normally fold this hand under the gun. It's a "I can play better than these guys after the flop thing" Ah! ego it's a curious thing.
Vince.
Vince, I find Ace-Ten offsuit a troublesome hand to play. When I limp in under the gun I worry about having to call a raise and being dominated by a better Ace plus I am out of position for the rest of the hand. I agree that playing well on the flop and beyond helps but I still think it is a loss expectation situation even for a good player.
I totally agree with you Jim. I didn't say I that I was in control of my play. It's that ego thing. You know "the devil made me do it"
Vince
I have always found AT in early position to be a second best hand, whether or not I can out play my opps. I just don't know how you outplay 4-8 opps when the flop is KTx, QTx, JTx, AK, AQ, AJx. And if there is a raise after you, or a raise out of the blinds, what then?
Forum,
I'm getting into Pot Limit games and would later like to go to No Limit and started reading Ciaffone and Reuben's book on Pot Limit and NL. A lot of things he wrote I agreed with until I came to the No Limit Hold'em quiz.
It would go something like this.
1. Your in the BB with pocket 2's. A solid player opens for $100 and 3 people call when it gets back to you and you call. The flop comes 8-5-2 rainbow. You check and the pre-flop raiser opens for $600. It's folded to you. What should you do...Call Raise Fold.
He says FOLD!
Another one he writes
Your on the button with AKs and raise $250. One tricky aggressive player calls and your heads up.
The flop comes A - 10 - 7 rainbow. You bet 400 and get called. The turn is a 5 and you bet 800 and get called The river is a 2 and he leads 3000 into the pot. What's your action. He says FOLD again. This is somewhat better then his last advice but still troublesome. Oh yeah, Ciaffone says that 5 years later the guy told him that he had pocket 8's and that he made a good laydown. BULLSHIT! That was a terrible laydown!
The quiz went on to talk about laydown after laydown wtc. etc.
My question to the forum is this: If you can't bet your set on the flop and you keep laying down hands after the flops hitting you between the eyes aren't you going to get run over? Maybe that's why he writes to so he can have enough money to make bad laydowns and put them in print.
I don't have the book handy as it made for a good firewood substitute and the amounts bet might not have been exact but they were pretty close.
Is anyone else laying that hand down? I can see if someone super tight who never raises with anything but aces opened and everyone called and then you flopped your set but with an ace laying it down for a monster bet but not anything short of it. Am I to aggressive because I promise you my whole stack, title, house, and anything else I have is going in the center.
Tell me if I'm crazy... BTW, does anyone know how Ciaffone has actually done in NL play in Vegas or Tournaments?
Call me Furious or just plain Curious,
Russ.
BTW Rounder, my 1st PL game last week was a success and I'm hooked! That Low Limit crap is for the birds.
Russ I agree I fell in love with pot limit in LA at the Seniors. Hey these guys are in the business of selling books got - he said to muck a set - are you sure???
If you want a good no the best Pot Limit No Limit book pick up TJ Cloutiers - it will be the best $40 you ever spend. I guarantee TJ ain't laying down any sets on the flop.
Yeah, Ciaffone actually says to lay down the set here. His rationale is that the other player can't have an overpair bigger than tens or he would have raised before the flop. If he has a smaller overpair like nines or tens, he'd bet more on the flop because the hand is vulnerable. He can't have two pair with this flop, so he's probably got a set, and you're beat.
I don't buy it. The idea that a half-potsize bet from someone who didn't raise before the flop MUST mean a set is just too good for me. I can think of about a dozen hands the guy could have that would cause him to bet this way.
And anyway, unless the other player is a master pot-limit player, I wouldn't expect him to always do the 'rational' thing. And 22 is a wonderful trapping hand if you hit a set for precisely the reason that your opponent will do irrational things because he won't expect you to have it.
That said, I must say I like Ciaffone, and I like the pot limit book.
Rounder,
I was planning to pick up Cloutier's book this week and your not kidding about Pot Limit...I'm hooked and just logical for me. It's definitely"Poker" and more challenging then No Fold em Hold em. My next game is Thursday as in Houston you just can't find a good game anytime or place. I wish I was out west.
Russ
The Ciaffone/Rubin book is by far the best on this game. In my opinion, the Cloutier book is just marginal.
Mason,
How you doing. I played with Cissy and your buddy golfer Mike a few weeks back and sent they told me to send you an E:Mail concerning the Social Club's business with Poker Digest but I don't think you received it. I'm not going to be up much longer so if you read this before 1:00 central give me a call at 281-830-7777. As far as Ciaffone's book I guess we will agree to disagree on this one although I have heard from several others (mostly Vegas Pro's) that Cloutier's book is marginal. Thanks
Russ
You have GOT to be able to fold big hands in no limit or you will go broke by giving opponents too high implied odds. Bob's problem is that he can't totally shake his no limit mentality when discussing certain limit situations. In no limit you are never getting giant pot odds like you are in some limit games.
DS,
I've got no problem folding big hands in No limit or Pot Limit when I know I'm beat...None at all! But if I'm going to FOLD after I flop exactly what I wanted to every time I'll be broke anyway from paying to see the flop and then folding!!
RUSS
David, are you going to fold that set in the situation Ciaffone describes?
I didn't think either book was great. T.J.s book is for beginners and has a lot of fluff. Ciaffone/Ruben's book I would not rate as high as you did. I thought that the probability section was not well explained, like the average hand per players in the game I'm still trying to figure it out. Futhermore, I thought the No-Limit Quiz did not give enough information about the opponents to come to the same conclusion as he did. After reading his book several time, I still don't feel like I know enough to play Pot-Limit Hold'em.
You bring up an interesting point. When I review books I come up with two ratings. The first is what I think the book deserves, and the second is what I think the book should rate relative to the other books that are out there. This second rating is almost always higher and the two numbers are frequently very different. My published rating is usually somewhere in the middle.
The chapters on PL Omaha, PL Omaha-8, and PL stud were especially poor. They give little insight into the strategy of the games, and consist mostly of anecdotes and obvious concepts. Most of Ciaffone's chapters are better, but he should have gone beyond the absolute basics of NL holdem. There are many times when he oversimplifies a situation or concept. In general, there is too much on rare special cases, and not enough on the factors you should consider when making the more common decisions that arise in the game. The three worthwhile chapters are: NL holdem, NL lowball, and satellite play. The first half of the book is mostly filler. The potential exists to do a much better NL/PL book. (hint, hint)
The bet was actually much less than that. I think the authors explanation was that he made a good read, had the raiser actually made it 600 (a bet which intends to win the pot right there), I get the feeling he would have called or went all-in. No-Limit is a beast. Here is a question for you, $10,000 and $20,000 blinds, you raise $75,000 more with pocket kings and are reraised $520,000 (the raiser raised with his entire stack). You have $850,000 left. What would your play be?
Depends on the player... I met with Louis Asmo when I was recently in Vegas and I know your talking about the TOC hand. Obviously, David Chiu was on top of his game and unequivacably knew 100% that Asmo had Aces. If that happens to me I'm FOLDING...NO HESITATION AT ALL... But let's say it's Hellmuth or Seed, or Nguyen... Those guys are more aggressive and are willing to put you on the defensive and all in if they smell the slightest weakness and have no reservations about going all in with less then aces, i.e. J8s in WSOP for seed...Pocket 9's for Hellmuth and it goes on and on... Just because someone bets there whole stack, you can't automatically put them on the best hand!
RUSS
I was going to make a point, but you knew exactly what i was talking about!
x
I don't have Ciaffones book handy, but I would not call with a pair of deuces in a multiway pot. Once you get broke with these, you will see what I mean. I admit Ciaffone does not define the solid players standards and I question calling the openers raise in the first place after several people have called. I would only play a pair of deuces against a raiser if I thought he was real tight or the type that likes to play any suited ace, then you can break him.
I agree with the laydown of the AKs. Believe me, if he raises on the end with a bet bet he has got a set. Anyway, if I have AKs on the button to begin with, I'll either move in or make a bet big enough that the blinds will not be getting the correct odds to call it.
I suggest reading the No-Limit section in Brunson's Super/System.
Funny thing is AK is a 11-10 dog to 22 or any other pair. In NL PL 22 is a totally different hand than it is in Limit.
Of course you can't call a big bet in NL with 22 or with several raisers in PL. PL is designed to see flops with hands like 22 if it isn't raised to much.
I am sure a lot of pros don't like TJ's book because it talkes about a pretty tight game in both PL & NL. It is great advice and if followed without prejudice of LIMIT mentality you will improve your PL NL play.
If my golf game is in trouble I go back to basics check my grip, alignment, swing etc. When I don't make final table's and/or making mistakes I go re-read it.
It's the best $40 I ever spent - I am about 1/4 way through HEPAP and it is good but very technical. I believe Limit HE is a more technical game than PL and NL a less technical game than both.
You always need the math it is always there but where is the pot odds calculation when you reraise all in with a pair of QQ pre flop.
So the situational play and player knowledge in PL NL is much more important than Limit. They are 3 very different games.
I guess the biggest reason I like TJ's book is because it is the 1st book by an active really successful pro that down plays drawing hands in NL and PL games.
I began to be a winning player when I recognized this and TJ's book firmed up my conviction that I was on to something good.
Rounder, I think your comment about limit hold-em being more of a technical game than pot limit and no limit is absolutely correct especially in a full table game. Proper pre-flop technique coupled with cold logic post flop is what gets the money in limit hold-em. Some of these other skills like tells, hand reading, psychology, etc. are not nearly as important in limit as they are in big bet poker. In addition, some concepts and fancy plays that people try to use in a limit game will not be at all successful and would be better applied in a big bet game like pot limit or no limit. Good post!
Math is the reason drawing hands don't do well in pl and nl games usually--particularly against good or short stacked players.
Rounder, Am I correct that you play tournament (as well as limit) poker but not big bet poker.
I've played cash PL twice. The first time was a disaster and the second a fairly cheap learning experience.
Before I ever delve into it again I will be reading any and all books on the subject
Based on your advice I will be buying TJ's book first.
I believe that some of the huge money makers in PL and NL would have to be drawing hands. The times would need to be right (relatively cheap, against players who will pay you off). I'm not suggesting that they would be played routinely but only when the correct conditions appear.
Regards
drawing hands?the other way around
regarding is the post below -is bob ciaffone for real- i would like to start a new post in the intrest of bobs book and also in promoting big bet. yes bob is for real. in 1987 he placed third in the world series of poker. i think its a shame he didnt win. the hand that cost him the chance to win makes a interesting read in his book-improve your poker-. that same year in pot limit omaha he placed 5th at cajun cup, 4th at the world series, first at tropocana, and first at gardena horseshoe. he has been playing since 1980 as a professional. last year at the world series he won i believe in the order of 6000 after expences of traveling from michigan-in the pot limit side games. thats about all i really know about his record at play- however i know ray zee has said bob can take his money and play and ray will stay home and take a piece, and mason has said bobs potlimit no limit book is the best on the market. dave seems to speak of him with respect, though he lacks the affection many of bobs students seem to have- hes a likable guy. regarding the post -is bob for real- id like to take a look at it. befor you rip a new asshole in sombody i feel you shoud at least quote him correctly. from the poast,-your in the bb with pocket ducks. a solid player opens for a c note and 3 people callwhen it gets back to you ad you call. the flop comes 8-5-2 rainbow. you check and the preflop raiser opens for 600. its forlded to you. what should you do? he says fold. from bobs book-you are in the bib blind in a 5-10 game looking at a pair of deuces in a six handed unraised pot. the flop comes 8-5-2 rainbow giving you bottom set. the person who had the little blind leads at the pot for 60, and you decide to only call. gary, a sound player in middle position who had been the second person to enter the pot, raises to a total of 170. the rest of the field ad the original bettor all fold. you and gary eah have about a grand left. what action do you take. fold(10 points) call (3 points) raise (0 points) explanation- you must think about what the opponent is likely to hold. with an overpair of jacks through aces, it seems probable that he would have raised a preflop, as a player had opened the pot ahead of him.
Are your caps and enter key broken.
It is so hard to read these long long no capa no paragraph posts.
It ain't cute.
You're right Rounder. I simply do not read these of posts.
Scott's posts I can take because he knows where the 'Enter' key is.
Regards
Problem with scotts posts is they have no basis in fact that is why I don't read them.
i guess that writing a response here doesn't really affect anything, since you don't read my posts. but, as, i am aware of your penchance for hyperbole, i'll take my chances. i can only assume that by "having no basis in fact" you mean that my ideas are untested by me. you have repeatedly shown that logic is not your forte, but you must understand that my inexperience does not make my ideas intrinsically false. that being said, if you find my posts a waste of time, by all means, avoid them. i read yours. i find some of them funny. like about calling raises in no limit tournies with KTo. then you squirm when ray and big john and badger all point out your looseness. then i go back to the hold em forum to read you call this hand or that hand a huge dog and preach that it should never be played. i shall continue to read your posts.
scott
It was the right call at the right time.
I was representing A's - I made the right call against a player who I rightly judged was on a lesser hand - he was - it was not a loose play it was a situational play I would make again in the same circumstances.
The fact he hit a pair on the turn didn't make it a bad play.
Some day you'll be experienced eneough to make a similar play in similar circumstances. I hope you can make it when the time comes.
of course it was. but other people's plays can be situational, as well. in fact, all plays are situational. this really isn't the point. i am just gald that i you really do read my posts.
scott
scott-
Check out my "Top Ten" post above on this matter. I think you'll like it.
Rounder,
First of all, it was KJo, not K10o. Second, it wasn't a call, it was an all in bet with T750, against someone with three times the stack as you when there was T2100 in the pot before your bet, and two cards still to come. It turned out that you were in the lead after he called with his Q2c, amazingly enough.
You can rationalize that play and put maximum positive spin on it if you choose, but the simple truth is that you were trying to run over a weak player, on a dangerous flop that missed you completely, without sufficient chips to make that particular play viable.
I've seen you play in parts of three tournaments. For two of these, I was there as an observer, for the sole purpose of watching you play. You play differently than you report; better in my opinion, but differently. The two main differences that I've observed are that you play far more hands than you claim, and you play more aggressively with weaker holdings than you report.
I definitely make more than my share of playing mistakes in poker. I play most tournaments in a loose/aggressive style, until I either bust out or get to a point where my large stacksize dictates a different style of play. It would be counterproductive for me to relate a hand that I played in a manner that wasn't totally accurate. My purpose for posting the hand would be to get the thoughts of others on what I might have done differently so that I am better prepared the next time a similar situation occurs.
I would like to see you get more accurate in your reporting. In the time I spent watching you play, I've identified one large area of weakness in your play that set you back on at least three occasions that I was observing you. This weakness involves your stubborness on the end when you have top pair or trips with kicker problems. These are the hands you should be remembering and reporting on if you want to improve your game. Of course, if you believe that discussing your positive results is more beneficial than discussing areas in need of improvement, that is certainly your right.
I hope you take this post in the same spirit it was written. I believe that we can all help each other on the forum, and I'd like to see you, and everyone else, giving their critiques and advice based on how they *actually* play the game, not on how they think the game should *ideally* be played.
cont. with a pair of nines or tens, if he did not raise preflop, he would likely have made a larger raise in tis spot that 110 more with a 240 pot, as he would want to shut y ou out. two pair such as eights and fives looks remote. i decided that my opponent probably flopped a set, and mucked my three deuces. after the session, i told gary about my laydown, and he said i had done the wron thing. gary then kind of dropped out of sight . about five years later i ran into him at a poker tournament. he said, hello, remember me? and i replied that i did. he continued, there is something ive been meaning to tell you for a long time. remember that deal up at the lake where you folded the trips against me. i didnt tell you the truth afterwards. i had flopped top set and you made a good laydown. ----------- can any one see where the author of -is bob for real- got this story mixed up with his next misquote? bobs book is the best on the subject. i feel that because his first edition didnt cover pot limit hold em, a major concept was missing for those of us who aspire to be big bet players. bob evidently felt the same as the second edition covers pot limit hold em in detail (or more accurately the difference between pot limit and no limit hold em). when i got my second edition you could only get it from bob as the book places hadnt sold out of the first edition. you can do the same, as well as get privit lessons over the phone for 20 bucks an hour. the only trouble with big bet is the games are hard to keep going as the weaker players quickly go broke. bobs home number for the new edition or for privite lessons is 5l7-792-0884.
I am sure Bob appreciates you posting his home number on the internet
i just called him and i have his blessings
Darrell,
You obviously have some ties with Ciaffone and that's fine. I've only played with the guy once in a 15-30 side game during WSOP at Binion's. He seemed nice enough except for some dealer abuse on one occasion towards a young black woman which I can't stand(The abuse that is). If you read my post clearly I stated that I wasn't exactly sure what the exact amounts were and that until the quiz I was enjoying the book and learning a couple of things. As for his record, One year 12 years ago is not that impressive and does not send me looking for his phone # to take lessons. My whole point is this. If you are going to call with pocket 2's and flop perfect, why FOLD? If you had such a good read on this guy and knew he had a pocket pair, you are a 4.76-1 dog against him in the 1st place. What are you hoping for? 8-2-2 so you can flop quads and get all his money...Oh, that's realistic. What happens if the other 8 pop's off on the River? Do you FOLD your 4 deuces and save that last bet. You guys get a little sensitive when reading these posts sometimes. My attack is not at Ciaffone but at his "Quiz" and isolated examples. If you are going to write text in which to sell to a market you are going to take some ribbing and not everyone is going to agree with you no matter who you are and Bob and Stewart are no different. Lighten up Gentleman and have a nice day...
RUSS
if you plan to tear a new asshole into a world class professional you should quote him correctly
Furious, I am not a big bet player so I cannot comment on the particular quiz. However, I know something about Bob Ciaffone from guys that I play $20-$40 with in Shreveport who drive in from Dallas. From 1980 through 1983 Bob Ciaffone made a comfortable living playing pot limit poker once a week in a Dallas pot limit game. He eventually left because the game dried up. Ciaffone also made a living playing pot limit and limit poker in Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
Mason Malmuth states in one of this articles that a true professional derives his income from playing poker. Well, Bob Ciaffone falls in this category. Contrast him with another expert like Roy Cooke. I think very highly of Roy Cooke and I along with many others praise his excellent columns in Cardplayer magazine. But Roy Cooke has to sell real estate to make ends meet and Roy openly admits in his column that he is not a top player nor he is good enough to make a comfortable living player poker. If you were to research Lou Krieger, Lee Jones, and others I think you find that none of these guys play the game well enough to make a living from their poker winnings. Ciaffone has made living off his poker winnings for over 20 years. Sure he writes some columns and does some teaching but until he moved to Saginaw, Michigan to be with his 90 year old father I believe he made his living playing poker. There are not very many people who can really do that.
I thought it was time that I stepped into this thread and made my comments. What has happened here is something that I have seen many times on both our forums and RGP. Someone with an ax to grind misquotes or misrepresents the way a writer played a hand and then takes him apart. (For examples just look at some of the Mark Glover, Gary Carson, and Barbara Yoon posts.)
In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well.
There is also no question that Bob C has written some of the better poker books on the market. We consider his works to be the best poker books that are not in the Two Plus Two family. (I even once told Bob that we would be interested in doing them ourselves. Of course we would improve upon them before we published them, but the fact remains that we wouldn't be able to improve upon them by very much.)
On the other hand Bob does make some mistakes in his limit hold 'em advice. Some of it seems to fall into the category of "weak tight," and he seems to have difficulty understanding this. (An example is his advice that having a backdoor draw can just about never change a fold to a call.) Still, I try to read everything that he writes, and consider him a very valuable poker writer and an all around good guy.
I also want to address Roy Cooke. As some of you know, this is not a person who I am friends with. I also informed him that we at Two Plus Two had no interest in doing his book. (It wasn't that the information isn't accurate, it was that I felt it would be an editing nightmare and that Roy would be very difficult to work with. If you read the book, I think that my comments on the editing problems are easily confirmed.)
But with this being said, Roy does not have to sell real estate to make ends meet. That is a total mischaracterization. I believe he went into that business to expand his horizons since he has won more at the middle limit games the past ten years than virtually anyone else that I know.
I have no ax to grind and am not a professional player! I do not dislike Ciaffone or really anyone for that matter. Like I have now said 3 times is I had a problem with the way he described some of his hands and Mason is right that it makes him sound weak-tight and that's not whose literature I want to take after. I'm not tearing Bob a new asshole as one person wrote nor do I need to do that to a fish, much less a Professional. I am not to a point in my life where I can support myself by playing Poker and work long hours so I am in no way criticizing him as a player but merely "Isolated Examples" in his writings...GET IT, GOT IT, GOOD...
RUSS
i have no ax to grind with aspiring big bet players, i do however recommend you memorize bobs book rather then making firewood out of it
Mason
I read Roy's book and found it to be a great compliment to HPFAP 21st. IMO his explanations of actual hands and the thought process that he goes through are a very valuable to a poker player. Also his insistence on always looking at the price the pot is offering in regards to your hand are a very important to a good poker player. I know David has been talking about this for years, but i think Roys writing style has made it more easily understood. You are correct about the editing it's not the best. By the way he certainly appears to think highly of your work as he recommends your books in a number of different places. Good luck Ice
Mason,
Would you care to cite even one example where Mark Glover misquoted or misrepresented a hand? I didn't think so.
Oh jeez. I can't believe I'm about to defend Roy Cooke.
I don't know where you got the idea that he couldn't support himself at poker. He has for years. He is a very good player. Not spectacular, but a grinder for sure.
I have often wondered just when he has time to practice Real Estate, as he plays almost every night for many hours. I don't know, but I have surmised that his wife runs the business.
And despite my previous posts, I don't dislike him. But he sure doesn't like me.
Brett
Brett, I will have to do some research but I recall reading in some of his Cardplayer columns back in 1995 and 1996 that with a wife and young daughter to support he did not feel secure trying to support them on his poker winnings and that real estate provided a lot more security. I got this idea from his columns since Roy reveals a lot about himself in Cardplayer. Roy has been very candid about his situation. In addition, I frequently stay at the Bellagio for one or two weeks at a time. I have observed that Roy does not play every day. He comes in on Friday and Saturday afternoons and plays into the following morning. I would estimate that he averages about 15-20 hours per week. Sometimes he cannot get right on a table so he has to wait around for about an hour or so before he can play or he has to occasionally sit in a lower limit game before a seat opens up in $30-$60.
I am a big fan of Roy Cooke and believe that he is an excellent player. I also believe that he writes some excellent articles.
Russ if you want to see a real tournament record check out TJ's - these other guys can only puff about a win years ago TJ has more titles in NL &PL than anyone in history. I am not sure and can't believe it but I heard on the WSOP tape from 1998 he was at the WSOP final table 22 times - this is the Jack Nickloas of poker.
i think we might have gotton off to the wrong foot here. i admire anyone with enouth balls to dream of becoming a world class big bet player.
Darrell - No arguement from me. I have been successful in most things I have tried in life - I see no reason an intelligent resourcefull person can't be anything they set their mind to.
You have peaqued my interest and I will be reading bob's book real soon.
Cheers,
He may well be the Wayne Gretzky of Poker but he certainly ain't the Gretzky of poker writing. I was very disappointed with his book. $40US. I don't think I learned a damn thing I don't already know. Surely, he is holding back a lot of good info.
SKP-Buddy,
If you have the time try looking at TJ's book again. this time look at as if you were discussing the subject with someone you respect as an expert in the field. A conversational discussion not a technical discussion. The value of Cloutier's book, IMO, is the fact that it is written in generalities and not specifics as compared to say HPFAP. The latter being technical and specific. I don't think Cloutier conciously held anything back. I believe he wrote it the way he sees it. I believe he is basically an old school player and his writing in that book verifies that to me. If you look at his book as a "companion", I believe you will greatly benefit from the $40 investment. Try reading it again just prior to entering a NL tournament but don't look for anything specific just read and let the material sink in.
Vince.
I have never played in a PL game or tournament - they just aren't spread that much in casinos out here. I Just before the Seniors VI I reread it on the plane and felt like I was talking it over with an old friend.
I player 2 PL HE tourneys and placed 6th and 2nd in really good company. Now I get some credit for it but TJ gave me the theory behind the game and I don't think he held anything back - I played with him for 4 hours at Sam's - He was on my immediate right the whole time. What a nice guy and gentleman - I didn't see him do anything he didn't write about.
Well put. I'll give it another read one of these days.
BTW, in answer to one of your posts elsewhere, I don't think I'll be in Vegas until sometime late Spring (still smarting from the spanking I took on my last visit:)). Anyway, I'll let ya know and we maybe we can hook up for a cool one.
My apologies to everyone else for putting this type of post here but Vinny has removed his E-mail connection...what's up with that?...too many cuties like old what's her name constantly E-mailing their measurements to ya or what:)
Rounder,
I have met TJ and he's from Dallas like I am and even though I plan to get the book I have not heard to many people rave about it...In fact, most people I've spoken with do not like the book at all.
I have seen TJ's record and it is All-American. I watched him play in 98' at the final table and I love his demeanor and attitude. I'll let you know how I like his book.
RUSS
although i cannot vouch for other games, Roy Cooke is a world class limit holdem player and Bob Ciaffone is a world class pot limit and no limit, holdem and omaha player. good luck to all.
No one out there has stated the obvious. Big bet poker is about conviction, isn't it? No limit and pot limit are not games to call just because you flopped a good hand. In limit poker you're going to pay off a lot more hands than in big bet poker.
And Russ the flop you're looking for with deuces is one in which no one else has a set. Limit and big bet poker play out completely differently. The best example I can think of is a hand that happened during a no limit freeze out over at PeeWee's. I had Ax offsuit on the button. Folded around to me. I triple the blind of 10 bucks and Steve calls in the big blind. The flop comes rags with two spades. I have no pair. If Steve flops any pair he bets right there because the flop was like 9 high. If he has that spade draw he checks with the intention of calling. I know he's calling if I bet. I want to see the turn first, so I check. Turn card pairs middle or bottom of the flop. Steve comes out betting $180. I "know" I have the best hand with an ace. I also know that Steve is an aggresive player and that my check on the flop has emboldened him. Since I have the best hand I want as much money in there before the river. I go all-in for close to $450. Steve calls cause he has so much invested I guess. River comes a blank, offsuit king or something. We were even before that hand and I busted Steve with no pair. Not because I had a great hand. because I had a better hand than my man across the table. Trip deuces is a pretty good hand but it's not always going to be better than the hand across from you. I guess what I'm saying is that hand values are much less stable in big bet poker.
p.s. send peewee's number to my email address if you get the chance
My E:Mail is messed up right now so just call me and I'll give you her #. I understand what your saying Chris but I know for a fact that if you flop that set of ducks your chips will be in the center before Harper could eat a bag of chips. I think you made a horrible play with that Ax. Steve could have easily had a pocket pair or an Ace with a better kicker. He does plaay unorthodox but can be tricky sometimes. He is easier to read then most but he'll catch you sometimes. A much easier fold for me would have been the hand the other night where Dick had pocket Aces and Helene had Pocket Kings...The flop came AK2..They both check it The turn is a King and Dick bets with Aces full and Helene raises. You know Helene and she doesn't raise much and when she's got a monster she's very quiet. If this is No limit and she sticks her whole stack in I'm FOLDING Aces Full...Period!! I know it's no good. That being said, there may be only one other person who I could lay this down to because Helene would never go all in without the gadget. Big Laydowns is not my problem although by my original post I can see where it might seem that way.
Russ
Chris,
How are you doing? I thought you were the dealer Chris and it just snapped who it really was. Look on my post "To Mason" and call that #. That will be my number for about another week or so until I get my new cell ph.
Russ
Anybody read Cooke's article in Dec 10 Card Player? I hate to agree with 3 Bet Brett but this guy can't be for real. He actually does a good job of explaining the reasons for playing the hand the way he did. But give me a break. Does he really go through all those mental gyrations before making a decison. I know. how would anyone here know if he really does. Rhetoric question, obviously. But let's look together at what he claims. He first, and I am interpreting here, claims that one of the factors in his decison was the chance of sending his opponent on "tilt". O.K. Maybe, I've done that. Then he starts "if he held an Ace... If he gel a Queen.. one como.. of A-A, one combo.. of Q-Q, 8 combos of A,K.. 4 como's of A-Q, assuming he had one of the hands... h3 was 4-3 to have a hand that I didn't need runner runner to beat.. pot offered 13-1 (probably all the thinking necessary, my comment). Then he says "I took off the turn cautiously" What was he driving at Indy?
The point is "How much time does this guy take to go through all this thinking and calculating? Is his thought process so developed that he can just be in a situation and make mutliple assumptions and calculations and derive at the correct decision within seconds. If so then maybe he is just great and it is me. Maybe being prepared is the answer. Maybe he is so well prepared that these decisions are routine. Any thoughts?
Vince.
Give the guy a break he has a lot of column space to fill.
Vince, a few days ago I posted some material on the Roy Cooke column you are referring to. Since my post dealt with one of his opponent's failure to bet the flop, I didn't get into Roy's play. I was hoping one of our 2+2 superstars like yourself would post a detailed analysis of Roy's play.
I have played against Roy Cooke and he is an excellent player. He is a $30-$60 player with occasional forays in $60-$120. Not only is he strong technically he is a master at reading players which is critical at the higher limits. He is able to win money in the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio which I think is one of toughest in the country. He is also great at game selection. I do believe that in his articles he is telling us what he is really thinking at the time. Yes, he is good enough to think fast and do all this real time at the table without mulling over decisions.
First, of course I'm right Vince. But about Cooke: It has been my experience that he fudges a little bit when recounting the facts about a situation in his articles.
That is not to say that he isn't a winning player, he is. But he is not on the level of the higher limit players in the room. He is a solid mid-limit player. Nothing wrong with that.
He is very intense when playing. Even I can't break his concentration when he is in a hand. And he doesn't hold up the game while pondering a play. But I had to laugh at his article where he claims to be a "people person". He is only friendly to those he thinks play correctly. And never to those he perceives as a threat.
But my point about Cooke was that his thinking isn't original. He just applies the S&M writing to specific hands in his articles.
Brett
Vince,
He probably figures a lot of these things out away from the table, both before and after the fact. That being said, he has a reputation for playing in a very deliberate manner at the table.
Regards,
Rick
I have only seen Roy play for a few hours but I found that what you say is very true. Roy is constantly looking at the players to his left to try and get some indication as to what they are going to do. He takes his time (sometimes too damn much time) getting his read and then acts accordingly. Smart. Very smart. I wish I had the patience to do that hand in and hand out.
skp,
I only mentioned this because I have had verification from at least four sources that I trust and witnessed it myself from an adjoining table one time.
The problem with this level of stalling is that it is very bad for the game. I try to get a read on sloppy players on my left but I endeavor to do so within the tempo of the game and in such a way that no one would notice. That being said, I always take a little extra time when I'm first to act when the flop hits. Here I try to make all my decisions within a two to three second interval, even if I know I'm done with it right away. I figure sometimes I need the 2.5 seconds to think, so I better disguise my tough decisions by being consistant. Of course, when you act later you should already have an idea as to what you will be doing, so a one second interval is about right.
One thing is odd (I think Sklansky mentioned this once). Most players will take forever to decide whether or not to call a river bet head up but when first to act they usually act quickly. Yet the later act is usually much more tricky to figure and one that should require more time.
Regards,
Rick
If your familiarity with the factors involved is developed enough ... the thought process for human beings takes but an instant! It's heuristic ... and only human beings can do it.
You can draw an analogy to driving. Once in a while you encounter a situation where you must make a split second decision to avoid catastrophe. Sometimes after this event a friend who was in the car will ask how you knew to do what you did to avoid eminent disaster. The list of things you considered in that instant is many times quite lengthy and you can do this because you have so much experience driving.
He might polish things up a bit for his column, but yes, he thinks this way.
I have played with Roy a few times. (and his friend John Bond from Florida)
From my personal observation Roy is a very disciplined and thoughtful player. YOu can see the wheels spinning, but I do not recall any feeling that he held the game up needlessly. He makes his decisions flawlessly and smoothly. Games kept moving.
I was Impressed!
Diane from Green Bay
I'm curious why there's no discusion about the decision to play after the flop. I've never played against Mr. Cooke, and I probably never will be good enough to play at his limits. In the spirit of trying to get good enough, I enjoy Mr. Cooke's column and read it first when my issue arrives.
The hand in question seems to have 5 outs 4 times out of 7 and a near death experience the other 3. A pot laying 13-1 odds is reduced to 7.4-1, and the odds against making the hand on the turn are 8.4-1 against. I know there are additional chances on the river, and there are also implied odds. BUT there are good re-draws and reverse implied odds for the opponent (especially on the death hands).
Isn't a fold here sound action? I guess not because Rounder hasn't suggested it, and we know how he feels about chasing.
Fat-Charlie
I was one off the button with black nines in a $3-$6 must move that was killed to $5-$10. Seats 5 and 7 call the blinds and I raise. The blinds drop and 5+7 call. Flop is 3,4,8 rainbow. 5+7 check and I bet $5. Seat 5 calls and 7 drops. (Seat 5 had only been there for a couple hands while seat 7 had seen me raising a lot and taking down pots without having to show my hand. Seat 7 didn't fold to my raises for the rest of the night after this hand.) The turn is a Jack (still rainbow) 5 checks, I bet $10, 5 calls. River is 7, Seat 5 checks, I bet $10, he calls and shows JTo to beat my nines.
Even though the board didn't help my nines I felt I should bet on the river feeling he might conclude I did have an overpair. I know it's next to impossible to bluff in lowlimit, but if I've been betting and raising the whole way do I give up and just check on the turn/river if these guys are just gonna call anyway?
Your pre-flop raise with pocket Nines was marginal after two players voluntarily limp in from early position. I would have just called. You should have pocket Tens or better to raise.
Your betting the flop when checked to is correct with your over pair. If someone had bet into you, then you should raise since you can beat top pair.
On the turn, there is absolutely no way for you to assume that the Jack helped your opponent. When he checks, you should bet as you did.
On the river, the Seven looks like a blank. Your river bet was correct since your opponent will call with Eights (top pair on the flop) or some other holding if he thinks he can beat big slick or other over cards you might have raised with pre-flop.
I don't know exactly where Seat #5 is relative to the blinds but it was weak poker for him to be coming in with Jack-Ten offsuit from early position with this hand.
SB would be seat #1, BB seat #2, etc.
My thought process with the preflop raise is this: If somebody had a big pair ahead of me they would have raised, so I probably have the best hand and thus I'm gonna raise and get some people out that are playing garbage that might be helped with non-threatning flop. The table had seen me turn over strong pocket cards earlier (except this seat 5 guy who just sat down) so I felt this raise would be respected.
What do you do when a player doesn't respect your raises when you think you have the best hand (but not an unbeatable one?) Keep betting/raising or just check? I wanted to maintain my tight/agressive image by betting/raising. Was this play a semi-bluff?
The raise with pocket Nines was not bad. We all have to draw a line somewhere (Eights?, Sevens?, Sixes?). Most books recommend you draw it at Tens but nothing is precise. You may or may not have the best hand but you do have more than one opponent. If one guy limped in on A-J offsuit, another guy on K-Q offsuit, and the big blind calls a raise with T8 suited you will almost certainly be looking at a two outer on the flop since over cards to your Nines will flop about 80% of the time. In addition, it could get re-raised costing you even more money to take a flop and de-valueing your hand further since you may not have the best hand.
In addition, if you want to maintain a tight but aggressive image the way to do that is just call with middle pairs and save your raises for bigger pairs like Tens or higher (along with AK,AQ, AJ suited, KQ suited). Lowering your raising standards pre-flop strengthens the aggressive part of your image but weakens the tight part which is just as important. The key to a tight but aggressive image is to be winning pots and showing good hands at showdown.
No, this is not a semi-bluff. You know your raise will get called by one of the early limpers so you have no chance of winning the pot outright.
SB=seat #1, BB=seat #2 etc.
My thought process with the preflop raise was this: If someone did have a big pair ahead of me they would have raised, so I probably have the best hand. I'll raise to knock out garbage hands that might be helped with a non-threatning board.
What do you do if a player doesn't respect your bets/raises with what u think is the best hand (although not a very strong hand?) Should I just check along with him? I kept betting/raising because I wanted to maintain my tight/aggressive image; I had been showing premium hands and winning with them throughout the night, however this player had just sat down. I felt if I checked to the end and then showed a loser I would get bet into the rest of the night.
You have to wonder about seat 5. You should hope to play him more often. You will get your money back soon enough.
As for the river bet, you open yourself up to a raise and another decision. Check and take note of his play.
PS nine's is not a preflop raise hand.
What hand did you suppose he had? If he was on a draw, there's no point in betting since he won't call anyway. Your hand can win in a showdown. Unless he's the kind of player that would call you all the way with an underpair, you probably shouldn't bet the river.
Remember, you're not bluffing, because you have a decent hand. So the decision boils down to whether or not you have the best hand if you bet and are called.
The decision for me would boil down to my understanding of my opponent. Against a tight player who wouldn't call with less than top pair, you should check. Against a perennial calling station who will check-and-call all the way to the river with something like a pair of 8's, you should bet.
Dan, with no Ace or King on the board I think it is right for Peter to bet the river. He will get crying calls from anyone with a pair hoping his pre-flop raise was based on big slick or AQ. Most guys will call with Eights for sure since this was top pair on the flop and many would call with even a lower pair hoping he was raising and playing with just overcards.
I'd tend to bet as well, but one problem here is that everyone checked the flop and turn. That would indicate that no one has top pair. Still, in a 3-6 game there are a lot of people that will check and call with all kinds of scrap, so I'd bet.
Dan - Your statement about knowing your particular opponent is of course the absolute best answer. If you don't have that information, I will tell you (agreeing with Jim here) that in the lower-limit games NO opponent would throw away flop-top-pair of 88, and many of these guys call all the way through the river with second or third pair.
And BTW, JTo is a really GOOD hand for someone to show up with, limping from any position at all. At least it's on the charts.
Dick
No argument from me...
I don't play PL or NL hold-em, yet. I am wondering if someone can tell me in the recently discussed problem, under what situation should you call with the pocket 2s. What flop could you possibly get where a large bet would not make you fold? Are you looking for large cards which indicates someone is betting out on a large pair with top kicker? Is it the fact that rags came on the flop and someone bet big that indicates a fold? If so, you must realy know your man to lay down the set. After all, with that flop he may be bluffing or playing a large pocket pair. Any further comments on this problem?
I will see the flop if I can see it cheaply. If there is no set, no bet and fold if there is one.
I was in a NL HE tourney over the weekend and had 22 I raised on the button with it - Good thing I did. Flop came AJJ checked to the raiser I checked, 2 hit the turn, I called an all in bet of a guy slow playing JQ he never figured the 2 helped me and since he let me in for free I got his stack.
The hardest thind to put someone one for me is a set.
I can sometimes do it by the turn and usually by the river but the difference between a set and 2 pair is hard to seperate.
I've heard of this bad beat story that supposedly happened at the Bike, back in the day when jackpots were "legal". If it is true, I don't know if it can be topped. Does anyone know if this in fact happened?
Here it is: As I said, this was back in the day of the real So Cal jackpots. It was also one of those times when the red light was flashing, which meant triple jackpot for an hour or so. The jackpot for 5-10 HE was $33k.
The following hand came up. 3 players.
1. AhAd 2. KsQs 3. 8s9s
Flop comes AcAsJs. Do you see where this is going?
Turn is the 10s.
River is 7s.
AAAA gets not a dime. There is no table share back then.
Supposedly the guy was carried out on a stretcher. Did this happen, or is it just urban legend?
He got off his stretcher, shot the doctor, went back to the club, blew up the club, moved to Montana, and started living with the bears. He then started to write, and after coercing several publishing houses, he ended up getting published. Today he is famous.... thats.....right....boys and girls.....the man I'm talking about is ???????????
.. . . . The Unabomber!
who did you think I was talking about?
Got to the casino late last night, but got a seat and decided to play for an hour or two. Usual 3-6HE game, but three or four of the players in the game were totally unknown to me.
I have been in the game only three or four hands when I pick up As-Qs in middle position. UTG (unknown) limps in and I decide I might as well test the waters early, so I raise. I generally raise about half the time from early/middle position with A-Q, suited or not, because often the game texture is such that several players will call the raise regardless of their hand strength. Solid player two to my left re-raises (warning bells starting to go off)and button (another new player) says, "might as well cap it."
Now I don't know if he has a real "cap" hand, or he's just generating action. Anyway, the SB, BB and early limper all call, and with this much action, I can't resist joining the party. Flop comes down 9-5-2 rainbow with one spade. Three checks to me, I check, the re-raiser bets, button calls, SB folds, BB and early limper call. There is over $80 in the pot, and I now feel justified peeling one off to see if I can improve. At this point, I'm not sure if I even want to see an Ace, figuring the button for possibly AK for his cap. Runner-runner flush, maybe? Sure, enough turn is Ac.
Check, check, I check (mistake?), and it gets totally checked out, much to my surprise. River comes an offsuit 6. No flush on board, but theoretically the six makes a couple of straights possible, although I can't see 3-4 or 7-8 in anyone's hand, certainly not the two players to my left. Checked to me, I check again (another mistake?). I put the player to my left on KK or QQ, and figure that my check may induce him to bet without running the risk of getting raised by someone slowplaying. It gets checked out again, and my A-Q holds up. Re-raiser to my left had KK, the button had capped it pre-flop with QJo, and I never did see the hands of the two players to my right.
Now, in retrospect, I missed at least one, and possibly two bets. I know full well the perils of A-Q and this hand is a good example perhaps of the problems you can into when raised downtable, but I have the following questions for the group:
1. Raise pre-flop with AQ suited OK? 2. Who calls the flop bet, and who dumps after the air-ball? 3. Bet out when the Ace hits the turn, or check to see what happens? 4. Bet the river?
I'm sure I am going to get flamed over this one because I can't help but feel I played this one like a little girl (as Jim Brier would say). Fire away.
When the pot gets that big in 3-6 the majority of players see the turn and river even with the most modest of holdings. You were not going to outplay anyone after the flop.
1. Raise. I like. You're suited. Middle position. If you can't raise there with that - I mean how can you argue against it.
2. I call. Two overcards, one of your suit. Not an insane call w/ the size of the pot.
3. I would bet out. KK would meekly call - and you might drive out those bottom or middle pair looking for trips or two pair - though they'll probably commit to the river given size of the pot.
4. I would check the river - but I'm a bit of a pussy in these situations. Hard to see someone hit a straight with the texture of the pre-flop action.
Again, this is 3-6. If the A don't hit on the turn - fold would be fine. KK call you all the way to the river when A hits the turn. Put yourself in his shoes. A on the turn is his worst nightmare. If he has AK you got to call all the way too. Maybe you missed a couple of bets. Or maybe you bet the turn and the KK is the kind of player to raise - then what - I imagine you still go to the river - but thinking you are beat.
Easy raise preflop.
You should bet the turn, for a number of reasons. You missed that bet, then a total blank hit the river. I'd bet again. Yes, you could lose, but what are the chances? The board is 9-5-2-A-6 rainbow. The pot was capped preflop -- what do you think is out there? 7-8?
I would rather have the occasional disaster than play passively and consistently underplay my hands and miss bets. I would definitely notice and make a note of your effete handling of this hand if I were in your game. I think weak passive opponents are wonderful -- they engender confidence and calm in their opponents.
Spiro Agnew lives! Call me effete again, and I'm going to slug you with my purse.
Scott Wyler (I need to keep my Scott's straight) and Dunc,
Both of you guys sound like "nattering nabobs of negativism".
Regards,
Rick
P.S. To my friend John Cole if you are lurking. Feel free to correct my spelling and yes I know this doesn't really apply but I remember that thief Agnew using it. To think he was a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
Calling someone Spiro Agnew is MUCH worse than calling someone effete! Didn't mean to overstate it -- I am nobody's negative nabob!
Pre-flop I like your raise with AQ suited. I would even do it with AQ offsuit. Of course you call the re-raise and cap back to you especially when you have 5 opponents and you are suited.
On the flop, your check is correct. All you have are over cards and a backdoor possibility. When the flop is bet and called in three other spots I would assume that I am up against at least one big over pair and perhaps big slick. However, because of your runner-runner flush draw coupled with your over cards you are getting 28:1 to one at this point (There is $84 in the pot and it costs you $3 to take off a card). Your call on the flop is absolutely correct if for no other reason than your runner-runner nut flush possibilities.
When an Ace comes on the turn there are 8 ways someone can have big slick and 1 way someone can have AA. So there are 9 ways someone who played in a capped pot can beat you ignoring pocket Nines which are another 3 ways. There are six ways for KK, three ways for QQ, six ways for JJ, six ways for TT, two ways for AJ suited, and three ways for KQ suited which are also hands that players would for sure be involved with in a capped pot. So there are a lot more ways you can have the best on the turn than there that you have a worse hand. However, if you bet you will definitely get raised by AA and perhaps big slick. You might also get raised by some guy who played a suited Ace and now has picked up a second pair. If your hand is best someone with an over pair is not getting the right pot odds to pay $6 for a two outer even when implied odds are considered (there is $87 in the pot but the pot would have to grow to over $130 to merit playing a two outer). Bottom line is that I would find a bet here on the turn because there are too many ways you could have the best hand and these guys will mistakenly call with their two outers.
On the river, depending upon what happened when I bet the turn, I would probably bet. I would definitely bet the river if the turn was checked around since someone out there will keep me honest.
I think you missed at least one if not two licks here. I hope you are not of the school that thinks "Well, the pot is big enough for me". No pot I win is ever big enough.
No doubt I left at least $12 and possibly $18 on the table. I ended up playing only an hour last night, won about $60, all of which basically came from this hand. It still bugged me though later because I knew I didn't play this one to the max. You are absolutely right, no pot is big enough. I would have had to play another hour of perfect poker to squeeze 3BB out of the game, and I left it on the table on this hand alone. Good analysis as always. Thanks.
Dunc,
I've just had time to read Dan Hanson and Jim Brier's posts among others and was happy to see that we are on the same page. Those are two good poker poker players (or is that too good??? - I guess it depends if they are in your game :-) ).
I do get the impression that you are still not evaluating correctly what you lost on this hand and where you lost it. This is important (BTW are you lurking Student, for it is part of tomorrow's lesson! ).
When you think of what you lost on this hand, the real issue is that by checking the turn you gave potentially weaker hands infinite odds to draw out on you. You may have thought you may still be trailing, but this was the time to be aggressive. That is the key on this hand. The pot was big, the original aggressor was on your left, and it was important to lead into him at this point. Even if it turned out he had a good ace (AK, AQ, or AJ) and popped you, if you got it head up it wouldn't have been so bad if he knocked out players who were drawing against both of you. Even if you were actually drawing to three outs (let's say he did have AK) with a pot this big it is no big disaster. His raise helps both of you on the average.
You are also a little off in your thinking about what you lose when you fail to value bet on the river. For example, let's say you are head up on the river and fail to value bet in a hand versus hand situation (pretend that you are lead betting all the way and checking will not induce a bluff or a bet from a weaker hand from this player). It turns out that if you really thought it through, you had about a 70% chance to still be leading at the end when you are called. But you chickened out so it was checked down. What you lose is not the full river bet ($6 in a 3/6 game) but a fraction of that bet.
Let's do the math (I'm not math impaired as I sometimes claim but lazy so I need the exercise - I can't always leave this stuff to scott and Jim Brier :-) ). Anyway, in one hundred plays wou would win $6 seventy times which equals $420. You would lose $6 thirty times which equals $180. The difference is $240 which comes out to $2.40 per failure to value bet. (Note: This does oversimplify things quite a bit in that it does not take into account a raise by your opponent when he might hit his kicker on the river. But you should get the general idea).
The main point of this tome is that you lose more than you think when you give your opponents free cards before the river on a big pot (even when they don't draw out on you) and less than you think when you fail to value bet a medium favorite on the end (and they would have called you with a slightly worse hand). But it is still important to think through both situations correctly. Screwing up the first could cost you the pot. Screwing up the second costs you a fraction of a bet but you are faced with this situation often and there is no excuse to make mistakes here.
That was probably more than you wanted to read but I just had a three hour nap so I was on a roll :-). Sorry about that.
Happy Holidays!
Rick
Rick,
I agree wholeheartedly with your 1:38am analysis, especially the decision not to bet on the river. Too often, I've heard, "But you bet out on the turn, so you have to bet the river." As always, the player reads his or her hand, not the table.
John
PS. No need to worry about spelling corrections; a mistake is always a typo. BTW, didn't Pat Buchanan coin the phrase for Agnew?
John,
I remember one of Agnew's claims to fame was that he would learn a new word every day from the dictionary and try to use it in the week to come. I think he must have skipped over honesty, ethics, and integrity.
Regards,
Rick
Jim,
Wasn't the call of a double bet pre-flop questionable with a known solid player raising Dunc and an unknown capping? Then when the A hits the turn, is the concern of AK or AA or middle pair with A kicker not big enough to warrant check-call all the way through the river? In 3-6 these s are frequent. I agree that no pot is big enough, but a positive expectation on this hand in 3-6 is questionable.
Please enlighten me -- you guys are awesome and I want to learn!
Thanks,
-Michael
The key here is that the AQ is suited, and that there are a lot of callers. If it were 3-handed, a case could be made for folding, and if the AQ was offsuit, it would be an easier decision.
No, Michael I think his call of the double bet back to him pre-flop was okay because he was suited. In addition, I am learning on this forum that in these $3-$6 games players don't always have what they are supposed to have for the re-raises and caps they make. This is especially true of someone who caps the betting. Guys that cap the betting are frequently just throwing in an extra bet on a hand they would play anyways like JT suited, T9 suited, etc.
Clearly the Ace is a concern because big slick is a possibility and pocket rockets a very remote possibility. But when you go through all the card combinations for hands the player could have your top pair of Aces with a Queen kicker can beat the majority of them. In addition, if someone has big slick they may not raise when bet into on the turn, although they should, for fear that the bettor (you in this case) might have as good if not a better hand.
I think you played the hand perfect. You had 4 players you'd not see before. And you had a player you know to be solid on your left who re-raised your raise. The reason you called 2 more bets pre-flop was pot size not to mention your hand had potential. When KK on your left rightfully bet the ragedy flop, you, having best position for calling this particular bet, rightfully called when everyone called around to you. The A hitting the turn is tricky and it would be of great benefit to know your opponents - Could AA or AK slow play? Since you don't know your opponents too well, you do the right thing and check-call through the river.
1) Questionable - but a good variation, possibly sets a tone of you being loose aggressive for those 4 who don't know you since you've only been there for 4 hands.
2) If all dumped to you, you dump. But all called - you have backdoor nut-flush and two overcards. Pot odds coupled with hand odds are good enough to call.
3) Check and see what happens. If re-raiser bets and button raises, muck. Call one bet, no raises.
4) No, check and call. Again, you don't know your opponents, if someone is slow-playing a monster they will surely re-raise.
Dunc,
This is another one I'll answer without looking at the other posts yet. I'll check them out later.
1. Raise pre-flop with AQ suited OK?"
An easy raise, especially when it doesn't narrow the field against weak players. The rare flush makes big money and in this game they call with weaker aces. I raise most of the time with this hand.
2. Who calls the flop bet, and who dumps after the air-ball?
I count $86 in the pot with no possible raise behind you. You are getting odds for your running flush draw alone (about 25 to one is usually good enough). But with a spread rainbow flop and two good overcards, it is a very easy call.
3. Bet out when the Ace hits the turn, or check to see what happens?
I like the bet. The pot is big and you may be leading. The aggressor is on your left so your check raise would not knock anyone out which is what you want with the pot this big. I would bet even if I felt I was a little behind the guy on my left since I would welcome his raise to narrow he field and give me a better chance at the pot.
4. Bet the river?
I'll pass on this since I would have bet the turn.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, reflecting the sentiments of others, said:
"I count $86 in the pot with no possible raise behind you. You are getting odds for your running flush draw alone (about 25 to one is usually good enough). But with a spread rainbow flop and two good overcards, it is a very easy call [on the flop].
[...]I would bet [on the turn] even if I felt I was a little behind the guy on my left since I would welcome his raise to narrow he field and give me a better chance at the pot."
I have two quibbles here. The first the characterizing AQ as "two good overcards". I wouldn't consider them that good after a player I think of as solid reraises me. Yes, pairing one or the other could give me the best hand, but I would have no way of knowing this. Should I fold if reraised after testing the waters on the turn? If not, then I think this weakens the case for the strength of the overcards. This moves us to the play on the turn, so let's go to the second quibble...
If it were the case that you were behind on the turn, then you need to spike a Q to win (unless someone has a set, of course). Is it conceivable that a Q would help anyone else more than me? No. Therefore, I fail to see how knocking out other players when I am behind helps me in any way. Of course, I may be ahead so betting is not a bad idea, necessarily.
I guess that my discomfort (and Dunc's) comes from the fact that this strikes me as a bit reverse implied odds situation, from the flop on. I think that I will be paying through the nose if I hit and lose, but the others will not be so generous if I hit and win. For example, suppose the solid player reraises uncharacteristically with AJs. Given my raise and the cap behind him, is he likely to raise on the turn. I doubt it. He may even fold.
To refer to Jim's mathematical analysis, I think that I should have a very good chance of having the best hand on the turn before I bet it, not just some chance. Also, I don't think AJh deserves equal weighting with AdKh when considering the opponents' possible hands.
Time for breakfast.
Erc
Eric,
You make some good points but I need to get to work. I'll try to respond late tonight.
Regards,
Rick
Pre-flop raise was fine. Call on the flop was fine.
I think it's a pretty big mistake to not bet the turn. Look at it this way: The only way you lose on this play is IF someone has AK (almost anyone would have bet AA on the flop), and IF the AK raises (a lot of 3-6 players won't raise the turn with one pair), and IF you don't hit your queen on the river. If someone has AK and you check, they will bet, and you'll have to call anyway. But if you have the best hand, it's deadly to give away a free card here, given the size of the pot.
So bet the turn. On the river the decision isn't as critical, but I still would have bet if I didn't get raised on the turn. If I had checked the turn like you did and it got checked out, I would definitely have bet the river for value, since with a pot this big you're almost certain to get a call from a weaker hand.
Lots of response from the group. After reading all the posts, no question that the biggest mistake was not betting the turn. River bet is much easier if I had not fallen from grace previously. Also, if I had a better read on the capper it might have helped. Don't think so much, Dunc. Bet your hand.
Called you at home Monday, and Trish told me about your new job. Sounds interesting! If you can, give me a call Thursday morning @ 424-1956, Dan. Ciao.
1. Yes. 2. Call. This is one of those situations when the backdoor draw does add value to your hand. 3. Bet. See what happens after you bet. Why give a freebie? 4. Bet. Since they all checked to this point, you have a value bet.
DuncMan,
Your reason stated for raising pre-flop, "I might as well test the waters", sounds like it would fit better with your turn situation. I'd have just grit my teeth and bet the turn. Everything you did before the turn, I'd have done likewise.
-Martin D
I was playing at a $1-5 & $10 on the end 7-stud H/L split 8 or better for low. I have a pair of aces wired the bring-in bets it for $1 and I make it $2 so that a fold is correct on 3rd st. and maybe I'll get it heads-up with the intention of betting the max 4th st. and on. Well, everybody folded and I won a $1. After that "Spectacular" pot win a tricky player named Stan said, "Why do you raise w/those right away? Everybody's just gonna fold". I replied, "Well when you write a book called 'Poker by Stan' I'll be glad to take your advise!" He just stares and gve me a smug look.
About an hour later Stan, in seat #2, shows a 2 and brings it in for a dollar. Everyone folds I'm in seat #7 and call $1 with a 5 on my board and Q-5 in the hole. I figured if I didnt improve on 4 st. Im outta there unless it gets checked all the way around. A loose player in seat #8 calls w/a 7 showing. 4th Street: Stan gets another two I get a Q and call station gets an 8. Deuces check and I bet $5 and they both call. I figure them both going for the low because the 2s were checked to me. 5th Street: Stan gets an ace I get a 5 for a boat and seat 8 gets a facecard w/no flush or straight possible. Stan bets, I raise, loosy calls, Stan reraises 'uh-oh', I cap it and both other players call. Perhaps Stan has Aces full because there was no way he had a made low and w/me reraising surely he had me on at least trips but deuces full is more probable w/no more 2s out there besides his board. 6th Street: Stan gets a 6, I get a 10, and #8 gets a 4. Stan bets and we both call. The boards look like this, Stan: 2-2-A-6 rainbow, Me: 5-Q-5-10, and call station 7-8-J-4 rainbow. River: I got another blank. Stan bets $10 I go all-in w/$7 left and seat 8 calls. Stan turns over pocket aces for the full house and I turned over my cards saying some profanity that I cannot repeat here. The funny thing is that seat 8 showed down 2 pair 8s over 7s w/no low. Go figure. That was the end of that session.
A few Questions for those who care to comment:
1. Is it correct for me to raise on 3rd st w/top pair even if I do raise it to 2 and not 5?
2. Should I throw away a small pair for just a dollar w/the intention af folding if I don't improve or if I get raised?
I'd be glad to tell anyone which casino Stan plays in. I just thought I was playing solid in such a low limit game. Your comments and/or questions would be greatly welcomed.
MJ, you too!
sorry about that one!
I replied, "Well when you write a book called 'Poker by Stan' I'll be glad to take your advise!"
Now that's a great come back JP....LOL
As for the poker questions.
1. The partial raise is fine if it's intended to keep
others in the pot. Your trying to build the pot.
If you improve then hit'em with the bigger bet.
2. For a Buck you can play just about any small pair.
If you can get in cheap. Reason being if you hit
it early then the big bets on the end can make up
the difference.
Best of it !!
MJ
P.S.
Well when you write a book called 'Poker by Stan' still LMAO on that 1
I think you knew what stan had on 4th street but you wanted to give him a bad beat.When you raised him, you should have done so, for the only purpose of seeking information. When he raised you back you got the information you wanted.FOLD THE HAND YOU ARE BEAT. But you wanted to beat Stan, and you didn't want to read the writing on the wall.You didn't get a bad beat, Q-5-5 is not a strong hand. I have done the same thing as you, you were trying to get the player.
I wasnt trying to get the player necessarily. I was trying to win the hand.
Another thing; "Poker by Stan" wasnt that funny MJ! Was it?
Not having read a great deal about odds and probability, I'm going to be a bit obtuse here. I would, however, appreciate answers to two questions.
I'm in the BB in 3-6HE. UTG folds, revealing the 8s as he does so. Next player brings it in and is raised by loose player who has been raising with Ax off in poor position. He gets five calls, so I call with J6s, assuming eight way action. Flop comes Jh, 10s, 6h. Player to my left brings it in and original raiser makes it six. Three more calls to me, so I call again assuming six way action (correct). Turn is 7h; player to my left bets, two callers, and a raise to twelve from the button. Before I act, player to my left mucks her cards, saying her straight is no good. I figure (correctly) I'm against the A high and K high flushes.
My questions: at this point I "know" seven cards, an 8 and 9, exposed 8, and Axh and Kxh, or so I assume. Does knowing these cards change my odds on the full house draw? I think not, but would like to know why. And, should I call for twelve with about $105.00 in the pot?
Yes, absolutely. Now instead of having 4 outs with 46 cards you have 4 outs with 39 cards. This equates to from 1 in 11.5 chance to a 1 in 9.75 chance. With implied odds I believe it's worth a call. But the only extra card you "KNOW" for sure is the 8s that was revealed. The other ones you are assuming.
You may be right. I forgot to consider implied odds in my analysis below. However, if the board pairs to make your boat there is a good chance that the K flush draws may fold the river, especially if he realizes he is up against the A-high flush. Therefore your implied odds may not be as good as you think they are.
I would say the most likely scenario, if he made his full house, would be for both flushes to call. But in $3-$6 it wouldn't be unheard of for the ace high flush and the king high flush to get in a raising war, even with the pair on board.
I'll give it a shot.
Normally with one card to come you there are 46 unseen cards in hold'em (4 on the board, 2 in your hand). With your extra info (which we will assume is accurate) you know five additional cards -- 8,8,9,A,K. Now there are only 41 unseen cards, 4 of which complete your full house for 37 to 4 odds of hitting, or a little over 9 to 1. The pot if offering 105 to 12 or 8.75 to 1. I would recommend that you fold based on these odds.
yeah, the odds change. of course. why wouldn't they change? if you knew i had candy in one of my hands, and then i showed you my empty left hand, would the odds of having candy in my right hand change? i think so. more importantly, what was with your crazy check call on the flop with two pair?
scott
This may seem tight but I would not even call a raise in the big blind with those cards. They are trouble cards for a flop like you had because now you are practically married to the hand. As for the odds, you have 46 unseen cards and 2 cards that improve you to a full boat. So it is 44/2 or 11/1 odds that your card will hit. The pot should be about $132 for a sound call with pot odds. Unless of course your are just about all in and are going for a desperation bet, then calling is in order.
Otherwise, I think you can avoid making these kinds of calls by dumping trash hands early on out of position, there would be a big difference if you were in the cutoff seat or on the button with these cards and even then playing them is just bad poker IMO.
Joe,
Not to be a pest, but I don't think that you are considering the other "known" cards that John Cole is asking us to take into account. Also, he has 4 cards that make his boat, not 2 (J,J,6,6).
However, I agree with you that J6s should never be played from the blinds in light of a pre-flop raise. A straight is impossible, and a J flush draw is too beatable.
My bad. It is 42/4 or just a little higher than 10/1, but calling is still bad since the pot odds should be about at least $120 or higher for a sound $12 call especially with what cards are showing since he cannot beat a flush and he highly suspects one is out there. Now the other players may be morons and betting on the come with single A or K hearts in their hands, but would you want to call and find out? Even morons makes good hands once in awhile. IMO the best bet is to get out of this hand and wait for a better opportunity since drawing to a better hand here is slim.
I'm being obtuse here since I'm not paying full attention to the question. Of course his odds change since he knows that four cards in 2 other peoples hands were exposed (or told) and they did not include any of his cards.
The odds are 52(unknown) - 10(known)/ 4 cards that will make his hand or 10.5/1 and the fold is obvious. Sorry for the mistakes, maybe I should give up poker.
I've played:
80 hours of 2-4 20 hours of 1-4-8-8 15 hours of 3-6
I'm down a total of $550.5 including tokes to the dealer, excluding refreshments. I estimate I've paid a total of $800 in collections. My last two sessions were 3-6, were 5 hours each and were +184 and +121.
You input is appreciated - I'm finally begginning to notice when other players play hands incorrectly and am able to pay attention when not in the hand.
I remember a guy talking at a table one time and he said any good education is expensive. I would suggest that Money management be the top on you list to learn. try and walk away from the table with a win ($1 to a $1000) a win is a win!! track your preformance on a weekly to monthly basis. I don't think to much about the hourly rate. As I do a monthly rate!
Another way to look at it is, you are even at the start of every deal and you are going to base your play on this premise. Play the hand the same way whether you are up or down $500. If you find that you are not playing your normal game e.g., you are calling when you normally would fold, and vice versa, and you think it's because of how you stand chipwise, cash out and take a break.
When you are starting out, try and find soft games. Loose passive and weak. These are the games which are most profitable. As you get more experience, you may be tempted to try tougher games. If you play to make money you'll resist this temptation and stay with the soft game, only now you'll extract lots of big bets/hr. Once you figure out how to play, few things are as important as game selection to your bottom line.
As has been said before, a number of playing hours that small isn't really enough to tell you anything, especially if your game is improving, as your post implies.
I find loose 2/4 games much harder to win at then a typical 5/10 game. How can you consistantly beat a game where 6-8 players stay in to see the flop, and 3-4 see the turn card?
Just recently I got wailed on in a game, where:
I lost with pocket AA's vs 34u and J2s
What are your opinions?
Get back to the 5-10 as fast as u can.
If you play at low-limits like 2-4 you just have to get used to bad beats. I agree with MJ to get back to 5-10 as soon as you can, but even that game can be just as loose as a 2-4. You have to consider the players, weak players just love to call I have found.
A trick I have learned in the 4-8 game I play in is to sometimes limp in with AA's, depending on the position, then either raise the flop or the turn when bet into. Especially the turn, because even loose weak players seem to really hate to call a double big bet. Try it, you might like it. Otherwise the weak calling stations will just call your aggresive (single) bet with a gut shot, then giggle like they are geniuses when they hit. Of course there is no surefire way, but this has worked for me.
.. and if your opponents are that bad, then you sound like you could easily become a strong favorite in a game like this.
Thorp's Fundamental Theory of Gambling: No weighting of negative expectancy bets can yield a positive expectancy.
Extension to poker: No increase in the number of weak opponents can make them favorites over a strong player.
Of course, part of being a smart player in games like this is staying away from hands that don't have much staying power in a heavy drawing field. KJo, QTo, A9o, 98o, those should find the muck pretty fast. Wait for premium hands and pocket pair - hands that, when they hit, hold up more.
The toughest lesson I *EVER* learned in poker: If I am continually failing to beat foolish, no-foldem-holdem games, the problem is with me, not my opponents.
M.
If you play better starting hands and better draws, you'll get your share of the pots. We always remember the big pairs that got rundown, the huge draws that missed and the J8o that someone ran our top two-pair down with. Pay attention to all the players paying to take one off with near hopeless draws. If you get into a game where players are making lots of mistakes, you will do fine if you have the money and the patience to wait until it is your turn. Remember though, that it is correct for them to draw pretty thin if the pot is huge and their outs will probably be good. High variance is one of the necessary evils in No Fold Em; it is also one of the welcome blessings when the variance is in your favor. We seldom get posts from people complaining that the damn cards are simply running over them, that they are getting hit with the whole deck. On those occasions when we play for 7 hours and leave with a win of 90 BB's, how often do we think that result is due to the positive aspect of variance? Never! We believe we murdered the competition with our superior skills and brilliant play. In a true No Fold Em, I believe 50 BB's is a minimum session bankroll. If I lose that, I'm going to think about the nature of the game, why I'm losing, how I like my current chances, etc.; I might decide to invest more money in this game if I believe I'm still a favorite to win. If I'm still having fun in this game, I might buy another rack anyway, even if I believe I'm getting outplayed. There are few things more fun to play in than a wide open No Fold Em Hold-Em game.
if the game is 3/6 and assuming $3 per hand and $1 for toke and 40 hands an hour, that means $160 is taken out of the table. That is about $18 per player or 3 big bets. If you bug in for a rack, on the average it will take about 6 hours for you to lose it all.
It is difficult to beat this game in the long run.
Wait, wait wait and when you get a premium hand hit 'em hard. make them pay to out draw you. You will win less pots but more cash. I would expect to only play in about 10%.
Ratso,
With a $3 dead button drop, you just can't afford to play that tightly. It is costing you approximately 2BB's per hour to sit in this game. That is just too much to overcome with playing 10% of the hands. Assuming you play your BB 50% of the time, that accounts for about 6% of the hands right there. If you play sb 10% of the time, that's another 1%. Are you saying to only play button and cut-off seats 15% and category one hands in all positions? You'd get killed in these games IMO.
So true. You can't play like a rock because you pay too much to watch. And as a tight player you won't get the same action when you do play because the table will know you are playing big cards only. There might even be some sentiment of the kind 'This tight ass won't go with the flow so let him scoop up the blinds with his AK and we'll move on to the next hand'.
I think you need to extend your playable hands to cards like smaller pair, 9T suited or even unsuited if you can get in for one bet. These have big payoffs when hit and you'll be seen as one of the gang.
I recommend that you start writing down the hands you are playing and post some of them on this forum. I am not comfortable with the idea of moving up to a bigger game like $5-$10 when you cannot beat a smaller game. Despite the high collection, these games are beatable in my opinion because while you will win fewer pots the pots you win will be large.
You should have no trouble winning in a loose game where there is a lot of calling, but not too much preflop raising. However, a really wild game where you are forced to commit a lot of money to see the flop is not such an attractive proposition at all, because few hands are playable, and everyone stays in after the flop because of the huge pot odds, meaning even premium hands get cracked a lot.
Ok, what in the heck do I do with Suited Connectors? Of course that depends on whether I am talking about 2-3 suited or King-Queen suited. Personally, I tend to hate suited connectors less that at least 6-7. I seem to flop some good things because of the vast possiblities holding these types of cards. However, I think I should limit playing these cards especially during pre-flop raises and in early position. Would the smart thing to do be to play 6-7,7-8,8-9,9-10 ect. only in late position with at least 4 callers??? Thanks!
These are the kind of hands that, when they win, they usually do so by making a big hand (nut straight or mediocre flush).. so here are some tidbits on playing suited connectors:
In games where people will play any two suited cards from any position, they lose a LOT of value. In particular, games with a quadruple bet on the river (such as Calgary's own 3-3-6-12) tend to bring out AXs from any position, and lots of KXs and QXs from many positions. So to repeat - lots of people playing any two suited cards, SC's go down.
They are good when you are in late position so you can see the flop cheaply and HOPEFULLY get a free card with a timely raise on the river. If you flop a 4-flush with 87s and you raise the flop, and the flush comes and it's a bet and a raise into you, you now have a LOT more information about how good your hand is (based on how well you know the players in question, of course!) and can take it from there.
Other than that, don't fall in love with them. People once though JTs was better than AA..
M.
Suited connected cards can cost you a bundle or pay off really well - I want them in mid to late position and the later the lower is ok. Problem is you have to be able to get away from them even if you get part of the flop.
"Problem is you have to be able to get away from them even if you get part of the flop."
Rounder is right on with this advice.
Playing suited connectors can kill you if you can't muck 'em when they ought to be mucked. This includes times when you flop top pair (particularly if the board is already paired). A recent hand posted by Sammy B comes to mind where he called a preflop raise from his immediate right with 87s in a multiway pot and caught a flop of 844 or something (I might be mistaken on the rank of the pair). The preflop raiser bet. You have to have the discipline to fold here (if you are going to play, you should raise).
Similarly, if you flop a gut shot, there will be times when you can and should call (or even bet) but there will be occasions when they have to be mucked eg. a bet comes from your right and you strongly suspect a raise from your left, hitting the gut shot may make someone else a bigger straight etc.
That's a big part of what playing well after the flop is all about. Knowing when to lay down top pair, knowing when to raise with second pair etc. For those of you who are just starting out, calling preflop with suited connectors when there has been a raise or when you are in an aggressive game can be expensive because it takes time to get to know how to play well after the flop. Hopefully, I will have it licked in about 10 years.
That is why I only play them in real late position.
Suited connectors play well in unraised pots and with multiple opponents. The key is to not pay more than one bet to see a flop with these hands (JT suited through Five-Four suited). Don't be cold-calling legitimate raises with these hands and don't be raising with them yourself from early position or from middle or late position when others have limped in. With the bigger ones like JT suited and T9 suited, just limp in from early or middle position when some one else has limped in. If you are on the button or in the cutoff, just limp in with the others. It is better to play suited connectors in unraised pots with fewer opponents versus raised pots with lots of opponents although ideally you want an unraised pot with a lot of opponents.
Suited connectors are grossly overvalued in hold-em literature. Your only real "out" is to make a straight or a flush or two pair or trips and this is hard to do. Occasionally you will find it can be difficult to make them holdup against a lot of opponents. Frequently you end up getting a piece of the flop like middle or bottom pair with some kind of backdoor possibility. Now the pot is large but your chances of winning are small and you get thrown into marginal situations which do very little for your expected value but add greatly to your variance.
Ok, I was on a 9-18 holdem table last Friday and won a $400 pot that sent me home for the night. I was on the button with 3-7 of spades. Seat 3 is first and raises. Then seats 4,6,and 8 call. Being on the button, I felt I had pot odds to call so I called two bets COLD. Sure enough, the small blind seat 1 folded but the big blind seat 2 re-raised. The initial raiser then capped it and I found myself calling 4 bets $36 bucks on the preflop raises with 3-7 of spades. Sure enough the flop had 2 spades. The flop was As-10h-6s. Of the 6 people in the pot, seat 2 bet, seat 3 called, seats 4,6 fold, seats 8 and myself on the button call. The turn is a 9d. Seat 2 checks, seats 3 bets, seat 8 raises, then everyone calls. River 8s!!! No pair on board! Although I risk a higher flush beating me. Everyone checks to me, I bet, seat 2 folds, seat 3 calls with Ace-King off suit, and seat 8 turns over pocket 9's.
Sorry, forgot to finish. I am not in favor of playing this sort of hand unless I have pot odds. Did I play this hand properly?
Pot Odds, Schmot odds. You got lucky.. Calling twobets cold with that sort of cheese is a certain way to flush your bankroll down the toilet. There are just too many ways to be beat - higher flushes, etc...
Read the books - Learn better starting hands. Again, you just got lucky...
My 2 cents- Tim
Tim is right on the money with this one. Not even on the button should you play that crap, not even occasionally. There are plenty of ways to waste money and this one is not worth it.
To jump on the bandwagon...
I have played a 7-3 suited in the big blind, and in the small blind for one half of a small bet in a multi-way unraised pot.
I have also raised with it one off the button as the first one in.
I don't recall the results of these forays, but calling a raise cold, or even one full small-bet cold, button or not, with a hand like 7-3 suited (all the way up, in my opinion, to cheese like 10-6 suited, with J-7 and Q-8, and K-9 suited being close seconds from the bottom) voluntarily is not advisable.
You can never make the nut straight with these three gapped hands, and only seldom will your flush (never in the case of 7-3 suited) be the nuts without making a straight flush.
Bad play. By the book. Check it out. Only time I'd play it is if it was a tournament, no more chips and was all in.
The original call of two bets is wrong. The second call of two more bets is probably ok but you shouldn't even have been in that position.
I notice you don't have any questions in your post but here is an answer anyway. Pick up and read most of the books recomended frequently on this form.
Also ou might have raised on the flop since you are such and gamb00ler and it may buy you a free card. Turn and river were played correctly.
D.
While not normally a good play, it depends on the other players. This is where reading your opponents allows you to make some calls you normally wouldnt.
Now if you were put the original raiser on a high pair, then forget it..you are too much of a long shot. But if you observed that he is forcing action just to up the pots, sometimes a hand like this in late position can be called preflop.
Sure someone could be holding a higher flush, but you know what....THATS WHY ITS CALLED GAMBLING!!
With 73s just what exactly are you trying to put these particular players on and how can you precisely tell they don't have some kind of an average hand? I think if you detect that the players are going to live through to the flop you have the wrong type of players.
Nope, not playable and yes this IS why it is called gamb00ling.
D.
That $400 pot you won could cost you in the end. I agree with all the posts here regarding calling with 37s, regardless of the raises or pot odds. Can you remember the times when you,ve been in a hand with high pockets, then flopped a set and lost to a similar cheese hand like 47 or 25 and the first thing the player says is; "these are my favorite cards!". Why, because somewhere along the line they've won with these terrible starters, and its burned into their memory! So everytime they get these monster cards they call, even with multiple raises. But what they forget is the 20 or 30 times these hands haven't gone anywhere and all the money they've invested to play them out. So I hope you don't remember the $400 you won the next time you get 37 spades dealt to you otherwise you'll give it all back and then some.
I wouldn't play that hand if you had a 357 and a ski mask - pot odds help in decision making but you need a hand that should win IF you hit - it is really hard to win with a hand like this.
Everyone agrees and so do I, but where do you think this call starts to make sense -- he's on the button and there are 4 callers for 2 bets each. Is 7-9s good enough? 8-10s? How about Q-9s or K-9s? Assume a medium-to-loose game (9-18 games in Cali tend to be fairly loose). I would dump 3-7s and the like with no hesitation, but I would start to hesitate as the gap closes and the cards get bigger.
What would be your minimum suited hand in this situation? How much do you factor in the possibility of a re-raise by a blind?
In a raised pot I would want at the very least Jack-Ten suited from the button and I would want to be confident that the pot would not get raised again. In an unraised pot from the button and say six limpers, I would limp in with Seven-Six suited.
What "pot odds"? To play a hand this bad, you need big implied odds, and 4 raises destroy that. The effect of building that big pot early DOES force you to play on from the flop however, since you do THEN have the pot odds. But you have to catch a miracle on every card and your opponents have to be unlucky enough for you to win (I'll let you count how many possible other flush draws could be out there to beat you -- even when you get there).
Actually, if I were to play this hand, I'd be hoping to hit a miracle set rather than a flush (or heaven-forbid, a non-nut 3-gapper straight). You'll do much better in the long run dumping that Southern California style of play.
Here's the scenario: regular 3-3-6-12 game in Calgary, a few new people. Guys not raising preflop with high pocket pair but with K8s etc..
I am on the button. 6 people call the blinds. I call with T9o. Flop comes K-T-9 rainbow. Solid player directly after the blinds bets. Raise by random.opponent #1 and 2 more call. I reraise on button and solid player caps(!).
Turn = offsuit 5. No flush draw possible. Solid player bets. 2 calls to me, I call.
River = Ten. I get middle tight.
Solid player bets again! BOTH guys call..
I just call the river, living in fear of KK or KT.
Sure enough, tight holds up. Solid player shows nut straight (JQ) and random.opponents fold.
Just how bad a play was it not to raise the river, or god forbid, did I do the right thing???!
M.
I would definetly bet the river. If you lose you lose, there are all kinds of hands that will call with the big pot. I would classify this as a fairly major error but not in the class of a pot losing error.
One play to consider here was to raise on the turn. If you did not fill up then you can check behind any check-raise attempt on the river but bet when you fill.
D.
I think you have to assume that the solid player flopped the nuts or a set when he puts the 3rd raise in. In addition, being a solid player, he would have raised preflop with KK so he can have QJ, 10 10 or 99.
When the board pairs 10's on the end, you don't have to worry about a set of 10's. In addition, the next two players don't raise him so they don't have K 10. You have to have the nuts at that point - raise it.
Hey - you did OK, missed a bet on the river but what the heck - hey.
Don't be so scared of the nuts you can never lay down a full house PERIOD. Got to play it out like the winner it is - the few times you will lose to a bigger full house won't be anywhere near the times your correect. Bet 'em like you got 'em.
Where did you say you played again? Deal me in, dealer. Seriously, you don't have any business calling with that type of hand unless you want to give your money away, Santa Claus.
Do you mean that T9o is unplayable on the button with 8 callers already in the pot? Or, is this some sort of sarcasm?
M.
If you want to risk your money before the flop, play it however as soon as the flop comes, you are going to be faced with decisions as to whether to continue playing your T,9o through the river. This means more betting/calling on your part. How much money are we talking about now.
This type of hand is usually a loser hand. You might get lucky occasionally but in the long run, you will lose.
I agree with your just calling on the river having Tens full of Nines. From the betting and what you say in your narrative, you could lose to Tens full of Kings or Kings full of Tens. Keep in mind that when you raise, your are risking 2 bets to win one bet (ignoring the other players).
I have been forced to play 4-8 for the last 4 months(only limit in town). The lower limit game has forced me to play longer hours(as much as a 24 hour session), if I wish to make the income I am accustom to. Should I play less and be happy with smaller wins?
Question 2: A couple of players have told me that they always want to be on the left of me, because of my play.( is this a compliment?) I think that this gives me more of an advantage then them. My thinking, is I am able to force them not to call marginal hands that they may have called with in late position. Or should I be adjusting my seat to have them to the left of me?
GRR
I always want stronger players on my right and weaker ones on my left. So it is a compliment.
What town are you in? I'm sure there are biggergames that you just don't know about or one nearby... 24 hours is too long to play IMO.
It can be a compliment or not when they want to be to your left. Most players would also like to be to the left of a maniac to try and re-raise and get him heads up with position although this play often doesn't work in 4-8 because raises usually bring the lower limit players into the pot because of the win a big pot theme.
RUSS
I like solid players to my right, particularily those who raise from strength. I have better control over the players to my left. I like maniacs to my left because I know what they will do. Often they will do the betting for me and let me get big pots and lots of people tied in so they answer my raises when I have the nuts.
Yes I know that it is a compliment, what I am saying is,is it really that important to have position on other players.
I think it really depends on the texture of the game. In crazy low-limit games position reletive to the only other solid player may only make a difference in one hand in twenty, or thirty. In tight games in may become more important, I really wouldn't know. What I'm really loking for, in addition to the comments elsewhere in this post, is to have a tight, predictable player on my left hand (not you for instance), because I can make looser calls from the small blind and not have to worry about a BB raise.
In NLPL poker position is nearly as important as the quality of your hand in some cases more important as position will win you many hands. It is very important in limit games too.
I want suckers(with loads of cash) and maniacs on my right side. I want everybody else on my left. If some guy says he wants me on his right, it means he's probably a conservative, predictable player, and that's where I'll normally want him anyway, on my left; regardless of whether he meant the statement as a compliment or not. By the way, don't ever tell somebody the real reason you're making a seat change.
The other day, some maniac was about to sit down at our table on the left side of a conservative player. The consevative player said he wanted that open seat. The maniac decided he wanted to play at another table, so the conservatve player now had no reason to move. But all the fish at the table made a slightly big deal about him no longer wanting to move. The consevative player felt pressured to defend himself, so he did. After the explination, somebody called him a chicken $h_t rock, and people started taking pot shots at him for the rest of the session, figuring there's a good chance he'll drop his hand more often the rest of us, and they were right.
If he only would have made up some bull$h_t statement like,"I've decided to give this seat another chance" or whatever, then he could have gone on the way he had, without tipping off the sleeping fish.
1, your play is strong enough that even with next to no sleep you are still a heavy favorite in your low-limit game (not many can play 30hrs, sleep five, then get up and whump the table for $1400 before you finally decide to call it a session). 2, I want you on my right, always, because that gives me a positional advantage over the strongest player at the table, you. Because you use proper strategy for a weak low-limit game (no slow play), I don't fear the check-raise and can play my hand using your bets for leverage when the situation warrants.
Having one of the raise-mad coconuts on my left isn't nearly as dangerous as finding you on my left. With a coconut to the left, I can bet a medium strong hand and have him raise for me, often with a weaker hand, forcing everyone else to call two bets cold. If you are on my left, I'm not nearly as confident betting and seeing you raise behind me. I want to be the one raising you. Best case scenario, you bet, I raise, and coconut re-raises with his gut-shot draw.
Now I have a question for you; After 20 hrs. I'm already up four times my minimum weekly number. Do I keep playing? Or take the rest of the week off? So, see you tomorrow morning, or next Tuesday? spitball
P.S. scroll down to my question about calling a draw on the turn. Louis L. and Dan Hanson are two of the brightest posters in the group. Hanson is Canadian as is SKP, another very intelligent poster. He plays in the 10-20, downtown Vancouver and has had two essays posted in the guest essay section of twoplustwo.
The player in me suggests a break and a nice dine out with the family(more money on the table). The friend in me, suggests that you are at the table Saturday night so I can talk more about the game and buy a Eggnog for you.
raincheck. I'll be buying the family dinner in Seattle this weekend. see you Tuesday, spitball
24 hours! I respect your stamina G.R.R.
After you play, how long is it before you return to the same casino to play? I need that information to make a point. And is it a farely regular routine you're on? By that is I mean; you play from, lets say, 1pm monday to 1pm the next day, then go home and come back at 11pm the same day(tuesday), play 24 hours then come back 10 hours later to start it all over again.
pdk
I will determine my playing time with the line-up of players/money on the table. I have a $300.00 to $600.00 income per session. (read spitballs comments) I have returned to the game as early as 1-3am that day. Yes the routine is regular, once a week.I change my play every 3hours to mix up the other players.Only twice have I taken a loss in these sessions. Both times they where for less then $100.00.The opinions I am looking for are: do I continue my playing at this place/or do I go out of town once a month play the same hours per session(12 + hours) and make the same income on a monthly basis, but play less. My play can be adjusted to suit almost any table stakes ( I think anyways).I hope this is the information you are looking for. I look forward to hearing from you soon
GRR,
I really can't make heads or tails of your schedule. Besides, the point I was going to try and make doesn't apply, since you are smart enough to vary your playing time in relation to the line-up of players.
Just curious, how far would you have to travel to play once a month at a higher limit?
pdk
Vancouver Island to Vancoucer, BC CANADA, not a long trip, but one that takes the right planning and timing
I'm in Sothern Cal., somebody told me they thought it was about 20 miles or so from Vancouver Island to Vancouver. If that's accurate, I'd make the drive every time I played, especially if it meant not having to play marathon sessions.
Regards, pdk
Island means I have to take a ferry. $50.00/$100 for a hotel. And when I want to go I would like to play for 3 day. You are absolutly right though. I have though about it a lot, my game is 10/20. But the action at this 4/8 is a dream. I have decided to do some traveling to Seattle in the new year with spitball. Thank you for your comments regarding this topic!!
The other day I am playing 4-8 we have 4 rocks on the table, 4 loose guns and myself( don't know what my catagory is) one of the loosest guns leaves his money and leave for an hour.( he is on tilt and stuck big, christmas is early) 1 hour 15 minutes go by, the table wants his chips lifted, next contestant please. The next to play is a rock. his chips never get involved. The house said it is up to the table(everyone must agree). I speak up and said that waiting is to our advantage and insisted on waiting longer. They wanted to know why I want to wait longer. I don't tell them ( why educate the competion). After 5 mintues of this I say I don't care anymore and majority can decide. Should I have stuck to my first decision?
Loose guy should be picked up after 20 min.
Players are not the determining factor here there is a board and they deserve some consideration.
I've been in this situation. Encourage the floor to call back the other player if they have a PA. You can tell the other players that so-and-so is an action player but the next guy on the list is just an ol' rock. If you are worried that people at the table might tell the next guy (and you really shouldn't care) then just mention that so-and-so is an action player. Most people will be able to draw the right conclusion from there.
a, If there is a board, those players waiting to get in have priority. b, Most of the players waitng to get into your game are fish anyway so it really shouldn't matter...unless the the player waiting to get in is Ed C. Rock.
The house should have a strong policy and it shouldn't be left to the players.
A loose cannon away for over an hour may very well no longer be a loose cannon when he gets back; and may very well go away again for another hour. He's gone to cool off or get distracted and it often works. Unless you've seen this player come back and still be a cannon then I would guess a random player is a better choice.
Alianating the table is not in your interest; cannon's don't "like" to gamble when they are a little peaved. Good choice not telling them why. If you DO want to argue do the honorable thing and lie; perhaps this is your friend or he's only been gone for 40 minutes.
- Louie
I found "I don't know what my catagory is" to be most disturbing. IF you REALLY don't know how you play then you are in serious trouble.
How about splitting the Hold'em Forum in two; i.e. Low Limit (< 10-20) & High (& Big Bet) Limit (>= 10-20; PL, NL)?
I realize 10-20 is low limit for some people.
I apologize if this has been discussed before and/or if this was the wrong forum to post this on.
Personally, I think this would be a mistake. Although I rarely play above $5-$10 I get a lot out of reading the analyses of 20-40 and 40-80. Plus, I want people like Jim Brier, Rick, David Steele, scott, Scott Horton, Moron, Rounder, Vince and the authors to read my posts and steer me in the right direction. To make it more difficult to navigate the forum would only serve to limit the exposure.
$5-10$ loose passive I'm in middle position with A8s. 2 limpers, I limp, button raises. 7 see the flop for 2 bets.
AcKd8s. My suit is diamonds. All check to me I go for check raise. BUTTON CHECKS.
Turn is 7c. I figure button is on a monster. a set or maybe AK. I bet. player to my left raises. Button reraises. I fold Comments
might he not play QJc etc. that way? would he play AA, KK, AK, or 88 that way? i don't know this guy, but the broadway draw there he should have bet his set or his top two pair on the flop. i think he may have two clubs. but if this guy does not raise liberally on the button, most of his hands beat you.
assuming he is slowplaying. there is one AA. there is 6 KK and 6 AK and 4 88. you are dead to AA and have 2 outs to KK, AK, and 88. you have 7-1 immediate odds. so if you put him on a slowplay with more than about 28% certainty it is a good fold.
also, he might have 77. you have 4 outs against that. you know better than i do whether he would have bet the flop with T9c or something, just cause he raised preflop. he very well might raise them on the turn. but i think that you give him a monster more than 30%, so you fold. well played.
scott
"assuming he is slowplaying. there is one AA. there is 6 KK and 6 AK and 4 88. you are dead to AA and have 2 outs to KK, AK, and 88. you have 7-1 immediate odds. so if you put him on a slowplay with more than about 28% certainty it is a good fold. "
aren't there 3 KK, and 1 88 ? I'm not sure how you calculated the odds here, so i don't know if that affects them, tho i imagine it should.
you are correct, sir. it makes your odds worse. because the chances that you're drawing dead, giving he is sloplaying, increases. still a good fold.
scott
Not well played, IMNSHO. What's up with the check raise on the flop? Better to bet so that he can raise and knock out gutshots, etc.
However, the real problem is on the turn. You assess the button's hand as a "monster", yet you bet when you figure you have much the worst of it. Perhaps you thought that there was some chance he had a middle pair like QQ, but just didn't say it in your post.
Sorry if this sounds surlier than usual, but it's 3:45 am and I can't get back to sleep.
Eric
I guess he came to the monster conclusion after the button made it three bets on the turn.
Check raising on the flop is not that horrible although I too prefer betting out here with this flop.
D.
There is not much chance here that you have the best hand. If you are behind you have two outs with a slight possibility of 4 outs. Even if you felt the button might have a monster a bet is still correct on the turn. You played the hand correctly IMO.
Vince.
Sammy I think you may be looking at inferior hands here. AQ, AJ for button and maybe K8 is the button tricky? Tough call I might dump here but I am loath to dump two pair with out more heat than you have experienced here.
What happened?
Roundie, I'm surprised at you. Aren't you the one who hates playing catch-up? The fact that Sammy realized he was a dog with his two pair and had the balls to fold them impressed me. It was a good fold and he should be commended.
If you had taken issue with his (failed) check-raise on the flop, I wouldn't argue. Sammy, from your description, it sounds like there was one limper between you and the button, plus the blinds and two early position limpers. Considering the large field and the flush and straight draws, your goal on the flop should have been to knock people out. Check-raising the button most likely only knocks out the one player between you two. If you bet out and he raises you force all the early positions to call a double bet.
The seat to the left of me held QcJc. River was Td. Button complained how his bullets had been cracked three times that day.
I was glad to be out of there.
Interesting hand. I do not like your attempt at a check-raise on the flop. You have two pair, a lot of opponents, and a big pot. I would bet the flop and see what happens. You might get raised in which case you should re-raise. When it is checked around, I am very suspicious of what the button raised with pre-flop. A legitimate pre-flop raiser should like this flop containing both an Ace and a King unless he raised on pocket Queens, Jacks, or Tens. In addition, some players will throw in frivolous "button raises" when a lot of opponents limp in holding just suited connectors or medium and small pocket pairs. Bottom line is that the flop either missed him completely or he flopped a monster like a set of Aces or Kings. It just depends on what you know about the button.
On the turn, I think you made a very difficult but correct fold when raised and re-raised.
Is the button a good player? If so, it is highly unlikely that he flopped a monster. It would be insane to check if he flopped a set or AK. His preflop raise has made this a sizable flop. Guys are going to call him with 22 to try and spike a set because of the size of the pot. I see from your later post that button did have AA - he played horribly on the flop (even if it would have made no difference to the result had he bet).
I agree with the others that you may want to try and bet the flop here. The turn fold is a good one given that there were 2 raises. If there was only one raise (even if it was by the button), I would at least call and may even reraise if the guy between me and the button had called the original bet.
Loose 3-6 game. A fair amount of preflop raising, tighter after players see the flop. I'm in late position with the button to my left, holding 7s8s. 6 of us see the flop for one bet. Flop is 6s6h3s. Blinds bet out, next 2 fold, I raise, button reraises, SB caps, BB calls. 2 raises to me, I fold. Button calls raises. Turn is Ts. SB bet, BB and button call. River is Jd. SB bet, BB bets, button folds. The blinds are holding 6x, no pair on the x. They split the pot with JT666.
Was I right in folding looking at 2 raises? Granted there was a lot of money in the pot, and I have a four-flush, with runner-runner straight possiblities, even straight flush if everything goes my way. Still, I figure it's a given someone has trips, and quite possibly a bigger flush draw than me. I can improve, but so could they and pound me.
As always, I seek wisdom.
When you raise on the flop what was your plan? Were you expecting better hands to fold (they won't)? Were you raising for value? I see no good from this raise unless you're guaranteed the free card and that's far from certain with a paired flop. Call next time and see what happens.
I don't think you'll go broke making this fold, since like any good player, you recognized the possibility that you may have been drawing dead.
I'm not as critical of your raise on the flop. You were using your outs and trying to represent the 6 if no one else had one. Unfortunately, 2 players did and it's tough to continue a draw with a paired board. When you got raised and re-raised, you obviously were up against a 6 and/or a bigger draw. Now I think it's a matter of combining the texture of the flop and knowing your players.
The fact that there are 2 blinds in for no pre-flop raise, makes a 6,3 more plausible, though still unlikely. Also, notice that if someone did flop a full, they most likely would not play it quite so fast. So I would have reasoned there was a reasonable chance that I still had a live draw to a full house. So far.... Could you be up against a bigger spade draw? Sure! But when it got back to you, you were getting about 8:1 with no chance of a re-raise behind you. Enough (in my opinion) to look at the turn. Now if you don't get there, you have to be VERY carefull! That's the problem with playing mid-suited connectors. You may flop a draw(s) which might not be good and it can get very tricky to know when to continue. I don't think your fold was that big of a mistake.
Well scott - you got the flop you need with suited coupled cards. You are always going to worry about a bigger flush when you get in with middle connected cards.
You had to see the turn and play it out if you lose you lose - it would be bad if an s came on the river too.
Remember where you are playing 3-6 guys play trips strongly and will rarely raise or reraise on a flush draw.
specs is not me. i am not sure why you address your comments to me. anyway, i agree that he should have called.
scott
If you are going to play flush cards like 7-8 suited, then you are playing for just that... a flush. Nobody plays 7-8 hoping to get a pair of 8's with a 7 kicker. Once the flush draw hit, I believe you had a 33% chance of hitting the flush. If you were worried about the bigger flush so much, you should not have played an 8 high flush draw to begin with. With that size pot, with DEFINATE POT ODDS.....You call at least to the turn!
Your post has odd things in it.
e.g. "SB bet, BB bets" how do they both bet?
This fold was insane. You are planning on beating the possible trips with a flush.
I think the raise you made was not great given the board already being paired and your lowish flush draw but you can't fold. You will be getting about 11 to 1 in the pot for your call and you are about 2 to 1 to make your flush by the river, you can afford to lose to some full houses occasionally with these odds.
D.
I think your pre-flop limp from the cutoff is okay with Eight-Seven suited given that the pot is unraised and you are getting good multi-way action.
Your raise on the flop is very bad because there is an open pair on board and you are being bet into from a large field with a player yet to act. In addition, your flush draw is not to the nuts. I would just call and try to take off a card as cheaply as possible. When it is re-raised and capped back to you, someone has at least trip Sixes. You are either drawing dead (ignoring the perfect-perfect straight flush possibility), or drawing for cards that also give someone a full house or a bigger flush, or you may hit a Spade on the turn only to get redrawn at the river with a fourth Spade or a river card that gives someone a full house. At best you have 9 outs with any Spade but there are at least two Spades that give one of the guys with trip Sixes a full house so at best you have 7 outs. Seven outs from about 47 unseen cards or about 6:1 against you. At this point there is $57 in the pot ($18 put in pre-flop plus another $39 on the flop so far) and it costs you another $6 to take off card. Is this enough of an overlay to merit continuing? I don't think so because of the hazards discussed above and the fact that you could be well on your way to losing a couple of more big double bets on the turn and/or the river. I think you made a tough but correct fold.
Thanks to everyone for the responses so far. They've been very helpful. The reason I raised was that within the last ten mintues, I had won a couple of good pots , and was getting some respect for my raises. I was trying to show trips, or a draw to a high flush, and perhaps draw a free card on the turn. If the flush hits and it is checked to me, rather than take the free card, I plan to bet out, and hope they'll drop seeing three spades on the board and figure me for a big flush. I don't know if this was good thinking or not. However, I am glad I got out when I did. I also figure the button for a single high spade (which doesn't explain his raise, and call of the cap--execpt he was fishing for runner-runner flush, but does explain his fold on the river). Rounder, you make a good point about low-limit players betting trips more aggressively than a flush draw. It makes sense and I had never thought of it before. David, you're right--the correct wording should be "SB bets, BB calls."
This one came up about two weeks ago.
I'm third from the button and it's mucked to me. I raise with pocket 7's, and all fold to the sb who calls. The bb, a good, solid player also calls.
Flop. As Kh 7d. sb checks, bb checks, I bet. sb mucks, bb check raises. I call.
Turn. 3s. BB bets, I call.
River. 4s. BB checks, I bet.
Comments/ searing criticisms welcome.
Are you looking for someone to criticize your not raising the turn? Depends on what your reasons were.
If you just called because you were afraid of being re-raised, I think that's kinda weak. But if you just called because you thought he may have had Ax and was likely to have folded for a raise (costing you a BB on the end) I don't think that's a bad play considering it was heads up.
So did he call your bet on the river GD? I can't stand the suspense, even if you think it's irrelevant to why you posted in the first place.
By the way, I think you're right, when you say there was a good chance of him dropping on the turn if you had raised.
-CB
Raising the turn in this situation is the correct play. You made a mistake.
Vince.
What hand could he have that could absorb a raise on the turn, but still be inferior to mine? He's going to muck ace weak kicker on the turn if I raise, since I've basically mimicked a slow play by waiting for the turn to pop it.
AK, AQ, AJ AT, depends what hand would he pre flop raise with - what hand would he check raise with I can't see him with AA or Kk can you?
If he has AA or KK, too bad -- you take your licks and move on. Much more likely he has AJ, AQ or if you are lucky, AK (I bet he had AK). I think you missed at least one and maybe two big bets.
if he had AK, he'd bet on the river. he didn't have AK...he either had A baby (which means he would've folded against a raise on the turn), or A picture - which means he would have called. so i think calling versus raising on the turn has the same expectancy.
Yeah right, if you happen to know he is going to check the river while you are considering the turn. Expectency is not based on information you get after you make the decision.
Raise the turn.
D.
Bad reading comprehension by me -- I read it as bet, call on the river (not check, bet). That changes my analysis of what the BB had (you are right -- weakish ace). It does not change my analysis of the turn. Easy raise.
Well, if you were pretty sure he had had an ace you should have reraised him on the flop to increase the chance he'd pay you off all the way.
What hand is he going to have that he will check raise an AK board on the flop?
PRC
GD,
You are making the number one analsis mistake. You are analyzing the hand based on the results. If I recall there was a flush draw on the turn. If he had a flush draw he would call a raise. Then again who knows what hands this person would call a raise with. He might (mistakingly) call with pocked 8's because he figures the pot is big enough. It is not the point. The point is that you missed an opportunity to raise. What is the difference if he doesn't call your reais or doesn't call a bet on the river if you don't raise. You are more likely to get a call with a card to come by an inferior hand than with no cards to come. Also by not raising you are in effect giving this player a free card in which he may just catch a miracle card. not a good idea.
Vince
While I agree with the overall message of your post, I am certain that GD did not put his opponent on a flush draw. BB checkraised the flop which had 3 suits. This is a contra-indication to bb now having picked up a flush draw on the turn. I am certain that if GD had put bb on a flush draw, he would pop him for sure.
Very true. And no, Vince, I'm analysing the hand based on the results. In fact, I have no idea where you got that idea from. Here's the thing; when I'm checkraised, I put the BB on one of two hands. A) nothing, or B) a weak ace. Neither of these hands can beat me, and neither can withstand a raise on the turn AFTER I've raised before the flop and just called a checkraise on the flop after big cards hit. By raising the turn, I've essentially mimicked a slowplay. Everyone knows that, and as a result won't pay me off. If the BB was a fish, then yeah, I'd have either re-popped the flop or raised the turn. But, given the board, I DON'T WANT THE BB TO LAY HIS HAND DOWN. And he'll basically have to if I raise on the turn. While we're discussing errors in analysis, I might as well point out one of yours. Namely, not taking into account the RELATIVE value of a flopped hand. In this particular situation my set of sevens is roughly as strong as an AQ or maybe an AJ. True, the set is harder to run down than either of these hands, but in either case the BB has at best three outs. As long as I have him outkicked on the A (or have something better) his hand is virtually dead. Don't get me wrong; I'm not convinced that I played the hand correctly. But I think that one mistake that many players make is not taking into account the hand's relative value, and that was really the entire point of this thread. Most people (I think, again I could be wrong) think to themselves 'well, I flopped a set, so I need to play this hand strong than I would top pair second nut kicker'. But in a heads up pot, one hand can be almost as strong as the other. The whole idea is to force your opponent into making mistakes. If he knew what I had (and he will at least be able to put me on a limited range of hands after I raise the turn), he'd fold for sure. But by just calling, I can likely extract another 40 or 80 bucks from him on the river.
I would figure I am on a winner here and maximize my profit here it is the kind of hand I live for (I have no life anyway). A set with an AK on the same flop - I am beginning to drool here - A reraise was in order with this set you should be leading and ending all betting until the end.
I figure him for AK or KQ. I would have raised the turn and take my chances.
i would crack him on the flop and hope he improves and check raises or bets out the turn or river. mono e mono you will almost always get called down so ur not going to lose him unless this guys a complete rock.
Assuming that an opponent will keep betting as long as you do not reveal your strength by a raise is a common poker error. In most situations, you are better off pulling the trigger no later than fourth street, rather than saving your big move for the river.
Bob,
Head for the hills, sklansky's out to get ya! Run! Run!
Hey Ciafffone,
AS one Italian to another it wasn't me! No! even though I post quite a bit here on two plus two I never got into the controversy about you. Well maybe once or twicw, three times but that's about all. No it was that Sky guy yeah Sklanssski or something like that. He thinks he knows everything. I mean he thinks he knows everything about poker. Well maybe not everything but surely more than you. He even went as far as to challenge you or any other supposed author to an Itellectual Poker Match. The noive of the guy. I told him to be careful what he asks for or he just migh get it. Now I noticed that you have posted here and it looks like a good warm up for the big match. I can just see it: "In this corner weighing 220 lbs (I heard that you were a little chunkier than you would like) the challenger, write of Pt Limit Poker, and aother books and a CP columnists Bob Ciaffone. In this corner weighing 150 lbs (he's a light weight) the writer of books such as TOP, etc, etc, (Sklansky is an excetra type) the Heavy Weight Poker Author of the world (2+2 Crowned him) David, the Analyst, Skalnsky" Rahhhh, Rahhh, Rahhh, Rah (The crowd got a little tired at the end). Let's get ready to Rumbbelle!
O>K. So what's the first round? Holdem? Stud? Theory? Math (Careful Sklansky thinks that's his forte)? What? You want them all? Malmuth, Skalnsky and Z. Hey I don't blame you they usually fall over one another trying to show whose the smartest. Little do they know that of the 2+2 folks Lynne Loomis is the smartest. She never posts here!
Waiting for round 1!
Vince.
A couple of observations. First, there is very little in poker that I disagree with David Sklansky about, and a debate would only foolishly magnify any differences that may exist. Second, it is not too swift an idea to mess with a guy on his home turf. Sorry to disappoint you.
Hey Ciaffone,
I disagree with Sklansky on a lot of things in poker. For instance he thinks that the EV of a hand is more important than the possibility of being eliminated in a NL tournament. I think he's wrong (dead wrong). (Hope I'm not misquoting him again, something he claims when I'm right and he is wrong). I'll fight him on his own turf anytime. Especially if he won't come to my house. But I don't think that's the case with you. I don't speak for Sklansky, though sometimes I could do a better job, but I will lay 2 to 1 that Sklansky will debate you on any poker subject at anytime on your Web Site. Maybe you could do it in both places. Let's get it on!
BTW - The very fact that you answered my post warrants a thank you and nullifies any disappointment I may experience if you two don't square off. Oh. Yeah! Sklansky says he will take on all comers. so invite Caro, Krieger, Cooke, West et al if you agree to a debate.
THANK YOU for the response!
Vince.
My play had nothing to do with hoping that he'd bet the river if I just called. Rather, I knew that he'd fold a weak ace on the turn if I raised (or, at least was fairly sure of it) since by raising on the turn I've completely mimicked a slowplay. And, I wanted to get a bet out of him on the river, since I knew he'd call if I bet (and maybe get two bets out of him if he lead bet the river).
The human tendency to maintain the deception of slowplaying gives this move a certain kind of negative intertia, so that any number of turn cards lead us to reflexively think: I can't bet now, it'll give my hand away and he'll muck. We go on autopilot.
Another problem is that solid players are more able to give up after the turn, especially when against another solid player.
In retrospect, I think the 3s on the turn was a perfect raising oppportunity because he can't think that it made your hand and might read you for a semi-bluff, in which case he might have repopped with nothing.
Just what would I have called with on the flop, then raised with on the turn, that wouldn't force a weak ace to throw his hand away?
Why are his holdings necessarily limited to (1) a weak ace, (2) a better hand than yours or (3) nothing?
If there's any reasonable chance (say 1/4 or better) that you'll fold a weak ace or pocket pair to his check raise on the flop, what should he be doing with KX or pocket pairs? Checking and calling? Obviously, he should be raising some of the time. And should he further assume that you don't suspect these plays?
Further, if he's got a king he'll correctly think he has at least a draw most of the time that you raise on the turn, and if he thinks you're capable of a move here, he should call with a pocket pair. Furthermore, if his "nothing" turned into a spade draw on the turn, you're making a big mistake by not raising.
More specifically, for your call instead of a raise on the turn to be correct, the probability of (1) him calling your river bet with a weak ace, or continuing a bluff by betting the river, must roughly exceed the probability that (2) he has a strong ace, any king, any flush draw or that he suspects that you are bluffing or semi-bluffing here and he can beat a bluff with something less.
The marginal value you're hoping to gain by waiting for the river just isn't there.
I don't recal EVER seeing someone slow play AA or KK against a late position raise but then NOT slow play a big set on the flop. The chances of you being beaton on the turn is very small. If the player will routinely fold for your reraise then you should be running all over him with any draw.
Now read the other posts.
- Louie
I'm not sure what your saying here. If your saying that he'd fold for a raise on the turn here with ace weak kicker then I should semi bluff him to death on the turn, well, yeah. I agree. But what about this particular hand?
My post reads better when the 3rd sentance of the 1st paragraph is its own paragraph.
If he's so easy to push around that you believe you are NOT such a favorite if called with your big favorite hand (and he doesn't have much chance to out draw you); well then I agree just call on the turn. This also increases your chances of gaining a bet on the river.
Such easy to push around players should be given the opportunity to fold often in other situations; raising with draws works well for this.
- Louie
Pre-flop: clear raise.
Flop: Clear bet. Firstly, you don't want to give a free shot to QJ, J10 and the like. Secondly, it looks too damn fishy when you check against just 2 opponents on a flop that has both an Ace and a King (after you raised preflop).
Now, sb folds and bb raises.
In hold 'em. most hands have to be played in a staright forward manner when you have a multiway pot. Where you can get creative is when you have a heads up situation. Here's a situation where you just about can't go wrong no matter what you do.
Firstly, what's the other guy got. It is a near cinch that you are ahead..and probably uncatchable. I suppose there is a small chance that bb has AK or A7 and you could lose if an Ace falls. But the combination of a lack of reraise preflop AND lack of a slowplay on the flop would tell me that bb doesn't have AK, AA or KK. Given that you have 77, it is highly unlikely that he has A7.
I put bb on a one pair hand. It could be an Ace, King or even a hand like 99 (which paradoxically would be a hand you don't want him to have).
So, how do you get the most $$ out of this fella. As I said before, you can get creative here and depending on the old "what do I think of him, what does he think of me" analysis, any of these plays can be the proper move:
- smoke it again on the flop
- smoke it on the turn
- do what you did
In most cases, I would smoke it on the turn. Your concern here for not raising on the turn appears to be that bb will put you on a BIG HAND and fold his Ax. In my experience, this is not the case. If he has Ax, the combination of the possibility of hitting his x card AND just plain old curiosity will have him pay you off more often than not. Besides, if he really is the type that would fold an Ax here, imagine the fun you could have on later hands when you raise preflop with QJ and get an AK7 flop and blow him off the pot on the turn with a raise when a deuce hits.
The problem with waiting until the River to pull the trigger is that you often won't get a chance to raise as the dude may just check down on the river. Another problem is that some scare cards may appear that dissuade you from raising on the river even though you are still ahead. For example, suppose the turn card here was a 10. BB bets and you call. River card is a Jack. BB bets and you just call again even though he ends up having just A,10.
Compare it to this: turn card is 10. bb bets. You raise. He calls. River card is a Jack. He checks. Now, you probably will still bet here even though the board is just as scary as in the previous example.
First of all, I don't like you opening with a raise from middle position with pocket Sevens. I think it is a good play to open with a raise with pocket Sevens from the cutoff or the button but not from middle position. I would prefer pocket Nines for this move. Pocket Eights would be stretching things. Pocket Sevens is simply too weak. I would just limp in.
On the flop, I like your bet because with this flop you will get action. When check-raised in a heads-up situation, I like your smooth call as opposed to re-raising. If a third player was in the pot, I would re-raise on the flop with my botton set.
On the turn a raise is clear. You under played your hand on the flop somewhat by not re-raising and just smooth calling. Now is the time to lower the boom and raise. If the bettor has a big pair and a draw, he will pay to see the river and may even make a crying call on the river if he misses. You need to get your licks in while you can and not wait until the river.
Hmmm...I think he was third from the button. Generally, I don't believe that a limp with 77 is advisable there. IMO, mucking would be preferable. Limping might be all right if you think that the 2 guys to your left will just call and then the blinds call. However, in the tougher 20-40 games, what will usually happen is that the 2 guys to your left fold leaving you up against the blinds who get a free play or one chap to your left raises leaving you heads-up with him. I don't like either situation.
I don't like investing 2 bets to see a flop with pocket Sevens when there is almost half the table yet to be heard from. On the other hand, I would limp in if someone else had limped in ahead of me. The fact that no one limps in ahead of me, doesn't make my hand worse so I still want to see a flop. I don't know what the cutoff, button, or blinds will or might do. But this is no different than limping in behind someone else and worrying about a possible raise behind you. I have an interest in the hand so I don't want to fold. My hand is not strong enough to raise so I call.
But if you limp after someone limps, it's tough for the cut-off or button seat to steal raise. He can do this much easier if you are the first to limp.
Someone's limp followed by your limp can lead to a calling frenzy which is something you want to see with 77. You likely will not get that calling frenzy if you are the first to limp this late. If limping leaves you alone with the blinds, you are really in the dark as to what the hell they have. If the flop is something like 10,8,3, you will have no idea where you stand. If checked to, you will likely put in a probe bet anyway so why not make a probe raise preflop?
BTW, if I am in a game where the fellas to my left are passive calling stations, then I would limp in with 77. However, I am assuming that the 20-40 game that GD was in was probably not populated with passive calling staions.
Also, when someone has limped in ahead of you, there is now no chance to steal the blinds. That chance adds value to your raise when no one has come in ahead of you.
But the cutoff or button cannot steal raise after I limp in. I will call a raise back to me. So would any other player. They know this so they will be raising with a good hand normally not just any Ace or King type hand since they know they will get called.
With regard to the blinds and a flop of Ten, Eight, Three. I agree that I will make a probe bet here when checked to. The reason I don't make a "probe raise" pre-flop is because I could get re-raised by one of the four players behind me. Once the flop comes, I have a much better feel for where I stand especially when the other players fold giving me position over the blinds. I see these as two totally different situations.
But in $20-$40 games players don't raise on garbage after someone else has limped in from early or middle position. Tough players tend to raise on good hands after someone else has voluntarily entered the pot even from middle position.
If Jim Brier limps ahead of me and I am in the cut-off or button seats, I am apt to raise with a wide array of hands including KJ,AJ,A10,98s etc. I pick these hands because these are also the hands that I would fold with on the button if Jim Brier comes in with a raise instead of a call.
If Joe schmo limps and then Jim Brier limps, I will likely just call on the button with KJ,AJ,A10,98s etc.
Thus, I do see a big diffrence between being the first to limp with 77 and being the second to limp with it. I also agree with Feeney's point.
But skp, it is not just you and I in the pot. We have got other players in the hand. Hands like K-J offsuit, A-Ten offsuit, and Nine-Eight suited are not worth spending two bets to see a flop in this situation when you have no chance whatsoever of winning the pot outright. I will be taking the flop and so may others especially the blinds who are already partially in. What happens when you get re-raised by someone with a real hand? Now you are paying 3 bets to take a flop. You are putting yourself in a position of dumping a lot of dough into a small pot with a small number of opponents on marginal hands.
> I don't like investing two bets to see a flop with pocket sevens
I think the idea is that by investing two bets you won't *have to see the flop.
In the games I play in, it would usually be correct to open-raise with 77 from that position, because you would win the blinds at least 1/4 of the time. That added equity more than compensates for the raise.
I routinely raise when I'm first in with pocket 7's, and have found it to be, on balance, a profitable play (of course, this could largely be a function of the kinds of players I play against). Also, there is no draw for him to have in conjunction with a big pair. I'm fairly sure that he'd have mucked a weak ace, and I can't imagine what else he'd have when he lead bet the turn, so why raise?
GD since you raised pre-flop and then bet the flop when both an Ace and a King show up, you have represented at least Aces at this point and maybe more. The big blind check-raises you and then leads into you on the turn. It looks like the big blind has a hand that he will at least call your raise with. He might have big slick or picked up two pair on the turn or a flush draw on the turn coupled with a pair of Kings etc. I think in most cases your assessment is correct in that he may just have a weak Ace. But there will be times when he will have something more and you miss some extra bets by not raising on the turn.
Without having seen the other messages, I'm guessing that you thought he checkraised you because you were betting last, and therefore he thought you were weak and was trying to knock you out of the pot, without having much himself.
If that was your reasoning, then a flat call on the turn is a good play. You're actually hoping that he improves on the river (other than hitting a gutshot for broadway), because you might get some action out of him. If he doesn't, he may try bluffing you. If you are right on your 'read', then a raise on the turn protects you against a gutshot for broadway, at the expense of losing you 1-3 big bets. Bad tradeoff with a pot this size.
I'm not sure what he had, but I figured that his holding wouldn't be able to withstand a raise on the turn, yet was probably strong enough to get a call out of him on the river (or, better yet, a lead bet, in which case I can raise then).
After reading all your posts (and I want to thank everyone who helped me with this hand), I'm not sure if I presented the problem correctly. While I am interested in how I should play this particular hand, I guess what I was trying to initiate was a conversation on relative hand values; i.e., how a hand is valued in a particular situation. As I mentioned earlier in a post to Vince, I'm not convinced that it would be incorrect to play Ace big kicker the exact same way. Which is interesting, since we (myself certainly included) tend to think of top pair big kicker as being significantly weaker than a set. Which is true, overall, and certainly true in multiway pots. But, since this pot was being contested heads up, I wonder if a flop like 2d 3h 6s wouldn't be just as profitable for pocket 7's (or perhaps more so) than the wonder flop I received. In other words, when determining the strength of a hand, it seems to me that one needs to not only gauge the absolute strenght of one's hand, but also how the flop was received by your opponent AND how your opponent thinks you like the flop. When all of this is factored together, there is a possibility (and I'm not convinced of this, which I why I bring it up) that there are a number of hands that have roughly the same value. And that, in a nutshell, is my concern. Are there situations where any number of hands, regardless of their absolute strength, have basically the same betting value? And if so, is this one of them?
No, you are much better off with the set. The reason is because you are so much less likely to lose a stack of red having a set than an over pair. It is not a case of how much you win when you win (set vs over pair in heads-up). Rather it is how likely am I to lose coupled with how much do I lose when I lose. The probability of you losing is so small when you have a set compared to just an over pair in a heads up situation that there is really no comparison between these two.
A post in another thread got me thinking. I have played in the casinos (Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods) in about 15 two to three hour sessions at $3-6 hold'em. I know this is a small sample, but hear me out. Once I lost 20 BB, once I won 15 BB, but all the other times I leave the table 2-4 BB up or down.
As I am getting ready to leave, I look at the remaining stacks and see nobody is ever up a good amount, depite the fact the several players always tap out during the session and leave. Where did all the chips go?!? I now realize the power of the rake, the player that never loses. 40 hands per hour x $3 rake X $1 toke = about 27 BB an hour that leave the table no matter how good I play or if I got pocket Aces every hand.
I would love to move up to the bigger games because A.Winning 15 or 20 BB means a lot more in real $ in a $10-20 than it does in $3-6 and, B.I have heard (correctly?) that the rake is proportionlly smaller in the bigger games, so this invinceble player is not as strong.
I have bought/read/studied dozens of books, read this forum often, seen the videos, etc. Talking with friends who are succesful at $20-$40 they all say I would do just fine at a higher limit with my knowledge and style of play. My two questions are this:
A.Is the fact that I only win 2-4 BB on average each session an indicator that the rake is just killing my otherwise descent hourly rate and I should bite the bullet and move up to $5-$10 ? Or am I not ready yet?
B. What is the standard % a rake should be for the Lower Limits? At what point does it switch to paying time? What are these values normally?
You are perhaps the millionth person to make this revelation about the "invincible player". It changes your whole perspective, eh? Kinda like realizing Santa could not possibly visit a billion house-holds in one night ...
2-3 hour sessions and 2-4BB/sessions is about 1.2BB/hour rate; pretty good. Your sample size is way too small for you to make confident decisions based on it.
Your reasonably consistent 2-4BB/session is very suspisious and unless you play squeaky tight indicates your results are abnormally distributed. If so, these results do little to help anticipate future results.
Yes, rake is proportionally smaller in larger games. But the competition is even more proportionally stronger (there are exceptions) so you should EXPECT your BB/Hour rate to always drop as you move up. 1.2BB/hour in $3/6 is $7.2/hour. If you make "only" .9BB/hour at the $5/10 you make $9/hour; which is better.
Your friends' opinions weigh a lot. But you must also consider the confidence with which you beat the games you are in. If you often do not know what to do and often really have no idea what the opponents have then you are probably not ready to move up. You must be making "good" plays often; not just solid "rote" plays.
Move up by taking selective shots at the higher games. After a few months you'll be taking selective shots at your FORMER game, only when the higher games aren't so good.
- Louie
I normally sit down with $200 in the $3-6. Would $350-$400 be a good (required?) session bankroll for $5-10? Is it corect to assume that as the games get bigger, the variance drops, so your session bankroll can be smaller proportionally?
No, as the games get bigger your hourly standard deviation gets larger not smaller and you need a larger bankroll. See Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" for a complete discussion on this important topic.
Since your BB/Hour win rate will drop as you move up you will need a larger proportional bankroll to "insure" "never" going broke.
But I think your actual question is "Will my hourly BB standard deviation go up or down?". While you will encounter less callers and therefore less draw outs which SHOULD reduce your SD, you will also encounter a lot more marginal bets and raises which SHOULD increase it; I believe not as much as lowering it.
If Poker is your only form of income and busted is a disaster (get a JOB!???!) then you will need a proportionally LARGER bankroll as you move up.
I seem to have a minority opinion that your SESSION bankroll is much more a function of your psycological ability to sustain a loss without crashing your car or pawning your ring; then some correct theoretical formula. If a $600 loss in a day is a "disaster" to YOU then take only $500. One possible quantitative measure of "disaster" may be "How much of a loss will cause me so much disgust that I will skip my next 3 regular sessions?".
Having said that, I recommend you set another maximum of about 40-50 times a BB as a session bankroll; figuring if you lost that much there is an excellent chance you are way off tilt, getting cheated, or whatever. If you lose $500 in a $5/10 something is PROBABLY very wrong today. If you are particularly selective set a lower level; perhaps 30x.
- Louie
I agree with Louie, especially if you have a some money to play with. You should take some shots at 5-10 or 6-12 and slowly get confortable with those games.
I would weight more heavliy your perception that you see a lot of weak play in the games you are in then any results you have over this short term. Also count in your favor if you frequently agree with the advise of the hand analysis by the forum experts ( Louie, Skp, Dan, Rick, and the ones I accidently left off this list ).
D.
Don't think about it do it. If you don't like it you can always come back nobody's going to throw you out. It will improve your game which your probably on the way to destroying playing runner runner with the rest of the crowd to offset the ante's.
paul
Moving up is not as hard as it seems(from 1 lower level game to the next) The players do get a bit better but at each level there are still are some fish. $300.00 is a good start and take a shot when you have the right mind set going. Play Tight/Aggressive and get a feel for the table, the way others are betting. After about a hour or a win or two you will fit right in. If you feel *way* out of place get up and leave. Most new situations are difficult at first but after a while you will feel right at home.
Best of it !!
MJ
P.S. I am in the same position trying to get to the 20-40 table. In 2000 I will...
I doubt that you see 40 hands per hour in a $3-$6 game. With many pots multi-way and going to the river, you will be lucky to average 30 hands per hour (i.e.- one hand every two minutes). This would be more like $120 per hour or 20 BB coming off the table. Actually it is less than this because not all pots get fully raked especially when players chop the blinds. In addition, some players don't tip if the pot is small. A $3 rake is a low rake for this game. In Lake Charles, it is a $5 rake. Elsewhere in Louisiana it is a $4 rake. In Mississippi it is a $3 rake. Some of these places have Jackpots which takes another $1 per hand off the table.
I think you need to put in 200-300 hours at this limit before moving up but going from $3-$6 to $5-$10 is not too huge so you can try it and see how it feels.
Jim,
If I remember correctly, you played quite a while at 3-6 before moving up to the higher limits. I think it would be helpful if you could recount your experiences at that level, and what factors decided it was time to move up.
Did you feel the rake was prohibitive? How was your hourly win rate, and how did it fluctuate? Did you move up when your bank roll was enough for the higher game or because your skill level was better? How did your hourly rate change when you moved up?
I'm at the 3-6 level now, and am wondering when I should move up, and I think you would have some good insights.
PRC
I had played $1-$5 and $2-$10 spread limit stud for two years before playing hold-em. These games had a $5 rake. I won about 10 grand over 1000 hours of play. I believe the book, "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players" by Zee, Sklansky, and Malmuth was critical for me here even though it was designed for a $15-$30 stud game. In my opinion, Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players is simply the greatest poker book ever written. It is an excellent guide to beating stud games. I switched to hold-em because stud is not played much here on the gulf coast.
I started playing $3-$6 and $6-$12 hold-em about two years ago. I read Lee Jones and Lou Krieger. In my first 100 hours, I lost about $1000. I started writing down hands and sharing them with friends to find out why I was losing. My mistakes were playing in raised pots with suited connectors because I thought they played well as long as I had a lot of opponents. Similarily with small and medium pairs. I also was not betting my goods hands aggressively enough. Once I got this corrected, I played another 500 hours of $3-$6 and won about $3000. Now I had a total playing bankroll of about $12,000. I moved up to the $6-$12 game. I only played about 200 hours of $6-$12 and I won just under $1900. The $6-$12 game died out and I switched to $10-$20. I also started watching the $20-$40 game in Shreveport and was amazed to see all the mistakes that were being made. Since February 1998 I have played exclusively $10-$20, $15-$30, and $20-$40 hold-em with occasional plays in the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio. I have played about 2000 hours and won about $35,000. Over this time period, I wrote down many hands and got comments on my play from some very good players I know. I found this to be the surest way of improving my game.
nt
At my local card club, there are 2 20/40 games, both fairly soft...and a 40/80 game starts. I move over. So do the 8 other very solid players. Needless to say, the game sucks. The 2nd 20/40 game is 7 handed.
There's a list of 4 on the 40/80 game....those 4 aren't so hot.
I decide to wait it out and hope some 40/80 players leave, giving room to the soft players. And giving up the chance to play 20/40 (it should fill up and have a list soon).
Opinions?
Seem like bottom of list of 40/80 best place while playing good 20/40.
3 players call and I check Q6s in the BB. Flop is Js7s2h. I bet, solid aggressive late position caller calls. I suspect a 4-flush. Turn is 4d. I bet, he calls, and now I "KNOW" he has a 4-flush. I plan to bet out the end no matter what ...
River is the 3s; making both of us a flush. He will bet if I check and raise if I bet and call a raise unless he has the A-flush. What should I do with my 3rd nut flush?
- Louie
Assuming there is a 30% chance (too low?) that he is holding the A or K, I would elect to check-raise if he raises you back (because he has the Ace). My math may be wrong, but I figure that check-raising has the same EV as calling his raise of your bet, and both have a higher EV than checking and calling (given the 30% assumption and the fact that his actions don't depend on what he is holding, except the A).
I wouldn’t presume to offer a player who is so much better than I am advice, but I have some discretionary time today that I thought I’d use in an effort to improve my poker. Please consider my answer in that spirit if anyone feels like tearing me a new one.
If this situation came up in a game I was playing in, I probably would have decided to just check and call on the river. That’s what I would have done. Would it have been correct? Let’s see, you strongly suspect your opponent has a flush. What are the cards that he might have? You said he was solid. Given the number of limpers, the cards on the board, the cards in your hand, and that he didn’t raise, I’d say he could have(all spades):
AT, A9, A8, A5, A4, A2
KT, K9
T9, T8, 98, 54
If the game was passive, he may also have called with:
K8, K7, K5, K4, K2
In the first scenario, I count eight hands that beat you and four you beat. In the second, I count thirteen that beat you. If you’re sure he has a flush, it seems to me that checking and calling is the right play.
Is it possible he could be playing a weak jack? In the games I play in, I would have to count it as a possibility. There are 21 ways he could have QJ or JT. If there was a good chance that he did have a jack, you may want to bet because he would likely call if you bet but just check behind you if you check.
You characterized him as solid and aggressive. Given that, he probably would have raised a pair of jacks on the flop; therefore, he likely doesn't have them.
If he will play any two spades, the probability that he does not have an ace or king is 6/8 times 5/7. This makes you a slight favorite. If you were furthermore absolutely positive that he would always raise your bet and furthermore absolutely positive that he would always call your reraise and furthermore absolutely positive that he we never reraise back without having you beaten, it is right to bet, reraise and fold if raised again. But in real life you should check and call.
Why do you think he would play any two spades?
If he has any 2 random spades there are 6choose2 = 15 hands worse than yours, 7 others are A high and 6 others are K high so I was a 15:13 favorite.
Adjust that with the fact that players are selective and more likely to PLAY the big suited hands (even though more likely to raise with them) and I appear to be a dog. Add to that the uncertainty of the fact that he HAS a flush ...
I checked-and-called since this player isn't going to play that many small suited hands.
Afterwards I rationalized that this player is more likely to bluff than call for value in the case I was wrong about him having a flush. More timid players I think I should have bet-and-called making up ground by getting paid off.
He was crude and sarcastic about my "good call" when he showed down his 8-flush; others at the table were a little surprised. So I looked like a bone-head which was good.
The point is the 3rd nut flush in holdem is an AVERAGE flush.
- Louie
Not all flush hands are equally likely. Given that the Queen and Jack of the suit are accounted for, then the only credible suited king he could have is KTs, and you're more likely to have seen a late position raise from that hand (or ATs) either before the flop, on the flop, or both. If he had AKs, he'd definitely raise in late position before and on the flop.
So either he's playing Axs, or he's got a hand like T9s, 67s, etc. And if he's got Axs, I think the odds are higher that he would raise on the flop with his nut flush draw and an overcard. So, I'd bet, and I'd call a raise if he raises.
Good points. Lets recap: QJ763 spades accounted for the opponent has two spades.
Notation: {hands he'd probably have raised with pre flop}, [hands he probably would have played like he did by calling], Hands that have me beat are {AK, AT} [A9, A8, A5, A4, A2, KT, K9] Looking at hands only in brackets []: So I'm a 7:4 dog if he would NOT raise with any A-flush draw on the flop, and am a 4:2 favorite if he would. I'm back to a 2:1 dog if he'd raise with a flush draw+gut shot with T9,T8,98. Lets not quibble over K9s.
So onto another point: Much more important than this sort of AR analysis (which I enjoy!) is whether my READ of the player was correct.
- Louie
After getting flamed here a couple of days ago( and rightfully so) for butchering an AQ hand, I dragged my sorry butt back to my usual 3-6HE game, charged up with testosterone. Getting called "effete" on the Internet has that effect on me. No limping around tonight, boys!
I've been in for about a half hour, nothing much happening. Game is usual loose passive affair. I pick up the red 10's UTG. Limp in because it seems like any raises are a red flag for these guys to call, rather than having the effect of driving anyone out. SB folds, but 7 of us take the flop, including the BB.
Flop comes down Tc-4c-3d. BB bets, I raise, guy to my immediate left cold calls, and everyone else folds. BB just calls. Turn is 7h. BB bets again(?). Only hand that beats me is 65 and I'm worried about a club draw to my left (this guy loves any suited hand) so I raise again. (Didn't you hear me the first time, pal?). LHO cold calls again, and BB calls.
River is an ugly Jc. BB bets for the THIRD time, and now I figure my goose is cooked. I mean, what can these guys have for this betting pattern, other than clubs, especially to my left. I make a crying call, and LHO raises. BB calls, and it's decision time. I will provide my final action, and the results after getting a few responses as to the action up to this point, and what would the group do at the end faced with this betting.
I make the crying call again since you can't be raised, but don't like it. You'll occasinally see a low-limit bozo turn over JT or J4 here and you'll go on tilt and make bad calls for the next five hours.
I'm not inlclined to "save" single bets on the river, as you only have to be wrong once to wipe out 20 sessions worth of "good" laydowns. And marginal calls have the added effect of deterring the more observant players from taking shots at you in the future.
Call the raise. LHO has JT, BB has either T4, T3, 43. Maybe AT, KT. Call
I would be heartened by the fact that BB didn't take the opportunity to check-raise the river, and didn't pop LHO back. LHO is the guy I would be worried about -- because his first raise came on the river.
However, the river is the first time since the flop that you didn't raise (because the third club fell). Hell, I think he saw a great opportunity to represent the flush in light of the weakness shown by both BB and you. I would put him on two pair Ts and 4s, but he might just have an overpair to the board.
Since you can't necessarily attribute his raise to a made flush because of the bluff opportunity, I would call with the set.
Release the hand, that is what I would have done! you are 3rd best with that flop!
Get out your tissues, cause its crying call time. Yes the clubs beat you and maybe one (or both of them has them) but you do want to avoid being run over in the game later on. If they both show down two pair say J's and 10's and maybe J's and 4's or something of that ilk, you do win a nice pot.
I don't see how any sane player is going to see this river with J4 unless they had a flush draw (in which case you're beaten on the end.) I suppose a set of 4's and 2-pair (J's and 10's) could be out there. I agree with the crying call unless I know the final raiser is a "nuts-only" type of player who would be incapable of making a sophisticated play that would cause me to fold a winner. Some such players would never take a stab at this pot with this board without a big flush. Against such players, a fold can safely be made.
Just from some experiences I've had, I've seen people play a hand like J4s or off and stay all the way to the river when they caught a piece of the flop. I play in 4-8 games and would not be surprised to see it happen in a 3-6 game.
You just have to love it when those types sit in your game. They may sting you at times, but you know you can get it back!
Thats quite true. I once saw a kid who had pocket 2's and the board four flushed on the river, and one of his 2's were of the right suit, and he took down a huge pot. Why he was calling raises in the first place was beyond me, and that his suited 2 held up was like a miracle. In subsequent games he has been a donator.
With BB's bet and your call on the river, LHO has to be raising with the goods. Unless he is either a certified moron or on super tilt, he has to know his raise is going to get called since the size of the pot alone means it is "insured". If you believe that BB is fairly solid, you might convince yourself that he has a hand you can beat. He believes his hand is strong enough to see a showdown with LHO. If LHO shows down anything other than a nut or second nut flush here, I'd be much surprised. I fold, saving the last bet and watch to see what LHO shows. If I made a mistake here and folded the winner, I like my chances of booking a win with these two in the game.
Well, John, I was thinking just like you. I huddled for at least 15 seconds, and a comment I made on the forum a couple of days ago popped into my head, 'Don't think so much, put in the money.' I threw in the final $6, just KNOWING I was looking at least 1 flush. Well, lo and behold....
BB shows down trip 4's. What's with his stop and go strategy on the flop? If he doesn't reraise then, he must have figured I was raising on a flush draw and he wanted to see the turn before betting again, I suppose. If that's the case, why is he now betting on the river when the flush comes? Go figure.
LHO comes down with J-T for two pair! I have no doubt in my mind this was no sort of "sophisticated play" designed to get one or both of us to lay down trips. He was raising for "value". I scorched him again about an hour later after we had both been moved to a different table (Must-Move system in place at this casino)when I bet out of the BB with trip 4's on a flop of 9h-4h-3d. The 9 pairs on the turn, I bet, get a couple of callers, he raises, I reraise, three callers, rag on the river, and they all pay me off. Our hero had Q-9. You were right about my liking my chances with players like this in the game: $190 win in just under 2 hours.
Anyway, thanks for the various insights into the decision on the river here. The next time I will probably be looking at the flush, but at least I have some in the bank after this one. I have to admit, though, I almost chucked the set.
Dunc,
Now that I know the results, I went back and tried to analyze what the heck your opponents were thinking. My conclusion: Your limp with TT really screwed 'em up. I think your post, whether you intended to or not, shows the benefits of varying one's play.
Because you didn't raise preflop these guys didn't think that you would have flopped top set. By raising the flop you aren't likely to be representing a flush draw, but maybe two pair or top pair with a good kicker. Your not raising the river definitely tells them that you didn't make the flush. Right now, the set of 4s and Mr. Two pair are feeling pretty good about their hands -- especially Mr. Two Pair who hit his second on the river.
Jon you have to remember this is low limit. The opps probably didn't cosider anything except that if you flop a set and don't lose a lot you didn't bet enough, and when you flop top pair with a higher kicker see it to the river. They didn't give a thought to what hand Dunc was playing.
Sammy, I could not agree more. There are a few of the regulars who think about what I might be holding during a hand, and even fewer who get into 3rd level thinking, but for the vast majority of the unwashed, their thought process (oxymoron?) involves nothing much more than "what do I have in my hand?" Consideration of position, who made the raise, who called, or the phase of the moon for that matter, never enter their heads. I sometimes think that my involvement with this forum and the sharp minds whose contributions have helped me immensely, is almost a curse sometimes. I have to remember that at the table I'm not up against Rounder, scott, Mason, Vince, Rick, et al. I have to guard against over-thinking, if that's possible.
This event proves the point... Don't feel stupid the next time you throw in $6 and say, "Show me your flush"...and get shown a flush. It happens. You KNOW when you call on the end you're at least a 10-1 underdog to have the best hand, but the pot is laying your much, much more than that.
In a limit game, when the pot is large and I can beat a bluff on the river, I'm in 'auto-call' mode. Show me a hand. Of course, this doesn't apply if there are three callers and a raise in front of me and I have second pair, but you get the idea.
Aside from the monetary value of calling, there is a lot of peace to be had in knowing that you didn't lay down the best hand, and it also tends to define your decision on the turn. I think a lot of people make bad calls on the turn, because they are thinking that it's only one bet. But if you KNOW a call on the turn commits you to a call on the river, then if you have to fold you'll do it in the right spot.
Finally, having a reputation as a person who will call with just about any value on the river will keep people from running at you. Throw out the occasional comment like, "I guess someone better keep you honest", and you'll look just like the other calling station fish, and the tough players will give up on running at you.
You'll know you are carrying this too far when the good players start value betting thin hands into you. At that point, either tighten up on your calls, or if you think you are calling with about the right frequency, try the occasional raise-bluff on the river (very occasional. Like Brylcreem, a little dab'll do ya).
I think you should raise under the gun with your pocket Tens since you probably have the best hand and you don't want the blinds to get in cheaply. If the other players choose to call regardless, so be it but you have a solid value raise here. You need to avoid the mindset that says: "I have a good hand but I won't raise pre-flop because my opponents will probably call anyway". Whether or not they call or fold is up to them. This is what poker is all about, forcing your opponents to make decisions about whether or not they want to chase. When you just limp in, you allow the morons who come in with miscellaneous suited stuff and connected crud to come in cheaply. They must be forced to pay for their weak pre-flop play. In addition, the last thing you want to do is to give the blinds 3 free cards.
On the end, there is now $106 in the pot ($22 pre-flop, $18 flop, $36 turn, and $30 so far at river) and it costs you $6 to be in the showdown with no possibility of a re-raise. A call is automatic. You only have to be right one time in twenty to break even. In a $3-$6 game you will be right more often than 1 time in 20.
Jim,I raise about 40-50% of the time UTG with TT, but mostly in the interests of varying my play, and when the game is a little tighter and I have the chance to actually reduce the field a bit. This particular crew was such that I felt I would probably be facing 5-7 callers, and would have to improve to win. In these situations, I would generally like to see the flop as cheaply as possible and keep the variance down. I get enough free money thrown my way in most games that I don't have to try to create situations for big pots (see The Results for an example).
But Dunc, I think you are costing yourself money. In low-limit games where players rountinely limp in on garbage, I feel more compelled to raise with hands like TT and AQ offsuit under the gun. Elimination of players is not the prime consideration. Forcing players to pay more money when they are chasing is what counts. Agreed that when more players come in you are less likely to win, but when you win you will win huge. Let them call a double bet with their junk. Your opponents are the ones who should want to see a flop as cheaply as possible. Your job is to make it as expensive as possible for them to do so.
Jim
I think this is very good advice with a pair of tens pre-flop. It is amazing how much junk people will limp in with if there is no raise. The whole idea should be to make hands that need implied odds to succeed pay through the nose. Small pairs 22-66,medium suited connectors and Axs,Kxs,Qxs are the hands i am talking about. Good Luck Ice
Jim,
Magnifying the mistakes of those that limp in, or cold call your UTG raise is a good enough reason to raise UTG with AQo. But IME, which I grant you pales in comparison to yours, you are going to have to fold shop as soon as an ace or king hits because of all those "mistakes" of calling cold with Axs and Kxs. The players toward the button might even be playing Q9s or J9s, even down to Q6s. With tens I'd rather be in middle position, all fold to me before I want to start raising. Please enlighten me. Sammy
Yes, frequently when over cards flop you have to be ready to fold if someone bets especially with a lot of opponents. When I raise under the gun with pocket Kings and several players call, I frequently check and fold when an Ace flops. That's poker.
But occasionally good things happen like:
1. Under cards flop giving you an overpair which you can play aggressively and drive out players.
2. Over cards flop but you pick up a straight draw so you have a decent play on the hand anyway.
3. Only one over card flops like a Jack. You bet the flop and some players fold because they don't happen to have a Jack. Or they have a weak Jack and decide to fold because they fear you have a Jack with a better kicker or an over pair. The ones that stay are on a draw and you end up winning anyway because they miss.
4. Occasionally, your raise is successful in driving out players and you limit the field to 2 or 3 players. Now overcards like Jacks and Queens are not as likely to hurt you because you limited the field with your raise. When one of these flops, you bet against a small number of opponents and win anyway because they didn't have top pair. Can anyone say that this never happens even in a loose $3-$6 game?
5. You flop a set. Rare but it happens.
The point is that your little single bet raise pulls into the pot a lot of extra money when you have the best hand. You have the most to gain by raising. If you have to dump it on the flop because of over cards, so what? It was only one small bet.
I hear players say that you don't want to "give away the strength of your hand" or some other nonsense in these situations. But this is not a four way no limit hold-em game we are dealing with here. This a structured, limit game with 9 or 10 players. Forget about trying to be deceptive pre-flop unless you are in a shorthanded, or heads-up type situation. It will take the best hand to win. You have the best hand. Make the rest pay.
I just want you to know that I copy and paste all of your replies and pretty soon there will be Jim Brier on Poker UNAUTHORIZED.
But seriously, at least as serious as I can get about a game, let's say the table is a good mix of players, how far do you go preflop with the Tens. Do you stay til it's capped if the reraising comes from solid players?
Thanks,
Sammy
No, if I know that the players doing the raising are solid players I will cold call two bets with Tens but not three or more. I raise with pocket Tens pre-flop and I call a legitimate raise with Tens. If it is bet, raised, and re-raised to me I fold. If it is bet to me and I raise and then it is re-raised and capped back to me, I fold.
s
Excellent point, and something I was going to say myself. Good players HAVE to get out of the mindset that the only reason to raise is to get people to fold. "I have AA... How can I stop everyone from playing against me???"
If the players are bad enough to call a tight player's UTG raise with all sorts of scrap, bring 'em on! They'll make lots of errors later on too, and you'll benefit from them.
This is something that people miss in Sklansky's books, although he says it clearly enough. If you are up against players who go too far with their hands and make other mistakes after the flop, things change. It may be that normally you want five callers to play a small pocket pair, but you can do with a lot less than that if they are the type of clowns who will re-raise your set all the way to the river with top pair, or who will check top pair all the way to the river giving you two free cards to hit your set.
If I'm in a game where I know my raises won't knock anyone out because they'll play almost any two cards, I'm raising with a LOT of hands. I want them punished for making those decisions.
At what point does a pair become "probably ... the best hand"? I think TT is in the gray area. If you are sure that there will be 5-7 (or more) callers, then TT is not much different from 44. Even if you end up with an overpair to the flop, you are not in a comfortable position. If it was raised preflop, the overcards are going to stick around for at least one more card. With all the low cards on the flop, if another comes on the turn, you really have to start thinking seriously about a straight by the river. Of course, sometimes the TT will hold up or you will get lucky with another T. I suspect this frequency is low enough, however, that you really need to think about TT as a drawing hand which needs implied odds to be profitable.
At what point does it stop being "one more bet" and start being paying twice as much?
Eric
Eric, I agree that there is a gray area and that Tens may be in that zone. Clearly it is somewhere between Aces and Deuces but where exactly? I think most books and authorities draw the line at Tens or higher. I definitely feel that Nines, Eights, and Sevens are just calling hands under the gun and that Jacks is a raising hand. Tens may well be on the cusp. If this is true, then whether you call or raise under the gun may not make much difference. It is just that in some of these games, especially low limit, most of these players come in on almost any two cards and they certainly don't adhere to any kind of rational starting hand guidelines. My instincts are to just raise in these games against these kinds of players.
If were were going to fold, you should have done it at your first opportunity on the river. As big as the pot is, it's going to be pretty hard to fold trip Ts when the flush comes, unless you have a good read on the player behind you, call the first bet and all raises.
Call.
- Andrew
An important part of any expert poker player's arsenal is the crisp explanation when he gets caught playing a cheesy hand and has to show down a loser, (or worse yet) winner. So, with apologies to David Letterman, here are the:
TOP TEN EXCUSES FOR PLAYING CHEESY HANDS
10. I was on the button 9. I was in the big/small blind 8. I expected multi-way action 7. That raiser was a maniac 6. I was on a rush 5. I was suited 4. It's my favorite/lucky trash hand 3. I would have flopped 773 last time
and, courtesy of the ROUNDER, our top two resons for playing cheesy hands...
2. It was situational 1. I WAS REPRESENTING ACES!
I love, "The Jacks(or whatever) have been running." (After cracking my bullets with J-4o). What do they think, that cards are like salmon?
The one I hear most often: "My flush was due to hit."
10,9 and6 could be valid reasons.What about false advertising.
I love this shit. Thanks Michael, even if it is in the wrong forum.
These apply mostly to Texas Hold'em, and raise valid strategic considerations.
Seriously.
Just curious.
The only really valid, bullet-proof excuse: "I got a free play in my big blind."!
It is a valid excuse to see the flop, but not after unless the hand improves.
Let me add No. 11 "Doyle Brunson won the World Series with 10-2. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me!"
yeah, i only play aces. so whenever i am playing i am representing aces. so i can play all kinds of cards. i agree. that is the best excuse i've ever heard.
scott
Michael, those were great, but how could you leave out "I was varying my play"?
That has to be #1
While we're talking cheese, I've got one for you guys. I went into the MGM, before the closure. Sit in a 1-4-8-8 game. After 30 min I realized the two players to my left were ego tripping over playing at such a low limit while they sat and verbally analysed every hand at conclusion. Anyway a tourist limps in, a local whom I know I can control, because of previous play somewhere, also limps. In the cut off seat I raise to get the button with 8,3 spades. 1st Expert (Button) reraises, 2nd expert (sb) folds, bb folds, limper, local and I all call. Flop As,Qs,10s I bet , button raises , fold , fold, I repop. He goes of for multible bets before calling. Turn is a blank, we get five big bets in before 2nd expert says "flush" under his breath refering to my hand. I wanted to knock him off the chair. Dealer said nothing. I said nothing. I'm putting this guy on a set of Aces or Queens, river returns 4s so I check in case he's semi bluffing with A,Ks. Show him the 8 3s take down a huge 2 man pot. Here's the kicker, NEXT round I pick up JJ on the button and don't raise, Expert, now in the small blind raises about 5 limpers, they all fold to me, I call. Flop comes J with small blanks. Now we go through the same scenario with multiple flop and turn raises ( 5 on the turn ) while I know I've got the stone nuts. He check calls on the end before shaking his head on the way to the bar, and never came back. Because of my raise and non raises preflop he totally misread my hands and my loose image paid big time. Deception is the key, when I get a big hand I also raise but I seem to make a lot more money when I hit with cheese because no-one can read it, and it is easy to get away from. Comments ? I've been lurking here for months, you guys are real good but no one gives away the real secrets, especially the books which all recommend staright forward play. I think you are only a Maniac if you can't figure out where your at in a hand.
PS: If the flop comes with little spades, I'm worried,
and I don't play all cheese, just circumstantual
cheese.
x
z
PF-
Are you really the poster formerly known as Rounder?
No , I did however, enjoy the friction he created a while back over his conservative approach to a hand. No,I'm just a new poster but I have been lurking for some time, I want to move up to 10-20, or 20-40 exclusively very soon. So insight to the way some think can be priceless. I think Rouder's comments also had some merit but I don't know him or anyone else here. I do thank those at 2 + 2 for this forum, it is a excellant companion to their books.
Sorry, I thought you were addressing me. din't notice the PF at first.
Hello All
I was wondering if someone could explain to me the concepts behind folding the hands on pg 66-67. I understand the concept of implied odds, counting bets that people will pay your monster when they make a good (albeit second best) hand. Reverse implied odds, I surmise, would be avoiding giving up bets on hands that are strong but will frequently be second best given a coordinated board.
Now I can see folding top pair in the case of KJd with a board of Js 10s 8h, given the condition that there were no preflop raises and a strong player bets into you, there is an extremely good chance you are beaten right off the bat by AJ or two pair or a straight, and moreover, even better hands may appear by the turn or river. This is because 10-8, J-10, J-9, 9-7, 8-8, are really good limping hands in multiway pots. However, the first example given (A10c with a board of As Qs 9d) I am not so clear on. If there were no preflop raises, what are the chances you are beaten by Ace higher kicker? I dont think AK is out there, though AJ may be. AQ, since there was no raising preflop is also unlikely. None of the draws have been completed, ie there are no flopped straights or flushes possible right off the bat. If two bricks fall on the turn and river, you may conceivably be ahead wire to wire. Shouldn't you at least pay the small bet on the flop to see if anyone raises, drops, etc. in this situation?
Lastly, S&M qualify this information by saying that you should fold "except when the pot is large or the game is very loose". But they already set the conditions of "no preflop raising and a bettor you and a number of players behind you". Doesn't this automatically give you a pot of about 6-7 small bets right off the bat? And how many tight games do you play in where there is are 5-6 people seeing the flop with no raisers?
There is probably a good reason for all this, but unfortunately these situations were not discussed in-depth enough (at least for me to understand.) I appreciate anyone who can clarify this information. Thanks in advance.
hetron
In later editions we switched the ten of clubs to the eight of clubs to make the example less debatable.
(KJd) with a board of Js 10s 8h someone bets through you. Do you wish you were all in? Yes, so this situation has bad implied odds.
(A10c) with a board of As Qs 9d someone bets through you. Do you wish you were all in? Yes, so this situation has bad implied odds.
Either of these situations may be PROFITABLE due to high current pot odds which overshadow the bad implied odds.
(AKh) with a board As 8h 4d someone bets through you. Do you wish you were all in? No, so this situation has good implied odds.
- Louie
Louie,
What you are saying is understood. However, I was just wondering if in the situation A10c implied odds were SO bad that it was a fold, as stated on pg 66 of HEFAP. However, Mr. Sklansky has informed me that the 10c was changed to an 8c in the newer editions of HEFAP to try to make the situation debatable. What I can surmise from this is that it is a borderline situation as stated in my edition of HEFAP, and though I do wish I would be all-in in this situation, I'm not quite sure I would fold given the info. But thanks to you and DS for clarifying this.
sorry i meant not debatable (nt)
Sklansky's point was more about implied odds and less about advise in that particular situation.
If a sensible and predictable early position caller bet into me FOLDING AT would CERTAINLY be at the top of my options. I have "often" folded AJ in this spot. This is even more true in the good-old-days of much less pre-flop raising where calling with big Aces was rather common.
If the aggressive blind bet and the callers behind me were aggressive (meaning just calling indicates a non-premium hand), I would figure my AT to be best and probably raise.
In todays large blinds and early raises, implied odds mean less than they did (and certainly less than pot and no limit).
- Louie
Live pot limit game at a SoCal cardroom. Blinds are 5 and 10 with optional 15 live straddle. I find KJo in the big blind and check it with 4 limpers. Flop comes 9TJo. I check and get a pot limit bet from late middle position with a loose player who I perceived to be hoping for a fold. I check raise him him the pot limit, going all-in (I bought in for the minimum). He calls. My question before I reveal his hand and what happened is should I have bet right out or was my play right. I didn't like my hand in early position considering all the limpers and the fact that if someone comes over the top of me I must strongly consider folding.
With all due respect, this is POT LIMIT we are talking about here, by essence a trapping game. What kind of hand are you hoping to beat with top pair, second kicker with THAT board? The only legit hand you can really beat is QJ, and even that hand has outs against you. I know you bought in for the minimum, but I would have folded this hand and waited for a much better one to double up on. Unless this is a guy who will stone cold bluff with absolute garbage, I just can't see playing back at him. By the way, were the other two players between you and him? That makes a bluff even more unlikely. It looks like he is trying to protect two pair from the pair/straight draw combination such as you have. I say let him, and wait for a bigger hand to come by.
worst play ever
How did you get so mean spirited so early in life?
it is nowhere near as bad as when that guy called the river and couldn't beat his friends board. you remember. at craig's house. nathan came that time. oh yeah, mark ericson is the guy or the friend.
but i do agree that poker prodigy is a rather pretentious moniker. we could all learn some things from moron.
scott
x
Alex,
We play no limit some time when you get older and have some money. I shut you up for life. I think you watched Rounders too many times.
You first mistake was buying in for the minimum. I have to assume that the reason you did this was that you were unsure of your ability in this game, and didn't want to lose a bunch of money.
The problem is, buying in for the minimum leaves you at a distinct disadvantage. This is true in a limit game, because if you run bad for a little while and/or suffer a couple bad beats, you will be broke. If you aren't broke, you will likely inadvertantly adjust your strategy because you are worried about losing all your money, or because you are on tilt.
In a Pot Limit or No Limit game, having the biggest stack is a big advantage. It is obviously more important in Nl than PL, but it is still true of both.
The reason is that PL and NL are very much games of aggression and knowing your opponents, whereas limit poker requires you to be constantly aware of the pot odds/implied odds that you are getting, as well as the odds your opponents are getting. This is just not the case in PL.
ALso, in a game that is very live, you definitly need a big stack to survive the swings.
Of course, it is possible you just didn't have much money, and bought into this game because it was so good, but i think you would have been better of buying into a low-limit game and building a stack, and then buying into the PL game.
As far as your play on the flop, as I said earlier, you must know your opponent to play PL effectively. If you are sure that your opponent is bluffing, the play is questionable at best. Betting right out is your best play. If he is a very loose player, he is very unlikely to fold if he has already put signifigant money in the pot. On the other hand, had you bet right out he may have folded. On the other hand, he could very likely have 9-10, or 10-J, both offsuit, a couple hands that he would have limped with pre flop, or j-9...there are too many possibilities. I would have bet right out, and fold to a pot limit bet. If only a call from a loose player, it is fairly likely that you have the best hand.
hope this helps-
Mike Blair
He ended up having K8o and rivered a 7 for the straight. I read him right. As for the buyin...I heard you should buy in for a lot or the minimum. I am usually a mid limit player and was looking for a big score with some nice action players. Thanks for the comments.
Prodigy:
Sounds like a good game. Problem here is there's just too many limp hands that might have you beat and you're in poor position. Think of the possibilities:
78, 910, 9J, 10J, and KQ all have you in big trouble.
Other problem is when you go all in a weak player will frequently have the mentality "Well he can't hurt me anymore, I might as well go for it". That's the problem with having a short stack. If you have oodles of chips (and so does he) and he perceives you as a good player, you probably beat him with your raise. Playing PL or NL with a short stack is tantamount to suicide against experienced players.
Most of the time you should play this hand for what it's worth. Come out with a reasonable bet. If you get a huge raise, just release it. One more point, I know you hear people say over and over thatNL and PL is a trapping game. Well that's true to an extent, but don't become known as a player who will always either check a huge hand or throw a big bet out. You have to get people worried that your reasonable bet might be on a great hand. Very important to really mix up your play in NL. That's why I question the blanket criticism you received for your checkraise. In fact, I really wonder whether Alex has ever even played NL. You must checkraise sometimes (not often) in these circumstances. It's just that you were too short stacked to make it an effective threat.
Show a little more patience and you will crush players like this in no time.
Play your hand for what
While I can't speak for Alex B and his NL experience, I do have a limited experience in big bet poker, both PL and NL. Though not an expert at either, I can say that what it looked like Pokerprodigy was trying to do was a. buy in for the minimum and b. double up. Its not a bad strategy to use in a loose PL game, simply because you can just wait to flop a monster, and you can just about expect one or more of the loose players to give you action on it. However, KJ with a board of JT9o is hardly a monster. If he is using the quick double up strategy, betting out is the worst play, because almost anyone who calls should have KJ beat. I say "should" because with the money in the pot there are absolutely no odds to draw. Then again, his opponents may be complete maniacs with oodles of money to throw away. So the play to check-raise in a double up situation is right, its just that I think he should have a straight or at least a set to do it with.
Thanks for the advice!! It was my first time playing non tournament pot-limit holdem and despite losing my $400 buyin (not a big deal really) it was really a thrill and has opened my eyes to some interesting possibilities. The reason for my play was that I read my opponent as being weak and more than likely being on a semibluff. He scared me a lot because he called almost instantly but only had to call about $150 more out of a pot that already had about $300 in there. He was sure a 7 or Q would be good but a big reason I stayed in there (and checkraised) with KJ on a board of 9TJ is that if the guy is playing the 8 a queen will be no good for him or at the very least a chop. I don't really mind my play. I checked in early position (Big blind) because I was terrified of the flop. But the bet came late and from a fairly loose player (who was a nice fellow as were all the others in the game in case they're reading this) so I decided to seal my fate and put my whole stack in. My goal really wasn't to just double up $400 because I could win $400 against worst competition a lot easier. But there was a lot of money at the table...at least $20,000 by my estimation so I was going for a big chunk of that. It was a great experience and I'm sure I'll try it again though maybe with a larger buy-in, perhaps $2500-$4000 or so.
Ok, let's assume you have a pocket pair that flops a set. I choose to NEVER EVER slow-play this hand. In particular, if there is a flush draw or straight draw on the board. I do think I might play over aggressive with this hand on the flop. Example from a recent game.
I hold 8c,8d.
Flop is 6s,7d,8s
There is a flush draw on the board with a potential straight already made. My usual play on this is to raise and raise to a possible cap on the flop if possible. Is this overplaying? The way I see it, I make all the flush draws pay to draw me out. Also, I realize that 9-10 or 4-5 has me beat already but I have a chance to make a full house. I also know that alot of people will call to the bitter end with the open ended straight so if nothing hits, I win a huge pot. On the turn and river, I will only not raise since getting re-raised by a potential straight is twice as expensive on the turn and river. Am I playing this hands correctly?
In general I like your approach. However, I believe that if I had pocket Jacks and the flop came: Jack, Seven, Duece rainbow, I would consider a slow play since the turn card is unlikely to hurt me.
But normally if the flop is at all coordinated and/or I have a large number of opponents, I like to play it fast the way you recommend. This is especially true if the pot were raised pre-flop.
If you're worried about the draws, be more concerned about limiting the field than getting more money in the pot. Your goal should be to force as many people as possible to call a double bet. If the bettor was on your right, this may mean a check raise.
In short, with a bunch of dumb opponents, your strategy shouldn't be a problem. But if you find your raises are forcing people to call a series of single bets, you probably should have check-raised.
I am slowly learning to be careful playing any two cards that are 10 or greater. You know, playing 10-Q, J-K,10-K, A-10, ect. It seems like if there is a pre-flop raise, someone probably has AA, AK, AQ, AJ, KK, QQ,JJ,10-10,ect. If I hold K-10, I am drawing very thin vs. A-K!!! If I flop a pair of kings, I must payout to the river to find that my kicker is beat. I do like these cards with no raise towards the back of the beating however, a raise has made me start folding (Suited or not!)
Yes, these are the "troublesome" hands in hold-em. Don't cold call legitimate raises with them unless you are in your blinds. Being suited helps. Usually these are good limping hands from middle or late position after other players have limped in. If you are in middle position and everyone has folded to you, consider opening with a raise having Ace-Ten offsuit or King-Jack offsuit. This will put pressure on the remaining players and give you position over the blinds if they choose to play. King-Ten offsuit and Queen-Ten offsuit are good hands for stealing the blinds from the cutoff or button if everyone else has folded.
During today's game at the club I play at, the owner and I had a talk about a play I'd made during the game. We were away from the table and he asked me to explain why I'd raised a bet from a player who'd just gone all in. During the hand in question, a very, very weak player had bet the turn with his last eight dollars. I was first to act and had no pairs but a draw to the nuts. I raised to sixteen and the only other player in the hand, a very tight player, folded his pair. I missed on the river and the all-in player was awarded the pot. Needless to say, this not a play I make frequently. My thinking is, if I miss my draw, I might make the tight player fold to a bet on the river. If the tight player folds to the raise, as he did, and I miss my draw, as happened, I might still win the pot as the weak player will go all in with anything. If the weak player takes the pot, which often happens, his chips will be in play soon, likely the next hand. If the tight player wins, the chips go under lock and key. This is the point the owner of the club took issue with. In his view, I'm conspiring with the weak player to help him win the pot. The owner knows I'm not teaming up with the looser. Yet he still objects to my motives. I'm guilty of trying to manipulate where the chips end up, but in this instance am I doing something unethical? If you think not, please give me some ammo for my next encounter. No, I don't have an option of playing elsewhere at the time I wish to play. If you think my play IS unethical, I'd like to hear about that too. spitball
Heck no it's not unethical. Players do it all the time against a frequent bluffer, to keep him honest. It's called implicit collusion. Unless the all-in player was your best friend, and you were trying to help him out, in which case it was unethical. If he was your partner, the play borders on cheating.
However, neither was the case here, so no, you didn't do anything wrong.
Mike
I'll take a stab at this one. This could really go either way - Before you discussed the ethical dimension, i.e., attempting to control where the chips end up - I thought you could look at the raise to get the tough guy out as a way of increasing your chances of winning the pot. It has been said on more than one occassion, both in the literature and on this forum, that playing an opponent heads-up is better than playing against several - something like that. I think Sklansky alludes to the horse racing analogy with this one, and I'm sure I'm butchering it a bit, but so be it.
As far as you doing that INTENTIONALLY to attempt to control where your chips end up, the argument could go either way. I personally do not see it as implicit collusion, however, I can see why some others may. Would I do that? Probably not - It would not necessarily sit well in my stomach, because there is something "angular" about that.
IF the card room owner does have such a problem with that type of behavior AND it is the only place to play, I suggest not doing it again.
I am curious to see what the rest of you have to say about this. Tim
There is certainly not anything unethical about it. This is clearly different from collusion. Moreover, it is a smart poker play. It is an example of thinking ahead -- as opposed to thinking merely in the immediate moment. Anytime you can affect whether a weaker or stronger player will win a pot, I'd rather have the weaker player win it since there is a better chance of getting those chips later.
I believe in the TOP this play is explicitely described. It certainly is an example of viewing poker as one long game that never really ends.
I think your play is without a doubt the right play. You told him all of the factors involved, that made your decision to raise. He had a problem with only one.If your only factor was to ensure that the all-in player won the pot/or you. THEN IT IS A UNETHICAL DECISION! BUT NOT AN UNETHICAL PLAY! Your hand was a legitimate hand for the texture of the flop. A question for everyone reading this: Our income comes from the weak players/ not too often we feed on the rocks. So do we not want to manipulate the play to get more of the rocks money into play.(ie: tight player raises pre-flop(min AK suited,multi-way action, I have 9-7 suited(poor hand) I re-raised they miss their flop I hit, or someone else hits. We now have 3 bets min of that person money on the table, maybe 4 if they cap-it. Did I manipulate the play?
It was a solid poker play, maybe a little loose for some, but definately solid logic and ethical. The tight player could have re-raised right? Poker is war, and as long as your not colluding, Damn the Torpedos!
What about a collusion between the owner of the club and the tight player? It looks like they want to let you wonder... Everybody knows that the guessers lose. Why does the direction like the tight players? Because they come back again and again (with about the same stake).
3-6HE at Bay101. Typically loose, not too agressive. I have A7s middle position. UTG folds, limp1, limp2, I call, fold, fold, button raises, SB folds, BB calls, all call. Two bets 5 handed the Flop comes 8c, 6c, 5h I have an open ender. BB checks, 1st limper bets, limp2 raises, I fold in fear of flush draw or a made nut straight. The turn is 4h I kick myself but figure I probably still would have been beaten by a possible flush or a larger straight. I guess the question is when should I be cold calling 2 bets on the flop with an open ender in light of posssible flushes and larger straights? I would have certainly called one bet. Was I correct to fold? (weak tight?) Oh BTW, two pair 8,6 (limp2, aka flop raiser) took the pot.
You had a clear call. The raiser is a slim candidate to be trying to thin the field with a flush draw, much less with a flopped 97/74 straight. Even with a flush draw present, you're getting enough money to go for six outs, and your ace might add three more.
I agree it was worth a call. To limp before the flop and then raise with a flop like that, I'd say the raiser has 86, 65, or trips. Being conservative, let's say the raiser has 2 pair. Then Grinder's odds of taking down the entire pot (ignoring flush draws) are: (8/47)*(38/46)*2 = 28% His outs with someone on a flush draw cause his odds of taking down the entire pot to fall to: (6/47)*(34/46)*2 = 19% (Slightly less if the 2 pair holds 86 instead of 65)
I'm guessing the players behind him call with a draw and fold without one.
If neither has a flush draw, Grinder has the best of it. He pays: 2+(39/47)*2+(8/47)*(4/46)*2 = 3.7 sb avg cost and gains (10+2*2+2+2*2)*(.28)= 5.6 sb avg benefit (assuming orginal bettor folds on the flop and Grinder raises on the end) So there's an EV of 1.9 small bets assuming all goes well.
If there's a single flush against him, Grinder pays: 2+(39/47)*2+(8/47)*(14/46)*2 = 3.8 sb avg cost and gains (10+3*2+2*2+2*2)*(.19) = 4.6 sb avg benefit An EV of .6 small bets. Or .2 without a raise on the river - it's still a profit.
So it's worth a call. Unless, of course, if the raiser had trips, which throws a wrench into all my calculations. Intuitively, I would guess it would be bad to call with a straight draw against trips and a flush draw. But it's late, and I don't want to deal with that.
Change his odds of taking down the entire pot while against a flush draw to: (6/47)*(32/46)*2 = 17.8% This drops his EV, but it's still positive. And if you're wondering what I meant when I said the original bettor dropped on the flop, I meant he dropped on the turn.
There is $40 in the pot ($31 pre-flop and $9 on the flop so far) and it costs you $6 to call. Consider the following:
1. You don't have a hand. You have a draw.
2. You are getting bet and raised into with a pre-flop raiser yet to be heard from. It could easily cost you more than $6 to take off a card.
3. Your "outs" at best consist of four Nines, four Fours, three Sevens, and three Aces.
4. There is a two flush on board. The Nine of Clubs, the Four of Clubs, the Ace of Clubs, and the Seven of Clubs may not be "outs". Someone may make a flush when you make your straight or otherwise improve. This means you get to go on and lose a lot more money. Someone with even one Club has a lot of redraws against you.
5. Any one with a Seven has the same draw you have which means that you could end up splitting the pot. This reduces your equity.
6. An Ace is not necessarily an out since it might give someone two pair or they might have an Ace with a better kicker.
Although it is technically correct to characterize your holding as an open ended straight draw it is a little misleading. There is a significant difference between a hand like Ace-Seven with a flop of Eight-Six-Five and a hand like Seven-Six with a flop of Eight-Five-Deuce.
I think your fold is correct because the likelihood of hitting a hand and losing is so high coupled with the possibility of having to pay a lot of money to take off a card and see the hand through.
Jim:
For folding to be correct, I think you must assume both that the flush draw will be there 100% of the time and, further, that Grinder can't get away from his hand if the flush hits. Note that he can't be drawing dead, but that he'll often have 11 outs (top pair has just been raised by middling overpair, or vice-versa), in which cases folding would be a badly missed opportunity.
Well Chris, Bob Ciaffone might agree with you. He says in his recent article that if you are not drawing to the nuts you can simplistically just use the current pot odds and ignore the implied odds as a rough guide for making decisions here. There are 14 cards that improve your hand. If we ignore the Sevens it could be argued we have 11 outs. Well, 11 outs from 47 unseen cards is roughly 36:11 against. The pot is offering significantly better odds than this ($40:$6 or almost 7:1). You appear to have a good overlay for a call here.
My problem is that I just don't like the situation here because I will lose a lot of money when I hit a hand and it fails to hold-up. I also don't want to pay any more money to take off a card. I can see myself calling the bet and raise now, then the pre-flop raiser decides to re-raise with his big over pair and one of the other players decide to "cap" it for fun. Now it costs me 4 bets to take off a card.
My "outs" seem so dubious to me with many of them just giving me a second best hand (like an Ace on the turn giving me top pair but losing to an Ace with a better kicker or even two pair). Now I am in a marginal situation with a large pot and a small chance of winning faced with a lot of difficult decisions to make. If a Club turns that fails to give me a straight my draw is practically dead if I get any serious heat. If a Seven turns, my hand is instantly dead since there will be four parts to an open ended straight on the table.
I just don't think I am playing with an edge here.
I did the calculations for this and they're posted above. I think I did them correctly. I accounted for splitting the pot if a 7 falls and for running into full houses and the fact you can make your straight and run into a flush at the same time.
Until someone disproves them, I stand by my calculations, and they say there's a positve EV. (If it's any consolation, I was surprised. It seems counter intuitive...)
How exactly do you factor in the additional money you pay to see the hand through and how much additional money you lose when you hit and your hand doesn't hold up?
There were some mistakes in my last post. I believe I've corrected them here and made it more clear. For simplicity, I am assuming the raiser has two pair. This discounts the possibility of trips and the possibility of winning if an A comes. Also, for my EV's, I am assuming the two pair player is rather dim and will get raised on the river. Also, the straight draw will call a turn bet even if the board pairs because the pot is large and he is unsure if the two pair holds 86 or 65.
If there are no flush draws, 8 cards make the straight, but there are 7 cards which can cause our hero to not win the entire pot. (4 outs for the full, plus the three 7's).
There are three cases:
Case 1: makes straight and it holds up
Case 2: blank on turn, blank on river
Case 3: makes straight and flush/boat comes
P(1)=(8/47)*(39/46)*2= 29%
EV(1)=10+2*2+2+2*2= 20 sb
P(2)=(39/47)*(38/46)= 69%
EV(2)=-(2+2)= -4 sb
P(3)=(8/47)*(4/46)*2= 3%
EV(3)=-(2+2+2)= -6 sb
Net gain=P(1)*EV(1)+P(2)*EV(2)+P(3)*EV(3)= 2.85 sb profit
Actually, if we assume the bettor has two pair, this gain should be slightly higher because two cards which don't make the straight have been removed from the deck.
***
If there is a flush draw out, things get iffier. There are now 9 additional clubs which cause the straight to lose the pot (only 8 if the bettor has 86 instead of 65). The additional caller increases EV(1) and drops P(1). We also split P(3) into two cases, as the straight draw will not call a turn bet if the flush comes on the turn. So we reassign:
Case 3: flush comes on turn
Case 4: full house comes on turn and straight on river
Case 5: straight comes on turn and flush/boat on river
P(1)=(8/47)*(39/46)*2= 17%
EV(1)=10+3*2+2*2+2*2= 24 sb
P(2)=(39/47)*(38/46)= 69%
EV(2)=-(2+2)= -4 sb
P(3)=(9/47)= 19%
EV(3)= -2 sb
P(4)=(4/47)*(6/46)= 1%
EV(4)=-(2+2+2)= -6 sb
P(5)=(6/47)*(13/46)= 4%
EV(5)=-(2+2+2)= -6 sb
Net gain= .6 sb profit
A second flush draw would only help things. The straight's chances of winning would remain the same but his EV would increase.
Final conclusion? I had expected the opposite, but calling a double bet on the flop with an open ender is worth it if you're smarter than your opponents.
Thanks Neils. This game really is counter-intuitive. I guess my instincts failed me here.
Played 3-6 last night. When I got there they were starting a new game. I took a seat. This game was started extremely tight/aggressive. The play was fast and furious. I was later to find out that there were two prop players in the game. One of them stayed the entire time I was there (5hours). The table varied from 9 players to 4 players throughout the session. I was raised with 96s to my AKs, I capped, the flop came with a 6. I bet through until the river and never caught up. Here's one I totally mis-played. I should have noticed the girl was wearing a hollywood park casino jacket. I have TT on the button. 5 callers. The flop comes KAK. She bets (this was her first hand) and I called all the way to the river. Big mistake.
Anyway - I thought I should ask for a table change. It was obvious most of these players were far superior to me. But my thought was "stay tight aggressive and the cards will come and you'll be paid off". But that never happened. What should I have done? How relevant is looking for another game? How do props fir into the picture?
Thanks,
-Michael
I don't know, but Props seem pretyy smarmy to me.
Forum,
A problem I've been having lately in a certain Tough 10/20 game, is that certain players in late position will call my early position preflop raises with Rags or small pairs.
I think the problem started because I was trying to push AKo all the way to the River even when I didn't hit. I was having certain "good" players showing me hands that they shouldn't have even called with in the first place.
I think I'm starting to learn that unless I've picked up a backdoor draw, I should start letting AKo go when I haven't paired by the Turn.
Of course I'm not pushing AKo on scary flops like Ts,9c,2c. The problem I have is that if I bet the Flop and get called then don't bet the Turn, certain players are going to walk all over me.
I've come to the conclusion that I should bet the Flop with AK AQ and AA KK QQ on non-scary flops, but then do alot of check-raising on the Turn (when I don't hit) with my Pocket pairs or when I pick-up the back-door Flush Draw. I think HPFAP states this type of strategy, but I wanted to see if I was getting it correct.
Thanks, CV
It sounds like you play the same players alot. What I do when I am in the same position as you,I will only raise my pocket pair for a while. and check raise them on the turn. What they need, is to see a couple of raised pots(by you) and you showing them top pair. When you get called on your bluffs it sticks with people for a while. But this works to your advantage, because now when you raise with top pairs, and they will call you down with their small pair. When you do that a couple of times they will remember only that for awhile. I believe that when you get caught on a bluff. you will have to produce so top hands for awhile. Changing your play always works to your advantage.
Chris writes in part:
>>Of course I'm not pushing AKo on scary flops like Ts,9c,2c. The problem I have is that if I bet the Flop and get called then don't bet the Turn, certain players are going to walk all over me.<<
One thing that HFAP does recommend is checking a lot of good hands on the turn as well as check raising a lot on the turn. If you always fold in this situation without a pair, especially heads up, IMO you are giving up too much especially against the kind of players that you are describing.
What were the playing lessons you learned when you moved up in limits?
Many lessons, but here is a starting list, to which, I'm sure, others will add and expand upon:
1) Always Focus, FOCUS: Think about the game, about your opponents, about the hand being played, even when you're not involved.
2) Take your thinking up as many levels as you can: think about what your opponent has, what he thinks you have, what he thinks you think he has, etc.
3) Don't worry so much about superior players being in your game, so long as there are a few fish. In hold em, you can pick your battles more than you can in most other forms of poker.
4) The turn is key. Knowing when to raise and when to continue or give up when you are raised will determine whether you can win at the game or not. (And note, I have been taken to task on this forum recently for my thinking about a particular fold when there was a raise on the turn; I'll sneak in the admission here that I was probably wrong in my analysis of that hand; this forum is a good place to learn and improve.)
5) Win the big pots. Obviously you can't win them all, but do whatever you can to give yourself the best chance to win them. This will involve check-raising, sometimes waiting to raise until a later round of betting, sometimes firing until they drop. Play and think, play and think; when you lose one, re-play it in your mind and play it differently and ask yourself, would the results have been different if I played it this way instead of the way I did.
6) You can't win by being good in just one or two aspects of the game. Yes, you must be a good card reader, yes, you must play well, yes you must avoid going on tilt, yes, you must know your opponents and their habits, likes and dislikes, etc., etc., etc.: you must have a lot of skills, not just one or two.
7) Don't watch the flop, watch, as surreptitiously as possible, your key opponent watch the flop. Many more players than realize it react in a particular way to a flop they don't like (usually by continuing to stare at it), even at the highest stakes; but as you move up beware of the double-fake.
8) A-A is the most under-rated hand (!); A-K the most over-rated (note that S & M rank it at the end of group 2).
9) The great players take a lot of pots that they would not win if their opponents knew what they actually had. They read their opponents well and know when they can win with a show of strength.
10) Patience! A-J is OK, but A-K is a hell of a lot better (point 8 above notwithstanding).
This is my personal list, which reflects some of the things I needed to learn to cover holes in my game as I moved up. I imagine some will disagree as to the importance of the points, or to their accuracy, but, for me, they were/are key. Other posters will recognize some of these points from Sklansky and Malmuth, Caro and others. I'm not trying to take credit for these, just pointing out how important I think they were to me.
Hope this helps. Good luck (except if you're playing against me).
If you move up when you're ready to move up, there won't be that much to learn.
Except that you won't always lose when you're check raised on the Turn and just have an ordinary good hand.
The only revelation that comes to mind came as I was moving up the lower limits. I had been playing 1-2 hold'em for about 2 years when I noticed that many of the people I had been playing with had long since moved up to 2-4 and 3-6, but I was terified to make the move, so I kept putting it off.
Well I finally tried 2-4, then 3-6 a few months later, then I decided to give 4-8 a try about a month after that. Sitting down at that 4-8 game was the scariest moment I had experienced for a long time. Even though I won the first hand I was delt, flopping two pair, I was in an absolute fog for the first 15 or 20 minutes. But after a couple of hours I had calmed down enough to realize what I had been so afraid of. I had expected the people at each new limit to be be a bunch of wise, hyper-experienced players, they weren't. Infact these bozos weren't any smarter than the 1-2 players I'd played with a few months back, and that's NO exaggeration. Realizing that aloud me to move up to 6-12 a week later feeling as calm as a kitten. The rest is history.
dsm
You may notice that it's easier to buy pots, at first. I've noticed that average middle limit players tend to err on the side of caution, while low limit players err on the side of curiosity.
Your opponents, however, are watching you and are gradually drawing a bead on your play. If you step out of line too often, they'll pick you off and run over you again as you tighten up.
Joe, I cannot add much to what Andy and the others have stated except to say that you need to be aggressive in shorthanded pots. You will be heads-up or in a three way pot a lot more often in a $10-$20 or higher game they you will in a $3-$6 or $4-$8 game. You need to bet in situations where you would normally check in a lower limit game with more opponents. You need to raise more with hands that would normally not merit the action. The reason is because you frequently win just by betting in the higher games whereas in a lower limit game you almost always get called.
My observations, at least where I play, are that skill levels peaks at the 10-20 game and diminishes after that. I've played in 15-30 and 20-40 games that were occupied by players that couldn't beat a 5-10 game, but for some reason, the best players seem to want to play 10-20. I agree with Jim Brier, and you will learn that in higher limit games, you have to play the player more, as opposed to the board.
Merle, I think that $10-$20 is a transitional game for players trying to move up from lower limit games to middle limit games. They are frequently populated with tight, solid players trying to play well. It is a strange irony that the typical $10-$20 game is frequently tougher than a $15-$30 or a $20-$40 game. This is a unique hold-em phenomenon and is not true in stud. A $15-$30 or $20-$40 stud game is tougher than a $10-$20 stud game.
Should the 10-20 game be skipped if one has the BR to do so. I am right at 5-10(no problem beating this game) ,10-20 limit and found the 10-20 to be one of the tightest games I have ever played in. The 20-40 is right behind the 10-20.Most nights not a word is said at the 10-20 and the 20-40 seems a bit more social and open.
Thanks,
MJ
I actually did not spend a lot of time playing $10-$20 before I started playing $20-$40. I think if your bankroll is large enough you may want to try both games for awhile and see what happens. Just be prepared to drop back if you start to run bad in $20-$40 because it can be an expensive game sometimes.
I don't have a problem with tight 10-20 games though I too have much more experience with 15-30.
Tight is not really the problem, it is toughness and moves. With the tight games I would look to semi-bluff plenty and outright bluff too where appropriate. Another thing is to get all the bets in with your big hands, some of these tight players save you bets by being afraid of monster hands with their own strong hands.
I seriously doubt there are many really good players in the 10-20 if there are some bigger games but it is the first level that someone can make a livable living at and so cash-poor players would only go down that low.
I would say play 10-20 or 9-18 for that matter if it is widely available before risking more money at 15-30 or up. The experience will definitely tranlate to the bigger game situations.
I was at the table for this hand, in which I was not involved, at 30-60 hold 'em.
There are two early position limpers. Middle position raises; cut off makes it 3 bets; button cold calls the 3 bets, small blind folds; big blind calls, both early position limpers call, and original raiser caps (4 bet lmit). They take the flop 6-handed.
Flop comes Jd-Ts-7d. Big blind and limpers check, original raiser bets, cut-off raises, button calls, big blind calls, both limpers fold, original raiser re-raises and all call. They take the turn 4-handed.
Turn is a blank. Original raiser bets and all call.
River is Ad, making board Jd-Ts-7d-3h-Ad. Original raiser bets, cut-off raises, button calls, big blind calls and original raiser calls and shows 9-8c, a small straight. Cut-off shows Kc-Qc, a bigger straight, button shows same hand (Kh-Qh) and big blind turns over 4d-3d, a winning flush.
Plenty of questionable actions by all players, but I am most curious as to what you all think about the play, on all streets, of the big blind. I'm not sure if he knew the other players or not, but he's a regular player in the room and chances are he did; original raiser is pretty loose and reckless, and cut-off and button are solid semi-tough players, not "10"s, but solid "8"s by my reckoning.
What is the point of your question?
Andy,
I think I get the point of your question. You want to know what people who post on the forum think of the play of the big blind for this particular hand. Maybe it is only a C- question but it is at the top of the pile and the top of the pile gets more attention. So I'll step up to the plate and toss in my two cents.
Even if the big blind figures to get five opponents, he knows he will have to pay at least two more bets (the raise and reraise) to see the flop. If this game took place in California (three raise limit) I would think that there would be a cap by the original raiser about 80% of the time.
Note thet this percentage of capped pots tends to be greater in California then in Nevada since the original raiser's cap only costs him one more bet (then what it would have cost to call). In Nevada it could cost him two more bets so he would usually want to have a much better hand.
So I would think that the big blind made a big mistake in seeing the flop. He has a hand that wants to see the flop cheaply. Calling one raise would have been OK even with one less opponent. Calling two or probably three more bets just can't be right. I know Rounder will agree.
Let's forgive that mistake and look at the flop play. I don't see betting a flush draw into a moderately connected jack high board with this much strength behind him. But he has a flush draw in a very big pot so he is going to stay for all raises.
You called the turn a blank but it gave him a pair to go with his flush draw. Unless he is up against a set of jacks or tens (or perhaps JT suited), he may have five more outs beyond making the flush. I think he may want to throw a change up and bet into the field. If he gets raised he must call.
On the river he may want to be the one betting since he made his hand. I'm getting too tired to think it through. But he didn't and he can't throw it away even for two bets unless the raiser is an absolute rock. So his call is mandatory IMHO.
OK Andy, upon further review I'll give your question a grade of B- for pointlessness but if it helps me get to sleep you get an A for your effort.
Regards,
Rick
Lots of bad poker here. Are you sure this wasn't a $3-$6 game?
Pre-flop the original raiser who raised with 98 suited after two players have limped in and with many more to be heard from, is playing weak poker. Limping in might be acceptable but raising (unless to vary your play for some reason) is definitely a bad idea. You are just charging yourself more money to take a flop with what is basically a weak, speculative drawing hand. The next guy who re-raised with KQ suited is also not playing well. This hand is a marginal call under the circumstances and not a 3 bet hand. The button cold-calling 3 bets with KQ suited is also questionable. The button has to make a straight or a flush to win since anything like else like top pair will be an expensive second best hand. The big blind calling three more bets with 43 suited is normally pure charity. The two limpers, neither of whom could raise initially, now find a call of a double raise back to them. They seem to be clueless as well. The original raiser capping with his 98 suited is merely compounding his original error.
On the flop, the guy who raised with the King of Clubs and the Queen of Clubs when he flops an open ended straight draw with a two flush on board is continuing his poor play. He has a draw that is somewhat de-valued due to the two flush and he is allowing the original bettor to raise again costing him even more money to chase.
I could continue on but basically the hand was a comedy of errors. I think these guys should just empty their wallets and play showdown.
However, this hand illustrates why I switched from stud to hold-em. I doubt very much that you would see this kind of amateur play in a $30-$60 stud game.
Your analysis was what I was looking for: I thought the play all around was unbelievable and posted the question to see if other could see more logic in the play, especially in the big blind. I thought that perhaps there was play that was on a higher level than I was able to see, but I guess sometimes bad play is just that and no more.
If the big blind knew for certain that his opponents all had big pocket pairs his play was probably close to correct.
Hi all.
This hand came up last night in a $5-10 holdem game. I had several fairly loose passive players directly behind me. I limp in UTG with AdTd. 4 players call and then the button (never played with him before) raises. The SB folds and the BB calls, I call, and everyone else calls. We're 7 handed going to the flop.
Flop comes Ts 8h 4s. BB checks. I decide to bet because I really don't want it being checked around and the button might not bet if it's checked to him with very likely suited overcards. Then, if the button raises, I can 3 bet it. I bet, everyone calls including the button and BB.
Turn comes 2c. BB checks. I bet. 4 callers.
River comes 3s. (Notice that in addition to the flush draw being completed, someone holding 56 has now made a straight). I check. Everyone checks. I take down the pot with my tens and A kicker.
Q1: Should I have tried to check raise the flop? Q2: Should I have tried to check raise the turn? Q3: Should I have bet the river?
Comments appreciated.
Puggy
Though you can make arguments for all of your alternatives, especially given certain kinds of opponents, there is certainly nothing wrong with the way you played it.
No message
Puggy asks:
>Q1: Should I have tried to check raise the flop?
Naah. When you are somewhat sure the guy on your right is in a betting mood, check-raise is the way to go. Or when you have kings or aces and giving a free card is not such a big deal if your check-raise masterplan goes sour. But with a pair of tens, oh boy, shit happens you know, somebody is sitting there for sure with overcards waiting to suck out on you and he's gonna be soooo happy with a free card and you'll feel like a sucker when everybody checks behind you and everybody starts giving you looks of appreciation, hey buddy, you're a sport, thanks for the free card, you're an ok guy after all... See, I found out some time ago: in poker, when the table gets happy, it's you who feels miserable. And vice versa, when you make them miserable, you'll feel a lot happier.
I'd say your bet on the flop makes them feel miserable. Especially the guy on the button with his pocket 99 or AQ.
>Q2: Should I have tried to check raise the turn?
Naah. Everybody called on the flop, right? When the field does that, it's either a conspiracy or trouble waiting to happen. Somebody's probably on a draw, somebody is trying to hit his kicker, somebody is doubting your sincerity and somebody's just a village idiot. And somebody might be hiding in the bushes with a set, lying low and trying to jump your ass on the turn (in which case you save a bet betting out as opposed to check-raising and getting reraised).
To put it simply: if you check, either the field is behind and will check behind you (which is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad), appreciating your generosity, or somebody's going to bet and you cannot raise him as he could be well ahead and will reraise you just to make you feel miserable. You won't like it being reraised, not with a pair of tens. You won't, trust me on this.
>Q3: Should I have bet the river?
Naah. After four people called you on the turn? After the flush card hit? Why not give the creative ones a chance to bluff? Why give the fish with pocket 33 a chance to raise you? Who's going to call your bet but the guy in the BB with 82s and his measly two pair? No point in betting here, nobody will fold a better hand and you won't get a call from a worse hand (except maybe from a guy with pocket 99, but it's a longshot).
But then again, I like betting. If you for some reason choose to do so, I'm all for it. For your situation you should know best. Learn to trust your own judgement. Make your own mistakes, there's no substitute for that. Mistakes are what you learn from. Just don't get into the habit of betting with abandon. Even the fish will catch up on this and start exploiting. It's the miserablest of all miserable feelings to get exploited by the fish.
Assuming that the preflop raiser is going to bet into 6 other people on the flop when he is last to act is (pick one) 1. overly optimistic 2. ridiculous. The fact is if he is a good solid player and bets into this crew, your A-10 will not get a high price if you auction it, since it figures to be a five-outer. Bet your hand on the flop and see what happens.
Humor, insightful commentary AND a repuataion for excellence dating back to 1389!! Who could ask for more?
Puggy,
Since I'm pretty sure you could hardly care what Sklansky, Ciaffone, and Izmet Fekali think and are really looking for my opinion I'll pop in without even reading what they have to say (for now).
I like your play all the way through except I would not reraise if the button raised on the flop. Instead, I would tend to call this bet then lead again most of the time on the turn. If I did this when the three flush came and got popped it is an easy laydown for me. I believe this method tends to be a little more confusing to your opponents and makes your own play more certain.
Now I'll find out what those other hacks had to say :-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Good title for the thread. Short yet descriptive. A+
Holiday Greetings All:
This Sunday I make my monthly 2+ hour pilgrimage down to Aurora, IL for a 10+ hour session of 5-10HE (the Packers are off, dontcha know). Since my first casino HE experience in May I've accumulated 112 hours and am +$582(math people - 16 sessions:7up&9down, stddev = $230 - I hope that all means I'm doing ok?)
Anyways - hoping to get the forum's valuable input on two subjects before I go. For purposes of discussion my opponents play should be considered somewhat loose-passive.
#1: Raising the turn vs. the flop in Low Limit.
I am debating my current standard of raising on the flop. Let's use an example of Top Pair
I have AJo in the cutoff seat. 3 limpers, I limp (L.Jones disciple), button and blinds come along and we see the 7 handed flop of Js9s3c. An early limper bets.
Under my current philosophy I raise here every time to charge the inevitable straight and flush draws the maximum. But therein lies my quandry - Anyone with a 4-flush or straight draw will call the extra bet anyway. If the turn is a blank, it will be checked to me and they will stay in again for a single $10 bet.
If a flush or straight card hits on the turn, and a predictable player bets or raises, I've learned to release my top-pair knowing I'm beat.
I figure that if 3 or 4 people call my raise on the flop the combined outs that they could have are 23+. (11 spades,Kings,Queens,Eights,Sevens,) Not even counting the freak two pair possible from the dude playing T3h.
So... would it be better to call on the flop, then if an apparent blank hits on the turn I can make it a double big bet on the turn (an oppotunity I would not have if I raised the flop). Some 5-10 players wince at the $20 bet with a draw, and wouldn't I actually be charging them more by waiting? PLUS if a spade or staight card hits and there's predictable action I can drop my top-pair and I saved a small bet on the flop.
What do you all think? Keep in mind - this is not your 20-40 game where advanced strategy works for you. This is a, let's say, average 5-10 game.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Hey PackerFan1,
Hollywood Casino Poker Room
I am not sure where u live but you should call the poker room first to see if they are open. I called last friday and they closed at 8PM.(phone first,,good thing I called)
If not then call 1-888-4-Empress and head to Hammond, In . The casino there also has a good poker room and may be a bit closer.
E-mail me if you need more info.
Best of it !!
MJ
Thanks MJ:
I know on Saturdays they close the room at 8PM. If it was a Friday though, it should have been open till they shutdown at 4?AM. Sunday is all day and night from 8:30A on, but I did just confirm it as a result of your post.
Now, how about your thoughts on the original Question?
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Hollywood Casino $5-$10
OK PackerFan1
I have played in that $5-$10 game and since I just found out that I can't make it Sunday I will comment.
If there is no raises pre-flop these players love to over value the mid-suited connectors.(it's contagious,and i don't know why in that casino) So raise in this position with AJ AQ 99 TT KQ..ect to get them OUT ,or make them pay.
Once I saw the flop Js-9s-3c I would only call. The chances that "one" of these players (out of 6)has 2 spades is very high and the str8 is another definite possibility. I don't know what it is about that game. I have played in that game enough to say that if a spade hits the turn I would be out of the hand with out another thought.
See if you find the same I am interested to see if it was just the sessions I was in or else. I find that in the Empress games players seem to not play them as much.
Best of it!!
MJ
P.S.
Let me know if you go another time I will try to hook up with ya.
This 5-10 game is the softest low limit game in the country. I played there last July and couldn't believe how easy it was - I took home over $700 in under 4 hours. Did you ever meet the maniac King there. He always raises if he has the 5h in his hand. DUH!
I'll be there over the weekend.
Mike Gee
It's a soft game I think because everyone (regulars) plays this mid-suited connectors game (like there an instant winner) If you stay with the higher cards group 1-4 I agree you can kill this game on any night. I know another friend of mine just went there and cleaned house. He also confirmed my idea about the suited connectors. it's kind of like a track bias in horse racing. a very strange game, but best of all it's very profitable. Talk about table selection.
Best of it !!
MJ
Suited connectors are way over valued as are suited cards by a lot of players - so many bets are wasted on these low potential hands. I have 3 groups of hands in my pile of hands I will play. Playable from any position, playable from mid position and playable from late position. Except for Axs (if I'm drawing for a flush i want it to be sure to win) I have no special place for suited cards in my starting hands in any position. I play a power game and leave the weak starting hands to others.
It saves me a load of money and keeps me out of trouble.
Hi Again:
I always like to focus on one particular new skill during each of my excursions to Aurora. Thanks to an earlier forum message from Andy Fox- this Sunday I'd like to begin the habit of watching the player's reactions during the flop and turn rather than the cards themselves.
I was hoping to hear from the forum what other player's reactions generally mean when I do see them. (ie. Andy said that players stare longer at the flop when they don't like it) I figure that they're quick to grab for their chips if it hit them well.
Would love to hear your experience at this and any other common LL tells I can watch for on Sunday.
Thanks
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
What I like to do in every session is work backwards. I pick 2 to 3 players every 2 hours and watch they're play I watch they're reaction pre-flop. Then I watch how they play the hand to the finish. Now I work backwards. What did they do on 5th st, What they did on 4th, etc... Somethings I have notice when playing weak players. 1) when their hand is weak (and they have decide to see the turn and if they miss they will toss their cards).They will call with $1 or the lowest valued chip! They will go out of their way to get these chips. 2) When they are bluffing/semi-bluffing, they toss their bet on the table at an angle relative to them. 3) When they raise/check raise the flop, They do it with such authority that one would think they were the President of the USA. They seem to have a weaker hand. 4) When they ask "how many people are in the pot" Get out of the hand, they have the nuts. 5) People have a hard time NOT betting or raising they trips on the flop.
I'll be in Vegas next week. I'm looking for a hold-'em game that is:
3-6 or 1-4-4.
Full of loose tourists.
In pleasant surroundings (I'm staying on the strip)
and--if possible--SMOKE FREE!
Are their such? Apologize if this was the wrong thread--the post IS about hold'em . Thanks.
At the casino where I normally play, the Bad Beat Jackpot has gone months without being awarded. Here in Alberta, the casinos are regulated by the Provincial government and their rules stipulate that the Bad Beat has to be capped at $20,000. When it reaches that total, a secondary pot is started, and it has accumulated to over $14K, so if and when the main pot goes, there will be a decent jackpot ready to go. Qualification hand is Ace's full of Jacks beaten, but for quads, it must be pocket pair matched up with a pair on the board. Other casinos in town have a house rule that the kicker can play from the hand if trips show up on the board, but not at the Palace at West Edmonton Mall.
I had to curl last night at 7:00 p.m. in my regular Thursday men's league, but I thought I could squeeze in a couple of hours of poker first. I pick up 6s-6h UTG and limp in. Two callers downtable, button raises. She's a regular and rarely raises without the goods. SB folds, BB and the rest of us call. Board comes down Ah-Jc-6d.
I bet out, fold, call, button smooth calls, BB calls. Turn is Ac. I bet again, call from LHO, button smooth calls again. BB also calls. Now at this point, the old ticker is starting to pump a bit. I know she knows that I would not bet into her raise without value, and I also know if she had AK, she would pop the flop. At this point, I put her on AA, AJ, KK, or QQ. Before I can get too deep into thought, dealer turns over the river. Six of clubs. I bet again, LHO calls (what could he possibly have?), and I'm thinking, "Margo, Please raise." Sure enough, she lowers the boom. BB calls(??), I start to get just a little excited. "I re-raise." LHO finally dumps it. Margo: "I reraise!!" BB folds, I call (3 raise limit). She turns over AA, I smoothly roll over my hand, and it's bedlam.
None of the pharmaceuticals from the 60's can quite match the warm and fuzzy feeling of watching them count out $10,000 in cold hard right in front of you. A week before Christmas, no less. An interesting sidebar to the story: the casino has a stupid rule that to be eligible to share in the jackpot, you must be at the table and take a hand. One of the players downtable had gone to the washroom, and was just getting back to the table at the start of the hand. He could have been dealt in, but he said to deal him out while he grabbed a coffee. If he was in the hand, we would have no story, but when they divvy up the pot, he doesn't get a share. The players each chipped in $50 I threw in $150 out of my $10K, and Margo thre in $100 from her $5K so the other player got a reasonable share. I mean, if he's at the table, no Bad Beat. Toked the dealer $300, bought a round of drinks for the pit, and went to my curling game. Never missed a shot the whole game; made several shots Kevin Martin would be proud of (the Canadians will understand).
Now I don't want to hear any flames about playing pocket 6's UTG. Don't spoil the mood. I will be in Vegas the last week of January, and Rounder, I will be in Phoenix probably in late Feb. or early March, so you will all get a chance at taking your shots. Dan Hanson, you just might have a fresh guppy in your 10-20 game later tonight. Merry Christmas, everyone!
Wow... what a story, Merry Xmas is right!
Like most of us, I disagree with the idea of jackpots, but it's great to hear when one of "us" hits it.
Michael
PS- You're worried about flames for playing 66UTG after telling us you're in a curling league - with the little brooms and the rock with a handle? Aw Jees. :)
Don't knock it until you've tried it! Yeah, I know curling doesn't look like much of a spectator sport (which it isn't), but for athletic challenge, it is much harder than it first appears. I know lots of folks who think the NBA and NFL are often like watching paint dry, too.
While we're at it, from a lifelong Cowboy fan, I don't think Bart Starr actually scored. The fix was in. Out.
Congratulations, Dunc. I don't believe we've ever met, but that hand was the talk of the night during our pot limit game at Baccarat last night.
Apparently, the secondary bad beat at Palace almost went last night too. Someone made a straight flush and hammered it, forcing a player with tens full to fold. The case 10 came down on the river...
.. sorry, I have to be a spoilsport :)
First though, congratulations on your fantastic prize. While most people may flame your call UTG, I'm not entirely convinced that, with a $20k jackpot, plus the loose type of low-limit game you play (you did say you were moving UP to 10-20, and there were 2 callers in that hand with no ace no 6..) that it was a decent call.
And it was very nice of you to cut that player in, but I'm afraid I have to speak up on the nature of cause & effect. That player having a coffee was no more or no less responsible for you getting the bad beat than the dealer was. If a dust particle gets in his eye while he is shuffling, and it affects his shuffle, no bad beat. The other players were responsible too - had one of them done something that caused a misdeal, or a misdeal last hand, or so forth, no bad beat.
Basically, what everyone in the universe did in the past (and the future - U of California at Berkeley conducted experiments proving cause and effect works backwards in some quantum phenomenon) had a random effect on a random event, namely, that poker hand. It's cool that you helped out the guy who missed out, but again, it would be folly for him to say he was "responsible" for the bad beat.
Anyways, if you wish to further this discussion, email me or post to me on Other Topics board :0
Sorry for raining on your parade and enjoy your bad beat story for the ages!
M.
I know what you mean. If Washroom Boy had been in the hand, who knows? I just felt it was the righteous thing to do, especially a week before Christmas. From what I understand, most casinos in the States with jackpots at least allow a player a 10-minute grace period in which he would receive a slice if he was away from the table temporarily.
I agree, Dunc. I think it was a kind thing for you and the other players to include the guy. Whether or not it was necessary, is irrelevant. I think it was a kind gesture, especially during the holiday season, and it speaks highly of you and the other players - that you have honor and integrity.
Way to go, and congratulations. Tim
you earned yourself some caps.
scott
It was a great story, no doubt about that, and without taking away anything from the 10k payout in a 10-20 game I must question the "bad beat" aspect. In the sense that a good hand was beat out, yes, it was bad. But a bad beat has to do with having the best hand and getting drawn out, amiright? From the story, you were behind ALL THE WAY. AA below 66 before the flop, ignorant set on the flop, quads below trips on the turn, and ignorant quads on the river. How is that a bad beat? Oh well. Congrats on the huge payday anyway.
-Joe
Having an unbeatable hand beaten AT THE RIVER. Doesn't matter which hand was made first.
My all time favorite first hand bad beat (no jackpot. KcTc vs Ac5c Board 6c8c5h9c7c
n
...have gotten a dime from me nor would've the dealer. I absolutely hate any type of jackpot, high hand, best all-around player, any kind of extra rake. And I've never heard of any ten minute grace period, either.
Congratulations though, you seem like a good guy who deserved an extra.
Now listen to me very carefully: After the exchange rate and whatever percentage your communist gov't steals from you, you're going to have about 4K(US). Spend $500 on your family, and another K taking a shot at an attractive bigger game in Phoenix. Put the remaining $2,500 in your bankroll (plus whatever you make in AZ.), sit on it, and don't move up to a higher game until you're ready. Forget you ever won that jackpot. Don't think of it as "found money" or pennies from heaven. 'Adjust' your records to make it look like you grinded out that $2,500. Don't pay off any bills, nothing. That 10K could be gone before you know it, and you'll have nothing to show for it but a taste for higher limit poker and a 'fancier' lifestyle. Keep drinking Molson, in other words.
PLEASE TRUST ME ON THIS, I'VE BEEN THERE!!!!!!!
Bill, a few points of contention.
I've played poker in Canada many many times. For your information, their "communist" government (unlike ours) doesn't tax gambling winnings or jackpots of any kind. As an attorney who knows a little about tax law, my opinion on the US policy on taxation of winnings is that it is a ludicrous form of double taxation, especially when no allowance is made for fiscal losses. Canada is definitely on the right track here.
Many casinos in the US do offer a grace period. I speak from experience. I received a slice while taking a bathroom break at a casino in Deadwood SD. I can't imagine a worse PR move than to deny a customer who has been patronizing a game for hours just because he or she had to take a leak.
The Canucks did the decent thing giving bathroom boy a cut. I hate to say it so bluntly, but you a real grinch. Open up a bit and you will enjoy life a whole lot more.
As for looking out for Dunc's bankroll, I've read his posts and that 10 g's is in the vault. He is clearly an advanced player miles ahead of his competition.
4 years worth of data from 15/30 to 40/80 hold'em...all adjusted in terms of 20/40.
average profit per hour = 35 standard deviation per hour = 325 (using Mason Malmuth's formula in his Gambling Theories book).
Your results are excellent. My earn rate is about $30 per hour and my standard deviation is $363 per hour in $20-$40. This is based on over 600 hours of play. When you say "4 years worth of data" how many hours are we talking about? 8000 hours(full time)? 4000 hours (serious part time)? 2000 hours (recreational)?
I don't think you are playing too tight.
sorry, i completely forgot to mention the amount of hours, which is the important number, not number of years. the 4 years for me was only 600 hours. maybe not enough statistically to say that my numbers are a good indication of true expectancy.
but, based on that info alone, is it possible that i should be playing less tight, and raise my expectancy, while raising my stdev also?
It is possible but a lot of your standard deviation is a function of the type of game you are in with regard to pre-flop raising. If you are playing in a game where most of the pots are getting raised your standard deviation will tend to go higher than someone who plays in a game with less pre-flop raising. Your standard deviation of $325 per hour is a little low but is within 10% of others that I have talked to about this subject. I play $20-$40 at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana and over half the pots get raised. At the $30-$60 game in Vegas (Bellagio) my standard deviation was almost $700 per hour. My standard deviation more than doubled even though the stakes of the game only went up by 50%. This is because in the $30-$60 game over 80% of the pots were getting raised as well as playing for higher stakes.
I have been playing poker for almost one year now and have mostly been playing poker on PP the last 6-8 months, don't play much live poker on the river boat here in southern Indiana(too much, smoke, time driving and waiting for a seat). I bought the 2+2 books last Feb. and they helped a great deal. I probably played break even the first 6-7 months and have probably won around 1-2 BB's per hour the last 5 months playing 10-20 on PP(i'm now playing 20-40). I have found PP players to be a notch above the live 10-20 game here on the river boat. I was wondering are there many PP players here and what has been their experience playing online. Any particular strategies that change when playing online versus live? ......................all comments would be appreciated
I, too, have been playing poker for about a year and have read a number of books. I play on planetpoker because the nearest cardroom is about 6 hours away. I have been on 6 or 7 weekend jaunts to Atlantic City and play mainly 3-6 on PP. I find that the games are just as loose, if not more so, as in a cardroom, but that there seems to be more maniacs on PP. Basically I play the same as I do in a cardroom, play pre-flop according to Sklansky in HEPFAP, pick my spots, and pounce. The one disadvantage I have playing over the internet is I can't pick up any tells, but I still find it profitable. I am by no means an expert, but this works for me.
I'd be very cautious at 20-40 for fearof collusion. I trust and the whole gang at PP but there is no way they can guarantee two or more people with sveral computers and credit card accounts can't be talking on icq or the phone. As for the players, new fish every day. But there is some steady as a rock competition as well.
Since thre is no particular reason to look for tells, I find it easier to be disciplined on PP because you can be taking care of some chores in between hands.
Other than that, I'd prefer live faces to look at.
Coming Soon Video Planet poker
Question,
How long does it take to play an average hand of holdem on plant poker?
Milt Boyle
about 1 1/2 - 2 minutes.
In other words, 40+ hands per hour is not out of the question. If you are playing heads up, you can easily break 70 hands per hour.
- Andrew
One thing to consider is not so much how long it takes to play a hand as how long it takes in between hands. Internet lag lately has been awful.
its funny you mentioned it, discipline and chores in between hands are 2 reasons i prefer online poker. i can get stuff done and don't get tempted to play marginal hands as often.
Though occassionally guilty of doing "chores" between hands, I think you generally give up a lot of value if you don't pay attention between hands.
You can't pick up any physical tells, but i think this is a small portion of the information you need to successfully "play" the players as well as playing the cards: betting patterns, weak, tight, loose, aggressive, etc.
Pat
I will ask you this: how hard would it be to have 2-3 friends playing at the same table all of them talking on the phone? How hard is the game if there are 5 friends at the same table, all on the phone? There is no law stating they can't do this, better yet, who can police this if it does happen. I have tried online poker twice and did alright.
I will ask you this: how hard would it be to have 2-3 friends playing at the same live table all of them signaling each other? How hard is the game if there are 5 friends at the same table, all colluding?
Same problem online as in a casino.
- Andrew
Which is easier: A. To have 4 players at a live table all signaling to each other in such a way that they all know exactly what they hold while avoiding scrutiny from the floor, the eye-in-the-sky, and the other players
or B. Have a couple of PCs and a couple of laptops in the same room, and have the players openly discuss what they have and what the best stategy is. I dunno, seems to me that a few older computers and a few phone lines is a small investment to make to play some 30-60 poker where u will NEVER lose. Yes I am aware that the have programs to study the games to see if the play of the hands might indicate collusion, but that is just another factor in devolping your strategy.
I truly believe that the people running these places are honest and are doing everything they can to make the games fair. I wish them the best as they are helping promote they game we love. But there is flaw in the concept that cannot be overcome: There is just no way to prevent cheating.
You sre quite wrong about this. The people you beat at a casino, if they find you are colluding can follow you out to the parking lot and break your knee caps. That hardly ever happens online.
SammyB writes:
You sre quite wrong about this. The people you beat at a casino, if they find you are colluding can follow you out to the parking lot and break your knee caps. That hardly ever happens online.
This hardly ever happens in real life. Usually they just mug you cause you won, not because you were colluding.
- Andrew
How many people typically see a flop in the bigger games on PP?
I'm not quite sure but if you log on to Paradisepoker,com they'll tell you how many see the flop and the average pot. They keep a running tab that is visible in the lobby.
I play most of my limit hold'em on line. Mainly the low limit games at Planet Poker., some thoughts.:
Clearly, the use of tells is much reduced. However I have found that for some people, hesitations can be a good weakness tell.
Record keeping is now much easier. I am currently writing a small application to parse the report files and put the results in a database (Well what else are you meant to do with the Requested Hand History or Paradise Poker Hand History files?) This database can then be accessed while playing, to give valuable information on ones opponents, starting requirements, how often the check raise on the turn etc. In principle you could select a table and immediately be given your win/loss rate and deviation for playing at that table, and maybe a warning signal for when your win/loss rate fell below a certain value and ….
From the previous point, it is clearly correct to change nicks as often as possible. If allowed never playing longer than an hour or so without changing it, difficult in Planet Poker admittedly. (Actually, I have always used the same nick, but then I am just an amateur).
Clearly, collusion is a worry. It is difficult to know what percentage of players are parts of a team, how about five percent as a rough ball park figure? One should differentiate however, between people who are just colluding for a 'lark' for a few hands, and dedicated professional cheats. The only way I can see of handling this problem is for server side analysing of hands for suspicious betting practises. I read a post earlier claiming that paradise poker were doing this. I don't know if this is real or just a PR move.
My general attitude to cheating is that as long as I am winning, I don't care what the other players are up to.
I have started talking to myself, vocalising what I think my opponents have, how many bets are in the pot, what my options are etc. Terrible habit, I must get out of it before the neighbours complain.
Piers
(Jeez, I wish I could have a bigger title!)
Anyways, here's the scoop. You are on the button. You have Pocket N's. Before you can reach for your chips, a card is flashed, and it will be the burn card - sure enough, it's one of the 2 remaining N's left in the deck.
How low will you go to play your pair?
Obviously, if you have pocked aces and an ace flashes, you are still going to play. Obviously, if you have pocked 2's and a 2 flashes, you are going to muck the 2's (you ARE, aren't you...?)
At what point do you draw the line? What is the magic value of the pair you will play your hand and you will muck it?
Personally, I'd play 10's with a 10 flashed, but that's it - you can still make the nut straight and there is still a reasonable chance of flopping an overpair (about 1/3, right?) plus a "safer" overcard board like KK5 rainbow..
Any ideas? Mr. Sklansky, is there a formula for this? :)
M.
That's life... Your trips were going to be hard to hit anyway since you didn't know that an opponent had the card. So that gives you the one 'N' left. You *could* see the flop if you are sure it will be for 1 bet. If it's raised before it gets to you then fold of course.
I think the best thing to do is fold. Live to fight another day.
Best of it !!
MJ
The game is a ten handed $20-$40 game. I am on the button in Seat #3 with the Ten of Spades and the Eight of Spades. #6, #8, and #9 (a certified maniac) all limp in with everyone else folding. I limp in. The small blind calls and the big blind does not raise. There is $120 in the pot and six players.
The flop is: Six of Hearts, Four of Spades, Deuce of Clubs
Everyone checks to me. I check, happy to get a free card with 5 opponents.
The turn is: Nine of Spades
Both blinds, #6, and #8 all check. #9, the maniac bets $40. I have a Spade flush draw and an inside straight draw with any Seven. At this point there is $160 in the pot and it costs me $40. I am thinking I have a lot of outs with this hand (9 Spades + 3 Non-Spade Sevens). I also have an overcard that might be an out if the maniac is betting top pair. Since everyone checked the flop and no one seems interested in the hand, I decide to raise to $80 rather than just call. I might win the pot without a fight. Everyone immediately folds except the maniac who calls. There is $280 in the pot and two players.
The river is: Eight of Hearts
The maniac checks. I bet $40 because I don't think I can win a showdown despite my pair of Eights given his bet when the Nine turned. The maniac thinks awhile and calls. He wins showing the Ace of Hearts and the Nine of Clubs for a pair of Nines beating my Eights.
Was my raise on the turn correct?
Raise the turn - yes.
Check the river.
Vince.
I agree with this response for the following reasons: (Maybe they are the same as Mr. Lepore's)
Raising the turn may knock out a blind hand with a low pair and a ten or an eight that might then beat you if you make a pair, or someone else with a better flush draw who plays well and won't call $80 to win $240 on a 4+to one proposition. Also, it might make the maniac lay down the hand, although the chances of that (he's a maniac) are small if he has any kind of hand or draw. However (he's a maniac) he may have no hand at all and lay it down.
Also, suppose he has the A-3 of spades...
Then betting the river would be correct if you hadn't paired, because he has a better hand that could win in a showdown.
But on the river you made a somewhat legit hand. Now you might beat the A-3 of spades in a showdown, as well as some of the other hands with which the maniac might have had you beat on the turn, but if the maniac has a pair of nines or better, you lose. You have to decide what he might have been betting with on the turn, and what the chances are when you bet the river, of winning the pot if you are called. If you are called with a pair of eights and a ten kicker, your chances of winning are not very good when your opponent calls. You have to make this decision because you actually have a legit hand. If you had no hand, you would not have to consider this, but could just consider what the chances were of the maniac throwing his hand away.
For this reason (that you actually have a hand, but the chances of it beating a calling hand are not that good) I say check the river.
as you can see in my post, i disagree with the turn raise. in particular, a higher flush is getting 3-1 immediate odds. assuming, the maniac calls the raise and he gets one call on the river, he has 4-1. add to that that if he has a higher flush draw, he has overcards and sees those as additional outs. also, the one river call is conservative. the flush draw will usually, and should usually (depending on the mainiac he might fear a reraise, but not likely in this case) call.
also, what are chances that will call a bet? and didn't bet that flop? not big. the same for bigger tens. this pot is not big. these tiny chances do not outweigh other considerations in a small pot.
scott
Wow this sounds like a problem for super dave!
Scott put away your calculator and play the hand and see what you come up with.
Vince.
i just got in from a night of monster drinking, so use your grain of salt.
man, i said i feel a raise here. i like to raise. my intuition always says raise. but here it is wrong. i very might have raised if i was playing, but i would be wrong. you should call.
scott
as you can see in my post, i disagree with the turn raise. in particular, a higher flush is getting 3-1 immediate odds. assuming, the maniac calls the raise and he gets one call on the river, he has 4-1. add to that that if he has a higher flush draw, he has overcards and sees those as additional outs. also, the one river call is conservative. the flush draw will usually, and should usually (depending on the mainiac he might fear a reraise, but not likely in this case) call.
also, what are chances that T2 etc. will call a turn bet? and didn't bet that flop? not big. the same for bigger tens. this pot is not big. these tiny chances do not outweigh other considerations in a small pot.
scott
Your point about this being a small pot is true, but that in fact helps your semi-bluff by giving people who can beat you even worse odds.
I think a T2 might call a $40 bet from a maniac and someone who might be on a flush or other type draw as evidenced by a call from the button on the turn. you are getting five to one on this call, but three to one after the raise.
I might call such a bet, and in fact might have checked the turn in order to induce a bluff from the maniac, but I would be forced to fold in the face of a raise.
Your point about the As3s makes more sense, but I would see my overcard out as being quite possibly no good and expensive if it hits in the face of a raise from someone who could easily have A-9 or already have two pair (a somewhat unlikely two pair admittedly--6-9?) plus the problem with maniacs is that they like to raise and reraise, so my draw may in fact cost quite a bit more on the turn than merely $80. In light of that and the questionable odds situation, I would fold the As-3s here.
The raise would also get out A-10, K-10, Q-10, and J-10, all of which beat you when you make your 10.
So I still like the raise of the maniac, although this is not a large pot and somewhat in light of the fact that it is.
the small pot does not help. are they correct to call a raise? no. will they? no. are they correct to call behind you? no. will they? probably not.
the point is legit draws are comming anyway and other draws shouldn't come. so let them. most of the will not have a T in them. the pot is small. look for some extra bets. 1 pot out of 30 will not make up for a bet 10 times out of 30.
if you get some callers then you made money on this street with your 12+ outer.
but getting the flush draw to fold does seem plausible, though unlikely. the point is that when the pot is 5 bb, increasing your chances to win the pot is not the overriding concern.
by the way, i have been drinking.
scott
I think your raise was correct if you thought the maniac was bluffing and you were trying to re-steal. If your re-bluff was unsuccessful, you still had a lot of outs. If you thought he really did have a nine, I think your raise was incorrect. It’s unlikely that a maniac would fold his pair of nines to your raise. In that case, I think you would have been better off just calling and taking the increased pot odds. The answer, therefore, depends on how much of a bluffer you thought the maniac was.
i was wondering when the next one was coming. i am glad. here is my stream of consciousness.
i think the maniac could have lots of things to bet the turn. any pair, pocket 5's or 76 for example, or a couple overcards or a straight/flush draw. your raise helps make a T, or maybe even an 8, good.
but not against too many hands. just thinking about it, the pot's smallish. if you just call the next guy only has 5-1. the only hands that i can see your raise getting out that might call if you call and beat you on the 8 or T are AT and the bb's 82,T2, etc. though, some bb would have bet the rag flop with any pair with no preflop raises. so your really aiming at AT.
higher flush draws are coming. so there is nothing gained there. your 7 is to the nuts, so you're ok there. i just don't think this raise helps you very much.
unless you think that mainiac has something like 57 and you T high might win after a checked down river. but this guy doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. also, this guy is pretty loose, so getting him to lay down might be hard.
so your raise gains little. if i am wrong about his personality, it is more complicated. also, if the table would call one bet with KT, QT, JT it, there may be some upside to raising.
the downside is clear. you lose the additional action if one of your draws hits. you don't even gain a bet from the mainiac, since you could have raised the river. and you lose more when you miss.
just call.
on the river, i think this guy would call with any hand that could beat you. he may call with a lower pair, but i would check.
my intuition said raise. it always does. i like raising. but i can think of very few hands that it would knoch out for you. so i call.
scott
One of the things that makes playing a maniac very difficult (in some ways) is that is very hard to put them on a hand. In this case, I assume you don't know if he has a pair or is betting overcards or a draw. When he bets the turn and you have a draw, you can call to entice the other players to call also and thereby increase your pot odds or you can raise to get everybody else out. I find that raising a maniac never gets them to fold if they made the bet.
In this case, you decided to raise. I'm assuming the reason you raised is that you're guessing (see above statement about putting maniac on a hand) that the maniac was bluffing and you wanted to get everyone else out. As expected, your raise got everyone else to fold and it's down to just the two of you. On the river you catch an underpair. If you are correct that the maniac is bluffing, your bet here wins you nothing. If you are wrong and he has a pair, you get called, but you have to hope he was betting an underpair on the turn. Since maniacs are so hard to read, I would have checked the river.
By the way, I find that straightforward play works best against maniacs. I try to save this type of play for players who are more predictable.
It pains me to say that but it is true (given typical 20-40 players plus the maniac.) I will let Vince elaborate.
Fold.
Fold.
Check.
How'z aboot:
Flop: Bet
Turn: Check/Call (If the field at this point was weak, i'd be inclined to bet to win the pot if it's checked to me.)
River: Check/Fold
Fry
I meant fold before the flop. But, yes, I'd bet the flop, if checked to.
"The flop is: Six of Hearts, Four of Spades, Deuce of Clubs. Everyone checks to me. I check, happy to get a free card with 5 opponents."
You should have bet here, as your bet might knock out a hand like JTo.
"The turn is: Nine of Spades. Both blinds, #6, and #8 all check. #9, the maniac bets $40. I have a Spade flush draw and an inside straight draw with any Seven. At this point there is $160 in the pot and it costs me $40. I am thinking I have a lot of outs with this hand (9 Spades + 3 Non-Spade Sevens). I also have an overcard that might be an out if the maniac is betting top pair. Since everyone checked the flop and no one seems interested in the hand, I decide to raise to $80 rather than just call. I might win the pot without a fight."
You want to call here with your draw. If you hit one of your twelve outs, you want as many players in as possible. You don't want to knock out someone with overcards who might call. With the pot this size, he almost certainly won't fold to your raise, and any concievable holding of his is a value favorite over you. Even if he bet overcards, he will call your raise. An important thing here is that underpairs on this board also make inside straight draws, so he isn't folding those to a raise if that's what he has.
"Everyone immediately folds except the maniac who calls. There is $280 in the pot and two players. The river is: Eight of Hearts The maniac checks. I bet $40 because I don't think I can win a showdown despite my pair of Eights given his bet when the Nine turned. The maniac thinks awhile and calls. He wins showing the Ace of Hearts and the Nine of Clubs for a pair of Nines beating my Eights."
You really have to know the player for that to work. Against a maniac or calling station, you should just show down your eights and hope he has overcards or 55 or 33. The turn raise on a board of 6429 with 2-flush can so easily be from a draw that a good player is unlikely to fold top pair here.
Good analysis Dan. Betting the flop is tough for me to do with 5 opponents. I could easily do it with 2 or 3 since I would have a good chance of winning the pot outright. Because of the number of opponents and the presence of a maniac who seems to always call flop bets, I elected to check.
When the maniac bets the turn after everyone checks to him, I now think my raise is bad because I know a maniac will call. Replace the maniac with an LOL, a rock, or even a sane player my raise has a reasonable chance of winning the pot. Although I didn't mention it in my original post, my "table feel" told me that none of the other players were interested in the hand and probably would not have called a single bet so my raise was unnecessary as far as getting them out of the pot. The maniac was my real target. But I used the wrong weapon.
On the river, I agree the bet was bad because the maniac won't fold if he has a Nine. One could argue that he will call with a lower pair but if he had a lower pair he probably would have bet the flop after all those other players checked to him.
Oh, well at least my pre-flop play was flawless.
here's the david i know. welcome back.
i think you mean that you would bet the flop, call the turn, and check the river. i've already argued for the last two.
a flop bet. hmmm. the thing is that this is a low flop. you would have raised a big pair preflop. you pretty much had to miss this flop. i guess a set or 76s, 65s something like that. you would have just called with a middle pair, which is now an overpair. so it is plausible, but everyone will have you on overcards. if i am the bb, i am raising your bet a lot of the time. i think you are weak and i can resteal.
a flop bet may work sometimes. but i don't think often enough to make it profitable for 6 sb.
scott
Dan got it. A bet on the flop is especially correct against non sandbaggers who will fold medium cards and check on fourth st, if they do call. In fact with these criteria a check would be incredibly wrong. See why?
even stipulating that a T and an 8 will always fold to your bet. and that if you check, you will not count a T or an 8 as an out. so that the bet gets you a full 6 more outs, increasing your chances of winning the pot by 13% or so, it is minus ev. you are giving 1 sb for 13% of 6 sb. and i would be pretty sure that a check raise was coming.
this pot is small. with just 6 bets in there, i am not doing all i can to win increase my chances of winning.
it would certainly help a lot if you could be pretty sure that there is no check raise waiting for you. but how realistic is that? it is so easy for the bb to have caught a low pair. and it is easy for him to put pressure on you. if i bet and the bb did not raise, i would be rather surprised.
if they would check on 4th, then you get two chances to hit it and the extra chance at winning the pot would be well worth it. also, you will almost certainly induce a bluff on the river, which you can beat if you improve.
but i don't see that happening. i think that i am walking into a check raise and will be bet into on the turn, unless perhaps i reraise the flop. even if noone has anything. they just won't believe i have anything. it looks like your trying to buy the pot. i don't like semibluffs this thin in pots this small.
am i wrong here? what would you do in the bb? i think i would raise almost every time.
scott
With your assumptions you are right. If this is the kind of 20-40 games you play in, you should know that there are a lot better ones out there.
The pot being small is actually an advantage for a semi-bluff.
D.
it may help your opp fold, but you win less when it works and it is worse when you are called. when you are drawing very thin, i think that the smaller pot hurts you. but usually it centers around the mistakes your opp's are inclined towards.
scott
"it is so easy for the bb to have caught a low pair. "
And just how easy is it? and why do you think he would check raise with a "low" pair. Wouldn't he be more inclined to bet a small pair? Unless of course his name was Carson.
Vince.
he can be more sure you have nothing than you can be that he has nothing.
if he is inclined to ever resteal, this would be a perfect opprtunity.
scott
nothing? You said a small pair. I find a check raise by the BB with 5 or six players to act with a small pair very unlikely. Not impossible because some players play as you obviously do. A "resteal" in this situation is much more likely to succeed when heads up.
vince
not a check with the intention of raising. but raising after it was checked to the button. i think a flop bet would usually be a better idea for the bb with a small pair. but a check with the intention to fold, that became a raise when it was checked to you, is a possibilty. he might have a pair. you almost certainly don't. that is common knowledge and it is to the bb's advantage.
scott
I would be more inclined to believe that the button didn't have a pair with this flop if he had raised preflop and not called.
Vince.
Vince, your arguments are exactly right and superbly stated. I think it is time for you to move up in class.
is assuming that his opponents think more deeply than they really do. In other words that they think like him. As years go buy you will see how wrong this usually is in all but the biggest games. Take it from Vince.
i stand corrected. my inexperience shows the brightest through my assumptions. i will believe your characteriztions until i have some experience. and based on the typical quality of your advice, i will probably still agree them then.
scott
really? raising 3 early limpers wouldn't prompt a little overpair consideration? not many overcard hands are strong enough to raise here preflop. would you have raised or limped with AJ KQ AT JTs QTs etc? if i am the bb, i think he missed the flop in either case. but i think he is more likely to have a pocket pair if he raises. either way, i might raise his flop bet with nothing. but i would be more sure of being up against no pair if he limped preflop.
however, a planned check raise with 2 pair or a pair/draw combo would be much more likely if the button had raised. so i would fear a check raise more if i had raised preflop.
scott
This would be a tough bet on the flop against tough opposition. The flop is 642. There is very little doubt that one of the toughest flops to bluff on in a multiway pot is an xxx flop. i.e. a flop with 3 low cards. Someone said that a bet here would get out hands like J,10 which you want to see. But a lot depends on where J,10 is. If he is in one of the blinds, he may fold. If he is close to the right of the button, he may not. Hands like J,10 are of course your classic limping hands and can often be found in the hands of a late position player. I doubt that such a player will fold to a single bet on the flop.
I also tend to agree with scott that if the blinds are strong players, you are apt to be raised by someone holding as little as A2.
Plus, this flop does give you a backdoor straight/flush opportunity. Why risk the chance of getting raised and having that option taken away from you when they have given you an opportunity to take the free card.
Against 5 players, I will likely check on the button and take the free card.
On the turn, I tend to agree with your raise. Given the lack of interest from any of the players, it is likely that they are going to fold no matter what you do. What you are really hoping for here is that the maniac also folds. If he doesn't, you have some outs. Also by raising, if you are both on a draw (which is a real possiblity given that he - the maniac - checked the flop) and you both miss, you will likely win the pot because your bluff at the end will likely go uncalled.
River:
You hit. I think you have an obvious check here as there is no way that the maniac will fold a 9. Further, it is unlikey that he has any other 1 pair hand with which he will call as if he did have a smaller one pair hand, he likely would have bet the flop from his late position. Thus, the bet is not likely to work as a bluff nor is it likely to work as a value bet.
You don't usually miss your chance by betting the flop since you should call a check raise. The fourth st. raise is of course worth it if there is even a small chance of winning it right there.
SKP,
"This would be a tough bet on the flop against tough opposition. "
You seem to contradict your own philosophy of when in doubt punt (my read on you). That is, if you aren't sure, bet! That said I, like the bet on the flop but I don't think that a check is necessarily a bad play either. Tells you a lot about my advice, huh!
Vince.
I do live by the adage "when in doubt, punt" but I wouldn't have too much doubt about checking this one.
Hi,
this is Jeff, some of you might remember from some of my other posts about being a pro. Now ive got a new problem about beating a particular game:
1-2 HE, no blinds (dont ask) very loose, hardly any action pre flop. 6 handed
my problem is, that lately the other players, who are normally very loose are starting to play very tight. This is something that I have never encountered before, and for the first time last night, i lost my $25 min buy in.
i think the key to breaking this game is to bring lots of action pre-flop. what do you think of this strategy? also, if you think this is a good strategy, should bets come strong?
also, i recently acquired "Winning Guide to Texas Hold'em" by Ken Warren, i would appreciate if anybody who has read this book tell me what you think, and of any misadvice in the book.
thanks
Jeff, in a game with no blinds a guy who plays very tight will be a winner. Someone can literally sit back and just play premium hands and show a positive expectation in the long run since his overhead is zero. Years ago, Hold-em was played with only one blind and there was very little action. When the second blind got added, hold-em became the most popular poker form in the country. I recommend that you get your friends to add a small blind for 50 cents and a big blind for a dollar so that you get some experience playing in a normal game.
I am not familiar with your book. I would recommend Lee Jones book "Winning Low Limit Hold-em", or David Sklansky's book "Hold-em poker", or perhaps getting Sklansky and Malmuth's "Hold-em Poker For Advanced Players" and just focusing on the loose games section of that book.
This is only correct if the other players are roughly equal to you post flop. If you have an advantage over them post flop then be willing to limp in with somewhat looser values in good position (note that the button has last action on ALL rounds, not just on the flop and beyond). If the others are too loose preflop then raise to punish and isolate. If the others are too tight preflop then limp in position so you can out play them post flop. You'll have to adjust to the current table disposition and to the players in the current hand.
Depending on the social structure I might not try to get the other players to play a "normal game". Unless the game is truely tough you might have a better game when the players involve think they know what is going on then if you change the rules on them. If you find that you can outplay these people on the flop and beyond but you still want to try to change the rules then 1) if they are use to stud suggest an ante and 2) try suggesting a spread limit game like 1-2-2-3, 1-2-2-4, 1-2-3-4, capped PL, PL, etc. These might not appear to be much bigger to them but will allow you to use your advantage to a greater degree. Your best time to suggest a change is when it appears a few of the regulars are unhappy with the current situation (stuck). It doesn't matter this won't make it any better. It will be a change. OTOH don't be surprised when they want to change back next time they are stuck. Keep a third structure/game in your hat for that circumstance.
I briefly read his book. Lost a lot of interest and respect for the Guy. there are better out there.Strong aggresive play in lower limits have paid for me. I encourage pre-flop raises. but not always with big hole cards. suited connectors are nice pre-raise cards.Adjust your play UnderTheGun position.AQ-pairs min...toss Kt,KJ,QT,AT,AX in early position.
are there antes? if there are no blinds and no antes, what will your ton of preflop action earn you? they fold and get another hand. change the structure. if you must play in this structure, you should play very tight as well.
scott
No blinds and no antes? To beat the game, don't play anything but AA. That's the first key factor. Second, make the host buy dinner. Eat all you can and then refuse to ever host poker at your house ever again. I can refer you to a shadowy figure by the name of Mister Krister if you ever need advice on this second point.
Never play poker at Krister's house. Despite the rakes, despite the expert dealing, despite the attractive waitstaff, despite the comps.
never, ever, not ever
alex
Niels made that mistake. Now he's dead.
OK,I'm at Texas Station, average game , a couple of experts. No one knows me well, since I play all over town and very my schedule. I've been playing holdem 5 yrs. and I think I'm starting to figure some things out. New player sits down, he knows everyone and has a walkman working so I take him as a serious player. I limp with As 4s after five callers, no raise. Flop comes 10c 10s 2s, new player in the big blind now leads at the pot, all fold to me, I figure him for a flush draw on a semi bluff trying to find if a ten is out, so I raise, he calls. Turn is a 6h , he checks I bet, he calls. River brings 3h. He checks, I'm thinking my ace is good so why risk a bet since he could have a weak 10. He show's me K3s while he stacks my money in glee . Question, did I miss a bet on the end ? It was a little embarrasing, but should I push on the end agaist a blind rather than a early player because the little cards could hit the blind ? Thanks, I lurk and learn.
PS: Please see my post on "10 reasons to play cheese", you may have to scroll down a bit but I would like your honest opinion of my play.
I think your check on the end was correct because you have an Ace and can beat King-high or worse. How do you know he wouldn't call you on the end anyway with a pair of Threes? He can beat Ace-high and Deuces. I have seen players with a busted draw just call on the end when they snag a pair hoping for a miracle.
Not sure if walkman with sunglasses would call on the end with busted draw and 3 pair, after I had represented a 10. A lot of lo-limit players would, therefore I see your point. My point is, against a BB unraised who could pair the river, where if this same player was UTG I wouldn't have to worry about a low pair. Thanks Jim.
I think raising with a flush draw when the board is paired is a mistake - especially when it is 10's.
Why not call on the flop and see what the bettor does on the turn. I'd be surprised if he would have bet again. If he checks, then you can decide if you want to try and muscle this hand if you miss the flush on the river.
I think I would most commonly have taken a free card on the turn to avoid his very possible check-raise with a ten.
Having bet, though, consider how your question about the river would look had you not told us his hand. Had you just said, "He checked and I checked along. Comments?", then no one would be saying, "Well, you gotta bet to make him fold a possible three", right?
Thanks, I understand. I have had success betting a Ace high flush draw when I can determine a single opponent is on the same draw only lower, hence all the aggression on the turn. I have even check rased with it on the turn, bet it when it hit on the river and collected two more bets because the opponent raised. In this case I really wasn't worried about the 10. Maybe I'm expecting too much from the hand therefore taking unnessary chances with it on a paired board. Thanks again, I will heed the warnings !!!!
Well, it's just that when the guy bets and calls your raise, one reasonably likely hand for him is the trips. But of course sometimes you know an opp's play well enough to be confident in your read that he does or doesn't have it.
Actually I think I was a little too absolute about not betting on the river there. Sometimes you might actually bet on the river even if you think you can likely just show it down and win. That would be when you think he may also fold a hand that's slightly better than yours, like a pair of the small card that came on the end. Sklansky calls it a "just in case" bluff in _Poker, Gaming and Life_. Of course you wouldn't do it if he's not really capable of folding a pair there - and lots of players, even good players will call with the paired board just because they know there's typically a reasonable chance that a player doesn't have the trips.
Typical 2-4 game. I'm UTG with pocket Jacks. There is a new player(NP) in middle position who posts a $2 blind.
I choose not to raise pre-flop as such raises hadn't been successful in thinning the field. Four players see the flop.
Flop: AT5 rainbow.
Checked to me and I bet as, if there is ace out there, I don't want to give a free card to a K or Q. NP raises and the rest fold to me.
My question is do I: 1) Call and hope to improve on the turn? I'm getting 7-1 on this call. 2) Fold and play again.
Thanks,
PRC
If he is 100% to have an ace or better you should fold. If he is 95% you should call IF he will always check a worse hand on fourth st. If he will bet both better and worse hands all three streets, there has to be about a 25% chance in your mind that you have him beaten begore you can call since your effective odds are 22-10 plus you have a chance to spike. If you think he will bet a worse hand twice and then give up, your effective odds are 18-6 making a call on the flop right if the chances that he has a better hand is less than about 85%. So your answer is highly dependent on how you read this player. (The above answers are somewhat simplified but they are pretty close.)
Since PRC has dubbed the raiser "New Player" I will assume he has no take whatsoever on this guy. With that in mind I would think either reraise and see where you are on cheap street or check and call all the way unless another jack falls, of course. At 2-4 stakes this guy could raise with KQ or KJ hoping to pull the gutshot broadway. Or he could have flopped two bottom pair where the aces are now outs. Either way I'd play it out to get a read on the guy.
Two thoughts:
1) As Sammy says this was the guy's first hand so I didn't have any information on him. However, Mr. Sklansky's post was very enlightening. It gives me a great framework for thinking about this situation when it occurs again, and I still have some pondering to do.
2) Given that I didn't have any information on this guy, is it a good idea to develop a "typical" player for a particular game? In other words, I play games ranging from 2-4 to 5-10. I could develop a composite player for each game and use that fictional player's tendencies to make decisions in the absense of any specific player information.
Thanks again for the posts!!
PRC
Regardless of what had transpired previously, you should have raised preflop.
Having played the way you did, I think you call the raise on the flop and bet the turn. If you get raised again you can dump it. If you get called, you can check on the river and hope your opponent doesn't bet.
This is incorrect. If you suspect the loose game will resuld in about 3-5 people calling your raise it is better not to raise pre-flop. In a tighter game with good chances to keep it to 2 or less opponents a raise is correct.
D.
David,
Not only is it loose, we're talking 2-4 here. I understand that sims have shown jacks do better against <3 opps or >5 opps but I would not consider that when your opps are playing Ts 87 54s and the like. I agree with Jim Brier that if they want to play that crap let them pay two bets to do it.
They also play Ax and Kx, and if the cards are all smaller then J there will be some horrendous beat waiting to happen.
I don't know about the sims but it just seems logical to me. If you raise, how exactly are you expecting to win the pot? Against 2 or less you will win with the best pair, against 4 you will likely need a set and you wont have the right odds with the raise.
D.
Here's how I see it. It's low limit no foldem holdem. UTG with JJ you raise. Some of the field have Ax, some have Kx, some have Qx. Also, there could be some lower pairs, some suited connectors like T9s, 87s JTs, and there might be some Aj, Kj, or Qj. Yes, if the flop comes AQx it looks pretty futile. But lets say your raise gets 74s to fold and 83s to fold and 92s to fold especially in the blinds then a flop of T84 rainbow and 982 2 suited looks pretty awful to the singleton honors. You bet maybe people with 1 over card calls, maybe someone picked up top pair, someone might have a flush or straight draw. If another small card flops your jacks are looking pretty strong. It's going to be hard for AQ, A8 or AX suited or not to see another big bet. I think you'll lose most of the rags on the turn and be up against draws and lower pairs seeing the river. I like that situation.
I think you should raise pre-flop with your pocket Jacks with what is probably the best hand. You are making a pure value raise here. Who knows how many will call but almost certainly fewer than if you just limp in. In this particular case, you might have had only one or two opponents instead of three. Maybe the new player would fold even if he had an Ace depending upon his other card.
On the flop, your bet is correct against three opponents, two of whom check. It sure would have been nice if you had raised pre-flop because you can represent a strong Ace with your bet. Believe it or not I have actually seen novice players fold a weak Ace on the flop in the face of an under-the-gun raiser who leads out when an Ace flops. At least it would be more difficult for someone with an Ace to raise you. Putting it another way, had you raised pre-flop and then when your flop bet gets raised you can now be 100% certain that you are playing a two outer and make an easy fold despite the larger pot. Because the raiser is an unknown entity, I think I would call and take off a card.
Loose passive game with occasional players. Six people average to see the flop. I was middle position with 55 and called preflop. First position player (next tightest there) opened and was aggressive for this game. Flopped 8,5,little something. I raised to make it $10, three left in pot. Turn was small card with possible straight draw help. I didn't think opener would have opened with the cards to make this draw, but who knows. I raised to make it expensive, player beside me called, opener reraised and we all called. River was the fourth 5. Not thinking about it for a long time (loose table play) I bet it out instead of trying for a checkraise. Both called but it left me thinking that I had left a bet or two on the table. Comments and advice welcome. Thanks.
With you and the early position guy raising and reraising, i don't think the last position player would bet for fear of being raised again (plus it looks like he was on a draw), so your bet doesn't seem that bad.
Fry
You probably made 2 bets by betting out when the pair, or third suited card, hits on the river. Most people tend to check on that kind of board after a couple of rasing rounds.
Your punishment for mising one bet maybe (they probably would have mucked a reraise)
NO SOUP FOR YOU - 1 week
I would cap on the turn. even if by some small chance you are up against a rag straight you have a lot of outs. Try and lose as much money as possible with a set in general.
Betting on the river was right, you can't expect someone else to bet after the agressor and you both check.
D.
I agree with David Steele. You should cap it on the turn with your set since no one may have a straight and you have 10 redraws to beat a straight anyway. I like your river bet. How do you know anyone would bet if you checked? People will call with a lot more hands than they will bet with, especially on the river.
You would have felt really dumb if you had checked and then they all checked, then you would have left bets on the table. Bet it out every time.
$5-$10 SB is a maniac, rest are loose passive one solid player in cutoff. I have AdQh in bb 6 limpers, sb raises, 8 see flop Jd5d8d sb checks I bet with my 2 overcards and nut flush draw. 4 call sb raises. I reraise (mistake?) sb caps 3 see the turn 7d sb bets! I raise cutoff calls, sb reraises, I cap it. cutoff calls all the way Now, I'm thinking I may not have the nuts. Even though he's a maniac he still raised out of the sb . . with what? The only two hands that make sense after the turn are the KdQd, or Td9d, Maybe KTs, QTs. The cutoff must have at least the q or k of diamonds for him to stay in and since I'd call him stable I have to give him the Kd. That only leaves QdTd or Td9d for even a possible raise out of the small blind for the maniac.
River is 6c. Sb bets.
Comments
Why not KK or QQ with a d maybe JJ makes some sense for a set on the flop.
Hell, at 5-10 it could be any number of hands that this guy thinks is good. I'd play the A high flush like the nuts if you lost well that's the breaks but you can't put a guy like this on the straight flush - how did it work out.
As it happened he bet the flop I called (wooss, I know) cutoff called. sb shows 4d6d!! cutoff had the king.
And my question is why would I want to move up to $10-$20?
sounds like you ran in into a straight flush! I have done the same. I have raised on the flop with my draws, Sometimes I have capped it. If it was a straight flush , he made his hand on the flop. Cards fall that way sometimes. You raise the river, and call the re-raise if done so, If you are second best, toss your cards and congrats to the Straight Flush.AH he showed you 6,4d, well once again his hand was made on the flop.
Just call on the river. Partly because of the fear of a straight flush, and partly because a call means you may pick up a couple of overcallers behind you in a weak game with a pot this size. If you raise, one of three things will happen - everyone will fold to the small blind, who will fold if he was jamming a set with a diamond, or you'll be re-raised by the small blind, in which case you lose two additional big bets, or the small blind just calls, in which case you win one.
I think your play was fine. I would put the cutoff on a set not the second or third nut flush. On the river, when the small blind bets you should just call. With the Jack of Diamonds,Eight of Diamonds, Seven of Diamonds, and the Five of Diamonds on the board you can lose to the Ten-Nine of Diamonds or the Six-Four of Diamonds. He knows he doesn't have the nut flush so his bet will almost always mean a straight flush but you have to call.
I don't believe the cutoff is a very solid player if he was willing to take all that pain on the second nut flush given four Diamonds on the table and all that betting and raising going on. One of the nice things about hold-em is that we can usually tell when we are beat it is not necessary to lose a stack of red to the nuts when we know we don't have them.
I have been playing AXs from any position (even for a raise or two) because I feel the implied odds warrent it when 5 or 6 people are seing the flop. I do follow the following rules.... A. I must flop a four flush or B. if I flop a pair of aces my kicker must be higher than the other two cards on the board or C. I flop two pair or better. If none of these conditions exist I release the hand.
Is this play to loose preflop? What about post-flop? What about occasionly throwing in a raise to make the pot bigger for myself with the stipulation that I release the hand if I dont hit on the flop. Would the bets I waste on the hands I throw away be made up the times I make my nut-flush?
By playing Axs in any position and seeing two or three bets with it you are throwing money away. If it's any lower than an 8 play it in unraised pots in the sb, bb( call a raise in the bb with more than 4 opps or a steal try from the button), button and 1 right of button. Even A9s in early position is a bad call if there is a usually a lot of preflop raising. I would not call 2 bets with anything lower than ATs in middle position. Flush flops just aren't that easy to come by and if there has been preflop raising it could be pretty expensive to chase to the river with a four flush and and top pair no kicker with two strong hands in front of you.
It seems risky business to raise or to call a raise w/this type of hand. You will only flop a flush draw about 1/8 times.
I do admit i like playing this hand alot in mid/late position in loose/passive games, as you will often get paid off if you do make a flush or two pair and i think the implied yoou get make this worth it.
ALthough in retrospect , I think most of the hands ive won by playing AXs have been by making trips or two pair...
I would be carefull in early position when playing Ax, late position is alright. But alot depends on the other players, and the texture of the flop( it seems that you know what you are doing when the flop hits)Playing that way might create bad habits, if and when you move to a high limit game. personally I like seeing people play Ax. I get paid well when it happens.
In a loose, passive game Axs can be played profitably from any position, provided you play it well after the flop. If the game is agressive, and most pots are being raised, you have to tighten up. Worst-case scenario for Axs is that you call, the next player raises, and you wind up heads-up or 3-ways on the flop, out of position, and against a player who may have a bigger ace.
Instead of learning a 'formula' for when you should play it or fold it, ("i.e. "I always fold on the flop unless I hit a four-flush or an ace with an overcard kicker"), learn to understand where and when it's not profitable to continue, and play more flexibly.
Calling two bets before the flop is a bad idea. First, if the raiser has a big ace, the value of Axs goes way down. Second, calling a raise before the flop makes your implied odds worse.
I agree with Dan's analysis. Theoretically, if no one is so rude as to raise before the flop, then you can limp in with Ace-little suited from any position. However, this is rarely the case. Avoid spending more than one bet to see a flop with this hand if possible unless you are in a steal situation. Post-flop there are no hard and fast rules.
I am UTG in a semi-loose 4-8 game. I have pocket kings and I raise before the flop. 4 players including myself, the button and BB stay to see flop. Flop comes A, 5, 7 rainbow. BB bets, I call, button calls. turn is blank (I think), BB bets, I fold, button calls. River is a blank. BB bets, button calls and BB turns over pocket JJ and button mucks. Am I playing weak/tight or was I correct to fold with the A on the board.
That is a tough one. I would have to know the players more. the way I see it is one of two ways. FOLD, or RAISE him to slow down the play.Personally I hate being a calling station. I think you have a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong
vader99,
A brave or tricky player in the BB will often make this type of play on you with the jacks or similar hand. The problem for both of you is that there are two other cold callers in this hand. Even at 4/8 this often indicates an ace. I would have folded on the flop against most opponents
The only other alternative is raising. I would do this if the BB was tricky and the two cold callers were players capable or calling raises with weak hands.
Calling on the flop was terrible. It puts no pressure on the players behind you and tells the BB to fire away again on the turn. That you don't want.
This is an example of where the correct order of choices may well be fold, raise, call. This is quite unusual and counter-intuitive.
Regards,
Rick
Unless you know the big blind very well, I would fold on the flop when bet into and an Ace flops because I have three opponents and nothing else to draw to except my two outer. If the big blind is a known trickster or just an everday looney tune, I would raise because I could easily drive out someone with a weak Ace and get it heads-up.
Like a solid poker player, I've been waiting for just the right hand. I've never posted a hand here before, and low and behold, in one round this afternoon, I played two hands where I had raised preflop, and played overcards to the river without improving. I lost the first pot, and won the second.
While I consider myself to be a decent player, I have no idea how to proceed after flopping overcards. So here we go...
2/4 holdem. Loose game (of course). I am in seat 10. #7 is very loose, and somewhat aggressive. The other players in the hands are unknowns who haven't been seated long.
First Hand: I raise UTG w/AdQd (often I'll just call here) #6 calls, #7 (button) calls, #9 (bb) calls. flop is 4s4cJh. #9 checks, I bet, #6 & #7 call, #9 folds. turn is Ts. I check, #6 bets, we both call river is 7h. Everyone checks. #6 shows 9d8d (straight). #7 shows (doesn't muck) 6h6d.
I lost $10 There was no point during the hand when I knew if I was making a correct or incorrect play. Then, five minutes later...
Second Hand: #5 is the button, so I'm in middle position. I have AsKd. #8 (UTG) & #9 limp in. I raise. Blinds & limpers call, everyone else folds. I act last from here on. Flop is 8s3d2c. bb folds (?) and its checked to me. I bet. #6 (sb) & #9 call. Turn is Jh. Checked to me. I bet. #6 calls, #9 folds. River is 8d. He checks, I bet, he calls. I show my AsKd. He shows me AhQd.
I won $26 There was no point during the hand when I knew if I was making a correct or incorrect play.
So go ahead... tear me apart. I'm ready
Ryan
In both hands, the number of callers dictated that it would be difficult to pick up the pot with a bet after the flop. That would've been the best point to cut your losses.
In the first hand, I don't like the pair on board either, although that would not necessarily stop me from making a pass at the pot if I thought a bet could win it. However, you were still drawing, but with a lot of loose players, you could've hit your A-Q and still run into someone holding something like 4-5.
Note that the flop to the second hand is a lot tamer, yet by its very nature will induce clowns holding hands like 10-8 to keep coming. But remember that both A-K and A-Q are drawing hands and without help, can't beat even a lowly pair of deuces.
In any event, it's a good idea to mix up how you'll play those hands, sometimes call, sometimes raise. Don't fall in love with either hand; I always keep TJ's advice in the back of my mind as I play those hands, in both limit and no-limit: "if you don't flop to it, get rid of it" (although obviously you can gamble a little more with them at limit since you can't get hurt as bad).
In Lee Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold'Em his advice is if you're playing AK or AQ and haven't improved by the turn, dump it. As for overcards in general a lot has to do with position and what you know about the other players. Jones' advice is to muck overcards on the flop. His example is KQo with a flop of 842 rainbow. If ther isn't any action I'll take off one card and see what happens. If I don't improve I'm gone.
Ryan, I am no expert, but I see an interesting difference in the two hands you describe. In the first one at one point you checked and someone bet into you. In the second one everyone checked to you and you bet into them. This is a major difference I would be looking at. With the first hand when someone bets I think folding and taking a small loss would be my usual response.
So, I can bet these hands from late position, when the flop is all rags, but I should check out if another player shows strength. And I'm not giving up much if I never play them at all. Right?
How about, if in the second hand (I'm AsKd, flop is 8s3d2c) the 2 is a spade, instead of a club, giving me a chance at a backdoor flush? How about if the 8 is a club, giving someone else a possible flush draw?
Obviously, a backdoor flush draw would add a little value to my hand, but not much. But with a possible flush draw against me, I can represent the flush if it comes, or I might get called by a hand like JcQc to the river. Should I play it differently? Do I want the flush card to come, so I can use it as a scare card to bluff, or is it just going to scare me out of the pot?
Also, Sammy B & Lee Jones say to should dump overcards if they don't improve by the turn. What if nothing scary falls, and everyone checks to me after my bet on the flop? Is that considered an improvement? I could put in another bet, (semi-bluff, or value bet?) or just take a free card, and hope its an A or K.
Thanks for your help... this is one area where I clearly need it.
Ryan
Whether or not a "blank" hitting is an improvement for you is not the point. At low limit someone might have just paired up on that bklank or made two pair. An ace or king is what you are looking for here and to quote Lee Jones again, if you simply dump overcards on the flop you are way ahead of the game. Now, this doesn't take into consideration backdoor flush draws such as the question you posed with the As and two spades on the flop. If I could see the flop for one more bet with more than 4 people in I would take off 1 more card hoping to catch a spade, ace or king. But you have to be careful in letting your backdoor flush draws eat up a lot of your chips. They should only be a small factor in whether or not you stay around. I'm not sure how you're doing in the long run but if you think you are playing solid poker and keep losing, then playing poorly post flop might be why. You know when you have a good piece of the flop and when you don't, play the good flops for now until you get a bit more experience seeng the less obvious opportunities. It can get really expensive to wait for that ace or king to hit on the river just to get beat by someone playing 84 out of the blinds and picking up two pair.
There is a good section on playing overcards in S&M HFAP, end of chapter on semi-bluffing,
The general point is that with two overcards, you have a good hand, which might be best, but is likely loosing to a low pair. Betting is a good idea if a lower pair is likely to fold, and you can always catch up if called. You also avoid giving a free card if you are best. Number of opponents, texture of the flop and back door possibilities for your hand being the things to think about.
First Hand:
Flop: I think this is an excellent position for a semi bluff bet, A four or a hand that might have raised preflop are the only things beating the hand you are drawing to.
Turn: I would be tempted to continue betting, my confident pose might persuade a small pair to fold. If not, I would have to call a bet anyway with ten outs against a pair and four against a set., and pot odds of 7 or 8-1.
River: Don't like #6 attempt at a check raise.
Hand 2:
Flop: Compared with the first hand, you are more likely to have the best hand, but less likely to persuade a small pair to fold. Still I think a bet is right. 83, 82 and 32 would likely have not called the raise preflop.
Turn: Bet I think is OK. Maybe a small pair will give up at this point, if I had shown weakness at any point I would only check here. I can not beat a set any more, but I will worry about that when I get checked raised.
River: I don't think I am putting in the final raise. If a small pair has gone this far, then I think that its going to call the last bet and a weaker hand than yours is going to fold. OK I would have been wrong,. Looks like #6 is a good guy to have at ones table.
Piers
On the first hand, you should plan on almost always raising under the gun with AQ suited. This is a premium starting hand and it plays well regardless of how many opponents you have. At low limit, these guys play almost random cards so you might as well make them pay a double bet. On the flop, you have three opponents one of whom checked to you. I would bet the flop because my opponents are few and my over cards do not complement the board which means that an Ace or a Queen is probably a clean out for my hand. The small pair on the flop helps my hand making it harder for anyone to over take me if I hit a pair. No one raised your bet on the flop which is encouraging since someone with a Four might have raised. You got rid of one opponent which is good. The turn is an interesting card. You have just picked up four more outs with any King giving you the nut straight so you have a total of 10 outs perhaps. At this point there is $23 in the pot. I think I would bet here since you only have two opponents and they might bail out on the turn when the betting limits have doubled. If not, you have a lot of outs if you are called. However, checking is not a bad play. #6 bets and the button calls. Of course you call. The river is a bust card. You should check because it is obvious the Seven doesn't help your hand so a better hand won't fold. You can beat Ace-high (except big slick). Your opponents checks and #6 wins with a straight at the river. Strange that #6 did not bet his straight at the river!
On the second hand, your pre-flop raise is good. I think you should check the flop when all four opponents check to you. You have no pair, no draw, and four opponents minus the big blind who folded unnecessarily. I think 3 opponents is borderline in terms of betting your overcards and the reason I would just check is because I am the last to act and I can take a free card. You bet and both the small blind and #9 called. The turn brought no help. I would definitely check here on the expensive street. What you are now doing is trying to "bet your way" out of trouble. This is not a good idea at low limit. Only #6 calls. The river is no help. This does not look like a board that would help a pre-flop raiser unless the raiser had specifically a big over pair. The problem with betting at the river now is that you are quite likely to get called by any pair and a worse hand probably won't call. Your opponent was idiot for calling having only AQ. He should have folded on the flop. What hand could a pre-flop raiser have that couldn't beat AQ? Only AJ suited or KQ suited perhaps.
O.K. I think I'll be playing these type hands a lot more confidently from here on.
Jim- I like "'bet your way' out of trouble" I think I do that too often, and that label just might make alarms go off in my head next time I find myself about to do it.
One question on the AQs... You say I should almost always raise utg. I would almost always raise with AQo, but with suited cards, I will limp in. I figure that I can expect a huge payoff from a large field when I make the flush, and its as good a way as any to vary my play.
The other day, I raised utg w/ AQo in a low limit game at the Taj. When I showed it down, a regular across the table said to me "Its not like you to raise with AQ under the gun". He must have only been paying attention when I had it suited. I can't remember if his mis-reading me did me any good, but I felt good about it.
Anyway, am I giving up much when I limp in with AQs or AKs?
Gonna go play in a bit, maybe I'll have another hand for you guys later.
Ryan
Yes, I believe you are because many of these guys will call pre-flop whether you raise or not. A suited big slick or big chick is just that much better.
The following hand came up in 10-20 hold-em. I am SB with A-K suited. Second player, (good player) raises. Button,(also good) reraises. I make it three bets and second player caps it and is all in. Flop comes A-K-Q. I bet and button calls. Blank, I bet again and get raised by button, I call. Blank, I bet out again and get raised again by button. I call. Button had pocket Qs and second player had pocket Ks. They split my money. Should I have made it three bets pre-flop and should I have pressed my hand after the flop? My reasoning was that I was now heads up against the button after the flop and put him on A-Paint just like me. The all in player could be on J-J or similar hand. Could I have played this better?
N.Y. Mike,
You may want to clarify the pre flop betting a bit. You say you made it three bets but is seemed like you really made in four bets (with the third raise). Also, I assume a cap in this game is a bet and four raises as in Las Vegas.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, Your right. I called three bets when it got to me and the second player capped it to four bets. (Three raise max.) Three of us saw the flop for four bets.
Early Raiser (good) reraised by another player (good) makes A,K anything a weak holding. If I call I don't like the flop for exactly what happened to you. I figure i'm beat somewhere. If your preflop raise is correct it is only because the 2nd player is going all in and even then I don't believe it is correct. The button obviously has a very strong hand. Especially if he raises a known good early position raiser. The few chips that the 2nd player may complicate this hand a little but not enough to like A,K. I fold this hand at the 20-40 level, and maybe at any level.
Vince.
But Vince he had AK suited (Super Slick) plus he was already partially in. Doesn't this make a difference?
Pre-flop, I normally fold big slick when faced with a double raise. However, since you are both suited and partially in because you have the small blind, I think your call is correct. The second player capping it means nothing because he is simply going all-in. Your betting the flop is correct. When the button calls, it looks to me like you are in serious trouble. He may have AQ suited or perhaps pocket Jacks or maybe even another AK. On the turn, your bet is correct and so is your call when raised. At the river, you must check. Your bet here was very bad since you are almost certainly beat. I would make a crying call at the river but perhaps a really good player would fold.
I can only fault you for betting the river and losing $20 unnecessarily.
There was a thread on RGP which I noticed pertained to want image you want at hold 'em. In it Tom Weiderman gave four or five reasons why a tight image was best. Of course Mike Caro replied to claim that a loose image was correct.
I thought I would use this space to comment on an aspect of achieving a loose image in hold 'em that I have never seen addressed before. How much does it cost to obtain that loose image?
In his draw poker section in Doyle Brunson's Super/System Caro gives a play that I would use on occasion back in the old days when I lived in California and played a lot of this form of poker. In a jacks-or-better to open draw game he recommends that you sometimes can call from a late position, rap pat (that is not draw any cards which indicates that you hold at least a straight), and then when everyone checks to you you just spread your hand. Of course you hold five unrelated cards.
Now there is no question that this play in this game will do wonders for your image. Also note that it only costs one small bet to achieve it. In addition, I do not know of any equivalent plays in hold 'em.
There are several reasons for this. First, hold 'em unlike draw poker has blinds. So your calling will not close the betting. Second, to assure that everyone checks to you one bet won't do it. In fact, two bets usually won't do it. You would have to put in at least three bets, and then when everyone checks to you (which will almost always happen) you can turn your hand up on the flop and announce that you have decided that this isn't worth betting.
Notice that you will now be on your way to achieving a loose image, but at triple the cost of what it would require in draw poker. (By the way, on those rare occasions where your garbage hand actually turns into something you can play it as normal.)
For those interested another image type play at hold 'em is to reraise on the button when the dealer has only dealt you one card but everyone else has two. When the action closes you can then ask the dealer for your second card. Now you don't even have to show your hand to have everyone think that you are nuts. But again the price is very expensive.
So my conclusion to all of this is that achieving the type of loose image which gets talked about and frequently recommended is just too expensive to do in this game, and any experienced player who understands hold 'em should tell you the same thing. All comments are welcome.
Mason, I couldn,t agree more. I have read Mike Caro and love his books, etc..But on this point I think you are right, in hold-em. Another concern is what happens after you do your bit, spend the money, get the image, and then get rags for the next two hours. Once you fold 10 times in a row the smart players will know you aren't loose. I always get long runs of rags. Once this happens I realize I have a tight image. Now I'll use this to steal a blind or two and once in a while bluff after the flop, and it works.
P.S. Mason, could you review my post on "third best" and give me your opinion? Thanks.
Tight/Aggressive gets the money bottom line !
Best of it !!
MJ
How about calling UTG with a hand like 52s, in a game that's always getting 5 or 6 callers and isn't too agressive? One good player I know plays this hand from any position, even against raises, as long as it is his 'favorite suit'. In that way, he only plays it one time in 4, which means the situation rarely comes up. But when he plays it and wins, it's very memorable, and every time he's in a hand when his 'favorite suit' is on the board, people start looking at him.
This seems like a pretty effective image play, because he may get that hand only once or twice in a week, so even if the EV loss is half a small bet, this only costs him a couple of small bets in a month of direct EV loss, but I can attest that it does wonders for his image.
IMO, if calling with 52s UTG in a loose-passive game is an error, it's not that expensive an error. If the other players play really badly after the flop, it's probably close to EV neutral. And most players think that 52s is much worse than 32s, when it isn't.
For the image play to be successful he has to show the hand. If he only shows it when he wins he will hardly ever turn the hand up.
You get to show the hand any time there is a showdown, any time you are last to act on the river, and you can always show your neighbor when you miss the flop and say, "Thought my favorite hand would come through for me that time". Then when the hand is over you can tell everyone that 52s has won you a ton of money and it's your favorite hand, and you always play it no matter what, etc.
Trust me, I've heard people discussing that 5-2 hand even when that player isn't in the game. It's made an impression on people. And probably cost the good player almost nothing.
Post deleted at author's request.
Hey Gary,
Mason is a better "yucker" than you give him credit for. I remember, last January, he made a "yuck" to one of my posts. Now that I think of it that may have been an "Ugh" for the January post. But one time in June I distinctly recall a "Yuck, Yuck" as a response to one of my posts. See!
Vince.
I agree that there are a few situations which occur where you should play the hand and calling or raising will gain you approximately the same amount of EV in the long run. But there are two problems with these plays.
1. They don't occur that often, and you may go hours waiting for one. Contrast this to draw poker where you can begin to make cheap image plays almost immediately. 2. Some of your opponents won't recognize these as loose plays but rather as sophisticated plays that they think will earn you more money. For example, if you raise with a pair of treys from a late position after several players have limped in will your opponents view this as a loose play or as a sophisticated play?
By the way, next to the two fours, the most famous hand that I ever played was a 5h2h. The hand is written up in my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II on pages 282-283. Furthermore, if you want a few yucks, look at the essay called "Affirmations" on page 279.
Special for Gary: You may want to work with Affirmation #9 -- "I would play poker good, if only I could." (I suggest you say this at least 30 times a day.)
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary wrote:
"You write in in a boring, passive voice, Mason. And, your Poker Essay books are the worst examples of boring, passive writing. "
Boring, passive voice" Who cares! Don't listen out there. These two books Essays I and II are perhaps the best, the best, the best, reference material an advanced poker player can have in his library. Sacrilege Gary! Don't make me prove this. I don't have the time. Besides Mason won't give me any of the royalties. Seriously, these books are golden! I think they are the reason Sklansky keeps Mason around. Just a guess. I have asked Mason in the past for Poker Essays III but he just blows it off!
Vince.
Actually, there could be a POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME III. But that is at least two years off and very doubtful. David and I both prefer to give some other authors a chance. (Plus we like the idea that they do all the work.)
Well that's nice to know Mason. Two years, will you still be able to get around by then. Age has a way of sneaking up on all of us. Careful!
Vince
Gary Carson wrote :
"You write in in a boring, passive voice, Mason. And, your Poker Essay books are the worst examples of boring, passive writing. "
Call me boring too, but I actually enjoyed reading those Poker Essay books.
Gary,
You seem to be pussyfooting around here with these derogatory comments about all aspects of Mason. You don't like him as a person, writer, editor, publisher or player. Since you can't seem to just come out and say it, I'll do it for you:
"I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU! I HOPE YOU EAT WORMS AND DIE!!!"
There, don't we all feel better now?
BTW, I've read Mason's Essays I & II, and I disagree about his writing being boring or passive. I find ideas exciting, and anything that causes me to think is, I find, far from being boring.
I have run across a few people that aren't huge Malmuth fans; invariably this has been due to their perception of his failings in the areas relating to personality and social graces. I've even heard him called "mean spirited". Ray Zee likes him, and Sklansky seems content to associate with him over a goodly period of time. I think if you just sign over your copyrights to him, (now, is that too much to ask?) he'll start treating you well also. He won't publish your book, but he'll start treating you better.
I play clubs all the time, for deception, because all you good players think clubs are so weak.
Methinks you know the player I'm talking about.
As a bridge player, I think that's the funniest thing about the way that I evaluate my poker hands. I dig like suited cards when they are clubs or diamonds, but I can't help myself from evaluating spades a little higher on my close pre-flop plays.
(Suits are ranked in bridge, S H D C)
Oh well, harmless off topic aside over.
On the subject of minimizing image costs, one of my favorite recent gambling books is "Burning The Tables" by Ian Anderson. The book is about blackjack, (which was my game before poker) but I think the point we can all take from it is that image is based much more on composure and salemanship as opposed to the cards you play. Sure, folding 10 hands in a row looks tight, but it can me greatly mitigated if you roll your eyes to the heavens and exclaim, "Please, God, _any_ card higher than a 9, and I'm going all in!"
Just leave behind the serious looks, the reading materials, and most of all the "oh look how patient I am among the clueless gamblers" air of quiet superiority. I think that worse than the whining. People don't mind pissing someone off, but they hate being condescended to.
My 2 cents.
Zooey
Zooey
'Burning the Tables' is a great book, and you make an excellent point. There are a couple of pros in my regular game who are constantly bringing books and magazines to the table to read. It just KILLS the action, and when they finally look up and see AA, everyone folds.
Never, ever read at the table.
I think an important distinction has to be made between low limit and higher limit games.
I think that Mason's point of loose player image in a standard 10-20 or higher game is much more costly because of the probability of aggression.
But as Dan Hanson has mentioned, a sizable amount of the lower limit tables are much less aggressive, and in those situations Caro's advice of loose image play is much more profitable.
The relevant contention is that the benefit of a tight image is the ability to scare out people when you don't have the cards. This occurs at the cost of having trouble receiving callers for bets when you do.
But in low limits where people play often and play to the river a tight imaged player is effectively circumvented. You will still not be able to scare people out, and will still receive callers for your bets. Of course tight play is positive EV, but at least with a loose image there are tangible benefits. Namely, if you advertise your mania enough people will call you more (because psychologically that is their desire anyway, to play), and you will receive extra calls when carrying extremely powerful hands.
Now, you must agree that the cost of this image is much lower in lower limits than in higher ones. And the benefits are higher. So, I will stipulate your point in high limits, but not in low ones
alex
I don't think I agree with this.
In the loose games you will get plenty of action anyway so why give something up to get action? It is also usually true that most times you are betting you want the other hands to fold. The pots are large and although calling is ok folding is even better. When you make it two bets on the turn, even the loosest players will fold if they have seen nothing but solid hands from you. They will even incorrectly throw away some good draws occasionally.
Now I do agree with playing some of those marginal suited hands to throw off the better players as to what cards you have but I wouldn't do anything special for the loose players. If the game was all loose bad players, I would play super solid without variation.
D.
I agree. I wouldn't really call these 'image' plays. It's more just classical deception. In a tough game, you want to project an image that makes your opponents unsure of what you are holding. Sklansky has written that he is 'capable' of checking and calling all the way to the river with AA on occasion, just to keep his opponents guessing. An occasional call UTG with low suited cards or a small pocket pair keeps the tough players from jumping all over you when a low flop hits. In fact, I make a good chunk of income from doing exactly that - there are several players in my game who can be counted on to never be able to have a card lower than an 8 in their hand if they call UTG. When the flop is 335, I've got those guys in my gunsight.
In a game full of fish, 'image' plays go straight over their heads. However, the same cards that you play for 'image' in the tougher games may be playable for value anyway if the game is weak.
looseness was not the characterization of the game. it was the characterization of the image.
the game is passive foremost, and lose secondarily. that makes the cost relatively low. And if you don't want an image that's fine. But if you do, loose is better than tight in low limits
alex
In 2-4, 3-6, 5-10 most of the players aren't really paying that much attention to you, they are playing their cards. Sure, if everytime you raise on the button you have a big ace or king you might be able to steal the blinds more often but if there is any decent amount of money in the pot no matter how tight you have played you will be called to the river with third pair. The same goes for looseness. If you play like a true maniac, 100 % of the hands raising everytime, people are going to tighten up not because they are thinking about your cards against their's they are thinking how much money is their hand worth and do they want to stay with you on the betting. You will not get extra callers for being a maniac you will actually loose some.
Mason,
I went to RGP and read the posts in that thread. I believe that it would be difficult to employ Caro's advice of playing slightly worse hands than your loose opponents in pre-flop situations because in reality you have nothing until you see the flop with all but the very best hands. Caro didn't discuss the different rounds so I'm really not clear on what exactly he is recommending. Perhaps he is referring to post flop play.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
Sure there are times you want calls but I still believe the majority of the time you want people to fold. There are plenty of calls anyway in the loose game.
D.
Your post makes almost no sense and contradicts itself. If you are in a game where people play often and play to the river what does it matter what your image is since you have already accomplished what you want. The reason why you try to achieve a loose image is to get people to play often and go too far with their hands. If they are already doing that it makes little sense to make any investment towards that purpose.
but, people will call you a certain percent of the time all the way down. In LL it is really high.
now, my point is not self-contradictory
look at two cases
1) You attempt to develop a tight image by usual methods. This method will not be beneficial because blind stealing will not work. This is pretty much already agreed with everyone else. People won't care that you are tight, they aren't paying attention and want to play.
2) You give yourself a looser than average image. Note that although there are already callers for you, it is an increasable number. People want to call you. If you show terrible cards three times in a static game, and do some big talking people will call you more in heads up and late round play then they would have before. The question is whether the reduced cost in these circumstances is more or less then the reduced profit.
alex
"In it Tom Weiderman gave four or five reasons why a tight image was best. Of course Mike Caro replied to claim that a loose image was correct."
Of course Mason they are both right. Of course Mason they are both wrong. Of course Mason Tom Weiderman is correct. Of course Mason Mike Caro is correct. Mason if I were playing in your game and you had me as a tight player how would you play against an early raise I put in? If you had me as a loose player? Mason if you were in a tight game and wanted a loose image what would you do? It certainly wouldn't take an extreme move on your part to create a false image of being loose. Certainly, creating a tight image is much easier and is probably best when the table is comprised of fair, good and excellant players. In a loose game image is less important but the edge must go to the tight image because even among a table full of loose gooses fear has it's influence. But that's more than I wanted to get into. The paradox of image is that to play winning poker a tight aggressive game is usually the best strategy while a loose passive image is usually the best attractor for action. The best players that I know, understand how to use thier current image to their advantage.
Vince.
A loose image attracts the wrong type of callers, whereas a tight image intices competativeness. I've noticed you get better action on your hands when the other players try to test your preflop raises, if, your image is that of a solid player, especially in low limit games. Loose players love chasing solid players to the river and beating their pocket AAs with two pair like 47 or Q8 off, it makes them feel important, like "Ha! I beat your stinking Aces". But, for the few times they beat you, 20 times they won't and that's where you make the real money. Also tight aggressive players like to test you hand as well, when you are a solid player and find themselves invadvertently giving you protection on your hands. Since poker is a psychological game as well as a game of chance, does it not make sense to have players fear you instead of take you lightly.
"does it not make sense to have players fear you instead of take you lightly. "
I don't know if you agreed with me or not but I agree with the premise of the above. It is better "in poker" to be feared than loved.
Vince.
The image advice that Bob Ciaffone recommends is correct for hold-em. If you acquire a loose image by getting caught early on a bluff or a risky hand, then make use of it. If, on the other hand, you acquire a tight image because the cards stink, then rob the suckers blind at every opportunity. To that end, since I generally play a loose-aggressive game in tourneys, I always make sure to show my big hands but never show a bluff. As someone alluded to above, there's nothing worse than having bad players think you are playing weak hands. In the situation that Ciaffone relates in his book "Improve Your Poker", he's playing with many people that he knows. Thus it is incorrect to try to waste money attempting an image change anyway. This probably applies to many players here who see similar faces in their games.
I agree with Mason completely on this. Furthermore, I have seen many atrocious poker plays made with the excuse that the player was, "Doing it to get a loose image." the modern poker setting is much more likely to be a public cardroom, which means a much wider base of players than in a home game. When the cast of opponents is going to change a lot from one day to the next, the value of advertising goes down in value.
Thanks for stopping by. Now would you like to explain that use of the word "revolting" (in the Conjelco catalogue) pertaining to our advice about calling double bets on the button with 98 suited in multiway pots. It got me so upset that I started an anti author tirade for a few days. While the decision may be close, there is no way it costs you half a small bet as you suggested. Furthermore you unwisely made your claim merely on gut feeling and experience rather than on math or computer runs. You admitted so yourself in the article. The problem is that even years of experience can give you a false reading on such a rare event.
Had you checked it out on Mike Caro's poker probe, you would have found that 98s does fine hot and cold even if one of the other hands is a pair of aces. Had you known this I think you would have changed your mind. You were right when you said that claims that most of the high cards are out, to justify the call, are silly. But you should probably call anyway. I guess what bothers me the most is that you thought it was so reasonable that we made a "revolting" mistake that without looking into it deeply you would make such a comment. Seriously disagreeing with us on a technical point should not be done lightly.
As to that last column in Cardplayer, could you have really meant what you appear to say? Namely that having a backdoor flush draw on the flop will rarely swing a fold to a call. Perhaps you meant having ONLY that backdoor draw. Surely you realize that if you add to it a middle or bottom pair or a gutshot draw, there are many situations where a fold now becomes a call. But you appeared to write otherwise.
Bob, your writng on big bet poker is excellent. Your stuff on limit holdem is usually quite good though a bit too tight for topnotch players (by your own admission). But lately you have seemed to go out of your way to find flaws in our stuff especially when we are a little too loose or aggressive for your liking. I am surprised and frankly insulted that you don't have some self doubt when you seriosly disagree with us. (You may not know that Ray Zee rewviewed our holdem material as well as the Stud.) Talk to me first before you write the next article like that. Lee Jones and Mike Caro will thank you for it.
Post deleted at author's request.
Mason,
I think you don't understand something which is vital to achieving a lose image. It is an IMAGE, not the truth. If you are actually playing loose relative to your opponents, you are going to be giving up a lot of money in the long run.
When you are trying to establish an image, you can't say, "this hand I'm going to advertise". It just doesn't work that way. And the reason that it doesn't is exactly the reason you state, it costs too much to throw your money in there with the worst of it.
So then, HOW does one achieve a loose image if you're not going to throw in your money with the worst of it? One way is by talking. But all talk and no action is not going to fool anyone.
So what does one do if one wants a loose image? The answer is go against Roy Cooke's pedantic creed that the larger your edge, the more money you should put into the pot. To apear loose, you have to put in more volume when you have less of an edge. When raising with marginal holdings, it is also important to understand what your opponents think is loose, and what they will think is a sensible raise.
You come off looking loose when you button raise preflop with stuff like J8s into a field of four opponents. You won't get to show this hand down all the time, but you don't have to because it's costing you only a fraction of a bet, if *anything* to play this hand like this.
One last thing, playing in a shorthanded game is very different from playing in a full table game. As we all know, playing loose correctly is one of the secrets to winning shorthanded games. The shorter the game, the looser it is correct to play. If your opponents don't understand this it is very easy to look loose when you are playing optimally.
- Andrew
"You come off looking loose when you button raise preflop with stuff like J8s into a field of four opponents. You won't get to show this hand down all the time, but you don't have to because it's costing you only a fraction of a bet, if *anything* to play this hand like this."
Andrew:
I'm glad to see that you are reading our books. For those of you who are interested in this kind of play see page 234 of HPFAP-21.
Mason,
I have three 2+2 books, and one day I'll probably buy another (the next on my list the Hi/Lo book). Unfortunatly I had bought HEFAP about six months before the 21st century edition came out. As such, I probably won't buy the 21st century edition until...
... the 21st century.
Next time I'm in the book store, I will check it out though. BTW, are you guys planing on updating any of your other publications for the 21st century?
- Andrew
Gambling Theory and Other Topics was also just udated. But unlike HPFAP and SCSFAP the updates are not major. Other than that as we redo our books we are always trying to make some enhancements, but nothing major is planned.
I don't feel like getting into any complex analysis on this right now. But let me throw out one observation. I have played largely in the San Diego area since 1987. Now this is hardly the largest poker market around, but it may be ranked in the top five in terms of number of games spread on a given day. (e.g., On a given day in S.D. County, starting above the 9-18 level, you may find one 12-24, one 15-30, four 20-40s, and one 40-80 game being spread. Apart from the lack of high limit action here, how does that compare to A.C., for example?) Since about '94 I've played in the highest limit games in this area. Prior to '94 I observed the best players in those games from afar, and heard assessments of them from others. Since then I've played with them regularly. Over a period of time like that it becomes quite obvious who the best players are, who is taking the most money out of the games over the long haul, who survives, who moves up. It's a well known (in the area) small handful of players.
In all that time I have not known one player in that group who had a loose image. Some are a little looser than others, but they are all tight and aggressive -- every single one. If any is trying to convey a loose image he or she is failing miserably at that task.
(I'm not addressing the low limit games. It's been a while since I've played in them. I think I see what AlexB is saying but, as he indicates in his closing comments of one post, the answer is ambiguous at best. I can say that I don't recall any loose-image players who seemed to have long term success in those games when I used to play them.)
So what does my observation mean? Has Mike Caro failed so totally at convincing thinking players of the advantages of the loose image that there is simply no one out there applying it successfully? Have I just encountered a statistical anomaly in this area? Or is it that the loose image is not in fact the most profitable in these games? Thoughts?
I agree with the comments about the need to adapt to the image you have. The cards and the way hands play out will affect your image in ways you can't prevent. I believe Sklansky was the first to write about that in any detail. But here we are talking about what image is best *overall*, what image you should nurture when you do try to nurture a particular image.
most of the time in holdem or any other game, you won't be getting a steady run of playable hands, so it doesn't make sense to be cultivating an image of someone who plays many hands when you aren't planning to enter the pot with weakness.
the loose image, as Mason pointed out, was cultivated by Caro when draw and lowball were thye prominent games in California, and it also served to establish Mike's image for his own marketing purposes.
a tight ,aggressive, or boring- non imaginative looking image can help you scoop pots when the cards aren't hitting. in fact learning how to make a little cash when the cards have gone south will set you free, and bring a whole lot of confidence to your game. i consider this aspect of the game(inlimit poker) as extremely important, and have been trying to improve this aspect for a while.seeya
Al -- Is that really you? At one point I thought I knew another name that you were posting under, but I later decided that it wasn't likely you. Good to see you.
Anyway, I agree with your thinking on the tight, unimaginative image. The only qualification I would add is that certain nuances like a bit of unpredictability and the like can be useful at times too. And playing aggressively, pushing small edges when appropriate (though many overdo it I think) can add an intimidation factor too. But basically, there is much to be gained from the ability to pick up more than your share of no-showdown pots.
There's a difference between a loose image and a complex image. I strive for the latter. I don't want to be known as 'tight'. I want to be known as someone who just might be able to throw a curveball your way if you try something fancy on me.
Now, small suited connectors don't earn you any money, but they don't lose much money either, if you play them well. So if you pick a hand like 4-2 of clubs and play it from any position whenever you get it, you aren't going to be giving up much, if anything. Yet after you've dragged a couple of pots with it the spectre of 4-2 will hang over your opponent's head any time he's thinking of raising you with a draw on the turn simply because the flop is 356 and you called from early position and therefore can't have any of that flop. If the flop is A93, you don't know for sure that I don't have a set of Aces either, because I'll occasionally go for a call-reraise with Aces, and if I miss it it looks like I limped with them on purpose.
I don't have a 'loose' image, and I'm not sure it would be possible for me to have one, because I just don't play enough hands. But if I'm in a pot with you, there's always going to be some doubt in your mind as to what I might be holding. I prefer that.
I should also point out that I play poker in a small poker market, against the same opponents every day. If I were playing at the Commerce, I sure wouldn't bother with any of this stuff.
Oh, I basically agree with that. I sometimes open for a raise with a hand like 65s UTG, things like that, in order to be a little more confusing, and to prevent those same kinds of shots from being taken as often against me. It's important to make that distinction, though, between "loose" and, shall we say, "unpredictable/a little scary". Players often make plays like that for what I think are the wrong reasons (i.e., to look "loose"). When they do, they're liable to make them at the wrong times, against the wrong opponents, and so on.
There is also a difference between 65s and 42s. We mention this in the short handed section of HPFAP-21. Make sure that you understand it.
"But if I'm in a pot with you, there's always going to be some doubt in your mind as to what I might be holding. I prefer that. "
This is the Image I prefer and usually project. It is not a tight image nor is it a loose image. It is a "players" image. It is the image that stikes fear through the heart of the strong. It is an image the weak can not fathom nor defend against. Quite frankly it is the only poker image that has any value at all and the only one that can't be taught! P.S to John Feeney. You should put this in your column and mention my name. Why? Cause of my ego that's why. Besides isn't that awesome "The only image that can't be taught" Do you think Sklansky or Malmuth (forget about Z), could come up with such a beautiful way of stating the obvious? I doubt it and they get thier names in columns all the time!
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
there was a post here a while back. Can't remeber it exactly. The premise of the poster was something to the effect of how does one know when he has crossed the line. The line he was referring to, I believe, was knowing that what you are doing is the right thing to do. I liked the thread, even though it didn't get very far, because there is indeed such a line. It is a line, however, that no one can be shown how to cross. It just happens. You can teach the basics. You can teach advanced concepts. But the student is the only one that can cross the line and they must do it alone without any help. Such is the image I referred to in my previous post. I stand by "It can't be taught" given my thoughts here.
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
Vince, as you see I agree with that. In slightly different terms Mason has touched on it here and there in his writings. In fact, in the current Poker Digest he talks about opening for a raise early with a hand like 87s. He doesn't really get into image this time, but I think he's discussed it before with reasoning similar to what Dan and I have talked about here. This has been discussed on the forum before as well.
But to get back to overall "image", I would contend that the best image is generally a tight one. Yes, you want a little unpredictability too and, as Ray says, you want to be a little scary to play against. But there are clearly advantages to the tight aspect as well.
In one of Mike Caro's recent excellent columns, he explained how you can appear to be loose just by talking loose, as Andy Prock suggested. You do not have to play 53s under the gun, as long as you say you do. If you keep saying it enough, they'll start to believe it. And anyway, raising with 53s under the gun is a play right out of S&M's HFAP!
Another thing you can do is make thin raises and 3-bets preflop, e.g., pushing JTs in an 8 way pot, much as Gary Carson suggested.
And of course take advantage of your current image that has come about due to the run of the cards, much as everyone suggested.
The best image in a tight game is a tight-tenacious one, because here you want your bluffs to work and you do not want to be bluffed at. The best image in a loose game is a loose-crazy one, because here you make much of your money by everyone and their mothers calling when you are 3-betting with big draws or the nuts. You certainly do not want a tight image in a loose game, and anyone that says that you do is, well, Mason. A tight image will just push the loose players back towards a correct chasing percentage. One should encourage players to stay at whatever extreme they are, or to become even more extreme in that direction.
Somebody was saying that he had never seen a pro with a loose-crazy image, or something like that. I point you to Doc, a $15-$30 pro at Hollywood Park casino. (Description: short, fat, bald.) He jams, jams, jams, with all manner of draws, and he succeeds in putting just about the whole table on tilt, between his play style and his abrasive personality. The game is loose enough to make his style near optimal, and he is content to make very good money at that limit and not move up to the less insane $20-$40 and $40-$80 games.
-Abdul
The notion that you should always encourage the errors that your opps are already making always sounds good, but is based on questionable logic. The usual argument is that to be able to get loose callers to make incorrect laydowns you have to pull them *through* a phase of near correct play, all the way to the incorrect play you want them to exhibit. But why should that be true? People don't do everything in an incremental way. Why can't they quickly flip from loose calls to folding too often to your bets once they "see" what a "rock" you are? The answer is that they can and do.
The idea of encouraging their existing errors also seems to assume that winning extra bets is as valuable as winning some extra pots. I don't think so. I think that if you *can* induce folds that win you more than your share of pots without showdowns, it will earn you more than picking up those loose calls. And in my experience this can be done. Anyone who says otherwise is, well, Mike.
Actually the term "loose game" is problematic. Loose games tend to vary significantly from hour to hour. They can be loose for a while, then become average or even tightish for a bit before returning to loose as a result of who's been winning, who's been losing, and other factors. I find that in the games I play in, few seem to stay extremely loose for hours on end. You just don't see six and seven way pots 25 times per hour for two straight hours. (Maybe Gary sees that in Austin, but he's a slacker. Don't trust him.) I'm speculating as I haven't thought that much about it, but I think that at least the loose games I see may average only moderately loose due to tighter periods. So you also have to think about what you will gain from a loose image during the loosest periods versus what it will cost you during the tighter periods. Then look at the converse for the tight image. It's not simple. Since you can't repeatedly reverse your image to fit the moment, the question is which general image gains you the most given that the game will usually shift around from looser to tighter during a session.
In a game that is extremely loose without variation for extended periods, where stealing is just unthinkable, then maybe getting a few extra calls would be the way to go. But if it's that loose, it's hard to imagine needing to do anything to your image to get an avalanche of calls anyway.
In more typical loose games I think - no, I know stealing is not so unthinkable. There a tight image may still win out. In the middle limits this is in part because you will rarely find yourself up against a table full of nothing but loose players. There will be pots where you end up against the other tighter players. There the tight image will be especially profitable. Couple that with the capability of loose players sometimes to fold, and the case for the tight image in a moderately loose game can be made.
(On the other hand, "tight games", while subject to change as new players come in, do seem otherwise to remain consistently tight more than loose games remain consistently loose. I think that's because tight players tend to be tight because they have studied the game a little more, and have some degree of conviction about sticking with what they see as correct play. Loose players are usually poor players who should be more willing to vary their level of tightness, because they don't really hold to any particular notion of correct play anyway. So they loosen or tighten as a function of things like emotional responses to winning and losing. Anyway, there seems to be a degree of consensus that the tight image is king in tight games.)
There is also the point, made elsewhere in this thread, that when you play regularly against opps who are very familiar with you, they will *know* you are selective in the hands you play. They will see your loose talk for what it is. By pushing small edges or break-even situations and raising with draws as appropriate, you may be able to get less perceptive opps to think that you sometimes give some action, but "loose" is not how they will see you.
I was the "somebody" who said the thing which prompted your pointing out "Doc". I don't know him, but I figured someone would come along with an exception. You say he opts not to move up to the games where his "jamming" style won't work so well. That hints that he may have just hit upon a style which isn't punished by those games, while he may lack the diversity of skills to win in games which do punish his style. (Thus that sets a ceiling on what he will make playing poker.) I believe Roy Cooke once said something like that about "Full Value Al". There remains the question of whether he might do even better if he could push those draws when correct to do so, yet convey an overall tight image.
My observation was that I have long been familiar with the handful of best players in my area, and have seen who has been able to move up from limits like 6-12 through 9-18 to 20-40 and higher. I cannot think of one of those players who has a loose image. There are those who dance around a little more postflop. Some push small edges harder than others. That does give some impression of being a little more "active" as a player. But that's about as far as it goes. They're all tight. Now, undoubtedly there are a few exceptions out there. They would be players whose tremendous postflop skills allow them to make up for ground lost in looser hand selection. Given *actual* loosish hand selection, they will have looser images, yet win. But they would likely make more by playing fewer hands.
At any rate, the question is really what percentage of established long term winners, those who have survived long enough, at limits high enough, to be acknowledged as among the players taking the most money out of the games in a given area, have a loose image. I think the percentage will be microscopic to nonexistent in any area. If I'm right, then why?
For what it is worth, I play in the highest limit games in the Gulf Coast area which is $20-$40. At this level virtually every winning player I know has a tight image except for one. This one loose player may just be a statistical deviate. But this is one player out of about two dozen.
Loose Image Pro Candidate #2: Toothpick Doug, 30-60 pro at the Bellagio. Doesn't seem crazy, mind you, but plays way looser than most pros and talks and jokes a lot, which helps convey a gamb000ling image.
Also, the entire 60-120 (now 80-160) hold'em table at Bay 101. Phil Helmuth was one of them, but he not only has a loose-crazy image - he is loose-crazy, at least much of the time.
-Abdul
Yes, Abdul you are certainly right about "Dougie". He is a very tough player for me. I actually try to avoid any confrontations with him but he is a nice guy to chat with.
A tall young man, incapable of sitting still? I think I know the guy, please let me know if I'm wrong. He surely knows some tricky moves at $30-60, yes, he is apt to show some funny hands...
Extremely likable guy, funny and good humoured... confident too...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Yes, Izmet. "Dougie" always seems to have "ants in his pants" and he can never sit still.
don't confuse loose with aggressive. someone who takes the small edges and pushes them very hard is usually called "pro", not loose. loose players are players who take the worst of it and either chase or push it hard. seeya
I'm sure you can keep naming exceptions, but they are just that -- very much exceptions. I suspect any true exceptions are very good postflop, and have to make up some ground lost preflop to win. It can be done, but probably not to the extent that anecdotes and informal observation suggest.
The loose talk is, IMO, just silliness. It's always totally transparent. Maybe very weak, inexperienced players buy it a little, but I doubt it affects one's hourly rate in any measurable way. That they *see* you play one hand out of ten has a stronger impact.
Many exceptions probably aren't exceptions at all. They're what everyone *wants* to believe is possible in poker. But look at the true survivors and long term success stories, and I'm betting that the exceptions will be very few. See Sklansky's essay, "Sizing Up Those Flashes".
Doesn't that 80-160 Bay 101 game include Tom Weideman? He disagrees with promoting the loose image. Anyway, I've rarely heard Helmuth accused of being a consistent winner in limit ring games. (Mind you, I like him from what I read of his stuff, and he's probably very tough short handed and maybe in no-limit. But those are other matters.)
john makes a great point as usual. his post responding to mr jalib should be posted as an essay. in loose games many players love to beat the tight players, in order to show that they have discovered the secret to winning at poker. i have seen this over and over. extremely loose players are loose in other categories.
you really don't need to adjust. and as john pointed out, as soon as they see a couple of your showdowns the non nuerotics will adjust somewhat.seeya
Al's points are in agreement with some observations Tom Weideman makes in the rgp thread on this topic: that tight players may get more than their share of action from loose players in many games, as the loose players want to nail them. But by retaining their tight image they can then put it to use agianst the rational players.
Mr. Malmuth,
one thing I've noticed that I can do for free and I think is wise to consider at least at lower limits, is to make sure you squeeze every penny out of your "advertizing budget".
To wit, in the BB in an unraised pot with 85o, the flop came 246 rainbow (double gut shot), and I bet the flop once and check twice, when the button checks the river I turn my cards over triumphantly and proudly announce "8-high, send it here!", and look genuinely disappointed when someone shows down a pair.
A chinese gentleman who speaks fairly little English looked at me next time I bet (a few hands later) and said "Again 8-high?", good for a few snickers at the table. This led me to believe that people really notice when you do something like that.
Of course, it goes without saying, when you actually do get called with a genuine bluff/semi-bluff, you turn over your cards in the same "victorious" manner instead of sheepishly turning over or (egads!) mucking it as soon as you are called. You've spent the money on the bluff, it's gone, get every ounce out of it that you can.
M.
The AKo Problem:
When David answered an other player's question about Pocket Jacks vs. the Ace high Flop and one Opponent. I found that I wasn’t thinking about my AKo Problem correctly.
Lets start over. I have AKo in Early position and nobody has yet entered the Pot. I Raise and get called by a Loose aggressive player on the Button and everyone else Folds.
My Odds of Flopping an Ace, King, or better are around 2 to 1.
(6/1*49/2*48/1)/(50/3*49/2*48/1)= 0.36
But let’s say that the Flop comes: Td, 5c, 6s
I bet the Flop and get Raised. A number things could be happening. My opponent has a Pair of Tens Fives, or Sixes. He may have overcards himself or a Straight Draw, and is trying for a free card. He could have a great hand like Trips or Two small Pair.
Since it is much more likely he has a Pair of Tens, Overcards, or a Pocket Pair let’s just assume this is what we are dealing with.
The money in the pot (assuming a 10/20 game) is $85 my affective odds if I call all the way down the River (remember this is a Loose Aggressive Player) would be 125 to 50, or 2.5 to 1
What are the Odds that I will Pair my Ace or King and my Opponent doesn’t successfully redraw for Two Pair or Trips if he holds something like J,T.
(6/1*41/1)/(47/2*46/1)= 23% or around 3.3 to 1
How many times must my Opponent be Bluffing when he bets down the River?
I need Better than 2.5 to 1 Odds, which is around 29%
29% (the Odds I need)-23% (the odds of me legitimately wining the Hand)=6% So I need my opponent to be bluffing me more than 6% of the Time for me to make the calls all the way to the River. I need my Opponent to bluff once in 16 times to make my play correct?
The problem with this Theory is that my Opponent can see me Improve when a King or Ace hit the Board. I guess I can also use the Queen as a Bluff card. Also my opponent may not continue to bet when he is Bluffing. This can make things more complex.
Later, Chris V.
Hey folks. I'm a new face in a tough 3-6-9 HE game. I don't want to start off in a hole. Player's all in thier 60's, the kind of game I can respect and learn from, tight/aggressive. Anyway I find JJ in the BB after #7,#8 and button all call. I check along. 1st mistake ? I'm thinking these are the kind of guys that limp in with AK, AQ, mediun pair just to trap a whippersnapper like me. I decide to wait. Flop comes KKK, I think about it, they don't know me from Adam, I'm in the blind , I could have a king. At least I'll find out who might have one. I don't expect a raise. Just to thin. All Call !! Now, I know less than I did at first ! Don't they realize I at least have a pair ? Must be really dumb to bet 4 of a kind. Turn is a 7. I'm scared as heck and check. All check to the button who bets. I dump it (mistake ?). Do I simply check call this hand to the river an pray for no raises ? Results later. Should they be taking a card off in this situation ($14 in before flop) ?
First of all tight/aggressive players don't limp in late position with AK or AQ for that matter. It was correct not to raise on the BB.
KKK is an excellent flop for your hand but you don't want to allow any free cards. I would be prepared to play this aggresively all the way unless an A turns.
Your dumping it on the turn was terrible. I would bet this, not check and call and still call on the river if you get popped pretty hard.
D.
I don't think a raise preflop is good here, you aren't going to get anyone out and there are alot of flops which you won't like...
Betting out on the flop is alright and them calling i don't think should scare you. I often see people betting out on flopps like this (scary looking ones) to see where they are at. alot of people may assume you trying to steal on the flop and call then.
After the 7 falls you should be happy anyone w/a seven has a fullhouse worse than yours.
Checking and folding is bad on the turn, maybe you can check raise but you should figure you have the best hand and should bet or checkraise... ( i think the check raise is risky here bc you don't want to give a free card to a A or Q who may fold now if you bet). But as things turned out someone bet out and you could now as riase and make it as expensive fort the A/Q to draw out on you or make them pay the max (and make the bettor pay another bet).
YOu need not be so paranoid about the K being out. If it is you'll just have to pay it off, but most of the time (if an A or Q doesn't fall) you have the best hand and you should play it as such).
I did have the best hand ! But was afraid of a raise from #7 or 8#. I just didn't want to run head first into 3 callers while betting someone else's hand. Most with a king at this limit will call to the river then bet or raise. After I fold, all fold, button shows 2,2. I always get paralyzed by these type flops. I remember once a the Bike I raised in the BB with 10,10 get an AAA flop, check it (8 or 9 callers), no bet, then dumped when a jack paired someone on the turn. But I heared they play Ax religously with no raise. Here I'm thinking more like KQ,KJ,K10,Kxs,K9 any of which could be out. 1st hand this session and I was weak tight. Thanks for the insight. I see that if I check raise the turn only the king remains, or me ! But if the king is there I'm out at least of $21 more bucks when I check call the river.
PS: I don't mean to be argumentative. But I wouldn't pay to spike an A , if it comes you still are beat by the lone cowboy. Three 3's on the flop I'm more inclined to commit. Thanks, I know I have much to learn.
You made no mistake by NOT raising before the flop. There's about a 50% chance of overcards flopping to J-J, and with that many customers, it's not too difficult for someone to catch a piece of the flop. The main reason to raise before the flop with that hand would be to narrow the field, and you aren't going to be able to do that from the big blind. Good play there.
Flop of K-K-K. In a PL or NL game, I'd throw them two Jacks away in a New York minute. Think about it, you have nothing involved in that pot beyond the forced big blind. Why invest more money fighting over nothing? This reasoning also applies somewhat to a limit game.
Your thinking was good after the flop, right up till the point where you bet. The correct play would've been to check-raise the flop. Notice that your single half-bet will not eliminate very many people on the flop (buy HPFAP and you'll get your money back in one hand just from that lesson alone).
But, okay, it's limit, you've bet the flop, and let's assume you can get a great read and believe strongly that no one has the case King, A-A or Q-Q -- only then would I check-raise on the turn. I'm not going to call, I want to find out before the river if he's got it (particularly with the bigger bet on the end).
One last point. In a 3-6 game, you aren't going to run into Huck Seed or Johnny Chan -- I think you can safely go on the assumption that your opponents are either very tight, or at least somewhat clueless and playing a worse hand than you. It would not surprise me if someone bet a hand like 7-6 causing you to dump J-J.
I have read the book, but don't recall them talking specifically about XXX flops, they don't come too often.
My reference was to narrowing the field with a big pair. There is also a section in Sklansky's "Winning Poker" on raising for information (I think that book may now be called "Sklansky on Poker").
I agree that you shouldn't raise out of the BB with JJ. But, the absence of a raise preflop pretty much eliminates the possibility of AA or QQ being out there. If they are and someone is getting cute you are screwed, that's poker. However, I feel you should definitely bet out on the flop. You can't be worried about quads. It's a rarity. Yes, it can happen, but you can't factor it in unless you get tremendous heat on fourth street. By not betting out you are losing 1 small bet from everyone who will call thinking you're on a steal. If an ace or queen falls on the turn I'd bet out again, regardless. If you get raised you can pull back then. If an undercard to the jacks falls and you get raised, you can either just call and wait to checkraise on the river or just get your money now and hit it again on the turn. Either way you have a monster hand absent preflop raising. Play it that way.
A few stories. Last year in the big Horseshoe tourney, I had K-K in an early position. I just limped in. It comes around to the back and one of the best big-bet players in town puts in a modest raise. I just call. The flop comes Q-7-3 unsuited. I make a bet and get a call. The turn comes a 3, I bet half my stack and my opponent moves in on me. I turn out K-K, he shows A-Q as he rises to his feet. In the Rio tourney last year, I had J-J and the flop came A-A-A. There was no preflop raising and I made a small bet in late position. I bet again on the turn, and my opponent in the blind moved in on me with K-K. In either case, did the lack of a raise either before or on the flop indicate no big pair?
Getting screwed in poker is part of the game -- at every stage, you at least have to wonder WHY your opponents keep coming, rather than blindly pushing a big but non-nut hand. At the minimum, in a big-bet game, you will either win only the blinds or lose your entire stack when you have J-J and the flop comes K-K-K.
But perhaps in limit, you are correct, we DON'T CARE if we run into the nuts -- in the long run, the expectation is positive to gamble with much less than the nuts in this situation (notice this is only true however if our opponents are willing to gamble with even worse hands, rather than being the tight opponents that our hero believed he was facing).
In a low-limt game, after the flop, I don't envision someone betting up front as being on a steal (generally only the better tourney players try to steal from up front -- about this I could be wrong, perhaps low-limit players DO try to steal with nothing from up-front). I advise a check-raise -- rather than an opening bet -- to narrow the field on the flop, in order to try and prevent someone from spiking an A or Q on the turn or river.
Actually this very same senario happened to me yesterday on Planet Poker. I was playing a 3-6 game which was loose and without a lot of raising. I was dealt JJ UTG and raised. A middle position player and the button called. Flop comes KKK. I checked, planning to check raise. Middle player bet, button raised. This got me thinking that button was trying a bluff raise. I called to see what middle position player did. His reraise convinced me he had the case king. Button called and I folded. Hand played out and middle position player showed down K - 10 and Button showed down AA. I'm pretty new to the game (been playing 10 months) and I don't know if this is a great way of playing the hand, but it definitely helped me save some money in a very difficult situation.
Pre-flop, not raising from your big blind with pocket Jacks is probably correct with three opponents. With two or less, I would definitely raise out of my big blind. With pocket Queens or big slick I would raise out of my big blind regardless of how many opponents limp in.
This is a great flop for your hand and you should bet out. You will get calls from lower pocket pairs and anyone with an Ace. Your play should be to lead in the betting until an Ace, the fourth King, or a Queen shows up.
On the turn, the Seven is a great card for you. You should bet out. If someone else bets then you should raise. Unless a huge raising war breaks out on the turn, you should be in this hand.
I'm not sure anyone noticed that I meant to convey that it was my very first hand. I was working on the primise of erroring on the side of caution until I got a line on the players. It just seemed there might be more profitable situations later, I realize a ragged flop with a K is a good flop to lead at, if there were no preflop raises. But with 3 K's on my first flop I was unprepaired to play well, against total strangers. I'm glad my preflop play has been condoned, JJ has always been the most difficult hand to play for me, but lately it has been profitable. Also a flop like 333 or 444 maybe I would have felt a little more confident about continueing to play strong. I've seen a four of a kind develop in maybe about 50 % of flops like this. 50/50 didn't feel like good odds after I had taken a conservative approach. I do very much appreciate your comments. In reality, odds I'm up agaist a K are probably quite different. I realize the A coming could beat me but my first worry is still the K. The A could also be drawing dead, is it worth it ?
I agree that quads seem to happen in hold-em more often than seems reasonable especially when trips show up on the board. In addition, trip Kings is more likely to result in someone having quads than trip Fours because players come in more frequently with a King in their hand as opposed to a Four.
But all that notwithstanding, we are dealing with a limit game here. In pot limit or no limit, you have to worry about losing your whole stack and getting wiped out on one unfortunate hand so extra caution is sometimes warranted. But in limit poker, aggressive play only results in you sometimes losing an extra bet or two. But when you win you pull in a lot of extra bets from the other players who are usually chasing. In addition, occasionally your betting drives out someone who might have drawn out on you had they been given a free card. In limit poker, by the time you get to the turn or the river the pot is frequently large enough such that you are not making a serious mistake by calling when you should have folded since it is only one bet and their is a large pot at stake.
I have been away from the computer all weekend and I see you have plenty of responses, but I'll throw my two bits worth in anyway. If these are all relatively experienced HE players in the game, they will automatically NOT put you on a K when you come out betting that flop. They will put you on some sort of pair, or an outright steal, and they will try to hit something in their hand on the turn. So don't be too surprised when you get several callers. Yes, one of them might have the case King and lower the boom on the turn, but with a fairly small field, you have to keep betting the turn when an undercard to your pair shows up. If another undercard comes on the river, I would bet again, and if raised, I call for the one additional bet. If you lose to quad K's, congratulate the winner and shuffle up.
Incidentally, I flopped quad 8's out of the BB a couple of months ago in an unraised pot, and I bet out into 6 or 7 callers. It was raised and called by 3 people before it got back to me! One guy had not raised pre-flop with AA, someone else had JJ, and there were other high card holdings as well. I had something like 8-5o and took down a huge pot. My flop bet was unorthodox according to the normal betting patterns at low limit, but this time it worked beyond my wildest expectations.
1st Post. Fairly new player to Texas Hold'em. Playing in 1-4-8-8 games in LA, MS. No body folds, i.e. 6-9 to see flop and lots of pre-flop raising. Good starting hands are getting rivered pretty regular. Pots are large so the odds are good for drawing. Does anyone consistently win at at these type of loose crazy games? What is the recommended bankroll and buy in for this type of crazy game? I've read Warren, Jones, and Sklansky on low limit Hold'em games but I don't think any of the other players know they are not playing the way the authors advocate, most of them just play like they are nuts. On these type of games, as far as reading lunatics, it appears to me best thing would be to call a Taro card reader. You can't seem to put them on hands with any degree of accuracy and consistentcy. Of course I am wanting to know when I should move up to 10/20 to 20/40 game. And I am really interested if playing in these types of low limit games are good preperation for the higher limits. Because quite a few of the crazy players play at the higher limits and I find it hard to believe they would change their game all that much. After about 500 hours of play, I am ~$1000 ahead. I have seen fluctuations of $500 in my bankroll. Comments, advice, coaching would be greatly appreciated. I love the game, enjoy the challenge and really want to improve. Thank you for your help.
I have a question I would like to toss out here are see the response to: Should we help teach the weak to play better?
Question 2: Big mistake, lunatic raises, nut loser calls, do you re-raise AK off suit?
Weak players don't read. Even if they do read they won't be able to digest the information on this page. Many players that I have recomended 2+2 books to have just browsed through them and continued to play bad.
I even know a player who can understand 2+2 information, but has psychological problems when he loses. He ends up getting stuck and then plays too many hands to get even.
CV
I agree with your post Mr. Villa. I have bought and do buy all the relevant material. I moved to Las Wages in 92, didn't move to holdem till 94. I read and reread everything. Im beginning to learn Omaha. Sometimes I don't realize something till I read it three times and see it happen 20. I spend as many hours studying as I do playing. I work, and the first 4 years I have been a donator to this game. This is my first winning year. To answer your question. Us LL weak players look up to you guys with respect and would like to reach your level. But I'm not going until I feel confident. I think poker is like any other game I have played. It is composed of a finite (although overwhelming) number of tactical situations. How well you handle each, coupled with an effective overall stratigy will determine your overall success and expectation. I will say that some here can't relate to the smaller games anymore. Even I can't stand a 1-2 or 2-4 He game. 3-6 in Calf. is definitely out, drives me crazy. And when asked about these situations and these games most tend to relate back to thier 20-40 game (not nessecaryly a bad thing). When's the last time you played 1-4, 8 on the end. My point is that the dedicated will eventually get there, the wealthy and uniformed will always be there, but you games will dry up if weaker players like us don't get there. All do respect to each of you, but teaching well is always a good thing, it will even make you a better player. IMHO
You can't help someone up a hill without getting further up the hill yourself.
I think we benefit by explaining our reasoning to others both those who play better and those who play worse. In the process I think our game improves. I know my game has improved since I started posting here a couple of months ago.
Normally, big slick is not a 3 bet hand pre-flop but when maniacs and other morons start raising on substandard holdings, then I re-raise with slick in order to isolate and punish.
Jim
Since when is AKo not a three bet hand other than in a guaranteed multi-way pot pre-flop? Wouldn't you want to three bet to get head up with the inital raiser with a hand that could win un-improved at the showdown. You certainly don't want more players in the pot and possibly ruin a good situation for your hand. I realize that there are exceptions to every rule but if you get AKo in general you better be three betting or you're making a big mistake IMO. Ice
The problem Ice is that I cannot be sure I will always get it heads-up and the raiser could easily have cards I need to improve. But frankly I could go either way and if someone said just always 3 bet with big slick I would not argue. Of course if I am suited ("Super Slick"), I definitely 3 bet.
Shhh, you are teaching the weak!
:)
-Abdul
Question #1: If by "Teaching the Weak" you mean providing hand by hand analysis at the table, whether asked for or not, or offering suggestions as to how to bet a hand, or pointing out to the weak player how silly their play was, then NO! If by "Teaching the Weak", you mean recommending a good book if someone asks for advice, or going for a beer or coffee away from the table with a small group of friends to "go over the hands" and discuss a few key plays from the evening's session, or posting on this forum to generate good debate and analysis, then YES!
Question #2: Whack the maniacs with Big Slick at any and all opportunities, IMO.
I have posted this before.
I do not help other weak players (anymore) except in the loosest terms of the word. I might suggest 'don't call that guy' when he raises on the turn cause he's soooo tight.
I have found that they don't usually appreciate it.
As for discussions witn other equal players, then yes, because you have something to gain.
Much like here on the net.
I'm a first time poster, but a long time lurker. Thanks to all of the regular posters, I've learned a ton from reading your messages.
I won a large pot recently and I'd like some help in determining whether I played it correctly and/or just got lucky. I'll describe the hand and the players along with my thinking as well.
This is a regular 3-6 home game, there was only two players there that I hadn't seen prior to that game. Generally, it's a loose-passive game, but there are occasional periods of manic aggressiveness. The hand that I'm describing took place during a quiet, passive phase.
There are 11 players in this game. I'm to the right of the button with 6s7s. By the time the action gets to me only one person has folded (one of the better players) and there have been no raises. I call. Button calls. SB raises. The SB is probably the loosest player at the table, but also one of the most passive. For her to raise, it means a big pocket pair. BB calls, UTG calls, player 4 calls, player 5 raises. Player 5 is one of the new players, he's played fairly tightly to this point, he's the one I want to watch. Player 7 calls (player 6 had folder first time around) player 8 folds, player 9 calls, I call. My thinking here is that even though I'm cold calling two bets and it's likely that the SB will cap it, it's also likely that everyone that is still in the pot will call all raises. Considering this means that only 2 of 11 players will have folded pre-flop, even when the betting is capped, I feel my call is warranted. Button calls, SB caps, all players including myself call.
Flop comes Ks Qs 8d. SB bets, BB calls, UTG folds (he was the only good player left in the pot besides player 5, who's the player I'm interested in watching) Player 4 calls, player 5 calls, player 7 calls, player 9 folds, I call, button calls.
Turn comes As. SB starts complaining. She is muttering about getting another big pocket pair snapped off. Obviously she has KK or QQ. She says "hell with it, I'm betting anyway." BB calls, player 5 calls, player 7 calls. The action is to me, I raise. My thinking here is to try to determine if someone else has a better flush. Button folds, SB grumbles and calls, BB folds, player 5 calls (whew, I was fearing a re-raise), player 7 folds. I'm feeling good about my cards.
River comes rag, not a spade, no paired board. SB checks, player 5 checks, I bet, both call. SB had KK, player 5 mucked his cards, I scoop a big pot.
My questions are:
Should I have played 6s7s against all those raises?
Was my raise on the turn correct in trying to ferret out a larger flush?
Since the SB had a set of kings, was the raise correct considering there was no way the SB would fold and a paired board give her the boat?
I would also appreciate being made aware of any flaws in my reasoning as well as other issues I may have missed.
I look forward to your replies.
Scott...
Welcome aboard.
1. Your pre-flop call of the extra 2 bets after the SB initiates the raising is high-variance play. You put her on a big pair, and should have expected that the action was going to be capped. Additionally, small suited connectors play much better if you can expect passive play on the flop since you are more likely to flop a draw than a made hand. I like to play small pocket pairs much more here since you can ram and jam if you flop a set and get away with minimal damage if you don't. Additionally, you can't feel great if you flop a flush draw instead of a straigh as you could be drawing dead to Axs of Kxs.
On the flipside, you have good position, can expect a monster pot, and already have invested a small bet. If you call away, realize you want to gamble. But 3-6 is supposed to be fun.
2. I like your raise on the turn, but not to "see if a higher flush is out there". The reason you raise is to try to get hands holding the 8,9, and possibly T of spades to fold. Someone may call a single bet with something like JxTs or 9xTs, but fold to two bets since they will fear they are drawing dead. The Jack of spades is going to call you in any event, but you may as well charge him the maximum since you are way ahead.
3. The same reasoning goes for a player you suspect is holding a set of Aces, Kings or Queens. These guys have (at most) 10 outs, so you are a solid 3.6 to 1 favorite. A raise for value is in order. I also like the bet for value on the river. The SB was making a crying call out of frustration and player five made a pretty weak overcall.
Nice Hand, sir. I hope you put a few rocks on tilt and heard "How can you play that garbage in a capped pot?."
Welcome aboard. 1. Your pre-flop call of the extra 2 bets after the SB initiates the raising is high-variance play. You put her on a big pair, and should have expected that the action was going to be capped. Additionally, small suited connectors play much better if you can expect passive play on the flop since you are more likely to flop a draw than a made hand. I like to play small pocket pairs much more here since you can ram and jam if you flop a set and get away with minimal damage if you don't. Additionally, you can't feel great if you flop a flush draw instead of a straigh as you could be drawing dead to Axs of Kxs.
On the flipside, you have good position, can expect a monster pot, and already have invested a small bet. If you call away, realize you want to gamble. But 3-6 is supposed to be fun.
In hindsight, I realize that this is a poor play pre-flop. I usually play very tightly pre-flop, but suited connectors late are a weakness of mine.
The reason you raise is to try to get hands holding the 8,9, and possibly T of spades to fold. Someone may call a single bet with something like JxTs or 9xTs, but fold to two bets since they will fear they are drawing dead. The Jack of spades is going to call you in any event, but you may as well charge him the maximum since you are way ahead.
Good point. I did think of this after the fact, I wish I would have considered it during the hand.
3. The same reasoning goes for a player you suspect is holding a set of Aces, Kings or Queens. These guys have (at most) 10 outs, so you are a solid 3.6 to 1 favorite. A raise for value is in order. I also like the bet for value on the river. The SB was making a crying call out of frustration and player five made a pretty weak overcall.
That's something else I need to work on, figuring out if I'm the favorite or underdog at any given point in the hand. Obviously, I can figure how many outs I have and compare to what I believe my opponents have, but if I have 8 outs to a straight and a 4 flush on the turn, how does that compare to someone who has a set and is drawing to a full house?
I hope you put a few rocks on tilt and heard "How can you play that garbage in a capped pot?."
I am the tightest player at the table usually and I definitely surprised most of the players by calling those pre-flop raises with 67s.
Thanks for you input, next time I'll fold if raised.
I believe you should fold Seven-Six suited when it is raised and re-raised back to you. The possibility of it getting capped is very real and your hand is a loss expectation situation when you have to pay 3 or 4 bets to take flop regardless of how many opponents you have. I posted an analysis of this with scott about 2 months ago so maybe you can look it up in the archives. Without going through all the math, your only way of winning is to make a straight, a flush, or perhaps trips. This is so unlikely to happen that you lose a ton of money paying 3 or 4 bets to take flops. Occasionally you catch a draw but find that you either bust out or lose to a better hand with so many opponents. Now this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that you have already put in one bet, so you are looking at two more bets with the possibility of putting in still another. I still fold but your call is not nearly as terrible as cold-calling a triple bet.
Your raise on the turn was absolutely correct. You must make anyone with singleton Spade pay through the nose to chase you. Similarily, anyone with a set must pay the maximum price. The fact that your opponents are correct in calling is totally irrelevant. You must make them pay to chase you. This is the very essence of winning poker. Checking because someone may or may not be getting correct odds to call your bet when they are chasing you is a dumb reason not to bet. They get infinite odds when they pay nothing. If you lose, well that's why we call this gambling.
hey scott. i'm scott. it's good to be named scott. the reason is that there are at least 2 scott's that people here, for some crazy reason, are to reported to know what they are talking about (me and mr horton). so when people list off 'valuable posters' they say things like "scott(case insensitive)". which now automatically applies to you. congratulation you 'valuable poster'.
but there is only one superstar named scott. so it is always clear who they mean in that context.
anyway, i think micheal and jim pretty much pegged your hand. you should not have called preflop because you are likely to be drawing and you will be charged a lot. good raise on the turn, but not to 'ferret out' anything. you likely have the best hand. win some more money.
same deal if you knew sb had a set. let's think about this. a flush beats a set, right? so he is chasing you. remember back to the flop, when you had a four flush. you were chasing then. would you have wanted lots of bets on the flop or not? don't do your opp's favors.
welcome to the forum. and, just in case jim said to fold small pairs is capped pots, call with small pairs in capped pots.
scott
Everyone telling you to fold preflop is wrong. Of course you are correct to call originally after 7 limpers (as an aside, I would often raise there for a variety of reasons, but calling is ok too.) After the raise and re-raise, even though it's two bets back to you, the pot is already large, and everyone will certainly call if it gets capped. (The only exception is if the button drops, but that's minor.) I believe there are 20 small bets in the pot when the action gets back to you, and assuming it gets capped, you'll have to put in 3 more bets, and there will be 37 small bets in the pot on the flop if my math is correct. Getting better than 11:1 on your investment is fine odds for 76s. It will surely win more often than that against that size field.
Plus, you're not entirely certain that the pot will get capped, which means there will be 28 small bets in the pot and you'll be putting in 2 more, which gives you even better odds.
It is worth noting that while your implied odds go down a bit (because the total pot size will be smaller relative to your 3 bets on the flop), they are still good. On the flop, there are 34 small bets in the pot that aren't "yours." (While you put in 4 bets total, the first one doesn't count because it was already in the pot when you decided to continue.) Postflop, you won 20 small bets, meaning you won 54 small bets on a 3 small bet investment. I honestly can't see why anyone advocates folding here.
-Sean
I limped in UTG with AJo, four more limped in and a maniac raises on the button. The blinds both fold, I call as does everyone else. The flop comes J-6-5 rainbow. I figure I'll try for a check-raise to knock some people out. I think the maniac button will bet. The player right after me bets, every one calls, the maniac only calls and now its my turn to act.
I wanted to check-raise to knock people out, but most everyone in $3-6 will call after putting in one bet. What should I do when a check-raise attempt unfolds like this? If the original bettor was raised I would have re-raised. Is that correct?
Thanx
If the original bettor reraises, then everyone behind him has to call two bets cold. Somebody's definately going to fold. Besides, you have top pair, top kicker. You're looking for him to raise so you thin the field, but if it doesn't work out, its no tragedy.
Your predicament is exactly why I don't like going for check-raises on the flop when there are a lot of opponents between you and the "target bettor" in this case the maniac who was also the pre-flop raiser. You should bet the flop with top pair/top kicker. This puts everyone else in the middle knowing that they could call now and get raised and perhaps re-raised later. Had you bet the flop, depending upon how the action went, I would frequently re-raise the maniac if he raised my flop bet since he is a maniac and I have top kicker with my top pair.
As actually played, I don't know what to do. A new guy bets, probably with a weak Jack. But now you have four more callers so it looks like everyone has a piece of the flop. With no one raising, I think I would raise with my top pair/top kicker but I don't feel good about it.
YOU MUST BET THE FLOP IN THESE SITUATIONS AND FORGET THE CHECK-RAISE NONSENSE!
Actually Jim I believe you're a little off the mark here.
If you always bet in early position when you hit the flop, and always check when you miss, before very long good players will be taking advantage of you. You must be known to checkraise sometimes or marginal hands will be betting you out of pots you might have otherwise won.
If having top pair/top kicker is a "predicament", I wish I could be in predicaments a lot more often.
In this situation he should raise. He probably has the best hand.
But wgb, I didn't say always bet in early position when you hit the flop and always check when you miss. Whether you bet or check is a complex decision based on many variables. But in this situation, when you have a lot of opponents and a hand which is good but not great, I believe you are usually better off betting your hand. With so many players between you and the pre-flop raiser you really cannot control what will happen when you check. Routinely, "checking to the raiser" is a very bad idea whether or not you plan on raising. Furthermore, a pre-flop raiser who was raising on overcards may decide to check and take a free card when a lot of other players check to him rather than betting into a crowd. You really don't want to give out a free card here.
Having top pair/top kicker is a good holding on the flop even when you have a lot of opponents and the presence of a pre-flop raiser. However, on the turn it is a much more precarious holding when you still have a lot of opponents but it is still good. I believe the term "predicament" is appropos because he is now posing this situation as a problem. A problem perhaps created by his failure to bet his hand in the first place.
consider youself in the lead and raise for value
I don't know what's correct either, but I generally call then bet on the turn if K or Q doesn't hit. This pot is getting too big so no one with even a piece of the flop is making a big mistake. If I bet on the turn and get raised, then I'll just call it down.
This situation comes up often and I'm not quite sure what to fo. Sitting on button or 1 of the blinds with suited one gappers, T8, 97, 86. Unraised pot 5 or more callers.
Let's take the 97s for example. Flop J98 two suited one of mine. My play here has been to fold. I know I have back doors up the wazoo but none of them are nut or for that matter very clean.
A ten gives me a losing straight. A seven gives me 2 bottom pair with flush and straight possibilities. One of my suit gives me a weak flush draw with lots of opps. Even if I hit a 9 I still have no confidence in the possibilities. Is it an easy fold?
the first thing i want to say i that recently i have seen some damn funny posts under your name. keep up the good work.
now for your question. the pot is small. if someone bets early, you should fold if there are a lot of callers. provided those callers need to have something to call. someone beats your 9's and your draws are counterfitted. an early bet folded to you
if an early bet is folded to you, then it depends on the opp, table image. i would be inclined to raise, despite the poor pot odds, because against one opp you usually have either the hand or the draw. the strange thing is here, you don't know which. but, with position, i'd raise either.
i definitely raise a late bettor, who might have overcards. and even if you are beat your raise will help insure your 9 outs are good by shutting out the competition.
so i would fold if it is bet and called. i would raise if it is bet and folded.
scott
For the reasons you state, fold. You give up very little, if anything.
Sammy,
This is one of the many reasons I don't play small or med suited gappers J9s and below (1-2 or 3) they are just to hard to win with. I like to save my bets for real hands that have a better chance to win.
The only game around in my area in 3-6, with an occassional 4-8 game. Most of the players are loose/passive, and weak to average (with an occasional shark in there, but i know all the sharks, and how they play). So this game is very good... except I can't get enough people to pay off my flushes when I hit. This really hurts my game because I play tight before the flop, which means a lot of suited big cards, and this is where i should get payed off. I've tried betting the flop for value and deception, but when third suit hits, i usaully get one or two callers at best. Bluffing the third suit often would be good except it like a rule in this kind of game for someone to keep you honest (i do bet two pair/three suit often and this has worked pretty well). I must add, if someone has been betting the whole way, and i act before them, check-raise almost never works. How should i change my game or get these chumps to pay off my flushes?
At all levels people will get super cautious when the third of a suit hits. You just have to hope that there are a couple of lower flush draws, straight draws, trips and two pairs out there waiting for the river to beat you. Just make sure you're getting the odds and making them pay a premium to try and catch. Slow playing and not betting the nut and near nut draws with more than three callers is not the way.
Normally when you make a flush on the river it is usually someone else who is betting and you have been doing the chasing. I find that when I hit my flush I normally don't get more than one caller because everyone can see the flush possibility out there on the board.
I feel the urge to digress here. People have this fantasy that when they come in with their suited connector and there are a lot of players, when they get lucky and hit they will get paid off by all the players. This is simply not true. You rarely get paid off in more than one spot and sometimes everyone folds. This is why calling multiple bets and raises pre-flop with a hand like Jack-Ten suited is such a bad idea. You are making a big upfront investment and when you do hit the other players can easily see it and most of them will fold. You never really get the right implied odds to pay much more than one bet to see a flop with these hands.
Jim, the answer to this question really helps me with my question of playing Ace-baby suited and King-baby suited from any position, even for a raise or two. Thanx.
When you flop a flush or straight draw with two or more opponents, you should often try to get as much money in on the flop by raising and check-raising. This will make it harder for them to fold on the river when you hit.
But I'd happily trade a tendency to get my flushes paid for the bluffing potential that you describe. I suspect it's a dynamic thing: they don't pay you, you bluff more, they begin to notice and start paying you, and so forth. Watch your timing.
I don't think your experiences are that unusual. The third suited card on board tends to "still" the table even more in low limit because weaker players tend to fear the worst. In any game, a suited board is given its share of respect.
Anyway, you should accept that many flushes aren't going to be paid off at the end, and that you need to bet them instead of going for the check-raise unless your opponent is very aggressive. This is one of the two reasons that you prefer to flop a straight draw when holding suited connectors.
Chris you make an excellent point about straights versus flushes. I have found that when I make a straight with a suited connector I frequently get paid off better plus I am less likely to run into a better hand. It is amazing how in hold-em it is so common for one flush to lose to a higher flush.
Also if you are up against a set on the turn, you would rather have an open-ended straight draw (8 outs) than a flush draw (7 outs).
Pot limit HE is a game of moves and reading.I would like hear some examples of moves from my fellow PL soldiers. Would love to hear some examples of your most riskiest moves and the common moves that you make regularly(you can also post a few plays that you have witnessed another player make) and what the factors were in convincing you to make those moves(for exp.isolating a weak player with scared money,cashing in on a tight image created due to rags,an accurate read ect..).
I'll contribute later in the thread if there will be one,not many PL soldiers out there due to the fact that they are laying low in some bush camouflaged from head to the toe waiting to ambush some cherry that doesnt know his elbows from his *censored* .
C.M.®
I'm not a pot limit soldier per se, but I am wearing camouflage from head to toe waiting to ambush some cherry. uh, oh wait, that has nothing to do with poker does it.
But since I almost fit into your category I'd like to tell you about a great move I put on my friend Niels in NL hold 'em back a couple of monthes ago.
As you may have heard I play super bad before dinner. So I was playing shit, and lost a stake, actually lost about 4 or 5 stakes and was down about 80 dollars. After dinner I started charging back up, and had about 45 dollars in front of me when I caught AKs. Forgive me Niels if I have screwed up the details.
So anyway I raised in middle about 2 dollars, and Niels reraised me on the button with KJs, about another two, and I called.
The flop came K-K-blank rainbow. I overbet the pot, and knew that I was leading. Because of my crazy hungry image Niels raised me all-in and I called. Blanks on turn and river, and I broke him.
Do you remember the details better Niels? I think I might have gotten it a little wrong, wasn't it multiway? But anyway, I tore his ass up.
alex
when i say that our occaisonal rounds of no limit may have been the worst played of any nl game anywhere?
you did not play brilliantly. niels played horribly. your crazy image or not.
i am beginning to learn the game through the forum. we just did not have any idea what we were doing. and we did not play it enough to learn. also, for some strange reason noone thought about no limit. i don't remember any stratgey discussions on no limit. go ahead and talk about your nl exploits, but know that our game was basically the worst ever.
scott
I'm not saying it was brilliant. All I'm saying is that I ambushed him. He fell into my trap, and that's that. It wasn't great, but who cares.
As for you! If we play NL holdem poorly how come I always beat you. Always always always always.
alex
it was hardly every time. i guess you won about 65% of our heads up games. and the reason you beat me is i played poorly too.
scott
PL = trap to me. It is the best blend of Limit and NL.
I have a few rules for my self in this game. I always come in for a pot raise so as not to tip my hand. I will only vary it if I am sucking someone in to a trap.
PL for me as is NL is best played heads up - so i like to get heads up - I am a simple man and like to consentrate on one opponent at a time :-)
As for moves - As a Marine recon commando I liked to wait in the weeds I still like to wait there.
really
scott
xx
I’m one off the button with 4s5s. This is the third time I’ve started with this hand so I decide heck I’ll play it. If it hits a hand and holds I’ll get paid and it’s great deception. Button raises pre-flop. I shrug, but everyone who’s in calls this raise. 7 see the flop of 4h 5h 7s. It’s checked to me, I bet and button raises. 4 callers to me. I re-raise. Button folds. 3 other players call. Turn is blank and river is 5. A few more bets and I drag a huge pot.
My question(s) is:
Is this a positive expectation play? Or should it only be used on occasion for deception.
Thanks,
Michael
I gather from the narrative that four players limped in ahead of you and you limped in from the cutoff seat with your Five-Four suited connector. I believe you were correct in calling here. You are in late position, you are getting good multi-way action with four limpers plus the blinds, and most importantly this is an unraised pot so far. Had someone raised ahead of you, then you should fold. Of course when the button raises this is unfortunate but you now have to call since it is only one more bet and the pot is that much bigger. The rest of your play was correct as well.
Micheal, you played it to perfection. You can usually tell because you are doing the stacking. Multiway pots, late position, is where you can take a look at the flop with some questionable holdings, 7 4o would have worked out just as well (please don't flame me). Just don't get in the habit of paying multible bets to play them. Then you have to know how to get away from the hand when the flop only gives you a piece and there is danger all around. Being in late position will help with this. The raiser may have a big pair so you can play off him to eliminate players or get more money in the pot. One can be just as good as the other, if youv'e got the best hand. But remember the hand may turn sour at any time, you can tell by the betting. Some nights you won't see a big pair and when you do you loose with it. Other nights when the game is tight 2-3 players a flop, you won't hit any draws nor would you want to be going for them . Your profit will depend on how well you can bluff, push you're big cards for value, and still be able to dump (amongst other things). I had the almost identical hand happen to me the other week, 9 players in though, won a big pot and took me from being -$100 to +$100 for the night. Slammed on the brakes the rest of the night and went home a winner. Yes you did good.
whenever someone asks this, the answer is almost always lucky. and you were lucky. hitting a full house with 56s is lucky. but you played it right at every opportunity, so i guess you were both.
scott
7 4o would not work it there is a bif pair out and the 5 comes.
7 4o would not work if there is a big pair and the 5 comes or there is already a straight. Check the betting.
Mike you picked the best spot to play this sort of hand. If you play it at all it should be late or on the button.
If you don't hit it hard then it is the easiest hand to dump - well done.
I am very new to HE. I have posted some very basic questions a few times and you folks have been kind enough to help me. So, let me tell you how it worked.
I was in LV for three days last week. Second poker trip in my life. I have read SM and Jones. I was playing 3-6. I won $160. Not much to the experts but for me, a milestone. Here's what I learned.
1. Believe it or not, people actually drink alcohol during a poker game played for money.
2. I was in a 4 hr. session where one of these drinkers was staying in on hands like K7 off suit and consistantly winning on the River. What I learned is God does not answer poker prayers for better cards.
3. In middle position, KK and I raise 4 people call. Flop KQ9. Oh boy, I'm going to win but I played it fast cuz that's what the books say. Turn is a 4. I bet and 2 drop and one off buttons raises and I reraise. River is a Q. I want to mortgage my house. Bet/Raise/Reraise/Reraise - time. I study the cards. I got the nuts. Reraise/all in. What did I learn. Four Queens beats Kings full every time. I also learned to stop reraising if you don't have the absolute nuts. Frankly, at this limit level it was a cheap lesson that I'll never forget.
4. I started to check raise on the flop and, occasionally, on the turn. No one was doing this except me. It was very effective. I increased the pot when I had good cards and had other players treat my action with new respect. Further, raising late to buy a free card worked like a charm. SM and the rest of you experts are right on in this area.
Anyway, thanks for the help.
$160 is a good win at 3-6 in LV, What, $40 an hr, congrats', pass me a drink.
No!No! This was for 20 hours over 3 days.
$8 and hr is still not bad, 1.33 BB per hr. Could be a lot worse.
The other day, I was holding K-10 offsuit. The flop was 9-J-Q with a club flush draw. With 4 people in the pot, I raised the bettor, who re-raised me back, then I capped it at 4 bets. Everyone calls! My inclination is to Never Stop Betting with the NUTS! Of course the 3rd club or a pair on the board makes my Nut straight beatable but if they are going to draw me out, make them pay. The turn and the river were a 6 and 7 of spades so I still had the Nuts on the river. I took a huge pot. I figure that if I flop a very beatable hand, I better not slow-play!!!!!! If I had flopped a monster like Quads or a Big Full house, then I slow play hopping the flushes and straights get there. Any advice?
I like your thinking. In general you are usually way ahead in the long run by betting your hand. Even with full houses, if the flop is highly coordinated wherein people will stay regardless, you should bet and collect extra money along the way as they work towards developing their second best hand. I had the following hand come up this weekend in a $10-$20-$40 game (optional $40 river bet). I had the Jack of Hearts and the Ten of Hearts in middle position. An early player limped in and I limped in. The player behind me raised. Both blinds, the early limper, and myself called. The flop was: Jack of Clubs, Jack of Diamonds, Ten of Diamonds. To make a long story short it got capped on the flop with me and one other guy doing all the betting and raising. Two other guys just called. The turn was the Nine of Diamonds. This gave one guy the nut flush, another guy made a straight, and the third guy who had started with the Jack of Spades and the Nine of Spades made the second best full house. Obviously, I went on to win a huge pot. Had I slow played, I figure I would have lost about 12 small bets on the flop (4 people putting in one bet instead of putting in 4 bets)
Jim, it strikes me that you would be considered a top player in the gulf area. I'm curious if the flush stayed till the river with a guy like you raising at every chance with an obvious good chance of a boat on the flop. Or, is the fact that you play agressively mask your monsters because you would have played Aj the same way?
Thanks, SammyB
Yes, because he had the nut flush. The guy with the straight was the only one who dropped out. What really made me the money was the poor guy with Jacks full Nines losing to my Jacks full of Tens because he was betting like he had the nuts.
The games in the Gulf Coast at the middle and lower limits are probably the softest in the country. In general, they are loose, passive games with players who go too far with their hands. Most of the top poker players in this area do not play limit poker at all. They play pot limit.
One obvious exception, of course, is when you are in a heads-up pot against a potential free roll. I've seen guys take it to 7 or 8 bets in limit or put in an ill-advised reraise in pot limit when the board is something like:
2cTcJdQh
And they are holding:
AsKh
When the other (smarter) guy could be holding:
AcKc.
I played a huge pot limit hand once where I turned a straight with KsQs (and flush draw) to a board of 7hJsTsAh and was free rolling a guy with the wrong KQ. He made the mistake of putting in a raise and reraise until he was all in.
We showed our cards to "do business" and his jaw hit the table when he saw my hand. I had mercy and let him buy me out of the pot by giving me a greater share of the chips to account for my superior equity. Not out of the kindess of my heart since it was a neutral-EV deal, but to keep him in the game.
beware of the freeroll, my ass. in limit play? ha!
scott
Hey scott, I think Michael 7 makes an excellent point. I onced saw a lady lose over $1500 in a $20-$40 game at the Mirage when she kept raising on the turn because she had the nut straight not realizing that her opponent also had the nut straight and a flush draw as well. She raised herself right out of money and when the flush card came on the river, she left in tears (and broke).
scott-
it happens in limit play and is usually a much more stupid mistake. in pot limit, or no limit, you may put in one raise too many on the turn that puts you all-in. if you lose, you think "tough luck" since the guy might have been making a move on a draw or a hand that you can beat.
but in limit, if your opponent is sucking up the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th raise, he MUST have the same hand as you unless he is an idiot. and he might have more as JB descibes above.
i was wrong. but i don't think i've ever seen a freeroll.
scott
scott, i'm sure you have. When there is some raising going on and 2/3 players have the nuts and the other guy has got top pair top kicker. But you have the nuts plus the flush draw.
OR
same as above but 2/3 have a 1 card straight but you could still hit nut straight.
Happens often enough in casino poker. Often it is not noticed or noticed and not dicussed.
It happens !
Don't play quads slow. The flushes and straights will call anyway. For example, let's say you have a pocket pair of fours. The flop comes As 4s 4c. If you are first to act you want to bet. You're hoping that someone with an A4 or some spade flushes are out or even a gunshot straight. They may think that you have an A or are even bluffing. If you get raised on the flop just call the raise. You don't want to knock out any players, but you want to make sure you get some money in the pot. Then bet on the turn, if you get reraised just call. If you think he made the nut flush on the river, bet out and hope your opponent raises you so you can reraise. Hopefully, some smaller flush may get trapped for additional bets.
Don't get fancy with the real nuts. Try to get the most money.
"You're hoping that someone with an A4 or some spade flushes are out or even a gunshot straight."
That A4 should be an Ace with a weak kicker.
The other day, I was holding K-10 offsuit. The flop was 9-J-Q with a club flush draw. With 4 people in the pot, I raised the bettor, who re-raised me back, then I capped it at 4 bets. Everyone calls! My inclination is to Never Stop Betting with the NUTS! Of course the 3rd club or a pair on the board makes my Nut straight beatable but if they are going to draw me out, make them pay.
This isn't really correct. A flush draw will get there about 1 time in 3 and a set will turn into a boat at about the same rate, so as long as there's more than 1 other opponent in the hand you're not really "making them pay" on the flop, because they're getting the right price. If I'm holding Axc, I'll be helping you cap that flop. The people that you're charging are the people holding lone pairs (or 2 pair), or the people chasing a straight that they can only split a pot with at best. These people are drawing dead or almost dead. In other words, you can't really make the hands that have a decent chance to outdraw you "pay" on the flop when several people are calling.
This isn't to say your "fastplay" is incorrect. Flopped straights should probably never be slowplayed in limit, because non-broadway straights are always vulnerable to higher straights, all straights are vulnerable to splitting the pot, and the connected nature of the board means that two pair hands are very likely. In addition, slowplaying in a loose game is rarely correct. However, I would often refrain from capping the flop, hoping that the bettor will bet out so that I can raise on the turn when that blank hits. Now, the possible flushes or sets are probably not getting the right price, and you can charge them. By capping the flop, the reraiser will probably not bet out on the turn. (Although if he's jamming the nut flush draw, he might not bet the turn anyway.)
-Sean
I'm playing in a typical low-limit game. Not too much raising, lots of out of position hands but relatively little bluffing. Cowboy I've never seen before, but have been told is aggressive, raises UTG pre-flop. Two callers, I look at QQ and reraise. He calls. Flop comes 9d7d4c. Cowboy bets. Person in middle raises, I reraise, Cowboy caps it. Turn is 7h. All check to me, I bet, Cowboy raises, all others fold, and I call. River is irrelevant, Cowboy bets, I call.
Analysis?
I'll post the result after, of course.
Pre-flop your 3 betting with Queens is correct especially against a Cowboy whose play is on the loose, aggressive side. I assume the two callers between the Cowboy and you called all bets and raises. Your re-raise with your big over pair on the flop is aggressive but I think correct. The Cowboy could be betting a draw or an over pair himself and the raiser could be raising on just top pair/top kicker. When the Cowboy now caps the betting I would definitely put him on an over pair or a flush draw or a set. On the turn, when you are checked to I think your bet is proper. When the Cowboy now raises, I would put him on an over pair, possibly Aces or Kings, or he could have flopped a set. Nevertheless with all that money now in the pot, you have to show it down in a heads-up situation like this.
I read your post with interest Jim and was curious whether you would have released the hand at any point if you had held the J9.
Pre-flop, I would not cold-call a raise with J9. On the flop, if it was bet and raised to me, I would fold my top pair because my kicker is so weak and have no other draws.
I agree with Jim and would put the cowboy on big pair, probably aces or a minimum kings. His capping post flop makes me suspect a set, but would he raise so agressively UTH pre-flop with 9's or 7's? I do not figure on a flush draw. I hope the board does not pair after this capping. When the 7 falls on the turn, I figure I might have a problem. I would be cautions suspecting a boat or possibly quads, but most likely aces up. It really would not matter since any of those would beat me. However, but I would still call because of the money in the pot and the possibility he might have just a lower pair. Maybe that is why I do better in 7CS.
I agree with Mr. Brier.
Your opponnent has AA, KK or 99. My guess is KK because he just called preflop - probably waiting to see if an Ace hit the board. He went for the check raise on the turn hoping to be able to clear out the field knowing that you have an overpair based on your betting. If he had 99, I think he would have bet the turn and not gone for the check raise because he is now a prohibitive favorite.
Being a typical low limit player I'd like to take a wild guess.
Cowboy had big diamond suited connectors
My guess JdTd
Aggresive in which way? Tight or loose? If he is tight aggresive then he probably is on a big pair or AKs, and maybe he has the same hand as you. Loose Aggresive, now he may play any Ace or suited cards or low-middle pairs, and it is a harder to put him on a hand, and in this case the turn card would have hit him hard if he's holding A7s. With a check raise on the turn, this would be what start worrying about, or pocket 99's or 44's.
You can rule out AA's because he would have capped the betting pre-flop. So as far as big pairs are concerned, KK's are all you have to worry about.
Also, being loose aggresive, he may just have AQo or the like, or a flush draw, and ram and jam to the river looking to catch a big card or a flush. But with the flop the way it is, he also may have a set of 9's or 4's. With the flop the way it is, I would play the hand the way you did since you got the middle raiser (who probably was on a flush draw) out of there and isolated Mr. aggresive.
With the flush draw busted, and all the aggresive betting beforehand over, and being heads up, I think calling on river is mandatory since you probably have the best hand, but I would not raise just in case.
Worst case scenario (against tight player) is your paying off to pocket KK's. My gut feeling though is he's on JJ's or TT's and raised pre-flop to get rid of drawing hands and then on the flop since he can beat anyone who paired the board (capping would not be out of the question for an aggresive player with a board like yours). Worst case for loose aggresive, your beaten with 4's or 9's full, or trip sevens.
I call on the river, Cowboy turns over 99 for the nut full house on the turn, where he check-raised to thin the field of two people, one likely drawing for a flush!
Oh I do so love low-limit poker, even if I do have to pay off people with "measly" overpairs.
One thing I considered was "inducing a bluff", whereby I check behind on the turn knowing that I intend to call the river nearly regardless of what hits, and this way saving a bet and getting a free card, maybe knocking Cowboy and Ms. 2000 Flushes out cold if I spike a queen. However, when the board pairs and the check comes, I put him on AdKd pretty fast, and realize when he re-raises that I am now in "supplicant bee-otch mode" and must pay him off. Still though, that was a very.. specious.. check-raise..
May you misplay 1,000 full houses a day, M.
I understand that I can't expect to win all the time, but when I lose I lose for a long time, or I lose a large amount. I will go for 6 hours without getting a good flop for my hand or being beat by a draw with top 2 pair or trips.
SO am I doing something wrong? Should I stop playing when I'm loosing that dosn't seem like the correct theory, I should win in the long run.Should I change tables, change games?
thx
Six hours is an unusually long time to not win a hand. I think you should be writing down hands that you are involved in and posting some of them for comment. Aren't you getting any free plays in your blinds? Tell me something about the limits you are playing at, how many players, and what kinds of games. Is there a lot of pre-flop raising going on?
I suspect you go on "tight tilt" when you are losing. Don't play when you get demoralized. If changing gears or changing games will un-demoralize you then do so. Otherwise quit.
Use this quit time to study or read or review hands.
- Louie
Be patient - if the hole cards are not coming hold out for the right starting cards. If you don't flop to your hand get out away from it. You can change seats or tables if you think it will help your state of mind but there are still 52 cards in the deck so what has changed. Maybe the game is harder than you think to many maniacs or to many rocks maybe a table change is in order then.
I happen to know if I continue to play my brand of solid poker I will end up winning so I have confidence I can out last bad run of the cards - I just don't chase and play quality cards form the right position.
It works for me.
I won for 3.5 years and then lost for about 6 months. A couple of wins, even a couple of decent ones, my bankroll shrunk (9000 -> 6000) along with my confidance. I'm winning again now but I do not count on it in the short term.
The losing streak has had some effects on me. When I lose now, I do not accept it as well as I used to. I think I fear starting a new steak and I have lost money near the end of a session trying to get even.
On the positive side, when I see mediocre or poor players on a tear, I'm happy for them. I know the money will be coming back.
Rounder, have you gone on any extended losing streaks. I know your game is low-variance but it's not NO-variance. I would like to gain back that confidence that I will win in the short term as well. Maybe I can't because it's not the truth.
Hey, this is good therapy.
Regards
Mike N
Mike,
If I am running bad in a session I take a short break and analyze the situation and see objectivally into the game if I am chasing to much, letting testosterone get in the way, playing quality cards, playing position well, playing to weak or to strong. In other words going back to basics. I know If I play my A+ game I WILL win or not take a beating. It is table selection and hand selection I rely on to win consistantly.
I feel a little like Vince Lombardi who used to say we didn't lose the game we ran out of time. :-)
Yeah, I think I'll try incorporating a walk into my game. Currently I usually stay seated and miss very few hands. I'll now plan that each time I make a poor play I'll wait for my next blind and sit out a round. I'll sit out for a couple of early position hands every 1.5 hours or so regardless. I won't like sitting out a round so I may make fewer mistakes.
Better for the concentration and for the health.
Tough 6-12 HE game at the Mirage. 2 Tourist and me (?), I hardly ever play there. All the rest are regulars. I have 75o in the bb, #5,#6,sb calls, I check. Most flops are raised, especially my blind or tourist, on the steal. I would not have played these cards in this positon for even another bet. Flop comes 6d4h3h. I have a staight and lead because I'm not certain it will be bet. I'm hoping for a raise. All call except sb. Turn is a 6s. I lead again, #5 calls, #6 folds. We're heads up. River is 6d. I know I'm beat but I lead anyway. If I show weakness he will bet anyway and I have to call (correct ?). He shows me 4d2d for the full house. I know some good players come in with anything behind perceived weak players (1) you have position (2) the weaker player may make mistakes (3) your hand may develop into something. However this is ridiculous. Wasn't he out of line ? He had a middle small pair with a gut shot on the flop. After the turn he's drawing dead to a 2,4 or 5. Two sixes are his only outs. Makes me feel I've been set up. His call on the turn could have been raised behind. $54 dollars in the pot for a gutshot/pair draw with with one card to come (4/1 pot odds ,and he's also drawing dead). The only thing he could beat was a bluff, which I hadn't been caught doing. Yes, I know he's a good player, I watched him play a number of hands and he knows how to play. I hate getting beat by experts who get lucky. It's bad enough when the wooden tops draw out. Yep, set up. Comments on his play, please ? If it was just bad don't bother, if you can justify it please do, I don't want to hear he thought I had an overpair , he's still dead on the river. All he coud beat was a bluff.
I don't really like his call before the flop for 2/3 of a sb.
From his point of view he had a pair and a gutshot on the flop. Also he might hope you are betting some big cards. If this were a bigger game he might very well bet out or check raise here as a semi bluff. Folding might be right too if he could really place you as a non bluffer.
He still calls to draw out on the river or maybe he even has the best hand. The third 6 looks pretty good to him on the river, he got this far so call.
D.
David, the guy with the Four of Diamonds and the Deuce of Diamonds was not in the small blind. The small blind folded on the flop. This guy was in Seat #5 but it is unclear from the narrative whether he was in early or middle position.
If you really "must" call if he bets because he may be bluffing then by all means check-and-call since by betting you are giving up those times he would bluff. (Well, assuming he isn't going to fold a small full house...) I mean, if you are going to call then you WANT him to smell weakness hehehe; no shame in that.
A pair and a gut shot is very much "in line" for "live" tourists. Any pair plus any gut shot. And if he isn't live then what the heck are you doing wasting your time in this game with (apparently tight) locals and a couple reasonable tourists?
Against your straight he had 2x6s and 2s4s for 4 outs. Same as if you had a 6 and he had 4x5s for outs.
Let me read your post again... perhaps you didn't say he was a tourist; but at the bottom you said he was an "expert". Well, experts don't put in the first call from middle position with 42s and will KNOW they only have at best 4 outs against the tight-wad who's betting and can easily give up the under-pair-bottom-gut-shot when board is top paired without blinking an eye.
Dare I suggest you are confusing "experienced" with "skill"? And even if he DOES have "skill" he isn't going to be able to overcome it making terrible calls like that.
Bad calls on his part. Terrible bet on the end on your part. Bad profiling the player on your part. Bad game selection on your part.
- Louie
Since you can OBVIOUSLY figure out he made a couple bad calls, I suggest you figure out what REALLY bothers you about this.
Wanna chat? LLandale@EarthLink.Net.
I'd say the answer is pretty simple. When you bet the nut straight on the flop he didn't put you on it, he put you on a draw just like he was on. No one I know would put you on the nut straight when you bet out, thats partly why you bet, so players don't put you on it. When the turn is another 6, he still calls for the gutshot, assuming he is now putting you on trips. When the river is another 6, you can't bet, its a mandatory call for him since he has a 4 or even if he had a 3 he would still call. You can't steal here, your straight is good enough to win if he had nothing, so why bet, no one folds with a tight no matter how small it is. It was just bad luck, but if you had check raised the flop with your position and bet the turn, I don't think he would have called the river, but thats another story.
Perhaps, I use the term expert way too much loosely. I don't mean to sound beligerant, I read a novel somewhere that classifyied players that way, with world class being another step above, and it stuck. Listen I don't mean to rock any boats or make enemys here. I chose this handle only because it allows me to say anything and try to remain anonymous for personel reasons. Doesn't mean I'm into abuse. I just want honest answers, if my questions are too sensitive I will cease ! If I took a bad beat I just took one, I will quit whinning. :>)
PS: I really would like more opinions. I think the narrative is precise. Thanks.
I do respect your answer GT, it's just that his odds for a straight was ungood, especially if I was on a draw he's got the ignorant end. Perhaps the answer is this player was also, steaming, coming from another bigger game,down,and playing fast at the lower limit. But I wanted to hear something about odds and and probabilities. I have been known to suck out on people also. I'm not bitter about the session. I lost a small amount in 3 hrs., went across the street and got it back in 30 min. and went home and slept well. To continue to defend myself, I don't run around town looking for an easy game. I choose a destination, go there, and if the game is not too undesirable, I attempt to adjust and prefer to send others home.
Aggression ? It seems that some of you would have me bet out and continue to play a pair of Jacks strong with 9 players in an unraised flop of AAA in Calf. That just can't be right. Then some chastise me for a "terrible" bet on the end of a hand, even when I don't get raised. I must have read this person correctly somewhere along the line and also was in control of the hand. I also give a blind credit for a possible staight with an ugly flop, then draw only to something that will beat it, or have a decent bluff catcher and bluffer. Bad beats just keep on coming, just love to dish em out, but can't take em. :)
What is wrong with finding the softest seat you can. I look for the situation I can make the most amount of money in the shortest period of time. There are so called poker players who would rather break even in a 20-40 than win at a 5-10. I just don't get it.
As for your flopped straight - this is why god invented a check raise. If you don't get to check raise here so be it.
Your assessment of the expert is probably wrong - he is just another LL player who will play any 2 suited cards and he probably got lucky when you were playing with him. I look for smart play from good positions when assessing players as good or expert.
I understand your point that the checkraise here might have been just the thing to get the 24s out of the hand, but the risk of giving a free card to the flush draw doesn't seem right. With no preflop raise, which would have solved our heros problem by making him fold, I think betting out here was the correct play. But, I'm always ready to listen to other's views, especially yours. SammyB
What risk is there of giving a free card to the flush draw? The flush draw will call anyway, and will be getting the right price to do so. The only risk here is letting someone with a lone card of that suit in who'll then stick around on the turn if the 3rd card hits, but wouldn't have if you'd bet out. But that's beside the point, as you don't really want to drive 42s out anyway. He's drawing almost dead and can catch the idiot end of the gutshot which he might play aggressively.
-Sean
becomes the easiest game in town! That's why I'm always considered so good at game selection. Many players have complimented my game selection by telling me that they've never booked a loss playing in any game I'm in. My NL Hold-em game selection skills are so renowned, that I once cashed out from a full game at Crystal Park when there were five names on the waiting list and the game broke up. They never played another hand. Yes, game selection is just a natural gift of mine!
Pre-flop of course you play your Seven-Five offsuit from your big blind when you get a free play and yes you should fold this hand under any other circumstances.
On the flop, I like your bet because you have flop cards that are clustered together plus there is a two flush on board. You don't want it checked around. You get two callers.
On the turn, I would bet and only be mildy concerned about the remote possibility of a full house when the top card pairs but I would bet the turn like you did. Only #5 calls.
On the river, when the third Six shows up your bet is very bad. A worse hand won't call and a better hand might raise. You should check and call if your opponent bets.
With regard to the play of your opponent, I think his limping in from early or middle position with Four-Deuce suited was bad poker. On the flop he has middle pair and an inside straight draw, so his call was okay. On the turn, I think he should fold when the top card pairs because you could now have trips. Of course he calls on the river with this little full house.
OK guys, more like it. What I was actually fishing for here was that if you change his holding slightly to 3h2h his hand gets a little better and when you add the flush draw to the possible come hands that could beat me then perhaps his odds get better for a bluff-cathing-small-flush-small-straight-with-small-pair type drawing hand, and he is OK to call an unknown like me. If you change his hand slightly to 52,(he did play 42 didn't he) flopping him a baby straight then all his bets, and MINE, make sence. That's what I put him on, that's why I kept betting. My assesment of him may have been quite wrong (not a first), and perhaps I give Mirage Hustlers a little too much credit. But, I did watch his play, and he seamed very sound throughout. Even hesitating to see if I break after betting. He did not play ALL, the same way, and that to me is one sign of a consious player.
I eluded to being cheated, ( set up ) , well that's also remote, if I were, then I would have been raised at some point in the hand, so no cullusion.
My player and game accessment may have been very bad. I'm usually OK at that, since I change games and players so much, I can usually get a line on them before they figure me out.
Rounder, I have nothing against soft games. It's just that I don't make my living, currently, at poker. I hope to do so one day, as I find it a life long endevor. I often play tougher competition to make ME tougher. I might lower or raise my expectation for any given game to keep from going on tilt, but I do not run from everygame with good players. Where better can I hon my skills other than sitting and watching the better players handle each other. Same about a seat, I like to see others changing seats to get behind me, mostly I'm flattered because they know me and fear my play, sometimes I'm tagged as an idiot, and it's so blatent that they want my money, it pisses me off. Makes me play harder. If you want to swim with the sharks, you gotta get wet. If I come to your town there might be only one game and one seat that day. If I take a walk then how can you get my money.. :>)
I'll will say that a post I saw earlier really inspired me. " There is a line to cross by all better players, but he must cross it by himself." There are some very wise posters here, thanks for the insight.
PS: New Players: Move up only when the cards prove that you ARE psychic at your current levels.
True about being psychic. I have a bad ego fault. I can read cards and players (that I play with) pretty well and will let other players know that. Why can't I just shut up and use the info. Don't do it all the time.
I like your point about playing in tough games to learn since you do not play for a living. I find it tough to play my best all the time since I can rationalize that if I'm better then I can play looser and still win. I soon play too loose and find my money dribbling away.
One of the toughest skills to perfect seams to be slamming on the brakes after you get ahead or behind.
Calling, at first just to comfirm you can read other's hands and boost your confidence must be a nessacary evil we all have to go through !
I agree with Jim except that he should have folded on the flop. His straight draw is to the worst possible. His second pair includes the worst kicker. If he hits his kicker there's a one card straight.
I also agree with Rounder. You like this guy in your game. He's no expert (or he's an expert on tilt). I also make my player evaluation on what hands a player shows from early and middle position. Much less on what they show from late postion.
If you had raised preflop then he could have thoght his straight draw was good. But then you would have won with the overpair.
I once was drawn into a pot with something like 59s from late-middle position with about 6 players. Preflop the button raised (a loose player) and all called. An ace flopped plus backdoors for me. With his betting and a tell I put him on AA and made the flop call. The turn gave me the open ended straight which I made and I was able to check raise for 2 bets on the river. If he had not raised I would have folded on the flop. I consider this weak play preflop and strong play after. I now play such hands very very seldomly.
You were bad beat ... that's all there is to it. He was bad ... but won.
What had he done in the game to make you think he was a good or expert player?
I have only played poker for about a year, always LL. Last weekend I found myself holding pocket 8's late position, the flop comes down 4 5 6 rainbow. I called a bet, and the turn was an 8, giving me trip 8's. I ended up losing to a striaght. Should I have folded after the flop....
It depends. Before you can get much of an analysis from anyone here, you'll have to give us a lot more information. How many callers, from what positions, what was the betting like, etc.
The answer is probably no. An overpair with a gutshot is a pretty decent hand, the fact that you have two 8's makes it less likely that someone else flopped a straight, etc.
If the better was to your right you should have raised or folded. Your weak pair NEEDs to drop the over cards lurking in the hands of players who like to play over cards because some of the time they are against someone only with a weak pair. And in your case you'd like to drop someone with a stiff 8 so you don't have to split it when a 7 comes.
Notice that with your hand the only cards that are "good" are the 7s. If you are playing against a lot of people you're pretty much dead meat even if you DO have the "best" hand right now.
When folding is wrong its rarely by much. When calling or raising is wrong is often by a lot.
- Louie
I don't know if I can agree with that, Louie. You have to consider an 8 at least a decent card, even if it makes someone a straight, because with top set you still have a lot of equity in the pot.
And this hand isn't bad if the pot is small, because people are going to make calling errors against you, like calling for gutshot 8 that only has two outs instead of four.
More to the point, with two 8's in your hand there's less chance that someone is against you with a made straight.
The hand has to be played carefully, and needs to be protected, but it's not as big a dog as you think.
You two good players are doing this aspiring player quite a disservice by trying to help him. He needs to go broke a few times if he expects to be a success. Why are you guys trying to deprive him?
I'm not sure if i've misunderstood what you wrote regarding the gutshot, but the 8 isn't a gutshot, the 3 still gives any 7 a straight.
depending on the number of players in the game, you shouldnt have folded, you had just too many outs
good play
Per flop and on the flop - got to clear out the smog on the table get rid of the lame limp and lazy hands that can come up to bite you if you let them in for free or cheap. Maybe you wouldn't get this LL player to fold but you got to try. It is just good poker.
On the flop, you should raise with your over pair when bet into. The bettor may not have straight but just top pair or just be betting a draw. A raise is mandatory here. Folding would be absurd.
On the turn, I would play my top set despite the straight possibility because have ten outs to a hand that beats a straight.
Thanks Jim, your info makes sense to me.
I use to play every day that i was down there in tunica in the 2-5 pot limit omaha game. still do whenever it gets off the ground. anyway, i feel that many of these players are extremly pushey. if you check to them they bet. boss hand, top pair, two pair, flush draw, straight draw, no draw, no hand, if you check they try to take the money. ill give you a example. I have two pair in my cards, something like tens and eights. Most every pot is raised, so i get to pay 20 to see the flop. I flopped a set of eights with a three flush on board. A player leads out for the pot, gets a call, and with my set i call. Once they saw me call the other two players shut down, i win the pot without filling and with no further betting. Now for the hand in question. I get to see the flop for the normal raised pot. When the flop hits i have one of those three card straight to the nut (like you have the ten and ace and a j,k,q gives you the lock) plus the second nut flush draw. Im first, i check, pot gets bet full pot, i call, heads up. Turn a blank, i check, full pot bet, puts bout half my money in. here is decision time. im out of position, cant make any plays, have to pray he dosnt have nut flush draw. i cant even beat a pair. I call. River gives me king high flush. Second nut. I check. Of course he sets me in. I call. I win. Could have just as eaisly lost. Bob says i played badly. What do you think?
looking at my post i realize i havnt given you enough information. when i checked the flop i was checking into five players who still had a intrest. bob say i made my mistake on the turn. There is no argument that I played the river like a champ.
I have recently been playing in a 15-30 Holdem game where the player has the choice of making the small (15) or big (30) bet on the flop. Game is 11 handed and can be mainly categorized as loose passive with many flops taken unrasied with 6+ players. Players ALMOST always make the big bet of 30 on the flop.
Using S&M holdem for Adv. Players as a guide, what strategy adjustments should be made for this big bet on the flop??
Things that come to mind are the fact that drawing hands such as suited connectors automatically go down in value even though most pots are multi-way. Big pairs should have more value..
What else?? do small pairs go up in value due to the fact that you can punish drawing hands with a big bet when you flop a set??
What strategy changes should be made pre, and post flop for this game??
any comments wuold be appreciated...
Potz..
I would play less drawing hands as it would cost you more to see the turn - Grp 1 hands and med. pairs seem to go up in value in this scenario.
Is the game really loose passive with the $30 coming out ALWAYS and how much pre flop raising is there really.
You can also raise the $30 flop to protect your big pair can't you?
One major strategy change would be no almost never go for a check-raise on the flop but simply bet out when you think you have the best with the $30 bet.
This is a fascinating post because this type of game has been debated between Bob Ciaffone and Mason Malmuth sort of indirectly. Ciaffone has suggested that hold-em might be a better game if the big bet was available on the flop rather than on the turn. For example, in other poker games like seven card stud by the time you see five cards the betting limit is doubled. Your hourly earn would go up and the your fluctuations would go down. Mason thinks this would be a terrible idea because the proper strategy would be greatly simplified and the players who like to gamble by chasing draws would be punished too severely.
Last night i was dealt pocket kings up front and raised and got two callers. Board comes 8 4 2 rainbow. I raise next player reraises and the next player three bets the pot. It's my turn to call two bets cold and i'm thinking what do theses players have! I decide the three bettor must have hit a set or two pair and i muck my hand. At the river the three bettor shows AQ and the other player has a pair of nines and beats the unimproved AQ. I did not know these two players well and gave them credit for having big hands. It seems to me the AQ overplayed his hand, However, he got it heads up with 6 outs and gave himself a much better chance to win. In the past whenever this same scenario came up and i laid down my hand the three bettor almost always had a set or two pair and it appeared i made a good laydown. Did i screw up? All comments welcome. Ice
Ice I'll get flamed for this but IF you never let go of a winning hand you are seeing to many rivers and turns.
You didn't know these two guys so you layed down a winner - it happens - look at the money you lost here as a loan you'll collect shortly with interest.
Rounder,
I agree if you never lay down you are seeing too many turns and rivers. But this waa not a good laydown (see post below).
Anyway, I can see why you and Big John aren't going to Crystal Park but email me if you are coming into town so we can hook up. Badger will never let me forget it if I don't buy you guys a drink.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I agree it was a bad lay down so my penance is:
No SOUP for Ice - 2 weeks. :-)
I may be at oceans 11 on the 21-22-23 of Jan do you guys go that far south.
Normally I wouldn't mention anything. But it's quite annoying to read thoughts that are both intelligent and insightful when "to" is always used where "too" is meant.
I can understand that at the tables you may not want your opponents to know that you are knowledgeable, intelligent, and thinking, but here it's ok! :)
Sorry - please don't take offense. It's meant to be constructive criticism. And it really reads like a glove that doesn't fit!
s
But I like reading Rounders posts. His usage of "to" fits his intellect like a bad glove. He's sharp, crisp, articulate, and succinct - by huge contrast he uses "to" where he means "too" every time.
Last post on this topic, you can have the last word now.
I can't stand the lose/loose typo that I see all the time. However, this forum is too informal for grammar critiques. Some people have a hard enough time commenting on poker.
I would still call the double raise on the flop with my pocket Kings and a rainbow flop of Eight-Four-Deuce. These guys could be raising and re-raising on top pair or two pair type hands. Sets are hard to come by. If one of them has two pair, you have 5 outs plus a remote runner-runner pair to beat two pair. I would want to at least see the turn. Depending upon what the turn card is and the betting action, I might fold or I might just be in a check-call mode.
Jim
Your right. That's exactly what i should've done. Call the raises and then see the turn and see what happens. As a matter of fact the three bettor bet but the turn card was a rag and i could've went into check-call mode. I guess part of my problem was that i was in early position and felt these guys had to have decent cards to call an early position raise and then it was three bet to me and i was out of position. I guess i have to add another oneto the mistake category boy these are adding up! Thanks Ice
The fact that they likely have decent cards makes it more likely you are ahead. The only better "decent" cards are AA.
I agree with Rick and Sammy below.
D.
I agree with Rounder that sometimes you have to fold what looks like a winner in the face of unfathomable aggression. But, not this time. I would have capped it and seen the turn and come out betting. You could be up against A8s, 99, TT, JJ. If you're up against a set well, tough luck but you still have many hands that might bet that agressively that you are ahead of. Unless an ace or an 8 hits I'd play the kings like a winner. And of course, if you've been reading, you know you never let anyone see you ditched the winner. You'll be calling 3 bets forever.
"And of course, if you've been reading, you know you never let anyone see you ditched the winner. You'll be calling 3 bets forever."
Well said.
Rick
Ice,
I haven't had time to post much in a while so I'll answer this one without looking at the other answers for now.
In Los Angeles players have the tendency to wait until the turn to spring to life with their sets. Of course you need to know the players but most play like this (which I think is a mistake). I would be wary of the set but I would tend to doubt it is out there. The flop raise from high overcards and reraise from a medium overpair certainly fit this flop and the pre flop action.
With a board of 8 4 2 rainbow, two pair is not likely (and you would have redraws anyway) and no drawing hand is likely to be out there. Faaagetabout two pair and draws unless these guys are idiots.
I would call or even reraise on the flop and lead into them again on the turn against any card that comes. Remember, even if I am up against a set (and I would put it at about a 40% chance), I still have outs to my king.
BTW, if I get raised on the turn (unless an ace came), I go into check and call mode. I don't get blown off kings that easily.
Regards,
Rick
Rick
Your right on the money. I can assure you i won't make this big booboo again. Thanks Ice
Two pair is out of the question...I don't think anyone here has an 8-4, 4-2, or 8-2. The main danger is if someone flopped trips. However, if the three bettor did flop trips he would probably have waited for the turn to attack. Therefore, I wouldn't put him on trips. The point is that there are too many hands besides trips that these two guys could have. Pocket 9's and higher, for example. Next time, if this situation occurs again, don't be too paranoid of trips. There's no pocket aces here either as there was no reraise preflop.
Game type ? You will find that in 10-20, 20-40 and smaller games like in California sometimes, raises and reraises on the flop are meaningless if the structure is half a bet, then full bet on the turn. When you get raised on the turn beware, but it still doesn't always mean you are beaten.
You have to start playing the players, you seam to have the mechanics down. AA and KK, they tell me is almost always a free ticket to the showdown without a coordinated board.
I love to play in Cali. at the right level, wish I could get there more ! Most of the time they come here and totally disrupt our peacefull little games. Like this week and next. The reponses to this post are excellant !
No AA will depend on the players involved. I see value in just calling the raise preflop if I believe I'll be against only 1 or 2 players. However, I would still wait until the turn to pounce so your point is still correct (IMHO).
I agree with most of the posters that say that the laydown was incorrect, but I would like to take a moment to point out to you what happened here.
The three better probably put you on a hand like ace-king or ace-queen. He has a choice when it is raised to him, he can re-raise or fold. If he calls, you are certain to call behind him (assuming you have AK, or AQ). His reraise, in my opinion, is actually a strong play because he will get hands that he can not beat to fold. This makes his draw to his Ace or King live. If you were to call with the A-K (or A-Q) at best he is drawing for a split.
Now in the case at hand, he read you wrong, you had kings. You have 2 choices here. One is to re-raise the flop and bet the turn, the other is to call the flop and check raise the turn.
I actually prefer the latter option. Yopu will trap people for a extra bet on the turn, and you will ave a bet if an ace ends up coming on the turn (clearly you will not check raise an ace). In addition this call and check raise on the turn will stop your more observant opponants from playing games with you on future hands. It also protects future checks on the turns when you have drawing hands (they will fear a raise).
If you run into a set, you are just going to lose money on this hand. The most likely hands are 9's through J's. Aces and queens are also possible (I frequently do NOT re-raise with aces).
That said, in the early rounds of a tournament I might lay the hand down pre-flop because the chips are too valuable. But, in a ring game you are giving up way to much the best of it.
Thanks to everyone. Be rest assured i will live to fight another day and i sure won't make this mistake again Ice
Open letter to Jack Binion
Mr. Jack Binion
As a twenty five year patron of the Horseshoe across the country and most recently in Louisiana I feel compelled to write this letter. I as many others received the disturbing and disappointing news of the closing of the poker room in your Horseshoe Casino Hotel in Bossier City. I have heard many rumors as to the reasons why this decision was made. Sq. ft. vs. dollars, fewer employees, increased bottom line is the most circulated. One of the most disturbing to me is the rumor of your position that it is stockholder decision and out of your hands. Sounds like a “cop out” to me. Mr. Binion you are the Horseshoe. I find it very hard to believe that there is anyone at the Horseshoe but you Mr. Binion who makes a decision of this magnitude.
As you are the icon of the poker world, I find it very disappointing that you would take such a step based solely on the recommendation of some corporate numbers men who only considered sq. ft. vs. dollars generated. Did these corporate geniuses consider the residual income the poker room generates as a result of these players frequenting the other gaming tables throughout the casino? This does not take into account their wives; friends and associates who are in your casino and along with the poker players wager hundreds of thousands of dollars in your casino simply because of the poker room.
Mr. Binion there comes a time in a mans life when he should look past the bottom line and make decisions based on the people who have looked up to him, trusted him, respected him and in some cases changed their lives for him. You have been blessed in your life with fame and fortune and with this blessing comes a greater responsibility than just the “bottom line”
The mystique of the Horseshoe has grown through the years as a direct result of the poker world. Make no mistake Mr. Binion you have underestimated the value this poker room has not only to the Horseshoe but also to you as the one man in America that the entire poker world admires.
I doubt very seriously that you will ever read this letter or if you do it will make any difference. If however you do at least you will know that I am speaking for thousands of people who feel the same as I do. All your corporate numbers men cannot possibly measure the impact these people will have on the precious “bottom line”. I guess your commercials are really right when they say “You really don’t know Jack”
Former Customer
Freddy K. Horany
Freddy, I too am saddened by the decision to close the poker room at the Horseshoe in Bossier City on January 3 (Monday). You and I have probably played in the $20-$40 game together.
It appears that poker rooms are closing down all over the country. The Beau Rivage in Biloxi had just opened and was doing a great business in their poker room but apparently they decided to close it down and put in slot machines instead. The MGM in Vegas closed their poker room and they had run adds in Cardplayer for a long time on how they wanted to draw some middle limit players ($10-$20 and $20-$40). The Rio in Vegas sponsors a very popular poker tournament once a year but they closed their poker room. The Venetian in Vegas was originally going to have a premier 50 table card room that would rival the Bellagio but instead I now hear they will just have a small, low limit poker room. The Players casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana closed down their poker room in August.
I suspect what is happening across the country is that casinos are simply not making enough money off poker to justify the floor space and all the employee staff needed to support a poker room. What we may see in the future is a California type system where low limit games pay a dead button charge and the higher limit games pay a half-hour collection with the collection fee increasing as the limits increase. This appears to be the only way public poker can survive.
Jim,
You wrote: "I suspect what is happening across the country is that casinos are simply not making enough money off poker to justify the floor space and all the employee staff needed to support a poker room."
This may be true on the surface but I do think a well run poker room can make money on its own and provide some intangibles in most competitive casino situations. I'm just not so sure we have ever seen a truly well run room.
Another factor working against poker is the toleration of abusive players. To the best of my knowledge, in no other area of the casino is bad behavior tolerated. I am guessing that most casino executives don't shed many tears when they have to close down the poker room.
I don't think every casino in a city like Las Vegas needs one though. In areas where space or the number of casinos is limited, poker won't make the cut unless the owner just happens to like poker.
You also wrote: "What we may see in the future is a California type system where low limit games pay a dead button charge and the higher limit games pay a half-hour collection with the collection fee increasing as the limits increase. This appears to be the only way public poker can survive."
Regarding the "dead button charge". That is the way it is down in California (especially Los Angeles County) but that is mostly required for legal reasons. However, laws can be fought and changed of there is a will. The dead drop costs us money although I'm not sure some management realizes why. I'll debate that one with anyone even though I must be careful due to my position at Hollywood Park.
Regards,
Rick
Could it be that its not that the poker rooms don't make money, but that the other games provide MORE money for the casinos?
Jon,
That is possible but the same can be said for table games versus slots. However, an "all slots" casino is a pretty grim place (and one I would never be caught dead in).
Regards,
Rick
Maybe the internet poker games will replace casino poker in the future.
You can sit at home in your shorts, be free from smoke,no chance of being klled on the freeway going to the casino, you can go on tilt and not bother any one else but your self, and you wont be bothered or abused if your fellow players go on tilt. They can give you a cuss`en and you wont even hear them.
Milt Boyle
Milt,
I believe card clubs and casino poker rooms are only tapping a small percentage of the potential market (even in areas where they are well established such as Los Angeles). If I am right, then internet poker should serve to whet the appetite of this market for the most part.
Regards,
Rick
"Mr.Binion there comes a time in a mans life when he should look past the bottom line, and make decisions based on the people who have 'looked up to him'"
He wouldn't be around to be "looked up to" for long if he took that point of view.
These people have,"trusted him, respected him, and in some cases changed their lives for him"
"changed their lives for him?" kid, you need to come down off your cross, I'm sure we can find a better use for the wood. "For Him", that's a good one!
"-at least you will know that I am speaking for thousands of people", Feeling a little unappreciated are we. Please!
Pong Sing Smith
But Pong Sing Smith, you must realize that Jack's decision to close the poker room at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana will leave the area without a card room at all. They used to get people from all over East Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and even Oklahoma playing poker every weekend there. In addition, there are about 60 people employed by the poker room who will lose their jobs and have no cardroom to go to unless they want to move out of the area. Jack Binion has done so much over the years to promote poker and he frequently gives poker players a big break with discounted hotel rooms and free buffet meals. His family has been a symbol of public poker for years.
Bummer! They'll recover.
Have you ever seen the movie,'Other People's Money', where Danny DeVito gives the speech to the stockholders? Remember the Buggy Whip reference? Life goes on.
Pong Sing Smith
Mr. Smith
If you're not a poker player, why are you here?
I agree the letter puts J. Binion on a pedestal but the intent of the letter is to show that there will be lots of disappointed players.
I like the game. I enjoy playing. I like the money. I like the competition. I like having a few thousand in my pocket. I would miss poker if I could not play.
"-the intent of the letter is to show there will be lots of disappointed players"
Mike,
Do you seriously believe I don't sense Freddy's feeling of disappointment. Or that I don't realize other people in the area will be affected, some in more ways than others?
You know, it's one thing to post a statement that expresses ones disappointment, or to offer constructive criticism which may spark some reasonable ideas from others. Freddy chose to do neither, and that's basically what I take issue with, that--and what I made reference to in my initial post.
Pong Sing Smith
Pong Sing Smith, I envy the player that can find a game at any hour of the nite or day and travels a short distance to play.I envy the player that can pick and choose where and when they play,what game and never have to wait 2hrs for a seat, finealy get in a game and it breaks down for whatever reason. The rec player that can only play on an intermittent basis because of outside influences or short BR must take whatever is out there. Comments ?
His sister is the real piece of work in this family.
I can't wait to see how the WSOP gets bastardized in the next few years. I hope I am wrong but I have been looking at major organizations for many years now and I see bad things for the Vegas Binions. I hope I am wrong but doubt it.
An organization is a long shadow of the leader of the organization never forget this it will tell you the furure.
Hi,
I am not at the expert caliber of the posters in this thread but I do know a little about business.
1. A corporation is legally bound to provide as much profit legally possible to its shareholders. This is the fiduciary duty of its officers and Directors.
2. If poker is profitable in comparison with other games and/or brings in a market to the other more profitable games, it will survive and flourish on the casino level. If it does not do either of the above, it is unreasonable to expect a for-profit corporation to maintain a low profit or no profit activity based on non-business criteria.
3. If poker is as profitable as some have said, then there are properties available in LV for purchase. Maybe a slot/poker casino run and owned by poker players with the slots subsidizing a world class poker establishment. Many players would invest.
It is unreasonable to ask Binions to maintain poker based on tradition. Either it makes a profit margin that is acceptable within the gaming industry or it doesn't. The question we should be addressing in this forum is: How can we make poker more profitable for the casinos.
Thanks
I've seen too many closures since I've been here. My sincere regret is that Ceasar's closed that great venue before I got a chance to loose there .
Seriously, some full Vegas casinos want to protect thier patrons from Cardsmiths praying on their unsuspecting patrons. That was always the policy at the MGM, think about it. No jack pot - no chair glue from smelly locals, place the card room as far away as possible making it inconvenient for anyone not staying in the hotel to get there, No COMPS, off duty dealers can't play here,etc,etc. Now us card players don't make it any easier for the Hotels by tearing up cards, using profanity, or just showing to much imaturity over bad beats by abusing guests (not me). The MGM used to have the best 10-20 game in town, and the 488 game was very profitable for those who ventured to play there on a regular basis. Me thinks the Venetion may have the same mentallity.
The Bottom line is this: Most hotels, if you're going to loose a substantual amount, would prefer you loose it at anything except to poker regulars. They would much rather have you playing, you name it. Slots are bonanzas for them also. There have been studies done by and for Casino management to see whether the poker rooms can compete with machines (slots and vidio poker) for making the HOUSE money per sq. foot. Which one do you think the study recommended ? I'm appalled by what happens in some card rooms in other places (since I started here). I don't really get a thrill from playing amongst Lo-life individuals who may do or say anything, and have violent tempers. Down there in the Delta, yall been hustling those poor uneducated down home people so long and so profitably, they just don't have enough money left for Keno. So Corp. done something about it. Come on up here, you'll find your Huckleberry.
"The Bottom line is this: Most hotels, if you're going to loose a substantual amount, would prefer you loose it at anything except to poker regulars."
This statement is terriffic. With this in mind, it amazes me how badly many Las Vegas locals treat the tourist who sits down to blow off a little money (I'm sorry to say it's not much better here in California).
A poker room can be a welcome addition for a casino but it can't be so when it becomes the haven for lowlifes or ill mannered people it so often is. No room will make as much per square foot as slots but no casino can have much glamour without table games. But I doubt a craps player is going to take any abuse from making the "bad bets" in the center of the table. Let that player hit his two outer in holdem against all too many locals and he will be humiliated. Eventually this sort of thing leaks to upper management and the poker room will go (to make room for slots) before the craps or blackjack tables go.
I'd love to see one poker room in a major casino get the long term support of upper management and have it run in a classy manner. My friend Lou Krieger described "Poker World" ( a new card club in Vienna) in Card Player and on RGP a while back. There was vitually no toleration of abuse of employees or other players. At the same time, standards for the employees must be raised also. But it would take a new type of manager to run such a room and they would need the backing of someone upstairs. My gut feeling is that over time such a room will bring in new players who would never venture into most current ones.
Regards,
Rick
Tell your wives to stop playing the slots!
..
Okay. Say you are sitting down at a 2-4 HE table -- nobody else knows you or has seen you play cards. They have no impression as to your poker prowess. How do you play your first hand? Do you play it any differently than your normal tight/aggressive style?
I guess this is an image question.
In a full table $2-$4 game, I am not sure that "image" necessarily means a lot. The players at this level are basically unaware and will play most any pair, any two suited cards, any Ace, any King, etc. from any position. They may not raise much themselves but they will call if someone else raises and they have a hand they were going to play anyway. They came to have fun and maybe get lucky and win a few bucks.
I think you should play your first hand the way sound poker dictates. The best way to cultivate a good image is to win pots by showing down good cards. At some point, after perhaps several hours, they will get the idea that you don't play very many hands but you seem to win a high percentage of the hands you are in. They may also become aware of the fact that when you are involved you seem to be either leading in the betting, raising, or folding. If you play several different sessions with some of the same guys they will start to assume that you always have the best hand when you play so some of them might start folding when they should call. Now you have them set up for an occasional bluff. Over time you will find that you can usually buy one or two pots in a 9 playing hour session.
There is considerable merit to projecting a TIGHTER image than you deserve since this will allow you to steal a big pot on the river every now and then. But since the 2/4 RARELY if every features a no-show-down I would guess you need to encourage their calls.
- Louie
"They have no impression as to your poker prowess. "
Not so. If they're like me then they will form an opinion based purely on prejudice. I judge unknown players on first sight and modify my opinion as their play dictates. Tell us about yourself and I'll tell you how I'd judge you without you playing a hand.
In all seriousness, I'm a married white male -- 25 yoa. Clean cut, professional-type, glasses. I'll wear a T-shirt, jeans, and tennies to the table. Decent watch, no jewelry. No serious casino experience, but I've been told I hide it well.
I would key on your relative youth as my leading indicator. Anyone under 30 I assume plays too loose or perhaps way too loose. They are likely to bluff too frequently. These indicators are doubly strong if the new player is Asian but since you're white they are only moderately accurate.
Surprise your foes and play tight while they assume you're too loose.
Reading the other posts I'm reminded this is 2-4 hold-em. It's unlikely that more than 1 or 2 other players are paying much attention to details. You can play too loose and still be the tightest player in a 2-4 game. Have fun.
A stranger sits down at your table and immediately begins firing chips into the pot. What do you do? You probably try to call him down with anything above the drek level. After all, you can't let him own the table, and you don't want him thinking you're an easy mark.
This is what they'll do when YOU sit down. If you start with guns blazing at an unknown table, you probably shouldn't be toting blanks.
Fat-Charlie
I really appreciate the input. I'm just trying to get a feel for the first time I sit down at a table in April. You can be expecting a lot of basic questions in the upcoming months.
I have to assume you are new to the game. 2-4 in HE is tiny tot poker. Play the madman after you have watched the table for a few rounds. You have little to lose and you will both learn much and watch the little guys squirm. Bob Sherwood (yes that Sherwood)
Common situation:
Someone raises. You call with an ok hand, say, As8s.
Flop: 10d8d3s
You bet and get raised.
Turn: 5c
You check. He checks.
River: 5h
Do you normally bet or normally check and call?
I used to bet only against:
a. guys who rarely bluff at the end; or
b. guys who were smart enough to figure that my check is usually an invitation for them to bluff. i.e. guys who are samrt enough to figure that I would bet if I had a busted flush draw for example.
It seems to me that more and more of the players are falling into category (b). Thus, I have been betting more often in this situation and getting called by AK,AQ etc.
In other words, what I am noticing is that in these types of situations, it is rarely correct to check to induce a bluff.
Here's another example (from Feeney's latest article):
Board reads QhTc7h4s4d. John holds AdQc and has been betting all the way and his opponent has been calling all the way. His opponent is last to act.
At the end, John reasons that the fella is probably on a draw (given the lack of a raise on the flop) and therefore checks to induce a bluff. In my experience of late, no one falls for this move. They will generally just check back. I agree that if John is absolutely sure that the other guy is on a draw, he should check and hope to induce a bluff. But generally, there is always some question as to whether the other guy was calling all along with a 10. A bet at the end may cause him to somehow convince himself that John missed a draw.
What do you guys think?
$30-$60 hold'em. Abdul is 3 off the button. Folded to Abdul, Abdul open-raises, next player folds, next guy 3-bets, button cold calls, as do the blinds, and Abdul calls the one bet back.
The flop comes A94. Check, check, Abdul bets, 3-bettor folds, button raises, blinds fold, Abdul calls.
Turn is a J. Abdul checks, button bets, Abdul calls.
River is a 6. Abdul checks, button bets, Abdul calls. Button turns over 98 offsuit. Abdul turns over KJ offsuit to take the pot.
So is Abdul a big fish?
(Sorry I put this message in an established thread, but I can't get the whole message index to load.)
There must be more to this story. Why did you call the raise on the flop?
Brett
The call (not to mention bet) on the flop might have had something to do with the fact that the player then on the button had called for most flops and bet and raised to the river with nothing most of the time. You might have deduced that from his calling 3-bets with 98 offsuit and subsequent aggressive play. Also, there are 9 big bets in the pot at that point, so the pot is offering immediate odds of 18:1 for a call.
-Abdul
Big Lucky fish!
Vince.
I like to check when I have two reasons for doing so. For example, let's say there are two draws on the flop (say, a flop like K87, with two spades). You have AK and bet. You get raised by a late position bettor. You call (or re-raise and he caps it, whatever), and check the turn, which is a blank. He checks behind you. Now a third spade lands. This is an excellent time to check, because if he had the straight draw he might try and bluff at the pot, knowing you put him on a draw. And if he has the spades, you save a bet, or at least don't open yourself up to a fancy raise-bluff.
But if the turn is checked and the river is a blank, I'd be more inclined to bet.
Can I ask why did you bet the flop and do you think it was a good bet on your part? Also after you are heads up against somebody who plays in the way described (the button) how far will you go with your hand if you don't get the jack on the turn?
P.S looks to me like you were gambling on a downside even in the situation you were in.
A 3-bettor can often be pushed off his hand if an ace flops and he's a tight player or he can be put in a tough spot. This is because pairs 88-KK are very common holdings for the 3-bettor, and a player with such a pair can't be too happy about the ace. So, I bet, knowing the 3-bettor behind me will either 1) raise and then I'm done with the hand or else 2) he'll fold and then the maniac will likely raise and get rid of the two blinds, who I was actually more worried about than anybody else. It worked exactly as planned, though I was surprised that it did.
I likely would have given up on the turn if I didn't make a pair, but whether this is correct depends on just how much of a maniac the button player was.
-Abdul
Abdul
I agree with you about the most common hand for a three-bettor 88-KK. So if you hold this hand should you not three bet so you don't give your hand away?On the otherhand by three betting you narrow the field and does this compensate? Thanks Ice
Think of how to balance your play to avoid giving away information. There is not just one way to balance. Personally, outside the blinds I virtually never 3-bet a sane early raiser without anyone else yet in the pot, while I always 3-bet if I'm going to play versus a late raiser. Why don't I just always 3-bet, including versus early raises? Well, versus early raises there are few hands that I can profitably 3-bet with, so I get to play more hands and give away less information by always flat calling.
With a hand like KK or even TT I'm not usually thinking "narrow the field", but rather "get extra bets into the pot preflop." When you have a big pair and position on the raiser, you can flat call preflop and regain the lost bet when he bets into you on the flop and you raise. True, you do let the big blind have a cheap shot at you, but anyway I think preserving the information is worth the small sacrifice in EV.
It is unfortunately a big sacrifice to not 3-bet with AA, however, and you may choose to balance your play differently. Versus an early raiser many players choose to 3-bet with QQ-AA, AK, and occasionally something a bit frisky like T9s, while cold calling with weaker hands, so that's another way to balance the hands.
-Abdul
three betting doesn't give away information unless you only three bet with a very small group of hands. even then, the raiser has to guess as to whether you are paired or not and if so how big. i might not want to reraise a raiser early or not if i know he is extremely tight, but by reraising you are giving yourself so much more of a chance to win the pot. balancing your strategy by unspecific quidelines will cost you money. i balance my play by knowing who i will reraise and who i won't based on their play, not my play. seeya
You cannot three-bet an early raiser with much more than AA, KK and AK, except if he is foaming at the mouth. A pretty small group of hands indeed. If there are some loose cold-callers in, you could safely reraise with some additional hands, courtesy of the fish (and not really mind the original raiser pumping it again). However, in shorthanded pots, reraising a tight raiser simply gives away too much info, unless of course you are in the turbotilt gamb00ling mode, are disagreeing with the above criteria and are willing to throw some chips in with a hand like pocket deuces. You won't be giving information away by reraising in this case for sure. And yes, you'll be scaring the shit out of the guy, it can be lots of fun as long as you don't mind losing a stack or two.
However, reraising and isolating an early raiser does NOT give you that much more chance to win the pot, as you say, and with the true powerhouse hands you do not really mind caller(s) behind.
Plus, the missed preflop bet can easily be recouped with a raise on the flop, or even on the turn when you have good control over your man. There is really no point in showing your true colors too early in a shorthanded pot with position on the raiser.
I believe a tricky opponent holding rags is much more dangerous than a straightforward player with aces. There are exceptions to the rule, of course - when against fish, straightforward play is usually deceptive enough for the shrimpsize brain.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
YOU CAN THREE BET WITH ALOT MORE HANDSTHAN THOSE THREE. APPARENTLY YOU HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY SINCE 1389??????????
I agree with your reasoning. I would play this hand the way you did (I am not sure if that means I am patting you on the back, or giving myself too much credit). Basically when the action came to you pre-flop you had to raise or fold. Can't fold, so must raise.
The three better is most likely trying to get this pot head up. Once the Button calls, the blinds will call with a lot of hands (some of which may very well have a weak suited ace).
On the flop the blinds are pretty much compelled to check and fold a weak ace if it is raised back to them. That combined with the fact that you want (actually need) to see where the three better is, compels you to bet the flop. Once the three better folds, life looks more promising for you, but the raise by the button (which I will discuss below), is great for you, now the blinds are going to fold hands, some of which might be better than your, and some which could counterfeit your (ie K-9s, J-9s). his liklihood to raise is actually a great reason for you to bet.
Once your heads up on the turn and hit second pair, I think a check and call is mandatory to the end. You can't make a play and then muck here. Calling if you missed the K or J is more querstionable, not because you are drawing dead, but because if you miss on the end, you will have to check and fold (or if you check, call and muck your hand to a pair of nines, you look mighty weak). I hate to become the calling station and muck on the river, against the type you describe on the button. For this reason I think you have to lay down on the turn if you miss (or plan to check raise the river on a bluff when you miss, and check call when you hit.
Play by the button:
Well 8-9o is is no banner hand, but I guess if he was going to play it he did about as best as he could. Interestingly if he was suited I could see calling a raise on the button with four players already in in front of him, but even though he may have known that his call would bring in the blinds, he did not know that it would not come backed to him 4 bet (or even 5 bet). So clearly an awful call on the button.
On the flop I like his raise. It gives him his best chance to win the hand. I think he should have checked the river, there is nothing you could have called the turn with that he could beat.
If in atlantic city:
On a side, if not worthless note. This hand shows a definate difference between vegas and AC. In AC this hand is comeing back to you capped. This will happen because of the bet and three raises rule. The button rather than calling, would have likely raised, which ironically is probably the better play. In vegas he does not want to put in that third raise because he could get raises again.
Just another example of how the bet and 3 raise rule creates more raising not less as supposadly intended. I read an article a few years back by Mason to that effect, and have watched for it, and adjusted my play accordingly from city to city since then. (Abdul, I am sure you are aware of this but thought it might be of interest to others).
Conclusion:
Is Abdul a big fish?: Abdul found a big fish, he was on the button.
okay seriously, you should have checked the flop. you had a solid re-raise and calls behind you. even a maniac can hold cards..right?
you did the right thing obviously by raising coming in, but in this instance when you get action like you did from behind you have to down grade your hand.
you really took 2 gambles on the flop. you bet and then called the raise from the overly aggressive player.
but was this player that bad or did he read you for nothing, which is exactly what you had. he had second pair and made a good raise.
so not only did you bet (because the pot was big?) but then you called his raise, because he had been playing garbage. your thinking process is great, but one small problem..............you don't have anything. this is a losing proposistion, large pot or not. this happens alot. you read the situation correctly but you still shouldn't play. you were lucky as you hit your 8-1 shot to beat him. you tell me are you a fish? do you see how easy it is too rationalize bad play.??
Before reading any replies in this thread, my guess is that the button is loose-aggressive to the point of being maniacal (the cold call and raise on the flop with 98o was my first clue), and you suspect he'd have 4-bet preflop with many aces and a big pocket pair. There's a decent chance your KJo is the best hand, and a pretty good chance that your KJo are "overcards." The pot is fairly large, so I think you played fine. Against certain maniacs, you missed a bet by not check-raising the turn, but I'll give this guy credit for not 4-betting preflop with any ace.
-Sean
skp,
I'll post this before reading what Abdul the Fish says.
In your example I assume that you called out of the big blind. On the flop you bet with a medium hand and got raised. You took another card off. I won't argue with this against most players.
On the turn you checked (I may have bet again BTW) and he checked behind. Now he has showed weakness also. When the river pairs the blank turn card you have an easy value bet and can expect to be called down with the Ace kicker type hand. He certainly won't bet himself after showing so much weakness on the turn unless he has the overpair. And in that case he probably should have bet the turn.
Regarding John's example from Poker Digest. There was more to his example which led him to believe his normally aggressive opponent had a draw rather than a hand. So in this case I think his check is the better play.
Other then these quibbles, I like your catagory A and catagory B thoughts.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I meant to write a John Feeney suck up post a week ago but I have been busy. His PD article is outstanding and shows great ability to communicate fairly advanced ideas. I had several people who I am friendly with at the casino who are not known to be studious to read the article and let me know what they think. Every one said they got a lot out of it and enjoyed the writing style. I think Feeney's book will be a winner.
Usually when I'm in this situation, the other player turns over 99. I rarely bet in this situation, and I think trying to induce a bluff only works against very aggressive players.
Brett
On the first example, I am assuming you called the raise out of your blind and didn't cold call a legitimate raise with Ace-little suited. I am also assuming you are heads-up.
With a flop of Ten high in a heads-up situation, I like your flop bet with middle pair despite your lone opponent being a pre-flop raiser. When raised, you of course call and take off a card. On the turn, when he checks back to you it sounds like he is playing with over cards and that your pair of Eights is good at this point.
I would bet, not as bluff, but figuring I have the best hand and I will get called by big slick given the absence of a high card on the board. If you check, your opponent is foolish to bet because he will get called having shown weakness by checking the turn.
Your observation relative to this example is a good one and you are correct in betting in these situations.
With regard to Feeney's example, John's recommendation is correct not only for all the reasons he mentions in his outstanding article but also because if he bets a worse hand probably won't call. Most players would fold middle pair in the face of a pre-flop raiser who never took his foot off the gas pedal given the Queen over card on the flop. From the standpoint of the guy with the middle pair the only legitimate pre-flop raising hand he can beat is big slick or maybe AJ suited.
"Most players would fold middle pair in the face of a pre-flop raiser who never took his foot off the gas pedal given the Queen over card on the flop."
I think that if a guy is going to fold with middle pair, he will do so on the turn - not the river. In most cases, if a guy calls with middle pair on the turn, he will also call the River when a blank hits. It seems to me that in these types of situations, the chances of getting a guy to bluff at the end are less than the chances of getting a guy to call with a 10 (of course, if your opponent is aggressive enough to bet with a 10 at the end when checked to, then you don't lose much by checking but generally most players will correctly check back with a 10).
The thing is that John has been betting all along. His opponent should know that a check at the end is more likely made to induce a bluff. It is unlikely that John would bluff the flop, turn and not the River. In other words, his opponent when faced with a check will realize that he will be called if he bets.
On the other hand, if John bets at the end, a doubt is sure to creep in his opponet's head that maybe John is now bluffing with a missed draw. It certainly would be a huge error for his opponent to call the turn with a 10 but fold on the river. If you are up against an aggressive opponent, he may even raise with his own busted flush draw. Many players (correctly) believe that they have a greater chance of winning with a bluff-raise rather than a bluff-bet in this type of situation.
(Looking at the AQ case) I guess much of it comes down to knowing your opponent. I think you have a definite point about opps who have seen the play enough to recognize and expect it. But if you know your opp wouldn't call on 3 or 4 with a smaller pair, and would have raised with a Q, for example, then probably you can be confident enough in reading him for a draw to warrant the check.
You raise another interesting point -- that some opps may be more likely to bluff-raise than to bet after you check. Against this person you're going to really have to play poker but, yeah, maybe you should bet.
This situation is very player dependent and highly situational. Frequently, players will hang around with middle pair and take a card off on the turn hoping to either improve to 2 pair or trips at the river, or, if they don't improve, they are hoping that their opponent will not bet the river and just check down an Ace which they can beat.
It has been my experience that semi-bluff raises on the end are very rare. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember the last time I saw one.
In the type of situation described, I agree with the writer that it is superior to bet. Anyone who raises the pot preflop, flops a bunch of small cards, then checks on fourth street, is marked with a pairless hand such as AK or AQ. Such a player is hoping for a free showdown (since he cannot expect a pair to fold if he bets), and you are overly generous if you give it to him. He does not know if you are value-betting a pair or have a busted draw, and might call. I might add this is a good argument for the preflop raiser to bet on fourth street regardless of the type of hand he holds, to avoid this unpleasant scenario at the river.
Ciaffone pointed out the key to this situation: the raisers hand is an open book. Any bet he makes on the end looks VERY suspicious and this fact is OBVIOUS to all players.
He should rarely bet. Therefore you should value bet; which also gives equity to the busted 4-flush bets you will also make in this spot.
Now if the river was a K or Q then your induce-bluff stuff comes into play.
If this player is this aggressive you should usually check-raise the flop and bet the turn. If he ALWAYS raises on the flop then you should bet-and-3-bet the flop and bet the turn.
- Louie
I get Kdks in early position and raise about three times the BB. All fold, except called by bb. We both have about the same sized stack. This is a tournament, by the way (just after break) and we have decend mid-sized stacks. Flop comes jd 6d 2s. Bb leads out with moderate bet (3x BB), I raise to 6xBB, he calls. Hmmmm, does he have aj? jj? 66? Turn blank. Bb Checks. I check thinking he may have a set and is setting up check raise after pretending to bow down to my post flop raise. River Ad. He bets big bet, about a fourth of his stack. I think to myself, he can't have the nuts (as I have Kd), and even with a set, he has to worry about ANY flush that I might have. I clearly have the worst hand, but I push in all my chips thinking that he can't call, thanks to the kd I hold. Comments.
Bold move - I maybe put him on AJ - if he has the flush or 2 pair or set he screwed up by not going all in.
He let you in, a mistake and now has to fold or call your all in bet. It all boils down to is he a good eneough player to fold a flush or a set. If not I suspect you are out to the parking lot by now.
PLAYER OUT
If you put him on A-J, when he leads out on the flop, I set him all-in. If he's got A-J and calls, you gotta love it, even if he puts a 5-outer on you. If he's a good player, he knows you have a big pair -- letting him draw at the pot is a mistake.
His check on the turn was correct regardless of whether he had A-J or the draw, but this was the spot where you should have put him to the test. If he's drawing to the flush, he can't call the all-in bet on the turn (I'd be less inclined to move-in on the flop against what I perceived to be a 4-flush than against a hand like A-J).
Decisions on the river in NL are much more difficult than in limit -- I'm not inclined to set myself up that way unless I am the one on the draw.
Rob,
Rounder, I love your post! Like Earl said, once you put him on a hand make the correct decision. Put him all in on the turn and make him wonder about his AJ.
Russ
I see there are already a couple of threads about pocket kings, but its either this or a bad beat story...
This hand was one of my triumphant moments yesterday, but I think I may have missed out on a couple of bets.
2/4 holdem... I'm in seat #2, #7 is the button, #8 is the only player at the table who I know is solid, the others are either unknown, or not in the hand.
I have KcKd. #10 raises UTG. I reraise. #3 & #5 call 3 bets cold, sb #8 (solid player) calls. UTG caps. Everyone calls.
Flop is Qs4d3c. #8 bets, #10 calls, I raise, #3 calls, #5 folds, #8 raises, we all call.
Now this is an online game. At this point, my roommate, the maniac, is behind me shouting "cap it!". So I just call, since he's usually wrong. I'm worried about #8 having AA or QQ. I realize now that AA is unlikely, since he didn't raise pre-flop, only called. But he would've known that someone else would cap anyway. So maybe he has AQ? Nobody else in the hand is solid enough to even think about reading. But they're just calling, so I figure they're just looking for their miracle cards.
Turn is 5c. #8 bets, #10 calls, and by now I'm having doubts about failing to cap the flop, so I raise. #3 folds, #8 & #10 call.
I'm not worried about a made straight, but if a two falls, I know I'm beat.
river is 4c. We all check. I was last to act, and any queen would've called me, so I guess I should have bet here. I had been in this position a few hands before, when I bet my trip 10s, and was check raised by trip jacks, hence my timid play on the river here.
So now, #8, who I'd had pegged as a solid player, turns over Qh10c for queens up! #10 folds, and I won an $$87 pot!
Question is, should I have capped the flop? Bet the river? Why or why not?
I certainly played hands more poorly yesterday, but at least I recognized right away what I'd done wrong. Here I'm not so sure.
Thanks Ryan
Pre-flop your play is fine with pocket Kings in a capped pot.
On the flop, your raise is good. When re-raised by the small blind (solid player?? see comments below) I think you should cap it. He could have AA or QQ but with AA and perhaps QQ he would have capped it pre-flop. He is far more likely to have AQ or KQ.
On the turn your raise is good. The board is partially threatening with a two flush and three parts to a straight but it is unlikely that your opponents took all this heat with 76 or A2. I think the small blind is playing top pair/top kicker and #10 is on some kind of draw perhaps.
The Four showing up on the river thereby pairing the board helps your hand. When your opponents check like this on the end you should assume you have the best hand and bet it. Checking it down was weak poker.
With regard to the "solid player" in the small blind, his calling three bets cold (despite being partially in for a $1) with Queen-Jack offsuit was a sick joke and he is not really very solid. Even if he were suited it would still be weak poker. Perhaps he is one of these $3-$6 guys who wins $10 an hour but never seems to find the bankroll to play in a bigger game.
I hadn't played with this guy before, but over the last few hours I'd watched him build & win some big pots, with solid cards, and he hadn't showed down any garbage. I only called him "solid" since that was my impression of him before this hand, and I was playing accordingly.
I guess you're only confirming what I already knew. I was looking for someone to tell me that I should have been scared of AA or QQQ, because I was.
What if sb had raised me on the turn. Is it time to back down, or do I just cap every round if given the chance?
No, if you get raised on the turn then you have to back down and just call. But again, if on the river your opponents just check to you, then I would bet.
Thanks Jim
Here's the deal (no pun intended): I've only been playing hold 'em for a while now, but I've play A LOT, learned A LOT, and can hold my own in medium size poker games in poker rooms. I'm always out to learn more and am constantly learning. Here's the thing. Against my friends in a friendly 1-2 game, I suck. I'm a pretty tight player usually and these games are very loose. Nobody has much experience playing hold 'em except for me and one other guy. I don't believe in luck with hold 'em but please give me your opinion on how to play in games like this. EXAMPLE: I have pocket AA and raise before the flop and everybody stays in (like they do on every hand). Flop comes something like 2, 3, J rainbow. I bet. Everybody stays in. Turn is 9. Bets and raises all around. A few people drop out, but pretty much there's still about 5 or 6 people left. River is 7. After the round I lose to someone with 2,7. I'll leave you to figure that out. Position seems to have nothing to do it. One guy was drunk and played w/o looking at his cards and similar board as the above example, I lose because he turns over 7,7 in his hand with a 7 on the board (he never looked at his cards).
Am I playing bad? Should I stay in for every hand like everyone else does? I threw away 10, 7 and the flop came 7,7,10. I usually don't feel bad about that, but in games like this!?
Any tips would be appreciated.
I wouldn't play here - stakes to low and you have no leverage on these guys - stick to casino games where your skill will pay off.
Hi,
I'm newer at this than you so I would be interested if anyone would agree with my strategy in this situation.
I would play tight and wait for the standard deviation god to smile upon me.
Good luck.
There is no "standard deviation god" in a 1-2 poker game.
I agree with Rounder on this issue. Playing in a home 1-2 holdem game is an exercise in self abuse.
So am I to assume y'all feel that playing in a friendly home 1-2 game is dumb b/c there is no strategy in it? Don't play in a home game with friends? Should we switch games and leave hold 'em for the poker rooms? I was always hoping that I could take them (as much as you'd "take" friends) b/c I'm better than they are. It seems to be too much luck, and with 7 people staying in til the river every time, someone is bound to pull something.
Just raise the stakes a bit . If the funds don't mean anything to the participants it's not poker it's called "showdown and biggest cards win".. I used to gamble for nickles and quarters in Jr. High. Didn't mean much to my Dad but it was lunch money to me, and I gambled very caustiously with it.....or went home hungry and had to explain why. If they don't want to raise the stakes leave the game, you're gonna go nuts if you are any kind of player. This is my last post for a while , too easy to give bad or incomplete advise. Ya'll shoud never critisize people like S&M, it's not easy being consise about these matters. Thanks guys !
I'll be lurking here if you got a LV type question.
I have done well in loose home games by tightening up and playing solid starting hands. When I say tighten up I mean only play the best hands that play better against fewer opponents. However, see more flops with drawing hands -- especially nut drawing hands. These Hands will pay off big (if you are looking to ream your friends).
However, what I have found is that the friends I play with get pretty PO'ed when I fold 80-90% of the hands. Their distaste centers on both their ignorance of poker strategy and their playing the game for "fun" -- which involves playing as many hands as possible and chasing pots. I can't fault them for playing for different purposes.
If you think that playing seriously is inconsistent with their play I think the best bet is to leave the serious poker at the tables. If it hurts to much to lose to your friends, don't play.
You're not going to be hurt too badly in this game. My advice would be to have a few drinks with the boys and have fun. Don't play too tightly in this game. Play more multi-way hands such as suited connectors (even out of position), small pairs, any two high cards, perhaps even any 2 suited cards. You know that you'll get multi-way action on your draws, and you'll get paid off when you hit your hands. Be sure to see a lot of flops and dump early when the flop misses you. Don't get upset when someone sucks out on your premium pairs. Encourage their bad play. Remember, you're playing $1/2 and not $100/200. Save your "A" game for the casino and higher stakes.
Serious poker players don`t play in these type games. This is for receration only. As a 50 year + poker player I don`t think you can beat this game with any stragity. Why butt your head on these guyes, go find a better game. I know there has been a lot of books written on how to beat these games, but it can`t be done. It is just show down, who wins in show down, of course the best hand. Who gets the best hand of course the lucky person at that time.
I suggest read you books and find a bigger and better game.
Good Luck
Milt. Boyle
Thanks for your responses. The big problem is that this is a "guy's night out" type of game. I can find serious games when I want... and can usually hang tough in them. I want to play poker with my friends in a nice little game, but I hate losing to them! It's not as much the money as it's the pride! They all know I play seriously, and they love it when I'm the big loser! I can't belive that these guys are consistently "luckier" than I am. I have an uneasy feeling that I'm playing too tight and should play the more marginal hands since the implied odds will justify it when I hit the hand (lots of players, and nobody that backs down).
SB, I know exactly how you feel. I play pretty much every week in this type of game. The other guys are right that you should try to raise the stakes. We now play pot limit and it is much easier to win when the stakes become signifigant. I should mention that these guys have no poker skill whatsoever, and I started out just playing my regular tight game. The problem is that it is no fun, and I spend plenty of time poker that isn't fun, and when I play in this game, I want to enjoy myself. The second problem is that you need to adjust for this type of game. You don't want to play just like them, but you can loosen up quite a bit from your regular style, because of the implied odds, and because these guys are holding absolute garbage 90% of the time.
The important thing is, if you are doing it for fun, have fun. Go ahead and play a few more hands before the flop, but be smart enough to get the heck out if you can't win. Lie I said earlier, i play in a game that is very similar to this (allthough it is getting better, partly because of raising the stakes). But I have no problem beating this game consistently.
Good luck!
You can beat this game with tight play but it may not be much fun if every pot is getting capped. See the "Wild Games" chapter in the Loose Games Section of HPFAP-New Edition. If the pots are not capped but just everybody comes in for one raise, then you can still beat these games if you are the one doing the raising. However, if someone else is always raising pre-flop then you have to "button the hatches" and only play premium cards. If there is no raising then you can profitably play a lot of pairs and suited connectors in practically any position since you will get the implied odds needed to make these hands profitable with having to pay a big upfront cost to see a flop. Your advantage is going to come from betting your goods hands aggressively when you have the best of it and not having to pay through the nose to chase when your opponents have the best of it.
make that "WITHOUT having to pay a big upfront cost to see a flop"
I think you may have hit the nail on the head Jim. I never thought about the implied odds. I probably folded too many marginal hands before the flop (or even after) when the implied odds of the table showed otherwise. Thanks. BTW, I'm not trying to break my friends, I just don't want to be the big loser of the evening when I know I'm better than they are!
SB,
This was a great question and gave me a lot of insight because it sounds like the game that I play in with alot of my friends as well. There have been many times that I've been run over by hands that in my point of view should never be played because I try to play the game right. Thanks for the feedback.
Jas
I gotta agree with Jim here, but I'd go one step further. If it's passive, you should play almost any two suited, and big connectors (97 and bigger). The idea here is twofold. First, your opponents are SO bad that you are going to be making most of your money after the flop when they pay off your good hands. Second, you don't want to come across as being too tight, as some might view that as being unfun, and they might stop giving you action.
Also, be willing to show your hand down first. This will make your opponents be more willing to play with you. They want to see your cards. It might also make them more willing to fold if they think they won't "have to keep you honest". If these people are truly the fishiest of fish, then do everything you can to make sure they are having fun.
When you hit a strong draw (open straights, and flushes) get agro, when you flop top pair top kicker bet hard. When you flop any two pair, bet and raise. The trick here is that even if you are an underdog, you'll have enough callers to win more than your fair share. Don't be afraid to bet good, and even marginal, holdings.
Also, don't bet top pair on the river so much. With a lot of opponents, top pair is going to be a marginal holding by the river so checking it through and hoping for bluffs with probably make you more money.
- Andrew
Excellent observations, especially about not over betting top pair at the river.
The biggest problem I have come across in these wild home games is that the ante and betting structures are out of whack (assuming they don't play with blinds). Your play needs to adjust to the fact that the ante is often proportionally larger in relation to the betting structure than in casino games. Overly tight play makes it very difficult to cover your antes with the pots that you occasionally win.
In home games I play in, I find that the antes vary greatly, and that opponent play doesn't properly adjust. They do respond to the general size of the pot though. When I'm dealer, I try to pick an ante that is a large *number* of chips, but a small actual amount relative to the bets. I also find that a small bring-in induces action, since once people take one card off, they are much more likely to stay in the hand. In a high-ante game with loose calling stations, you would have to play a lot more hands than in a normal game.
SB,
From my experience, in a loose game like the one you describe, you should loosen up your starting hand requirements. See many flops, and dump when you are not coordinated with them. Sometimes it is even helpful to chase to the river with a nine outer like a gut shot and a low pair just to see them groan if you hit. Last night I played like a moron pre-flop at a loose game I was in at 4-8 hold-em with a 1/2 kill and probably saw 40% of the flops. My swings in the game were dramatic, but in the end I did pretty well because my post flop play was pretty solid.
Continue raising with your premium hands, but don't let them run over you by folding too many hands pre-flop. Anyway, what the heck! it's only a 1-2 game.
If this game is passive without a lot of raising (other than by you), then the guys telling you not to play in it are nuts. These games are goldmines.
Raise with good hands when you have position. They won't do the same, so you have an advantage.
Play tighter before the flop, especially with hands like KJo and other hands that don't hit the flop hard. They won't, so you have an advantage.
Play suited aces and any pocket pair from any position if the game is loose and passive.
Don't make bad folds. The pots are very large, and you often have equity to call with marginal hands. They do to, so you can no advantage in EV there. But you LOSE EV if you are folding hands you should be calling with and they aren't. This is perhaps the biggest reason why a lot of 'tight' players lose in loose games.
I do not think that this is really poker. If you want to play this game,have fun,drink beer and socialize. or play elsewhere.
Ahhh, the no foldem home game! You should be able to beat this game easily, and I mean EASILY, if you just keep a few things in mind. 1)Position means nothing. 2)You will have to show down at least two pair to win any hand. 3)Most of your attention should be on the other players, and not on your cards 4)Playing casino style will leave you frustrated, bitter, and broke.
You will not fold anyone by raising. Not preflop, not on the flop, and not on the turn. Bluffing is useful, but only if you bust out laughing after you get called (you ALWAYS will) and say, "well, I had to try, didn't I?). Tells are HUGELY important. It won't do you any good if you only play once, or once in a while, but if you play in a regular, low stakes game, like I do, you should keep COPIOUS notes on tells, imagined or real, and what you think it means. What I do is keep a pen and note cards in my back pocket, and every time I go to the bathroom (a lot!), write down the tells I thought I saw, and what the person ended up showing down. Over the last year, I have 14 "old reliables" on six different players from my weekly game, just by reviewing my notes and PAYING ATTENTION over time to see if they work. Some are common "how much is it to raise?"= nuts. Looking you in the eye and flinging the chips in your direction="almost got there". There are more, and this is perhaps the one place that I've seen that Caro's "strong/weak" thing holds up. Casino players THINK about tells. Home players don't. But, of course, it's a lot like the Joey Hawthorne advice in SuperSystem. "If they don't know what a good hand is, reading them is impossible"
The best book on home games that I've read is David Daniel's "POKER: How to Win at the Great American Game". There is one comment he makes in there that is very revealing. It is how he yells from the bathroom, "I call", on the first round of betting. It is not just an image play, he claims, because he can see the first five cards in a seven card game EVERY HAND, then play from there and win only one in six to break even. I play a lot like that. Any pair is worth seeing the flop with. AA is not a HUGE favorite over 22, because if you don't flop a set, where are you going with it? If you think AA will win over the other seven horses seeing the river on a KJ763 two suited board, you are going to be a bitter man :). Play pairs, reasonable suited connectors, medium high connectors, and any two J or higher cards from any position. Remember, you are looking for two pair or better on the river. I you only have one pair with AK on river, and someone bets, and two others call, DO NOT CALL. Play timid with pairs, raise your draws. Do not overcall four guys on river with less than 3 of a kind, do not fold three handed, with anything. If you win one pot in three that you see to the river, you will be the big winner for the night.
And the most important thing of all is this: YOU WILL NOT FOLD ANYONE BY RAISING ON THE FLOP. only raise to get more money in the pot, period.
Don't play tight, see a lot of flops. If the flop doesn't fit in with your hand, you should dump it. Yes, you should raise with AA and KK, but if you don't have a set by the turn, you are in "see the showdown cheap" mode. On the other hand, you should be capping with open enders and flush draws on the turn against your (inevitable) five out of seven opponents.
Flame me if you will, but I average $90 a weak in a fifty cent ante, $1-2 game that plays for five hours with regulars.
If you expect people to play "real" poker, or "proper" poker, stick to the 10-20 live games.
Chadd, I like your coments.If you play with the same players time after time-- this is the key in this kind of game. You are playing the people not the cards. If new people come and go I dought if you would be to suscessful.
Milt. Boyle
My apologies if this belongs in another forum. Early November,1999 Bellagio $8-16 Holdem game. I'd beaten this game for 2K in 3 days my previous trip, but how things can change in a month!
I played in an interesting game and would like some opinions on a very strange occurence. The game was fairly typical. There were several local regulars whom I recognized from prior trips, a couple tourists (myself included), etc. There was a guy who was running over the table. I hadn't played with him before. (Asian fellow, early 40's, drinking import beers in quick succession, a little rough around the edges). This guy was playing very aggressively, raising most pots pre-flop and pushing hard through every hand in which he was involved. He won a lot of pots uncontested. On hands with a showdown, he turned over some garbage cards that wound up being big winners (e.g. 10-2 offsuit when two deuces flopped, 5-7off suit when board came K84J6 and he was betting the gutshot the whole way) He was not just playing trash from his blinds or the button, but literally from any position. At any rate, I was able to isolate against him a couple times with premium pairs and I invariably got snapped. This guy was up perhaps $1200 (and I was down about $700) when a strange thing occurred. The dealer, who had recently sat down and had dealt about 6 hands, counted down the deck and the deck only had 46 cards! The floor personnel was informed and a new set-up was brought over. I spoke with the floor personnel later and was told that security had reviewed the film of this table and had not detected anything unusual. They gave some lame excuse that some of the cards must have been inadvertantly removed during a dealer change or a chip refill. My questions for the forum readers are: Was this guy a "hold-out" artist? Has anyone else had similar experiences in a public cardroom? Do I have any recourse if indeed I was beaten by a cheat in a casino?
P.S. The curious thing (which has me doubting that this guy was cheating) is that he continued to play for 2-3 hours after the bad deck was discovered, and he pissed away about half of his profits. Thanks in advance for responses.
Anybody removing six cards from the deck to cheat with in a public cardroom would be an idiot. However, I see idiots at poker tables avery day.
Hold-out cheats will use only an extra palmed card (you only need one to get a HUGE advantage) and switch it into play when appropriate. No need for extra cards to fumble with, no need for higher risk of getting caught (come on, six cards missing, are you serious????).
I don't know what to think of the 46 card incident, dealer noticing it only after a few hands and nothing showing on the tape. This is weird.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I would like to think that at a major casino such as Bellagio, there would be no collusion between a player and a dealer. I would like to know how long this particular dealer had been at the table before he counted down the deck. I would also have to think that any dealer worth his salt would be able to tell immediately that a deck was 6 cards short! I would have been more suspicious is this guy kept showing up with premium hands. I mean, if he was able to manipulate the deck, why would he keep giving himself garbage? This has never happened to me, but from the sounds of the story, it would seem unlikely that this guy was cheating. Give him enough time, and he will tap out anyway.
Did the floor manager offer to comp the table in any way? We did have a situation about a year ago at one of the casinos here in Edmonton (I was not there that night and heard the story later) where a deck ended up with two heart Kings, and two players raised each other about 15 times heads-up at the river when each one had the "nut" flush. The house bought everyone at the table dinner.
No offer was made by the house to comp anyone. I did explain the incident the next day to the day-shift supervisor, and then I asked for a comp. He obliged without the typical Bellagio buffet comp run-around.
I think you should have asked to see which cards were missing. That might have shed some light on whether the cards were removed intentionally. I would have thought that the management would have been able to track down the cards if a dealer mistake occurred.
I don't think you need to worry about the live one holding out cards. I would be more concerned about some sleaze ball in the game. After all, you were in Las Vegas and there are no shortage of low lifes who frequent the card rooms there - especially low limit.
I have experienced a few incidents of cheating in Casino cardrooms. A dealer flashed my uncalled winning hand to a player sitting next to him. I only let it happen once. After that, I asked the dealer to please leave the cards face down when he pulled them into the discards. It goes without saying that I never tipped him again - ever.
The second incident was when I suspected a dealer was stealing chips out of the pot. I complained to the management and this gentleman was dismissed.
The most common cheating is shorting the pot by splashing chips. Collusion via foreign language can be a problem if not policed aggressively by the casino management.
at one of my home games recently several types of irregularities have been noticed: 1.The As had a finger nail marking, 2. for 20 minutes a deck was light a K-9 3. onanother occasion a player was found to be "accidently" holding an A in a book jacket at the table, 4. couples colluding frequently. The reason I stay is the game is so live that I beat the game easily. Nevertheless, on the occasional loss I have had to remind myself to look the other way and not blow my stack when catching others obviously cheating. The business world is no different, however. Unfortunately there appear to be 2 ways to make money in the USA, the honest way and the American way. I prefer to sleep at night.
you probably werent cheated. the house should fire or retrain (ha ha) the dealer as any dealer that picks up 46 cards and cant tell the deck is short is incompetent and never should be dealing. that said it galls me to death that when the house finds cheating or short decks they hide it from the players so to not create a stink. but i think that stinks. the house is there to protect you and if they hide it they are just as guilty. if you were being cheated he would have left sooner(maybe) and not lost it back. but still why should the house leave you in doubt and not fill you in.
There is no cheating in casino poker. No one has ever been a victim of a hold-out artist in casino poker, much less at a Mirage Resorts cardroom. Ray Zee's post is irresponsible. Even the slightest appearance of cheating must be covered up to protect the casino industry.
-Abdul "2+2 Posting Requirements Compliant" Jalib
You can't be serious!!
You don't really mean to say that cheating has never occurred at a casino poker room. If you do mean that, you are a bigger moron than I am.
Have you forgotten the little jackpot scam at Sam's Town!
You have got to be kidding.
ABDUL WAS BEING SCARCASTIC.......generally I find his theoretical contributions second to none.
SIX CARDS, SIX CARDS ?,
You've got to be kidding. I would have gone ballistic. I remember I was in Atlantic City a few years ago when the casino's were tightly regulated. In the high limit section "one" card was found to be missing. A representative from security, the gamming commission, and casino management were at the table. They took three hours just to fill out the paperwork on the incident. (This included a search of the table, a cursory examination of the players, documentation of the dealers in the box, review of the tapes etc.) The next day the floorman and cardroom manager were still talking about the incident and were upset.
I find it hard to believe that casino security didn't find anything unusual. Either the story you told isn't true or someone really dropped the ball. How could six cards be missing ?? If this story is really true and you witnessed it I would make a complaint to the gaming commission in Nevada.
Just my 2c,
Tom B.
Tom B.
The story is absolutely true. I nearly went ballistic, and I was amazed that the other players seemed oblivious to the potential significance of the short deck (hmm, maybe six of them were each holding out a card...very unlikely). I emphasized several times to the supervisor that night that I was very concerned about the results of the investigation and the integrity of the game; especially since I was down a lot of $$. She informed me that it would take hours to review the tapes. Well, I stuck around for hours and before I knew it, a new shift had taken over and my contact person was gone. No explanation was ever volunteered to me. I tracked her down 2 nights later, and she stated that she thinks the cards must've been inadvertantly removed during a chip change or a dealer change... She also estimated that only 6 hands occurred with the short deck. I didn't report it to any higher authority but in retrospect, I wish I would have. Thanks for the responses to this post.
Yeah, I was present when two different hold-out cheats were caught at Mirage. One of them took me for a few hundred dollars on $20-$40 hold'em. The other was at a low stakes stud game where I was coming in just as he was attempting to make a get-away. By the way, the hold'em hold-out cheat was showing down hands like Q6o that he had called 3-bets cold with only to make trips on the river, but actually he had called with AQ6. I don't think he ever kept out more than one card, though.
-Abdul
I once played in a game where there were some cards missing. The dealer did not notice for about 7 hands. Most of the hands were raise and takit pre-flop. On the seventh hand all 10 players saw a flop, well most of a flop. apparently there were 30 cards missing, and after dealing out 20 cards to the players, he burned one, and only had one left for the flop.
I flopped top set with dueces, which held up (capped on every street). After that that hand we changed decks.
(Sorry its been a long day).
Three players remain, I'm in the middle with Q10d. Turn card is 8h making the board Jh 9s 7s and 8h. First player bets, I raise, next player re-raises, First player folds. I just call. I'm sure that the third player has a ten high straight with a flush draw (he would just call with any Q10). I call because I believe this is the way to make the most money from this hand, e.g., if a blank falls on the river and I check, he will bet his straight. I'm posting this question because the last chapter of Poker, Gaming and Life I read before entering the game this morning was 'Exposed Hand Problem'. The question this chapter poses is very similar to the situation I faced in the hand ie, I knew what my opponant was playing, I was leading, there was a flush draw present. After reading the chapter, and David's reasons behind raising the turn, I still felt calling would result in the biggest payoff vs. 'a typical opponant'. In the chapter, you have flopped a set and are against pocket K's. You raise the flop, there is a flush draw on board, and he calls, then bets into you on the turn. When I just call on the turn with my set, I'm expecting him to three bet my 'busted flush draw' on the river and to call my re-raise. Am I assuming too much here?
And yes, I realise that in David's example I am not facing a flush draw as I was in the hand in my game. Perhaps the flush draw against me makes the call even less correct? But remember, if he misses, I know I've got him for at least two more big bets. a)Do you call or raise in David's example? b)Do you call or raise in my seat? Thx spitball
In David's example, there are a lot of cards that will scare KK on the river, including an ace or anything that might appear to give you two pair or a straight. Most opponents would not 3-bet with KK on the river, at least not without a small pair on board. Additionally, if the flush draw does hit, your opponent will likely just check and call on the river. So, go ahead and raise on the turn, where KK might indeed 3-bet you.
In your example, a flush draw has already hit on the turn (3 hearts), so I would be very distressed at getting 3-bet there and would back off and give a crying call on the turn and river (or optionally raise on the river if I didn't think my opponent made a flush on the turn.)
-Abdul
Abdul,
Two hearts and two spades on the turn. I agree with everthing else though. I raise the turn and bet the River if a blank.
Vince.
I'd max out the turn and river you have the nuts now and should be the last to bet on each round.
As perhaps you have read in my previous posts, I am getting myself ready for my first casino poker excursion in April (Imagine Rocky training for the second Clubber Lang fight).
First question (in an eventually long line of questions so I don't look like a total idiot the first time I sit down). I'll be starting out at 2-4 HE -- I know its a dumb game but I need the experience and I don't have a serious bankroll. I have gathered from Rounder that at 2-4 I should start with about a $200 bankroll. Do I convert all $200 to start, or only a part of it?
Good for you! I'm new to the game too. I don't think it's a dumb game. You have to start somewhere and it's smart to start somewhere you aren't going to blow your wad all at once. It'll get your feet wet and get you comfortable throwing your hard earned cash into a pot where 9 other peoples mouths are watering for it.
In 2-4 I would cash 40 or 60 to start. No matter what you cash, you won't look like a fool. But $200 is A LOT of money for a 2-4 table. It's plenty of money for a 6-12 table. If you cash 40 though, I hope you walk away with 200!
Good luck.
1. Start out with $60.00
Chop it up into 6 stacks of 10
2. Also *practice* with some chips if you can.
Get the feel of Betting and raising ,3 betting with the chips.
The reason is that if your Fumbl'in Stumbl'in with your chips people will catch on that you are nervous,scared..ect
Best of it !!
MJ
I have been practicing with chips. It looks really goofy -- I sit on the floor Indian-style and deal out simulated hands and practice tracking the pot. I'm sure my wife thinks it looks silly -- but it really opened up my eyes to tracking the pot and calculating pot odds. It was much harder to do it with 7CS v. HE.
$60 bucks -- sounds like a good initial starting point. Thanks.
Jon,
Get a rack - $100 look like you are in for keeps.
Now Go Get 'em.
I agree with Rounder buy in for $100 and look like you are in for keeps. The extra money you will have in front of you should relax you a little.
P.S Don't worry about fumbling chips if it happens it happens.
You can also go to www.ParadicePoker.com and practice counting bets (pot odds, implied odds and effective odds) there. This may also help.
Best of it !!
MJ
I agree with Rounder- $100 is a good initial buy-in. But $200 is a fair session bankroll- that is, if you get down to 30 bucks or so, bring that extra Franklin out of your pocket and stick it behind your chips. Then, when you got the nuts on the river and everybody raises you, you'll be able to buy in for more to make it 4 bets. Most of the rooms I've played in won't let you take money out of your pocket and put it in play during a hand.
Mike
I too agree with Rounder. I like to bring $100 to a 3/6 table, and while the corresponding buying for 2/4 would be $67, it's going to be a lot easier to manage with $100 at the table.
For your first trip, I would limit yourself to a $100 loss per day. If you blow through that $100 then quit for the day. I would also reccomend that if you are planning on playing for more than 4 hours to break it up into two sessions of roughly equal length. Because this is 2/4 the games will ALWAYS be good, so don't feel bad getting up in the middle.
One last thing, this being 2/4 you really don't want to sit down with less than $50 on you. This is because you want to be able to get full value from your hands. Once you are down to $20 consider rebuying or quitting after the next hand you lose. This is because with only $20 you are dangerously close to going all in if a big hand develops, and you'd rather win the whole pot than just part of it.
Hope this helps.
- Andrew
Hmm I don't know about how bad fumbling w/chips are. I remember i got quite a few horrible calls from the other players bc they percieved me as a beginner. There are alot of advantages to being perciebed as a beginner and sometimes i wish i could act like one again!
This is true if you know how to fumble chips and *look* like a beginner (when you are not)then you can get a bad call or 2, but we are talking about a first timer here. He will have enough on his mind and working the chips should not be one of them.
Best of it !!
MJ
s
what are the differences between: hold 'em tx. hold'em and omaha
If you have to ax that you probably don't belong here.
1st two are the same game. Omaha is played by zombies who always look confused and have way to many cards in their hands to keep track of.
Texas Hold Em and Hold Em are the same game. The differences between Hold Em and Omaha include:
1) In Hold Em you receive 2 hole cards while in Omaha you receive 4 hole cards.
2) In Hold Em you can use any combination of your 2 hole cards and the 5 community cards to make the best hand while in Omaha you have to use 2 cards from your hand and 3 cards from the community cards to make the best hand.
Both games have the same type of playing structure. All players are dealt their hole cards followed by a round of betting, proceeded by the flop which in both games is 3 community cards. Once again, a round of betting follows proceeded by the fourth community card being turned up. Accordingly, another round of betting followed by the fifth and final community card. Finally, the last round of betting is followed by a show of hands and the winner being pushed the pot.
I used to read the poker mags they offer free at the casino while I waited for good hands. Then this thought occured to me: if I see another player at my table doing this ($3-$6), I assume that he is waiting for good cards and is somewhat smart enough to try and learn about the game by reading. I respect his raises more and assume he is a tight/aggressive player.( At least more so than the typical player at $3-$6). So I stopped reading at the table because I didn't want the average player to be aware that I might be waiting to play only the best hands. I don't want them to see a player studying on how to beat them. Valid thought or should I let them think that?
Why not just read HEFAP....
I think that reading at the table is the sign of a weak player. What they should be doing is watching the hands they are not involved in and see what the other players are betting. Get a better read on who is playing good cards,drawing to bad odds and playing trash in general. I like to calculate the pot odds and work on implied odds and effective odds as the hand goes on. This does two things. 1) Keeps me in the game. 2) Let's me know who is solid and who is in for the "fun" of it...
Best of it !!
MJ
Hmmm Ive read, graded, and wrote)(non poker materail) before at the talbe w/good results. It improved my patience and (in one scenario it was a home game) i got alot of grading done in a very agreeable manner and since iwas a home game i knew what the story was w/the whole table.
( I won alot during the grading session..)
WHile it is good to try and pay attention as often as possilbe sometimes its nice to think about something else for a while. one can make jokes about the reading and such and this might even help you ( one wants a talbe w/conversation, and joviality if possilbe). (although it is hard for some to do this...)
one might bring he for advanced players but i never wanted to bc i was under the impression most of these people who i play against dont' know these things exist and id like to keep it that way.
one freind of mine suggested if you want to be perciebed and a knowledgebale tight player and steal a few pots read at the talbe. (if you want to get more calls don't do this...)
just some thoughts...
Lucky2BeOn,
I agree with MJChicago above. In addition, I think it is a violation of the sprit of fun that surrounds the best games. When games are fun and social, they generally are good or stay good. When someone has their head burried in a book they might as well disconnect from the social aspect of the game entirely.
There is one 10/20, 9/18 holdem player in Los Angeles that is always reading the paper while in the game. He is not tough but he makes any game worse. It just rubs people the wrong way and they stop gambling.
Regards,
Rick
If your reading at the table you are missing out on the action - DON'T READ MAGAZINES - READ THE PLAYERS.
I learn money making things about players watching them when I am not in a hand which is 75 to 80% of the time.
Watch their reaction to the flop do they stare at if they have nothing, do they reach for their chips if they do???? How do they bet if bluffing or if they have the nuts. Look and learn - it will mean alot more to you than any poker article.
And reading the players is much more profitable than any book at the moment. You came to play poker and reading players and hands is part of the game. A very big part. So put down the book and start reading the game as is being played out right in front of you.
Best of it !!
MJ
Reading at the table, listening to a walkman, looking at tv if one is nearby, all of these things point out a player who is not giving their full attention to the game, and therefore weak in my opinion. One other pet peeve of mine is people who wear dark glasses. I find it kind of laughable actually. Sure there are some pro players who wear them, and then there are a lot of weak players who emulate them when they really should put work into learning the game better. If you do not have enough self-control and your eyes are giving away tells, dark glasses are not going to help much. I want to be at a table with lots of people wearing dark glasses.
I go with the shades for 2 reasons.
1.) I watch people very, very closely. (Don't want them to know it of course)
2.) I was twice told that "I can see you counting the bets and calculating the odds in your head"
For these two reasons i wear them.
Best of it !!
MJ
I would be somewhat more concerned if an opponent was reading Card Player or Poker Digest as opposed to the usual newspapers, science fiction, romance novels, etc. that I usually see. At least this player is giving you some indication that he is trying to improve his game. On the other hand, if he's really smart about what he's doing, he would be paying strict attention to the game when he's not in a hand to pick up player styles, tells, habits, etc.
Personally, I think reading at the table is rude, for one thing. However, as long as the player is ready to act when it is his or her turn to play, and does not slow the game down, then read on. If they are reading a book, they are not concentrating on taking my money.
Im curious...how many people seriously pick up TELLS playing poker? I see a lot of people here saying "Im always aware at the table trying to pick up tells" But to be honest here I consider myself at least an ok player and though I can pick up general tendencies (looseness tightness folding in certain spots)I for the LIFE of me can't pick up a decent RELIABLE tell. By reliable I mean one where I think i have made money off of it. How many players here consider themselves are able to pick up useful tells?
I rarely pick up 'tells' like, "He always has the nuts if he scratches his nose", but I often pick up clues like, "Player A raises a lot of small pocket pairs in early position", or "Player B overplays his flush draws and underplays his made hands", etc. These are far more consistent, easier to pick up, and worth gold. And you'll never notice it if your nose is in a book.
Interesting story. I went through the same identical process myself and do wonder if, when reading, other players will think I'm tighter and give me less action.
I'm a little concerned about it but not too, since 3-6 players don't think much.
* * *
I began reading mags at the table as a way to pass the time while waiting for good cards. It really worked well - dramatically so. I was having a bad session and after I grabbed a mag, got into reading and started tossing away stuff like Q9 suited in early position without a thought. Then when I played the good cards I really started winning.
There is a rule at one of our local casinos - no reading at the table!
Aside from the other bad stuff people have mentioned, reading at the table KILLS THE ACTION. Try it sometime. Sit down in a nice friendly game where everyone is laughing and firing chips all over the place. Pick up a book and settle down. Maybe get someone else to do it to. With a while, the table will be quiet and a hell of a lot tighter.
We have a guy who constantly does this in our game, and because of him now two or three bring reading materials with them. On those nights, the game is completely dead. And the loose players won't join the game, but stay in the next lower limit. I've actually heard them say, "Why would I want to go over there with all those damned book readers? They're no fun."
I think I'll start reading at the final table of our no-Limit Holdem tourneys.
I brought a book to the local club once. The game was a lively 6-12 spread only on Friday nights. I sat down, bought chips and started reading. A very strong player who looks forward all week to the game, asked me what I was reading. A moment later he asked if I'd ever read anything else by that author. Another moment goes by and he wants to know if I'd seen the movie treatment of one the author's books. The button goes all the way around the table, and I haven't been able to finish a paragraph. He has to ask me eight questions before I finally catch on and put away the book. spitball
Great story! I'll have to try that some time. I hate the effect a reader can have on a good game.
.. This is the same problems with having earphones at the table, it encourages people to get all boulder-ized and sit in their own little world. A good poker player, above all, must be a good social engineer, to keep a levious attitude at the tables and loosen people up psychologically (all the while keeping his A-game on himself)
[Likewise, a good card counter will have to do the same, or they will find their careers nasty, brutish and short.]
One player I admire very much doesn't know his Sklansky from his Malmuth, but he is a reasonable player simply because he is such a smoothie and his social engineering gets him calls whenever he wants them and makes players easy reads.
So keep the book at home :)
M.
Have you been listening to Tom Waits at the table again? Slow Lerner/spitball
Dan,
I hope you read my post in this thread. We are in 100% agreement. Poker players can be such bad politicians. Just what I need to think about, one of my worst pet peeves:-).
Merry Chiristmas,
Rick
Well, In my case, I spend enough freakin time reading poker related material at home, and when I get to go the club to play, I want to use every available opportunity to play cards. Of course, by that I don't mean playing as many hands as possible, I mean watching players and reading hands and calculating pot odds. This was somewhat difficult to do when I first started playing, but I disiplined myself to keep trying and eventually it got easier to pay attention. As has been said by plenty of people, it keeps you from getting bored and playing too many hands. I personally have never read at the table, so I can't speak from that perspective, but I don't see it as something I will ever do.
I really have nothing to say on the subject.
Just kidding.
It seems that one of the major differences between lower limit players and the higher limit players (besides bankroll considerations, of course) is that lower limit players would rather trap someone with a checkraise or slowplay than just bet out. I was playing at a 3-6 table at the Taj in AC this afternoon and held QTs on the button. 5 see the flop of 553 rainbow. Check to me. Now, there's a 5 out there. And if the person bet the 5 no one would believe him because they wouldn't bet the 5. Turn is a Ten. I'm sitting with top two pair. Sb bets, 2 fold, cutoff calls and I fold. River is an eight. sb had 65s cutoff had A5. Even if my fold was a mathematical catastrophe waiting to happen, at 3-6 I'd make it every time.
I agree with your fold. However I disagree that a five should bet because people won't believe the bettor has a five. Even if they don't believe it, half decent players will still throw away most hands , especially with a possible raise behind them. And if a check keeps them in to pair on fourth st., most players will not make the fold you made, thus justifying the check. Notice however that if the flop was K55 instead of 553 a bet is more justified since the next card is less likely to trap someone.
"-if the flop K55 instead of 553 a bet is more justified, since the next card is less likely to trap somebody."
Help!
Rookie Girl
Anyone who would play a QT into the 553 flop or the K55 flop for that matter is out of it. 5 way or not.
I am sure the grand and glorious OZ, opps I mean DS will have some conveluted logic to justify his outrageous comment but Rookie Gal - a fold in these situations is the only feasible play unless you have a death wish or something.
With K55 on the flop, the player with a five should bet out since 5 people have seen the flop and at least one of them almost certainly has a K, but almost certainly does not hold KK because of the lack of raises before the flop. A player with AK would probably raise this flop bet and call all bets and raises after this.
Thank You dcskinny!
Just Curious, but is this scott? Allow me.....
(1)scott's skinny
(2)scott's from DC, I think.
(3)scott only writes in lowercase letters.
Rookie Girl
another reason to check 553 is to allow someone to hit their overcards. there are lots of overcards to the 5. there is only the A over the K.
yes, i am from dc. and, yes, i am skinny.
sxott
"-if the flop K55 instead of 553 a bet is more justified, since the next card is less likely to trap somebody."
Think for a moment. If the flop is K55 and you hold Q,T are you now more or less likely to be trapped into playing than if you hold Q,T and the flop is 5,5,3. Suppose in the former case a T comes on the turn. Would you likely call a bet or bet yourself if checked to you? Now consider the same T coming on the turn in the latter case. Trapped?
Vince.
I think what David means is the person holding a 5 is the one who is less likely to trap someone else if a K-5-5 comes, due to the fact that another king comming up makes the 5 a loser to anyone holding a K. If it is 5-5-3, another 3 makes someone holding a 3 a losing full house. The trip 5s wants to make someone with two kings pay, but wants to lead someone with two 3s along.
"I think what David means is the person holding a 5 is the one who is less likely to trap someone else if a K-5-5 comes, due to the fact that another king comming up makes the 5 a loser to anyone holding a K. "
You are right for the wrong reason. Reread my post it's correct. Just ask David.
Vince.
dcskinny offers a superior explination over that of anyone else in this thread. If only Sklansky had dc's ability for simplification, oh well.
"If only Sklansky had dc's ability for simplification, oh well."
If only you knew what you were talking about simplification would not be an issue. Simply put I don't think you have shown anywhere that you can intelligently criticise David Sklansky.
Dcskinny is wrong My response was correct!
Vince
"Simply put, I don't think"
Well put!
BVD,
If your'e going to quote you should at least try to be correct and honest:
" Simply put, I don't think..." is more appropriate (see the 3 .'s) When dealing with what you have to say it may also be more correct. "I think!"
Vince.
I was just teasing anyway, no hard feelings.
-BVD
If you give a free card on the flop with a 553 flop, any overcard on the turn that hits someone is going to trap him because he now has top pair, and can beat anything but a higher pocket pair or a five. This person is now booked to the river.
With a K55 flop, if you check and it's checked out, even if someone hits a pair on the turn they'll still fold to a bet because they'll assume you have a King and checked it for fear of a five. Only the Ace 'traps' someone in this context.
'cause i said that.
scott
Oops. Actually, I missed that one. Sorry about that.
i understand. i know it looked like it would be a silly post, the way it is positioned after rookie girl asking if dcskinny is me. i might have skipped that one too if i was short on time. i just hope that this doesn't imply that you don't read my posts in general.
scott
Nah, I always read 'em (except that one).
So Dan you think you are the only one that posted this answer. I don't think so! Now because you were wrong saying we were wrong does that make us both wrong or right?
vince.
I think there is a chance to pick up another bet or two in the following scenario.
Sitting in middle position with Th9h. 6 see the flop unraised.
3c6h7h.
bb bets I call, 3 more call.
Turn 8s.
bb bets, I raise, all fold to bb who raises.
Here's my dilemma.
I capped it with the nut straight and flush draw. If I hadn't, and "cowered" in the face of bb reraise, does he check the river like he did to my cap or would he bet again, giving us the chance to cap it on the river?
This happened online with only 3 raises allowed even with 2 left.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Scare cards could land on the river that make him check i.e. a heart, board pairs etc. Plus, if he also has 10,9, you have a free roll. Too bad there is a limit to raises even when heads up.
Oh...one other reason to max out on the turn...lots of posturing which occurs on the turn does not occur on the river.
If you smooth-call the turn after 3 bets and don't cap it, what makes you think this guy is going to carry the action much further than bet-raise-call on the river? If he is even remotely aware of what's going on at the table, he should be able to recognize that play assuming some sort of blank hits on the river. I assume that after you capped it on the turn, he checked to you on the river and then called. so you earned the same number of bets. I agree with skp, max this baby out on the turn and see what happens on the river.
Another easy vote for capping it. You have the nuts with a freeroll, heads-up. Put the chips in all night if he'll let you.
Hi all- I usually don't post about hands but really enjoyed this one. I keep re-playing this hand in my head and thought I would share it. It was so sweeeet.
I had been playing for 3 days at Foxwoods during their tournament. To set the stage....when I take a trip and get to play poker, I usually play 16-18 hours a day with naps in between as opposed to every getting a good night sleep. Yes, I know that is stupid, but heh, I am just a tourist looking for a good time ;-) I come to PLAY.
Anyhow, during those days there were about 5-7 tables at any one time of the games I usually play...$10/20, $15/30, and $20/40. The same group of players seems to float in and out.....so the table I was at had many of the same players I had been with for the 3 days.
My reputation is that of an agressive winning player who plays lots of hands and makes strange plays. (A reputation I happen to personally cherish and polish any time I can) So many at my table were aware of my style having played with me over the past 3 days. Plus the $10/20 game is played with a half-kill to $15-30 so that game in my mind rewards handsomely the aggressive player.
Well....we are playing $15-30 Holdem. I had won several pots in a short period of time. There is a local pro/regular player at Foxwoods called Myron who I have met on previous trips. I had put several beats on him earlier....and he was gunning for me. You know the situation like my playing a suited 45 and hitting a straight against a set of A's that sort of thing. Which then results in his telling his neighbors (other Foxwoods regulars) about how I am crazy and can't keep hitting those type of hands and will eventually go broke. I have heard it so many times in so many places over the years that I can play out the whole dialogue verbatim.
He opened the pot in early position for a raise, two callers, and then I am on the button with Q8o. I re-raise, he re-raises me and we lose the other two callers who won't call two bets cold. Yes, I know it was darn stupid on my part and I have really bad cards. But I am already up $1300 in this game and I am having FUN. Remember I am on vacation, and this is not the grocery money. (I won't quit my day job)
Ok, flop comes QQQ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Diane has quads!)
He bets, I call. Turn is a J. He bets, I raise, He re-raises, we keep going for 3-4 more bets until he just calls. River is a K (no straight flush possible-so I have the absolute nuts with Quads). He bets again on the river, I raise, and we go lots more bets, I put in the last raise and then surprisingly, he mucks! He MUCKS and I don't show my cards. I can't believe he went that far and just didn't pay off the last bet to see what I had! So I was darned if I would show him what appeared to be obvious quads. I quietly slid my cards to dealer who smiles.
Myron mutters talks to his seat mates and says no way in hell did she have 4Qs. Then to make it really funny, another player, says "you are right, Myron, I had the Q"! Other player was just pimping him and he goes ballistic, jumps back in chair, jumps up, walks away, comes back, throws his remaining chips into a rack and stomps off. All the while staring at me at me as If I am supposed to disclose my actual hand.....I just keep stacking his chips and shortly he leaves game still muttering looking for railbirds to tell his story to. He never "said" what he had.
Diane from Green Bay
Definitely a fun hand. This guy can't be much of a pro! I wonder if he reads these posts. I love the other player telling him he had the Q!
It sounds as thoug you put him on tilt earlier. Nevertheless, you may play very well after the flop, but your starting hands sound very suspect to me. A maiac image is what I'd put you on rather than aggressive and strange.
Maniac......hmmmmm. You are right. Unpredictable is a more palatable term for me though personally. One nickname I have acquired through the years is "Dangerous Diane"...I like that one.
However, as I tell the players who tell me I "will go broke playing those hands"....The difference between me and the bad players, is that I KNOW just how bad the play is when I make it. The bad players don't have a clue.
Like probably a lot of players, I KNOW a better game than I have the discipline to play all the time.
Tournaments are a different animal all together for me. I play very solid and selectively. People who have played me in live action and then encounter me in tournament play....hardly recognize me.
Thanks for letting me share the fun I had on that particular hand.
Happy Holidays.
Diane from Green Bay.
Dangerous,
I see nothing wrong with your style of play. Surely your starting hand requirements may be suspect, but as long as you have the discipline to release a hand where you realize you are either drawing dead, or severely beaten, then I feel it is sometimes correct to play some garbage. I once played a 23o (no raises) and a flop came A,2,4 blank turn and rivered a 5 heads up against a rock player who also played garbage of 45s(I even bet into him on the turn!). Totally put him off his game. No serious betting had gone on throughout that hand, and that was key since had he raised me on the turn I would have been out of there.
The idea is not to get carried away with these plays, and that you have to pick your targets well, depending on the texture of the flop since sometimes you can get better players to fold marginal hands. It seems you had Myron pretty well pegged.
Good luck
"share the fun "
And Just what "fun" was that?
Vince.
Damn women players!
Not only do they get an extra 10% in action but then they get lucky besides.
It's just not right!
Getting lucky, and having someone misread you, no matter whom ( which level player ) it might be, is the essence of profit from this game. When I first arrived here, I read the story of how Johnny Moss had called the UTG raise with 2,2. Spiked a duece on the flop, and took the whole table for a ride, in his new gear. If Moss called your AA with 2,2 could you put him there ? Would you think he was out of line ?
Maybe I would not put johnny Moss on 22 unless he did it regularly. The point is that calling ,raising or re-raising with rags is a long term loser. Certainly variance on a short term may well smile upon such a sally. The point of this forum for me, however, is to promote better play and make more money for ME. The point of my comment was that I'd classify Dianne as a maniac in a ring game for the play she describes. I certainly would never get in a raising war with a maniac w/o the nuts. To do that would be true insanity.
Well said, and point well taken. But it is fun going against the natural order of things. No fun folding eventual winners. When poker becomes like work a lot of recreational players can't see the point of continueing play.
Go get 'em Dianne. If you were predictable as some would have you be. There would be no joy in your game. No surprise in you attack. But beware of long term disobedience to correct theory, in a shifting environnment.
I think she said her tournament game is different entirely, I wounder which she calls her "A" game, the tightest or the one with the best returns. Should be one and the same.
Good luck Dianne. Keep flopping Quads !
Ms. Diane,
I suspect you are smart enough to realize that with my previous post I was making a joke and having a little fun at your expense.
If not, please accept my sincere apologies.
Moron- No problem. I enjoyed your response.
Happy Holidays, Diane
u had fun and made money too..........i believe a free dinner is in order for the joker who said he had the Q.
I don't play for the money Diane does, but when I'm going good, I enjoy raising on the button against a couple of callers with, basically, nothing, two or three times a night. Two things can happen: I might actually flop something good, which they will never anticipate (I'm usually very tight); or, if it's a strong flop, I can pretend I flopped something good. And when you play 84, two eights flop, and you eventually have to show your hand, it encourages people to think you're crazy.
I think, in other words, that she's on to something, although the theory behind it has to be quite complex. As a tight player you can win a fortune by varying your pattern if things turn up for you.
I'm glad you didn't tell him what you had. I hate when players fold on the river and ask "Whadja have?"
Just tell them "32 off" and watch them go nuts...
All the hand proves is that you are a moron, and I highly doubt you are a winning player.
You are entitled to your opinion. But my detailed records prove otherwise.
I had *fun*.
Several readers of the forum have played with me and my tournament record is pretty decent also.
Sounds like maybe I put a bad beat on you one time or another also? Or just too many bad beats from others...or other parts of your life, Buddy?
Diane
$20-40 Hold'em from the other night. 8-handed, I post a late position blind. A player that I recognize as pretty tight limps UTG. A couple others limp, and I raise with KsKc. The flop is 522, 2 diamonds. Check to me, I bet, and get 2 callers, including UTG. Turn is an offsuit 4. Check to me, I bet, and UTG raises. Because of the texture of the board, I can't see how it could have hit him, as I don't expect him to play any hand with a card below a 6 UTG. (I also don't think he'd limp-call with AA, particularly since this game seems a bit loose.) While 55/44/22/A3s/A2s are possibilities, I don't consider them too likely. I'm not sure how well this player knows me, but I would often fire twice with a good flush draw or good overcards with a raggy board. So I suspect he could be raising a medium pair for value, or playing a flush draw strongly hoping to blow me off my overcards. The flush draw semi-bluff is my best guess, so I reraise, and he caps. At this point, I'm rethinking A3s or A2s, but I still think the nut flush draw is a possibility, since he could have AK and think the overcards could be good, and he can 4-bet with impunity since I can't reraise. River is a blank, he bets, I call, and he shows 63d. Oddly enough, he didn't seem to be on tilt or playing loosely, and for the next 3 hours played pretty tight. Maybe 63 is his lucky hand or his lucky number?
I guess my reraise on the turn was too aggressive, but how else should I proceed when I suspect the player is semi-bluffing?
-Sean
This, is interesting. And similar to my problems. I'm sure you now will be told there is no such thing as a tight/aggressive changing gears to this degree ! (fundemental shift in position/hand grp value relationship) and will be asked to invite this guy back as much as possible. We are sure you misread this fella's tendensies and .................
"Because of the texture of the board, I can't see how it could have hit him"
When I can't see something I usually play it safe.
Here's the whole book on defending against a semi-bluff:
Not much there to tell, is there? Don't raise on the turn, it's a loser unless tyou're absolutelt sure he's on a draw.
I disagree with this advice if your opponent will never re-raise without a completed hand, always re-raise with a completed hand, and will call often when they are drawing or you have them beat. I believe that you will find many players like this in this situation (especially with a straight here). Of course it depends on the size of the pot and future action but generally speaking there isn't enough to justify a draw to a 2 outer. If your opponent will only re-raise with a completed hand, you can fold when your opponent caps. If they call often when they are beat, you win extra money. It costs you the same amount of money when you lose as calling twice, but you get more money in as a favorite.
Sean,
Maybe he was just mixing it up to confuse good observent players like you. It worked. I am tight/aggressive but will also do the same thing once and a while if my raises are getting too much respect.
A while back I beat some real loose players with some rags like the 63 they never forgot it and consider me one of their own now.
Maybe this guy is a beter player than you assessed him to be. He is certainly deceptive so be aware.
Sean, I certainly hope I didn't stiffle debate on this issue. I agree with these guys. When reraised, on the turn(or before), you have to go into check and call if you don't have the mortal nuts up against a player that can mix it up, do look him up though.
So much of what is written about poker assumes anyone would raise with a big hand like AA of KK in early position before the flop. But I am finding it hard to do this for the simple reason that too often I find myself alone in the hand! What a waste of Aces!
I have been playing in 3-6, 4-8 where I developed the habit of slow playing these cards. But I am finding the same thing seems to hold in the 10-20 games I've began to play. In fact, there may be even less reason (rel. to the small games) to raise with KK simply because the 10-20 players generally don't mess with Ax anyway (whom I want to fold).
The time to really score seems to be after the flop, provided it is friendly to your big pair, and of course especially when you've made trips. Then I'll wish I had those players that folded when I raised pre-flop. But again, if I've got big trips and there are no draws, no raise! Save it for the big betting rounds.
Perhaps what I need to do is start raising a percentage of the time in early position with poorer hands to gain a less threatening image?
You raise a great point. I have found the same is true in 5-10 and 10-20 games. In 2-4 lots of people stay. I would like to hear some of the expert's opinions. I almost always raise in early position and usually will reraise depending on who reraises me.
What's the real deal? I suppose one should mix it up, but..........
Its not that bad not to raise if it brings the right hands in behind you. But keep in mind it is a lot trickier to play thes big pairs in early position when the pot is multiway. Secondly as you yourself postulated , raising with more hands under the gun will get you more callers when you do have aces or kings.
Nick:
I struggled with this idea a few months ago too in the 5-10 game I play. My conclusion (far from expert):
It's better to win a little pot than to lose a big one.
Start limping in early with AA and KK you'll get mighty tired of others beating you with weak hands that turn into freak two pairs and straights and baby flushes.
Remember, if 5 or 6 people usually take the flop in your game, it only takes 2 or 3 callers on your raise to get the same $$ in the pot with fewer hands to beat.
Now, In late position with 5 or 6 players already in, I can see limping there sometimes because they're not going to leave pre-flop. And I'll never, ever raise from the blinds - preferring to check-raise the flop.
I agree with your last thought, if everyone has you pegged as that tight, I'd add a few hands for raising in early position with. I'll raise with QQ,JJ and TT if they're not the same color (random element) AK, AQ, sometimes even AJ. If it gets folded around or I buy it on the flop I'll advertise the weaker hands.
But what do I know....
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
If there is a good chance of winning the blinds when you raise from early position, it becomes profitable to raise with a lot of other hands. If you've got a 30% chance of winning 1.5 small bets with a raise, that is significant EV, and more than makes up for the cost of the raise, assuming you were going to play the hand anyway.
This is one of those balancing acts critical to success in the bigger games, and totally unneccessary in smaller games. If you find yourself winning the blinds with raises a lot, raise with a lot more hands. Eventually, the players will catch on and start calling your raises more. Then back off on the marginal raises, and let them pay off your aces. They'll eventually tighten up, and then you start all over again.
If they are respecting your raises with Aces and Kings in early position, you definitely need to loosen up and start raising with lesser hands such as 8-8 and 9-10 suited. This will have 3 effects:
1. You will win pots uncontested that overcard hands could've contested; 2. You will know where your opponents stand when they enter the pot against you in late position; 3. You will win bigger pots when you flop to your hand and someone has a big pair behind you;
But the biggest effect will be that eventually your opponents will have to loosen up: After a few busted draws or when you crack a few big pairs, your opponents will start to give you less credit for an early raise. Then you can revert to an unpredictable style -- raise with the big pairs sometimes; don't raise with them sometimes. "Always" is usually a bad word in the poker world.
Your raises are getting too much respect.
Time to appear to be less tight and play some poorer hands (in late position) and advertise them win or lose.
Playing poor hands in late position does nothing to have people devalue your raises. There are lots of players around who play lots of hands but never raise unless they have AA.
When should suited cards not be played? More often than not I do not play suited Three, two, and one gappers as low J7 and and high as TQ from various positions. I've been noticing that at least once in 10 hours of play I will miss a good size pot that I would have taken had I played the suited cards - seemingly far more $ than I would have spent playing the cards. What is your take on playing these types of hands and how far should you go with them when you aren't drawing to the nuts.
Thanks,
Michael
I really can't answer your question but it would take you hours to sift through the debate that went on here over 98s alone. Check the archives, there's plenty there on this subject.
In my opinion, if deception is not important in your game, then you aren't giving up much by throwing away suited connectors in most situations. These hands don't make a lot of money, and they don't lose any money.
But don't carry that too far. Don't fold 98s on the button with seven callers.
You mentioned J7s, and I think that's too loose. I won't play that hand anywhere, except in the small blind or big blind in an unraised pot, if I can get in for half a bet or less and there are enough callers.
Wow. What about playing J7s in the big blind for one bet with four opponents in a raised pot? What about three opponents? What about a single stealing smartass on the button?
Sincerely, I don't think you play as tight as you write. If so, I pity your opponents, as they are having no fun with you :-)
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I don't play very tight at all. I play most of those suited connectors, for the very reason I stated: They are good for deception, and whatever EV they have, plus or minus, is small. Certainly the increased EV I get on my premium hands pays for any losses I incur when getting caught in a bad situation with them.
I generally play any pocket pair from any position as well, unless the game is highly agressive and very tight.
But all my calls are situational. For me, it's just as important to know who's calling and from what position as how many callers there are. If there are four people in a pot and I have KJ on the button, the presence of a certain tight player calling early is enough to make me chuck it. If the callers are all loose players call mid-late, I'm in there with all kinds of stuff.
Mike I have found the perfect solution to the suited card problem - I only play cards by the ranks - winning flush possibilities pre flop are roughly 23 to 1 so I don't let the suited aspect of my hand sway weather I start with it or not.
With this exception: I will be more inclined to play AXs from most any position if I am gonna take a 23-1 shot I want it to be a winning one.
You are seriously undervaluing suitedness. The value of having suited cards is MUCH higher than you think it is, for lots of reasons.
Dan,
I love your posts and admire the brevity and succinctness of your analysis. Having said that, there are a thousand people ahead of you in the "Rounder vs. Suited Starting Hands" argument. Your time would be better spent elsewhere. :-)
SammyB
x
i don't know all these crazy abbreviations.
scott
'
Actually Dan I think most players seriously OVER value suited cards - it is a serious costly error and since I have taken my low value on suited cards and a couple of other strategy changes to my game my hourly rate has sky rocketed.
It has to do with wasted early bets and chasing hands that are not nut.
MOST players overvalue them. YOU undervalue them. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
For example, if everyone goes to the river with every hand in a 10-handed game, 89o wins $1.20 for every $10 wagered. 89s wins $4.67.
This is a big difference, and real-world situations favor the suited cards, because offsuit cards are often harder to play, and because in the real world you win bigger pots with flushes than you do with one or two pairs.
The difference between suited and unsuited cards is smaller as they go up in rank, and as the number of callers goes down. In a typical 5-handed game, 98s wins $2.61, 98o wins $.83. The difference is REALLY drastic if you look at the very small connectors. In 10-handed showdown poker, 56o loses .05, while 56s wins $3.13
Again, in the real world 56s plays much better, and the difference between the two is drastic.
Dan,
If Badger, Rick, Scott, scott, ray, Mason, David, Vince, John, Paul, Jim, Greg, David, Dan Rubinstein, David Steele, skp, all the michaels, Izmet, Abdul and a few others can't sway Rounder, what chance have you?
So Sammy,
You're saying that suited starting hands do carry enough value, such that I may be undervaluing them and chucking wome winning hands. In other words, the 1 pot in ten hours I've noticed I don't drag because I don't play my suited cards is likely not just an anomoly?
-Michael
Michael,
I am not in a knowledgable enough position to give you advice on suited connectors. My discussions with Dan are about the futility of convincing Rounder of the merits of being suited.
I just don't like to OVER-value them until I see the flop. I prefer to consider the suited aspect as a bonus - I play the ranks as ranks and IF I get a good flop I'm in better position to WIN the hand.
This keeps me out of some trouble and my swings are really at a min. BTW - I do just fine with this mentality. More players would win more money if they didn't play to many hands just because their hands were suited.
Rounder,
Thanks for your advice! I need a well-rounded (no pun intended) perspective - and yours is from the conservative side. You're a winning player and what works for you works. How can anyone argue with that?
But I have a question that may help me decide what works best for me:
In your play have you noticed that when you throw away suited cards that the following happens with any type of regular frequency:
You would have made a flush and a hand lower than a flush drags the pot.
If so, can you estimate the frequency?
Also, when you start a hand with cards of high rank and make a straight. How often do you get beat with a mediocre flush?
Thanks much!
P.S. What limits do you play?
Mike,
When I make a decision I never 2nd guess myself.
I can say that most of the time I don't remember what I mucked. I muck so many hands it is an almost automatic response - sure I have had a big broadway straight beaten by a 74s flush but I guarantee you I had that guys money plus many others by the time I left the table.
I play the softest game I can find. I like to win and don't care who it is from.
I usually play 10-20 20-40 away from Arizona and 4-8 6-12 in Arizona where table selection is key for me. Like I said play the game that will provide me the most EV.
this question is a vast one. you ask when can you play suited cards. it's complicated so i'm just going to ramble for a while. and if you can glean something useful, then great. if not, well, i tried. ok, let's start. hands to consider playing are connectors, one-gappers, and Axs (maybe Kxs). and big suited cards like KTs. also, you can be much more aggressive, especilly multiway, with hands like AKs AQs KQs AJs, than you can with thier unsiuted counterparts. but all suited cards are not good hands. J7s is not a good hand. it is only decent places where almost any two cards will do. on the button against weak tight blinds. or in the blinds with great pot odds. but it almost always belongs in the muck. suited connectors, one gappers are great for stealing the blinds. the blinds give you credit for hitting big flops and try to push you off mid and small flops. a lot of these flops hit you and you can return their pressure. don't cold call raises unless it is multiway (4 or more opp.) even then be careful. and only do it with the best of them 98s T9s JTs. hands that are not likely to dominated by the raiser. understand that when you flop a pair/draw combo, you should usually play aggressively. it's nice to make powerful hands, but the real power of these cards comes from the fact that when you have lots of ways to improve, plus a chance of being the current best, you can overplay your hand a little. and then you can win some pots you weren't supposed to. i guess that is enough stream of consciousness. have yourself some happy holidays because the rest of the year is pure hell. oh, the calamity of such long life. nothing to be done. (all my life i tried to put in from me. saying, vladimir, be reasonable. you've not yet tried everything.) and so i resumed the sturggle. haha. ok. this is really the end of my stream of consciousness. bye.
scott
Scott,
Thank you - that's exactly the types of reply(s) I am looking for. I understand this question requires volumes of text to adequately answer because it is extremely situational. Different perspectives help me a great deal.
But you say you can play more aggressively with hands like AKs AQs KQs AJs, than you can with their unsuited counterparts. Wouldn't you wany to play less aggressively? I mean you need multi-way action to make drawing hands worth it and when you hit your flush, you get paid off - the above list is for the most part a nut-flush list. Is it not better poker to play those hands above that are not suited or suited without that suit in the flop more aggressively so that you can drag some pots you done't deserve (plus when you do, show your cards once in a while - get'em to call when you've got the cards).
Thanks!
well, i would play them more aggressively. you can raise several limpers preflop with AJs and KQs and AQs. where sometimes you would just call along if they were offsuit. but i think you're asking about on the flop. i would play my 2 big flush cards very aggressively. you want your pair to be good if it hits. and you may win the pot without hitting anything. you should sometimes play these hands aggressively when you don't have the flush draw, also. but these real thick semibluffs (15 outs for 2 overcards and the flush draw) can, and i think should, be played very aggressively.
oh, and don't show your cards. keep dragging in pots you don't deserve.
scott
Good work Scott, lubricant for the gears. One needs these pots he dosn't deserve, tight/aggressive helps, but you have to loosen up enough to get them. Know your game and your gamers , Happy Holidays !
I'm in the cutoff with JcTs. 5 call 1 bet. flop is AcQc6h.
I know about the 4 kings as outs, but how do I calculate the backdoor flush draw to see if I should call on the flop? And is the heart king a true out if someone picks up a flush draw with it?
I calculate the chance of a runner, runner flush to be (10/47 * 9/46) = .0416. The chance of getting a king by the river is .1647. Since .04 is one-fourth of .16, it seems reasonable to me to say that a runner, runner flush draw to the nuts is worth about one out.
It also seems reasonable to discount the value of the king of hearts a little bit, but I have no idea how much.
For now assume the heart king always wins as does evey other king and every backdoor flush. If the game is 10-20, it would work like this: Four out of 47 times you would catch a king and win what was in the pot plus maybe 80 bucks or about 140 total. Nine out of 47 you would catch a club not counting the king of clubs. When you do, you call again, hoping to catch a club or a king which is 12 wins out of 46 cards. So of the nine times you catch the club you will win about 2 1/2 of them and again win maybe 140. The other 6 1/2 times you will lose a total of $30. Finally 34 out of 47 times you will blank out on fourth st. and lose $10. Altogether you will win 140 6 1/2 times (910), lose 10 34 times (340) and lose 30 6 1/2 times (195) for a net win of $375 after 47 times. Given these assumptions folding on the flop would be a horrible $8 mistake. In truth it is a lot closer since $80 extra may be a bit high, plus you will occasionally hit and lose.
You gave him the answer the (of course) correct way using expectation. In the real world, would it be right for him to make the estimate that he had one extra out from the backdoor flush draw?
A back door flush draw is better than one out ONCE. You are thinking of one out twice. But it is worse than one out twice. Hopefully someone else will go into details.
Because you posed the question, I'll assume you don't own David's "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming & Life". One of the chapters 'Odds for a Backdoor Flush' covers much of your question. The gist is you are 23 to 1 to make the flush but need AT LEAST 27 to 1 to make the play profitable, David suggests 30 to 1. spitball
Here is a long thread in which the topic was discussed in detail.
Everyone called on the flop? I missed something here where the size of the pot was specified.
D.
Sorry David, Yes, there was one bet before it got to me post flop. I inadvertently left that out because my focus was on the procedure to figure my position regardless of the pot in this particular hand.
As some of you may know, I’ve been playing the low-limit Internet games. I’m ahead, but I believe I should be doing better. It’s been hard on my fragile ego. Often I believe that I’m never going to be able to move up to the bigger games. I’m sure I’m doing some things wrong, but I’m not sure what they are. One of my leaks could be that I’m playing the river poorly – not that I preclude screw-ups elsewhere. Here are two hands I recently played. Assume that the overall temperament of the game is slightly loose, generally passive but that you don’t have a strong read on any player in particular.
Hand One:
I was in the big blind with QJh. Two early position players, two middle position players, and the small blind all limped in. I checked. There were six small bets in the pot. The flop came:
4h, 2h, Kd
The sb checked. I briefly considered betting, but decided that it would be too dangerous with a draw to only the third best flush, an overcard to my hand on the flop, and five opponents. Was this my first mistake? Should I routinely bet here? I checked. Everyone else checked.
The turn was Qd, leaving the board:
4h, 2h, Kd, Qd
The sb checked again. I bet. Would anyone have played it differently? Three players called. One middle position player and the sb folded. There were now seven big bets in the pot.
The river was the 6h, giving me a queen-high flush and leaving the board:
4h,2h,Kd,Qd,6h
What should I have done?
Hand Two:
I was one off the button (cut-off seat) with AsQc. UTG and a middle position player (MP) limped in. I raised. Button and both blinds folded. UTG and MP both called the raise. There were 7+ small bets in the pot. The flop was:
7d, 5d, 3h
It was checked to me, and I bet. Both opponents called leaving 10+ small bets in the pot.
The turn was Ah for:
7d, 5d, 3h, Ah
It was checked to me again, I bet again. Both players called leaving 8 big bets in the pot.
The river was Qh for a board of:
7d, 5d, 3h, Ah, Qh
giving me two big pair but making a flush possible. It was once again checked to me. Should I have checked or bet? If your answer is bet, what would you have done if you were raised?
In your first hand I would have bet the flush draw with 3 or more callers and called any raises. I would bet the turn and called any raises. When you made the flush I would bet out and call any raises.
On the second hand I would check the river. It just seems like someone was waiting for something.
my answer to all your questions is bet and call a raise.
first hand. K x x is a good bluffing flop, esp with a limped preflop. plus i would routinely bet a flush draw here anyway. your 3 to broadway adds an out or so against a K. bet the flop. on the turn you almost certainly have the best hand. a K should have bet. if these are passive players they might have checked a K, but since they are loose they will call with worse hands. on the river, you're still in good shape. if you're raised you're likely beat, but pay it off. a lot of worse hands will call. pair, two pair, straight (you said loose, right?), and a lower flush. other than a straight those are all likely hands for your opp. i think you are giving up a lot of value if you don't bet this hand.
second hand. definitely bet. call a raise. who knows what they have, but with loose passive value betting is paramount. you can't always be scared of the nuts. if raised, call. i am looking at an A and maybe an overpair to the flop. or some 2 pair like A5. if someone has the flush or the straight, you lose. that's the game. i think you should bet this hand with confidence.
scott
I agree with Scott completely. You have different reasons with each flop and beyond, but the answer each time is bet and call if raised. If you look closly at each round you can find good reasons to bet. I know some that would have raised hand 1 from jump.
But WAIT ! You are playing internet poker, do you really trust those programmers with your money. Aren't you worried about cheating? One big sting ? How can I advise you if I'm afraid of the medium. Check,check,check(you ever play video poker machines?)
I suggest it doesn't much matter what you do on the first hand. You have a winner unless someone made a higher flush or a straight flush and is waiting. This isn't too likely; the K flush should have bet earlier to protect his pair. So, you won't bet and lose very often.
The opponents are acting very weak. What do they have to call your bet and lose? A weaker flush is possible but a bad call on the flop. You probably won't gain a bet on the river very often.
The bottom line is about 95% of the time you can either check and win the showdown or bet and watch them fold. Who cares?
Fat-Charlie
hand 1 bet flop, turn and river if raised here call I doubt your beat with a bigger fulsh unless you are playing a bunch of fish.
hand 2 you played better, I'd check and call with the 2 big pair - actually it doesn't make much difference if you bet and your raised you are probably beat if you bet and every one folds you don't win any more.
If you bet with your two big pair and get check raised, do you fold with a clear conscience or do you pay it off?
Bill,
If you are check-raised on the river you should almost always call if your call will end the betting, and you should often fold if it won't end the betting. Check raise bluffs, and weak check raises are on of the plays that players who come down with FPS try to pull. Knowing your opposition is key.
Also, I've found it very helpfull to decide whether or not I'll call a check-raise before I put my bet in. This way I don't feel like I was "suckered".
Normally, with runner-runner flushes you have little to worry about. If you *never* bet the river when the backdoor flush hits you are giving up a lot of money. I tend to check and call runner-runner when there were several draws possible on the flop AND three or more players on the river.
Look at it this way, I only have to get paid off twice for every time I get check-raised and *I* pay off for the bet to be even ev-wise.
Heads up and three way I almost always bet strong hands into runner-runner. I reserve check-calling for hands like top pair.
But don't get into a raising war.
BTW, what is your nick?
- Andrew
You have to know your players here.
I think if you are this far you have to call the ck. raise.
There are now 11 big bets in the pot. It doesn't seem like there is anything other than a flush or a checkraise bluff on the river to justify the betting. Playing this hand on-line doesn't give you much info or background on the bettor. I think you're licked and a fold is proper. Although I have the highest respect for scott I believe he is wrong to tell you to bet the river. In these on-line games, trapping someone with a checkraise on the river is like some sort of extra thrill. I advise against it and to play it straight forward. They aren't going to believe you anyway.
i may be wrong here. but just because a flush is possible doesn't mean someone has it. i think that any pair would call and a lesser two pair would certainly call. and i think that if you lose 2 bets to every flush but get 1 bet from every pair, you are ahead. why couldn't someone have had Axd or Qxd? would those hands fold for 1 more bet on the river?
and watch out with that respect stuff. if you aren't careful, you'll put someone's eye out.
scott
with all due respect (ouch) I think at these limits on-line the Ax will either bet the turn or checkraise. I don't think a Qx would be hanging around calling bets for the flop and the turn and then not bet when it hits. So there. and just for you, ô¿ô!!
he called these guys loose passive players. to be honest, i don't think i have ever played in a loose passive game. that's not true. i played in my dad's home game. that was very loose passive. but that is still just one session. if you tell me that these players would act a certain way, i believe it. but Qxd has the flush draw, so he's not going anywhere. and in his mind, he didn't hit the river, because he is looking for the flush. and a weak Ax, with or without the flush draw, might very well check call the turn. the flush is a backdoor flush in a small pot. if the flush is out there it, i think it will have a pair too. maybe 58h or something. and if that's possible, then 58s might have called our guy down with his pair. and he may call the river. do you think these guys couldn't be holding pairs or do you think these guys wouldn't call with pairs?
scott
There's no way to know this, scott. Yes what you say is possible and you could be missing 1 bet on the river by checking (I don't think you would get an overcall, but that would be pssible, too). But will you call the checkraise? And then is it possible the checkraise was from Qx where the x was already paired. (was it an 8 or 5)? With loose low limit players anything can be made to fit the puzzle.
Thanks for your responses.
In Hand One, I bet on the end and everyone folded, as Fat Charlie predicted. Based on the comments my posting received, it seems that I made a mistake not betting on the flop despite my misgivings about the overcard, third flush, etc. Normally, I do bet my four flushes. This time I got scared. I shall be more aggressive with them in the future.
My biggest concern about my bet on the end in the first hand was not the possibility of running into a better hand. Rather, I worried that by betting myself I lost the opportunity of inducing a worse hand to bet.
In Hand Two, I bet after it was checked to me. The early position player raised. The middle position player dropped. I paid off. The raiser turned over Kh4h to beat me. I’m comforted that most posters think that my bet and call were correct. The leak hunt continues.
Merry Christmas.
I am sitting in late position with A6c. The flop comes with one club and a six as well I think. One bet. I call with two others. Turn doesn't help. There is a bet. Next guy calls. Third folds and then I do as well. The dealer becomes confused and thinks that everyone folded to the bettor. He begins to prepare for the next hand and the players interrupt pointing out his mistake. He apologizes and states that the cards are still in the proper order and continues as if nothing has happened. The river brings my Ac! I didn't say anything. Would you?
I definately would have called over a floorperson, You need the dealer to be on top of things at the table. He is the only one at the table who can control the game, if the dealer makes a mistake this big he shouldn't be dealing cards. It really makes me upset to hear things like this happening to people!!!
Game: 2-4 Holdem (online @ Paradise Poker)
I'm 1 off the button with 44
3 callers ahead of me, I call, button drops both blinds call.
FLOP : [4s] [Js] [Ah]
Checked to me and I bet, blinds call, next player drops, next player raises (check-raise). On player ahead of me calls, I call, blinds call.
(I read the check-raiser for Ace-good kicker, maybe even AJ. I'm not sure what kept me from re-raising, other than getting beat up / outdrawn recently with good hands.)
TURN: [4s] [Js] [Ah] [As]
Checked to check-raiser who bets, next player calls, I call, blinds drop.
RIVER: [4s] [Js] [Ah] [As] [Ad]
Check-raiser bets, all muck.
I'm certain it was a mistake not to raise the flop. That aside, the only situation I saw myself winning here was if the check-raiser was pusing a spade flush draw on the flop.
Oddly enough, many much of the low limit game often play tighter than the higher limit games here.
comments?
Get a hand history and find out what he had.
- Andrew
Andrew,
When playing on-line the only way to get a revealed hand history is when there was a showdown, i.e. bets on the river are called. Then, if someone mucks without showing, you can see what they folded. In this situation all players mucked on the river bet.
happy Holidays,
SammyB
A reraise on the flop was certainly the right play. Flopping a set is a rare and wonderful experience and catching someone with a higher two pair who won't be able to fold is something to capitalize on. If the checkraiser then caps it you can almost assuredly figure him for AJ, AA(unraised on flop, getting popular at lower limits), JJ. Of course, you will call the reraise if there is one. On the turn when an ace falls you are probably beat. If on the flop the checkraiser called, then I would see the river to insure he's not playing spades. Easy fold on the river.
This is why I can't play on-line. A runner, runner play like this live, got me my nickname and took me to this board. Easy fold on the end right (right after I swing at the CRT with the keyboard) .
Headcase, I don't understand your reaction. You may have been dead on the turn. A-J just got lucky on the turn; he was going to the river and had about a 16% chance of beating you. This isn't off the wall. Now if he did this on Jx, you're RIGHT!
Fat-Charlie
I would push 44 along on the flop with enough raises to try and figure out if I was against AJ, JJ, or Ax now. I may be beaten on the turn. But by calling you create your own confusion. 95 % of the time you were check raised by a A. If I play it like our hero, I don't get upset till the river and only with myself. If I'm on the internet I have to wonder more about tough beats (this would take all my aggression away). Because I can't understand "How" the internet sites make their money yet, and who regulates ? I may be prejudised and have a dim view. Do you guys "really" trust that all games and situations are up and up on the net ?
I suspect there is some collusion with players able to use the phone, IMs, or ICQ but I think the site itself is on the up and up. It's in the site's best interest to insure to the best of their ability that the games are honest. They're dealing thousands of hands a day. No dealers to pay, no floormen to pay, no brushes to pay, no liquor, smokes, comps, rent. If they can detect a pattern with players teaming up they will ban them as well. It's here to stay, for sure.
On Planet Poker and Paradise Poker, I believe the games are run honestly. It's an impression based on reason -- it's in their best interest to keep the games clean -- and a bunch of little things such as that they pay promptly when you request a cashout, the amount of work they've put into their Web sites, and the fast response when you e-mail them a question or a comment.
I'd also guess that there is some collusion among the players, but at the lower limits I have experience with, I don't think it's all that much -- concluded from the pragmatic test that the games are beatable.
3 people limp in i'm in late pos with QTc. I raise everyone else folds but the 3 early callers.
Flop comes 9c, Ad, 5c. first person in bets all call. next card is the 5h. first person bets, next raises All call.
RIver brings the 7c, first person in bets all call. First person shows A2o, second 95d. ARG!! Did I play this wrong? In 30min. I lost 200 to the two players mention all on similar or worse starting hands. Almost always in raised pots.
forgot to mention I was playing 5-10
You should have raised on the river.
I live guys like this - if you keep playing quailty hands against them you can't help but win - it may take a few hours but you will prevail so long as you don't play their stupid game.
QTs is not a hand you want to play in a raised pot unless you're trying to steal the blinds. If the UTG is solid you're swimming against the tide. Once you get a flush draw you're in for the hand. On the river I agree with Rounder, you have to raise as there appears to be no logical boat for someone to play. Rounder is again correct when he says you want to be in the game with the 95o and A2o players. Tighten up your starting hands a bit and you'll reap huge rewards.
I would have raised the flop. You may as well represent the ace here since you raised pre-flop. If nothing else it may help you get a free card. Of course in this case you lose no matter what.
I have some question about raising Q-Ts with 3 players already in. In games where people play anything, they generally do not fold after the flop either. So you will usually have to hit your hand to win. If you are going to have to hit your hand, you may as well just call and hope a few more come in behind you (the whole pot odds things). If you can get 6-7 way action this way every time, you can usually start playing a lot of drawing hands and just dumping when you miss.
BTW An overcard with a 3 flush and 3 straight draw is NOT missing. On the other hand, a three flush with nothing more is missing, don't chase hat far, you are ususally about a 20-1 dog.
May I ask where this game occured. Calgery perhaps ?
Bael was this an on-line hand?
PRE-FLOP: Raise was aggressive with three limpers ,I would have just called TcQc. I think it mainly depends on how well you know the other players (button,SB,BB) would they have folded anyway?
ON THE FLOP of [9c, Ad, 5c]: 8:1 Total pot = $40.00
"first person in bets all call"
I would now put the bettor on Ax. The other 2 are tricky they may have hit trips or a part of the Ace. To put one of them on 9-5 is a stretch. Your call is correct at 11:1
ON THE TURN of 5h: 5.5:1 Total pot = $60.00
"next card is the 5h. first person bets, *next raises* All call"
I would have now put the raiser on the trips if not [A5] for the boat. The pot is $110.00 and it's $20.00 to you. You know your going to have to call this raise and at least another bet or 2 if the flush hits. If the early guy is rasing on that *5* then he will bet/raise the river also. So that's going to be a $30.00 or $40.00 investment to a catch the flush. Total pot you *may* win $150.00 or $160.00 (one guy may fold) to the 30 or 40 your going to have to put in to hit the flush. That's about 5:1 effective odds I believe. Your are a 4:1 dog to hit the flush (not to the nut remember)I think the key moment was the 5 on the turn and the raise. I would then put this guy on trips and he would then be (10 outs) 3.5:1 to hit the boat (Q5,K5?? A5(your drawing dead)).
ON THE RIVER of 7c: Total pot $140.00
First person in bets all call:
Since I would have put the raiser on x5 then a crying call would be my play since he did not raise (which was his best play since the flush card came on the river and he does not want to raise and lose a bet or two).
Total pot $180.00
You did not play the hand bad.
"The loose goose got lucky" :-(
Best of it !!
MJ
P.S. Merry Xmass Bael!!
Bael was this an on-line hand?
PRE-FLOP: Raise was aggressive with three limpers ,I would have just called TcQc. I think it mainly depends on how well you know the other players (button,SB,BB) would they have folded anyway?
ON THE FLOP: 8:1 Total pot = $40.00
"first person in bets all call"
I would now put the bettor on Ax. The other 2 are tricky they may have hit trips or a part of the Ace. To put one of them on 9-5 is a stretch. Your call is correct at 11:1
ON THE TURN: 5.5:1 Total pot = $60.00
"next card is the 5h. first person bets, *next raises* All call"
I would have now put the raiser on the trips if not [A5] for the boat. The pot is $110.00 and it's $20.00 to you. You know your going to have to call this raise and at least another bet or 2 if the flush hits. If the early guy is rasing on that *5* then he will bet/raise the river also. So that's going to be a $30.00 or $40.00 investment to a catch the flush. Total pot you *may* win $150.00 or $160.00 (one guy may fold) to the 30 or 40 your gonna have to put in to hit the flush. That's about 5:1 effective odds I believe. Your are a 4:1 dog to hit the flush (not to the nut remember)I think the key moment was the 5 on the turn and the raise. I would then put this guy on trips and he would then be (10 outs) 3.5:1 to hit the boat.
ON THE RIVER: Total pot $140.00
First person in bets all call:
Since I would have put the raiser on x5 then a crying call would be my play since he did not raise (which was his best play since the flush card came on the river and he does not want to raise an lose a bet or two).
Total pot $180.00
I do not think you played the hand wrong
"The loose goose got lucky"
Best of it !!
MJ
Merry Xmass Bael
I must be missing something, but why doesn't anyone suggest folding the turn? 9-5o may be hard to place, but 9-9 and A-5s are reasonable boating hands. With a bet and a raise to you, assuming no re-raise, you're getting 8 to 1 on your draw. While this looks good, you're drawing to a non-nut flush and may already be drawing dead (both mentioned in prior appends).
It's already been noted that Ax and trips are likely hands for your opponents based on their actions. Unless you know these guys are Loony-Tunes, you may be dead to BOTH of them.
Am I being weak-tight to fold here?
Fat-Charlie
From what Baewulfe posted these were not the blind hands. They folded on his raise. To put early limpers on 59 even in a $5-$10 game is a bit pessimistic. A5s I can see, but I can also see A9, K5s, 65s, 54s, 88, 77. Yes, you definitely have a point with 99, but flopping a set is rare. I would still stay for the flush.
I played this hand on PP at a 3-6. I'm in early pos with AA. UTG raises I reraise. All fold except BB who calls, UTG calls. flop 8c4c3s BB bets out. BB is known to play loose and agressive. UTG is tight and aggressive. With BB betting into two raisers it's likely he has nothing much and is hoping for the raisers to have overcards. I put him on top pair with an overcard, maybe a flush draw. UTG raises. I have to put him on big pocket pair. I call hoping to keep the bb in. BB folds. So much for that. flop is Qd. UTG bets. Should there be some caution here, or just keep banging with my AA?
I would've reraised on the flop. I don't want the BB to stay in. I'd have also considered just calling on the turn and reraising on the river regardless of what comes. By reraising again on the turn, you tell your opponent precisely that you have A-A.
reraise the flop. only if the bb has exactly pair A kicker do you want him in. he could have a 5 out or a 4 out draw on you. reraise.
on the turn. you are in good shape. if you would raise a flush draw, maybe raise here. you have the best hand here most of the time. but, you would rather raise the river if he would not call a bet with a worse hand than yours after you raised the turn.
scott
I would use extreme caution with pocket aces. To tell you the truth I rarely win with them. If the board is all blanks and you have someone calling your bets, you could almost guarantee that he has two pair. Pocket aces are usually good when the board pairs up. For example If you have pocket aces and there is a pair of three on the board, I believe you have a better chance of winning than if the board doesn't contain a pair. Anyways just an assumption, I get scared every time I have pocket aces.
Down in texas for a couple days then back to cali for the new year. while in TX played some no limit with some friends. I think I screwed up on this one so you be the judge -
I limp on the button with 3s5s. 4 players in the game, all are in this hand. Blinds are 1+2$.
flop is As 2h 4h. SB bets 25, one caller to me. I raise to 75. I have about 200 total. I intended to go all in on the turn. Original bettor calls and other folds.
Turn is 7h. SB checks I go all in for about 125, he calls.
River is a blank. I lose to the flush as he has 9h8h.
I believe my mistake was not raising enough on the flop, though I think I would simply have been called anyway since it was a fairly loose game. I let him in for too cheap. I should have raised all in on the flop: not because it would have changed the result, but because by his calling me he would not have been getting the proper odds to call. Instead i gave him the opportunity to draw at the flush while I still had enough $$ left for him to be getting the correct implied odds to pursue his draw.
comments welcome, I won't be online for a few days to respond though!
Dave in cali
On the flop, he bet $25,making a $33 dollar pot.
you raised to $75 with the momentary nuts, creating a $108 pot.
He called fifty getting two to one on a draw that makes it there with two cards to come one in three times, plus with the opportunity (as we know) to pick up the rest of your chips. You were really, by raising only fifty dollars, offerring him correct odds to draw even with only one card to come ($108 in the pot after your draw plus the $125 remaining in your stack = 233 to 50 or 4.6+ to one when he was a 38 to 9 or 4.2+ to one dog. He was getting an overlay and was correct to call.
Although he probably didn't see it that way.
If you had made it $100 you would have had the best of it.
There is nothing wrong at no-limit play overbetting the amount in the pot in order to go all-in. After your "call" on the flop there is about $85 in the pot and you have $175 left. The pot size is big enough in relation to the amount of money you have left for you to put it all in. Far from revealing your hand as the nuts, this all-in bet may make it look to your opponents that you are drawing. There is a good chance the 9h-8h will fold, being afraid you are on top of him, and the person with ace-goood-kicker will call. Of course, this is exactly what you want.
I think you did what you could, either way he probably would have called. If you went all in on the flop he would certainly put you on a straight. Therefore he would call and hope to win with a heart. But I agree with you that you should have raised more on the flop.
I finally got a chance to read the new sections of FAP 21. My attention was focused upon the ‘Loose Game’ advice since this is where I try to spend my time. I search out loose games and make them my home and was hoping to find advice that would add to my already decent win rate. I found the advice highly suspect and perhaps outright costly. I’ll do my best to explain here.
The first example (pg 161) addresses AQ off suit. Four loose players limp in pre-flop and you’re on the button. “You should probably not raise” is the advice of the authors. Old news, you’re saying. I can hear you. This subject has been beat to death, right?
I won’t go over every reason listed in the book to limp in. You can find them for yourself. I will tell you that on it’s face I was shocked. It was contrary to my own opinion of the correct play as well as others with which I have conferred (one well known expert included). I believe a raise here is almost always correct, and not just by a tiny amount but by a lot. All previous discussions of this issue tend to break down into hand waving, no one proving any meaningful point. I hope this one will go differently.
Mason Malmuth has taken every opportunity to suggest the computer simulation of hold’em is nearly worthless and in some respects he’s correct. The area of my research here is to assemble a table of loose and not too able players against which to play AQo. Turbo Texas Hold’em has a lot of player profiles that play very much like loose California gamblers. They disregard pot odds, call raises on poor values, chase too far and generally play inferior poker. In other words, the ideal opponents.
I filled a table with an assortment of loose players and dealt myself AQo every time. I kept the button for every hand. I played two sessions, one where I would not raise with AQo and another where I would raise with AQo only if players had limped in before the action reached me. In all other respects my play was the same. I was very conservative. I would cold call a pre-flop raise but not cold call three bets in both trials. I would not three bet pre-flop.
Post flop I played a very conservative game as well. Against 3 or more opponents I would check along on ragged flops. I would bet, raise or re-raise with top pair. I would take off the turn with overcards only if the board was non-threatening and pot odds were at least 8-1. While each listed play might be debated the important point was that I played both trials with identical rules. The biggest difference I noticed was in the unraised pots many more overcard draws had to be abandoned because of insufficient pot odds.
The results are based on 200 hands played each way. You can expect to be in this situation ~0.2% of all hands (Button and cut off seat with AQo). This then is the equivalent of 2 years full time playing experience in this specific situation. AQo played with a raise pre-flop won just slightly under two small bets per hand. AQo played without a raise won just under one small bet per hand. I wasn’t too surprised by the result. The trials actually overlap a small amount since I play the same when the pot is raised before my action. This would suggest the real difference is slightly greater.
I ran a much larger (10000 hands) fully automated simulation using a sound player profile instead of myself and used the same pre-flop rules. The results were almost exactly as I would expect. The automated player won 1.2 small bets per hand when raising pre-flop and won only 0.56 small bets per hand limping. I play better that he does, no surprise. The ratio was almost exactly the same.
Why is this expensive bad advice being put forward as gospel in HFAP21? I’ll give you my best guess. The thought process that leads to the decision to limp in with AQo is built upon the ‘Fundamental theorem of poker”. In this case the FTOP is applied to the later errors opponents make post-flop, chasing and so forth. There is not enough consideration given to the pre-flop FTOP error of your opponents calling your raise. Surely if your (sane) opponent could see your AQo pre-flop he’d not cold call with KQo or call one more bet with QJo but this is exactly what occurs in real life and these are big errors, errors that add up to one small bet per hand on average.
One thing that would be interesting, at least to me, is to ascertain if there is ANY situation where the number of callers swings the right play from raising to calling according to TTH.
I'm sure there are Tom.
I don't own the software, but I'm sure that the software isn't so braindead as to not be able to verify that you should raise when entereing on the button with 22 and tight blinds, and call on the button with it when there are 6 limpers ahead of you, same tight blinds.
- Andrew
Scott,
I have to disagree with you on this point. Playing in a multiway loose game with AQo on the button is a definite call. You give up control if you bet because everyone checks to you as it says in the book. If everyone checks to you after you called preflop and then you bet more than likely at least one or two players will drop for fear of a pair of 10's or 6's. There are more options available by checking than raising in a multiway loose game than raising preflop and being at the mercy of the 4 limpers checkraising you or calling you with a pair after Th6c2s flop IMO.
Paul
While your opinion has merit it lacks the substance I'm looking for here. You've got to overcome a one small bet error (not to mention simple horse sense) to justify your play. Show me the money.
Post deleted at author's request.
I haven't read the section in the book yet. One day I'll get to the bookstore to read it. But I've heard it reported that the advice it gives tends to be passive in nature.
You have to realize that in the games that the authors play, when you have a lot of limpers ahead of you, it is probably more correct to play passivly with medium/strong hands than it is in low limit where the fish are limping in with 30-50% of their hands.
When you read any poker book, you have to consider where the author plays, and what kinds of games they play in regularly. If you don't do this you are setting yourself up for possible mis-application of their advice.
In particular, applying HEFAP to the loose 3/6 games in LA is probably not the best use of that section of the book. On the other hand if you find yourself in a loose 15/30 game in LV , then my guess is that the advice in the loose section should be followed to the letter.
- Andrew
I tend to think you might be right. 'Course there's maybe 2000 tables of loose low limit poker being played at any given time across America and only one or two loose Las Vegas medium limit game on every Saturday night. I would have thought they'd be addressing the 2000 loose low limit games, clearly the biggest market in the country.
In another thread David Sklansky admited he hasn't played low limit poker in a very long time. That doesn't mean he can't be an expert, does it?
Post deleted at author's request.
One obvious problem with this sim is that never raising with AQo is a big mistake. When there are not too many limpers in you do need to raise. Perhaps there may even be a few occasions to 3-bet a steal attempt.
I believe another problem is that the TTH loose players will not tend to check to the raiser much like in a real game.
Another problem may be that the TTH players are very sensitive to pot odds compared to real life loose players. The pot is the main thing it uses to decide to continue rather then lucky streak etc. So you won't get as much benefit from manipulating the pot odds.
This all being said, I think your experiment can add to this interesting debate and I am not in either camp myself at this time. If anything, I would tend to mix up my play with this hand while perhaps tending to call when there is almost everyone in.
D.
I'll be the first to admit that using TTH to simulate poker is far from perfect. The program doesn't play really well in some spots. In this specific simulation I'm looking for opponents that also don't play too well so it could be a better spot for the program. The relative magnitude of the difference between the two runs is truly huge, a full small bet. No doubt you might close the gap by altering the way you play in certain situations but I doubt it will narrow to less than a half a small bet.
The big problem with new ideas in poker strategy is that they are difficult to prove. In this situation you might find yourself in late position with AQo with several limpers every couple of days. How do you test you ideas? I've proved to my own satisfaction how to correctly play in this spot but hey, I'm no expert.
Post deleted at author's request.
I have recently started to raise in all positions (except the blinds) and with any amount of limpers with AQ. I usually play in 3-6 and 5-10 games of a loose nature. It was something Jim Brier said a few weeks ago in the AQ early position raise thread that struck a chord. The best reason to raise with a good, solid hand like AQ is to MAGNIFY the mistakes of those who have called or will call with less. Of course if the game is of a tight to very tight nature then the reasons to raise disappear.
Keep in mind that one of the main reasons we wrote this section was to address the common complaint by good players that it seemed tougher to beat loose games than not so loose ones. Thus some of our recomendations were designed to give you a better batting average even if it did not increase your EV. In the case of AQoffsuit on the button, there is no question that you should raise four extremely loose limpers who also play badly from that point on.
You're right Scott, this has been beat to death. And I'm glad to see that you are finally reading our books. By the way, when you read HPFAP-21 did you notice what we wrote on the bottom of page 159. In case you didn't, here is what it says.
"There is a bit of a two-edged sword here. If you're playing against extremely terrible opponents, it's hard not to raise with pretty good hands because even though you're costing yourself money on the later streets, your're gaining so much before the flop because your hand is usually so much better than theirs. In other words, if people are coming in with absolutely everything, you have got to raise with an AQ simply because your hand is so much better on average than so many of the other players."
I've always read your books, they're the nuts. It wasn't until recently that my local library got a copy of the new edition.
So for exactly what type of game are you giving advice in the new 'Loose Games' section? What cast of characters and what table conditions are you suggesting a savy player 'just call' with AQo after four limpers? Obviously it's not your basic low limit game, is it?
Scott:
There are over 40,000 libraries around the country. Studies show that books like ours have their sales enhanced by being carried by libraries.
Thanks again for spending your time reading our stuff. Now if you are the type of person I think you are you will steal a couple of our books from the library and of course the library will have to repurchase them.
Mason:
If you're the type of person I think you are then you'll avoid answering my direct questions yet again. Please define the game you had in mind when you made this specific recommendation. It's not that hard, is it? Perhaps you've taken too much heat on this and don't want to be pinned down to any more expensive, poor advice.
No, I don't think you will. Too bad, taking the coward's way out.
On this particular thread David Sklansky and I have already said on this particular thread that we would raise against players who play far too many hands (e.g a hand like queen-eight offsuit) and play badly from that point on. Therefore you should have deduced from that that our recommendation to often not raise is against players who play a few too many hands (e.g nine-seven suited) but play them fairly well and fairly tricky from that point on.
Thank you for the explaination. It sounds like you are describing a game populated by reasonable mid-limit player playing too loose, not lower limit players making many errors. All is now clear.
I hope your next edition of HFAP includes a section that addresses California-style low and middle limit games. These seem to be the most common type of hold-em available today. They no longer are found only in California and likely represent the largest possible market for future books.
Scott:
I think you miss the boat. Books like HPFAP-21 are written for people who want to make real money playing real poker. To do this you are going to have to play reasonable limits and some (but not all) of your opponents are going to be real players. Both David Sklansky and I have addressed this topic before. (See my current column in POKER DIGEST.) If you are stisfied just making minimum wage then you should frequently be in games where you follow our advice to go ahead and make these raises.
If however you are trying to do much better than that, and you keep playing as you advocate in games that are a little bigger (usually $10-$20 and above), I doubt if you will have much success. If you read the introduction to HPFAP-21 you will see that the book is targeted for games from $10-$20 to $40-$80.
I don't mean this as a put down, but it is clear from your posts that you are probably struggling to make more than a little at the small limit games. That's one of the reasons why we have a forum like this. It's to help players such as yourself who are confused by the vast amount of concepts that you need to be truly successful at poker and games like hold 'em. (By the way, our other reason is to promote Two Plus Two Publishing in general and even sell a few books. I hope you don't mind.)
Thanks for your heartfelt concern about my poor fortune at poker. With your wise guidance I hope to soon win enought to actually afford to purchase (instead of borrow) my own copy of HFAP21. Actually Gary Carson has suggested we go halves and share a copy but in the new Millenium I'm setting my personal goals just a bit higher.
Post deleted at author's request.
I play in California. Though I rarely play in L.A. (which may have to change in 2000) in my experience, there is a big difference between low and middle limit loose games. In the low limits you're much more apt to find *really* loose, *really* weak players. At the middle limits there will much more often be fairly loose, but often somewhat aggressive, somewhat thinking, somewhat tricky players. I think the 2+2 advice to go ahead and raise several extremely loose, weak players in that spot should apply easily in some of the low limit games, while the "just call" advice seems suited more often to games like the 20-40 games into which I've put many hours in recent years.
It's good to see efforts at simulations aimed at answering interesting questions. I hope to see more interesting sims along with more public discussion of how properly to design them as well as about the strengths and limitations of TTH for answering various kinds of questions. The simulations you ran are interesting but I think will serve at this time more as a trigger for learning than as an indication of the pros or cons of the HPFAP concept you tried to address. I don't mean to discount them; you were working under the constraints of the software. They may point, however, toward improvements that could be made in TTH, or in the ways users design simulations in trying to get at answers to questions. David Steele touched on some of the relevant issues, but I think some elaboration and additional points are warranted. Here are some of the problems I see:
A. Design Problems
1. The design asks the wrong question
You write: I played two sessions, one where I would not raise with AQo and another where I would raise with AQo only if players had limped in before the action reached me.
This is the gist of your design. It spells out the two conditions you used - raise, and limp. This design answers this question:
"What will be the difference in my results for (a) always raising with any number of limpers (who play like loose, weak TTH opponents, including the holes and quirks of play which make them rather unlike real life opponents) in ahead of me, versus (b) never raising under the same circumstances?"
The problem is that this does not address the concept in HPFAP-21. To address that concept you would need to address this question instead:
"What will be the difference in my results for (a) always raising when and only when there are several (say, four or more) limpers (who play like real world opponents, but not the very weakest, loosest ones) in ahead of me, versus (b) never raising under the same conditions?"
As you can see these are two *very* different questions. Your limping condition included in it all those times when only three or fewer players limped in ahead of the profile with AQ (or you). You should certainly be raising almost all those times. Thus, much profit was sacrificed on those hands in that condition.
This is the same flaw that appeared when someone else ran essentially the same comparison (but only the simulated part, not the "play it myself" part), and posted it on r.g.p. a few months ago.
(Also, what did the AQ profile [or you] do in the limping condition when everyone folded to you preflop?)
Now, obviously it is impossible at this time to do a simulation with opponents who play like real world players, even bad ones. (TTH players can play equally badly, but they play *differently*.) Maybe it will be possible in just a few years time; I don't know. But it would nevertheless be an improvement simply to change the design of the "study". I have only thought a little about how to do this with TTH (see below), but think it might be possible to more closely approximate answering the right question so as at least to come closer to addressing the concept presented in the book.
2. The number of hands played was very small
This was true of both the 10,000 hand simulations and obviously the 200 hands (twice) that you played yourself. Perhaps someone with more stats/simulation background would like to elaborate, but with many poker questions you need to simulate (or play) a much higher number of hands to produce meaningful results. That said, given the problem with the question you addressed, I would not be at all surprised if the results over a higher number of trials remained similar.
B. Simulator Problems
1. TTH players (profiles) will not respond to the preflop raiser the way real world opponents do.
Some explanation of a bit of how TTH works in necessary for anyone unfamiliar with it to follow along: A profile's actions whenever it is its turn to act are determined by "bet variables" (e.g., B3, b2, P2, etc.), the meaning of which are in part determined by whether the profile has "retained the lead". When there is no raise preflop, the profile which "has the lead" preflop is the first caller. If there's a raise it's the last raiser. On the flop the profile which gained the lead preflop (first caller, or last raiser…) now retains it unless another profile bets, in which case that profile takes the lead. If there is a raise, then that profile takes the lead. So betting or raising causes a profile to take the lead.
What's important here is how this retention of the lead affects the betting variables and thus the way profiles play. "B2", for instance, tells the profile to bet if no one has yet bet ahead of it, then call one raise (for a total of 2 bets invested). However, "b2" means to do the same thing as in "B2", provided the profile has the lead. If another profile has the lead then the profile set at b2 will not bet but will call up to 2 bets. There appear to be other serious problems with this, but I just want to address one which appears to be most relevant to your simulations.
To test the HPFAP-21 concept of just calling with AQ, a key part of what you'd like to simulate is players who check to the preflop raiser, but bet into the preflop limper. Unfortunately the TTH bet variables appear unable to do this. First, note that a profile set at, say, B2 will bet whether or not it's ahead of a preflop raiser because its betting does not require having the lead. Now consider settings like b2. With this setting the profile will not bet into the preflop raiser. That's fine in the raising condition; we want that in the raising condition (i.e. the simulation in which the profile [or you] raises with AQ). The problem is that it will also not bet into the preflop limper in the limping condition, unless it happened to be the first caller preflop, thereby having taken and retained the lead.
So in the limping condition (the sim in which the profile [or you] limped with AQ) you can't get players, that would check to the raiser in the raising condition, now to bet into you. Your limp can't induce that bet the way it often would in real life. Of course you can use profiles set at, say, B2. But now those won't check to the raiser in the raising condition!
Now, it seems as though this might be partially remedied by going into the profiles and stipulating some "B" settings for the limping condition (to get profiles to bet into the limper) which you would then change to "b" settings for the raising condition (to get the same profiles to check to the raiser). However, this would change the outcomes on all those hands in which *another* player happened to raise preflop before the action ever got to the AQ player. For example, in the limping condition you would now have players brazenly betting on the flop into any preflop raiser. This might counteract some of the profits earned on those occasions when there was no preflop raiser. At any rate, it would seem to distort the results in ways that could be difficult to interpret. (Note: I'm a bit uncertain about the points in this paragraph. If anyone wants to think them through to clarify the implications of altering the "b" and "B" settings across conditions, I'd be interested in what you come up with.)
It gets back to the design problem. What you want is to simulate *only* hands in which several players limp in ahead of the AQ player, then it raises in one condition, and limps in the other. Instead you were more or less forced by the program to include a lot of "irrelevant to the question" hands. Some of those hands didn't necessarily distort the results in this sim, but would (as described above) if you instituted the design "improvement" I came up with above. Others -- those where fewer than four players limped in ahead of you in the limping condition -- did distort your results.
There may well be other ways around it. One that comes to mind is to stack the deck with fixed hands so that you know exactly how each player will play preflop and on the flop, run a simulation, then do the same thing again with a different group of hands, then again and again…. enough times to get meaningful data. But that may take so many repetitions as to be impractical. (And of course it's all painfully boring when you get into constructing profiles anyway.)
There are likely other problems as well David Steele mentioned another possibility or two, but that's as far as I want to go with it right now.
Does anyone know of a way around these problems with TTH? Is there a way, even disregarding the gaps and limitations in TTH's play, to validly design simulations to test this question? Maybe I misunderstand something about the workings of the bet variables. But Bob Wilson has confirmed my understanding of them when I've emailed him questions about them, so… Abdul?
.
John you ought to write a book on using TTH. I myself was wondering about simulating the tendency to check to the pre-flop raiser and betting into the pre-flop caller. Personally I am always skeptical of the conclusions reached from simulation results when the simulations parameters are vaguely defined at best (leaving alone software reliability issues which are very important). In the case of Scott's simulation it appears that he didn't simulate the situation described in HFAP accurately as you point out and a host of others have as well. BTW I do hope someone will simulate the situation in HFAP accurately with TTH.
I agree that this was an excellent post. One of the things that it points out is when dealing with complex probability issues slight changes in your underlying assumptions can cause major changes in your results since these changes can get compounded throuout the model in use. This is one of the reasons that I have always been cautious about using a program like TTH for serious research, and it is also the reason why I suspect that a few of you who have drawn playing conclusions from TTH (and similar programs) have not had the success that you expected at the tables.
For example, a program like TTH may have thousands of lines of code which correspond to numerous steps that the program goes through to determine its decision. If many of these steps each contain a very small error, it can compound itself and "blow up" when the final decision is reached. If any of you have had any numerical analysis you should be familiar with what I am talking about. (Well Scott from Columbia, perhaps you might want to add to this since it is a very long time since I did any of this stuff.)
With this being said I still think that it is a very good program provided that you use it in a limited way. That is treat it like a game, and for those of you new to hold 'em it can help you get your feet wet. Otherwise, be skeptical.
Mason writes:
If many of these steps each contain a very small error, it can compound itself and "blow up" when the final decision is reached. If any of you have had any numerical analysis you should be familiar with what I am talking about.
While the issues that Mason bring up are very serious, they are misleading and do not reflect exactly *how* simulations fail.
The "blow up" that Mason refers to is a continuous phenomenon, while the "errors" one might find in poker code are discrete. There is no theoretical reason to believe that discrete errors magnify themselves in the same way that numerical computations do. In particular, each action that a computer can make is discretized into one of three possible choices, fold, call, bet/raise. This eliminates compounding effects of errors.
Numerical computations tend to blow up after many iterations, on the order of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands. In TTH, computations are not chained along to this degree. In one poker hand, any decision is based on at most a couple of dozen previous computations which do not compound in the same way as numerical decisions.
The behaviour of these computer players, in a lot of ways, exhibits the "loose wiring" behaviour that Caro describes. That is, on close decisions, the player apears to be chosing to call/raise "on a whim".
The more serious problem with these kind of siumlations isn't "blow up". Rather, it is fundamental low level design decisions which create assumptions which are *not* true of real life players. In particular, table based strategies allow very little room for common phenomenon one sees at the table such as, tilt, loose winners, tight losers, protecting wins, etc. The truth is that it is very hard to create realistic opponents, much less table conditions, with table based players.
Also TTH has a very big problem in that its players consider only VERY local information when making decisions. The do not reference prior hand histories, and often don't reference prior ROUND betting information.
That said, the results one reaches with TTH are much better than MOST of the ad hoc analyses that one sees on this forum, and in RGP. The reason is that most of these ad hoc analyses tend to model the game of poker at multiple levels, picking and chosing which aspects of poker the analyist thinks is important for this problem. While TTH has its own set of assumptions, all of the assumptions operate at the same level, are controlable, and more complete than any of the ad hoc analyses.
That said, one must be VERY sure that the assumptions that TTH is using for a particular simulation is appropriate for the game you are interested in investigating. It is very easy to create a set of opponents with TTH which do NOT reflect the competition you are trying to describe.
- Andrew
Very good post.
There are too many knobs to turn in TTH that don’t mean anything and are not helpful in answering AQo raise or not raise on the Button type of questions.
What we need instead of knobs and lots of pseudo profiles is to spend a lot of time designing five profiles that actually play like real world opponents.
Loose Passive
Loose Aggressive
Maniac
Average good player
Expert
This forum has more than enough talent and experience to discuss how each of these five players would play in different situations most of the time.
John seyz:
>What you want is to simulate *only* hands in which several players limp in ahead of the AQ player, then it raises in one condition, and limps in the other.
At present Turbo is lacking decision making process based on the number of opponents in play, but testing based on the number of opponents is doable in Turbo.
You can set up a sim that will only take into account the hands played against a certain number of players limping before the action gets to AQ (or on certain number of players seeing the flop etc.). So to do what John says above, you have to run separate sims and compare the results.
Turbo is far from perfect. Nevertheless it's the only serious tool available for hold'em research. The results are not totally accurate, but they do provide information on trends and tendencies. It's a matter of interpreting results correctly.
There will come a time when Trubo develops to a point of 99.9% reliability (I'd say it's close to 90% at the moment, mebbe I'm crazy, sue me), answers to raise-or-limp questions will be available with a single simulation. Today, getting to proper answers is a matter of running multiple sims with different parameters, types of profiles, situations, number of opponents etc., and then correctly interpreting the results, keeping the software limitations in mind. This is the kind of work Abdul did to arrive at his conclusions. He did not just run a sim and write down the results. The answer to most questions lies in running multiple sims with different parameters, comparing the results and correctly interpreting them.
What I'm trying to say is, even despite the flaws, almost anything is doable with Turbo even now. For example, the problem of checking to the preflop AQ raiser is solvable by modifying the opposing profiles to simply always check on the flop and running the sim. Then you run another sim with unmodified profiles and compare the results.
The pot manipulation tactics problem is solvable by running a sim with an AQ raise preflop and modifying the profiles to call more beyond the flop (as it would happen in RL because of the big pot) and then comparing results to a sim with no preflop raise and less chasing post-flop.
It's a lot of work. Some of us have dane a decent share of it with Abdul clearly leading the pack by miles. I certainly spent some time in the company of Turbo and AQ. I was unable to produce a situation where limping with AQ would be preferable.
Anyway, the present Turbo software offers good approximations provided you spend some serious hours with behind your keyboard. The results will still be approximate, but reliable enough. It still beats anything else, including superpower intellects of the Sklansky type. David should be admired for his work and thinking, but publicly spanked for his complete and total denial of recent poker software. In time, the computer flaws will disappear and there will be no more weak arguments (permeating 2+2 at the moment) like "sims are not 100% reliable, therefore S&M are right". Do you think S&M are 100% reliable?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet, I have never said one thing about TTH. I have never seen it. I did once postulate why it might disagee with me about JT vs KT but that was just a guess. I do believe it will be a lot longer than you think before computers play excellent ring game poker (head up is a different story) because of the number of trees and the lack of the same incentive that resulted in DEEP THOUGHT.
David, I'm extremely sorry for not making my point about you and TTH as clear as possible. I am perfectly aware you never badmouthed the program.
I was thinking of your refusal to use the damn thing (for whatever reason). I am sure the thinking poker world would profit immensely by the combination of your expertise and the Power Tool. I also sincerely feel there would be some eye-opening moments for you if you chose to put some effort in it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
David writes:
I do believe it will be a lot longer than you think before computers play excellent ring game poker.
I'm almost sure that many of you are going to discount these results, but the University of Alberta computer poker player makes .0852 small bets per hand, which roughly translates to 1.25 BB per hour. This is in ring games on IRC. While some may CLAIM that IRC and real life poker are NOT similar, I don't think anyone has any direct evidence of this.
In particular, I think most anecdotal evidence is that the poker played on the higher limit channels is very realistic, if a bit overly aggressive.
I guess the real question is whether or not this constitutes excellent ring game poker or not.
- Andrew
Andrew:
You don't know this but David and I recently sat down with the people from the U of Alberta who are doing this work. One of the things that Darse and John Schaffer pointed out to us is that their programming approach is completely different from that used by TTH. (I'm not qualified to explain the differences so I won't attempt to.) We think they are doing great work and look forward to their future projects.
Mason,
I'm glad you've talked to the UofA people. They have some pretty good ideas about how to deal with the problem of opponent modelling. In fact, I would suggest everyone read their papers. While they are probably not going to help you directly with winning poker, they will help you understand exactly how algorithmic approaches can be used to create very strong opponents.
It kind of puts a whole new slant on the "poker is 10% science and 90% art."
As most scientists know, true science is an art. Of course many artists also know that true art is a science as well.
- Andrew
"concerning artists and scholars one often makes mistakes of opposite kinds. in an extraordinary scholar one often finds a mediocre man, but in even a mediocre artist one usually finds an extraordinary man."
i am a mediocre man. so i guess poker isn't an art, because i believe myself to be a mediocre poker player.
scott
I y'am what I y'am and that's all what I y'am.
- Andrew
Where can I read their papers you mention? Can you point me to a web URL?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
It's the link before Abdul's page on the "Favorite Links" page.
The computer poker page
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
Nice post John.
There is no doubt that TTH is far from the perfect research tool but it's the only one I have. If I had run thes trials and gotten results that were within a couple bucks (@ 10-20) then there'd be nothing to report. It would be easy to point to strategy tweeks that could overcome a small difference. My results were different by a full small bet. This is huge. Can you still find enough flaws in TTH to close the gap? Perhaps but it is much more difficult. And closing the gap is not enough. You need to somehow prove that limping with AQo will make you more money than raising. It's a long way to go. A one small bet per hand mistake would be like mucking 99 and 88 every time they're dealt to you.
In defense of my two trails I must add that my goal was to have only one independent variable, limp vs raise pre-flop. I kept things very simple on purpose. The important fact to consider when assesing the flaws of TTH players is that they bring the same flaws to both trails.
If I had more time I'd do a little more work on this but TTH is pretty clunky. It also doesn't look like more results will be changing my play in this spot.
You write: My results were different by a full small bet. This is huge. Can you still find enough flaws in TTH to close the gap?
Well, the "study design" flaw that I pointed out -- asking the wrong question -- could easily be more than enough by itself to explain the whole gap. By including in the limp condition all those times when few players limped in ahead of the AQ player, you should have brought down the profit for that condition substantially.
Add to that the fact that the profiles you used may have been at the extreme of "loose/weak", making them the exception mentioned in HPFAP, where you should go ahead and raise even when many limp, and the results simply don't relate to the right question.
The bet variable problem is trickier. Izmet has suggested you can just set the players to always to the raiser in the raising condition. I think there may still be problems there, but am not prepared to talk about them right now. I may even have oversimplified the design one would want myself. In the real world players will check to you more often after you've raised, less often after you've limped. To make them always do one or the other in a particular condition, may introduce quirks of play, the results of which will be difficult to interpret. I hope to look into it.
You write: The important fact to consider when assessing the flaws of TTH players is that they bring the same flaws to both trails.
That is important, yes. But what I'm beginning to see with TTH is that there are important ways in which the players don't play as real players (even very bad ones) do. That can mean the results don't reflect what would happen in real life. That is, you may get a valid answer about the most profitable play in some situation against TTH players (but maybe only if you play out a ton of hands yourself, as you did in your 200 hand runs - but with may more hands). But they probably don't adequately represent real world players.
The whole question of the limitations and holes in the play of TTH players needs to be thoroughly addressed before I could comfortably suggest that anyone just accept anyone's interpretation of a set of simulation results. I think it's much more than Izmet says about it not being 100% accurate. I think the holes in its play may lead to some really weird results that are off by a lot.
Then there's the whole area Andrew Prock refers to. TTH has no memory, doesn't adjust to your play (well, barely I guess), doesn't read players, only hands, etc. I discussed this in some detail in a thread with Abdul some time ago on rgp. I'm too lazy to find it, but it's there. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. I'm not sure I actually agree with Andrew that it's the key problem with TTH. I do think some useful sims can be done without those capabilities if you keep in mind that you're looking for a *baseline* answer, something pre-other-players-adjusting-to-you. But it is a problem. I just think that some holes in its play are a more fundamental problem that should be solved first. (btw, Andrew, get the software! I value your input; with your background you're able to say some insightful things about it without even having looked at it. But I'd really like to see what you'd think after looking at the thing in some detail.)
I left out a word: "Izmet has suggested you can just set the players to always check to the raiser in the raising condition.
Post deleted at author's request.
In fact you were the rgp'er who I referred to. Your tests contained the same design flaw Scott's did. You failed to address the concept described in the book. You addressed something else, but not the question you thought you did. It may have had something to do with your lacking experience in research design; I don't know. But it was immediately obvious.
Post deleted at author's request.
Such an exercise in futility. What if ther are 2 loose limpers and two tight limpers. What if there is one maniac who decided not to raise this hand and 2 loose limpers and 1 tight limper. what about you just sat down and don't know anybody yet and 4 people limp.
It can't matter that much. Raise, call, reraise. When the flop hits with rags who cares?
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, Sammy, I actually think you're quite right. This question really is an unimportant one. If you took just the classic situations where the call is said to be indicated and always raised instead, I think it would make only a tiny dent in your long term results one way or the other. You will do much better for yourself to really learn how to play (which means getting a basic fluency with preflop play, then becoming very skilled postflop) rather than spending too much time on trivia like this
Much more interesting to me are simply the issues of correct design of simulation research (Thanks for the tips Izmet.) and the quality of simulators. Players who are going to base any of their play on simulation results should definitely have some understanding of these areas. It's dangerous just to accept someone's simulation results without questioning those things. It's like reading in the newspaper that a study found a link between, say, broccoli and skin cancer. Without knowing the research design a reader may jump to the conclusion that he'd better stop eating broccoli. But, in fact, there was probably just something goofy about the study or how it was interpreted.
Perhaps, then, we can get Chuck Weinstock to add the SIMS Forum for those of you that like to tweak the hell out of this stuff. And then when you, Abdul, Izmet, Gary, Scott Horton and others actually come to a consensus about something, bring it back here and throw it on the table and see if anyone will bet on it.
:-) Thanks, SammyB
Sammy, I really don't have much interest in sims with the current available simulator. But I don't like seeing invalid results, or results the validity of which is highly suspect, presented without anyone questioning the "research design" or the simulator. Lots of players tend to accept such results without question, and go out and base aspects of their play on them. If this state of affairs didn't exist, you might never see a simulation-related post from me. As it is, I have had to force myself to learn enough detail of the workings of TTH to be able to see at least a few of the potential problems with some sims that are reported. It's totally boring to me, but I think may be worth pursuing further in order to be able to report more effectively on the limitations of the program.
As for research design, I had some training in it in grad school, so at least there I don't have to learn a new area just to assess the designs of these bits of simulation research. I'm not particularly in touch with it now, but when looking at the sims apart from the limitations of TTH, it's often easy enough to see if they effectively asked the right question.
"This question really is an unimportant one. If you took just the classic situations where the call is said to be indicated and always raised instead, I think it would make only a tiny dent in your long term results one way or the other."
I'll rephrase this from my current point of view. If you were to call in all the suggested spots as per S&M and call in many spots where confusion about their advice causes you to call as well AND their recommendation is only slightly wrong you won't damage your long term earn too greatly....but their advice may be extremely narrow and very wrong when mis-applied. In this case you're better off always raising and avoiding costly errors.
"You will do much better for yourself to really learn how to play (which means getting a basic fluency with preflop play, then becoming very skilled postflop) rather than spending too much time on trivia like this."
We all benifit by determining for ourselves the quality of poker advice handed out by experts. Few things lead to poker success better than independent thought and analysis. Sucking up advice without thought or question is not the route for me.
If you were to call in all the suggested spots as per S&M and call in many spots where confusion about their advice causes you to call as well... better off always raising and avoiding costly errors.
If someone decides they understand the advice when they don't, that's their problem. But the point is that it's close anyway. The larger point was that if you're going to investigate something like this through simulation, you should at least set it up correctly. It's clear that even people who know TTH often don't set the sims up well. It appears to be in part because they don't carefully match the simulation to the question they want to investigate.
"But the point is that it's close anyway."
I agree. Correctly and narrowly applied, the advice from S&M might add some very modest amount to a players earn. The specific situation where this advice is "valuable" is not one where I find myself very often so I'm clearly better off not limping ever. If I move to Las Vegas the perhaps I'll change my tune.
"The larger point was that if you're going to investigate something like this through simulation, you should at least set it up correctly."
No. The larger point is to make money. I do this by a repeated cycle that is mostly study, consult, play. Simulation is not a part of that cycle. I chose it here just to see if I were missing something. The results matched my expectation enough to end my curiosity. If you'd like simulation result to match your own opinion I'm not your man.
If you'd like simulation result to match your own opinion I'm not your man.
I don't even have a strong opinion about it. Did you read the first point I made about how you designed your comparison? I just want the simulation to match the question. There are still questions about the simulator, but such a match would be a start.
YNH
John Feeney
everyone keeps using these crazy abbreviations. not as crazy as paul, but pretty crazy. why is lol, ostensibly meaning laugh out loud, often used as sss, sly silent smirk (an abbreviation of my own invention)?
maybe i'm wrong. maybe gary did laugh at loud at john's post. here it is.
"In fact you were the rgp'er who I referred to. Your tests contained the same design flaw Scott's did. You failed to address the concept described in the book. You addressed something else, but not the question you thought you did. It may have had something to do with your lacking experience in research design; I don't know. But it was immediately obvious."
now i read through that several times and i couldn't find a good laugh anywhere. the closest i came was "rgp'er". which just sounds funny to me. but not laugh out loud funny. just a slight chuckle. maybe it was the "i don't know". that is sometimes funny.
hey! here's a funny story. samuel beckett, the playwright, was hanging out in paris a while ago. some teenage punk (see it's not just kids these days) mugs him. after beckett gives ove his money, the kid stabs him. the cops caught the kid and after beckett recovered he visited his assailant in prison. beckett asked him why he had stabbed him. and the kid replied "i don't know, sir." only he said it in french. i don't know french, but here's a shot. "je ne se pais, monsieur."
see? "i don't know" can be funny. maybe that's what got gary laughing.
i still don't know what vnh means.
scott
...but actually meant "you need help".
Gary Carson mentioned a couple of interesting results he got with TTH. He said JT beat KT in tight games, the opposite in loose games and KT is a slight winner in typical games. He also said that TTH said that AQoff should raise four loose limpers and fold against four tight limpers. Though he didn't say it, we can extrapalote that it would advise to raise four moderately loose limpers but it is close.
It may surprise people to know that I think Mike Caro's Poker Probe is a very valuable tool.In fact I probably think it is more valuable than Mike himself thinks it is! Though it just deals out hands "hot and cold" a good poker player should be able to extrapolate from these results by realizing which hands benefit from extra betting rounds and which ones don't (I called them Brave and Scared hands.)Great poker players should be able to quantify the gain or loss from future betting rounds. Some of my poker advice is derived just this way.
Though I can,t prove it , my experience tells me that AQoffsuit and KT are borderline as to whether they are brave or scared. It depends on how well the other players play from the flop on. Since TTH has its computer players play at best mediocre from the flop on, we can assume that AQ offsuit and all KT's are slightly braver in the simulation than they would be in real life against pretty good players. Players who are capable of sandbagging, semi bluffing, avoiding dumb overcalls, and fully integrating past rounds of betting in their decisions. (Players who play too many hands, but then play well, are quite common in LA by the way.)
If my way of looking at this is right, that would imply that the two close decisions mentioned above should swing the other way. JT is better in a typical game and AQoff is not a particularly good raise against fairly loose but fairly tough players.
(As an aside I should point out that suited connectors need not worry as much, if at all about good after the flop opponents. Thus I am curious what TTH says about 98suited on the button after a raise and four cold callers [assume no reraise, a fold by the small blind and a call by the big blind. Six players and 12 1/2 small bets in the pot] Could you do that for me Gary?)
As a second aside, the above post tells you guys that I would not be surprised if TTH is in fact quite useful as long as you add in the type of extrapolation I was talking about. In theory, you would need to extrapolate less than than you would need to with poker probe. On the other hand using poker probe, you know exactly what you are extrapolating from so I will stick to it for awhile at least.
Post deleted at author's request.
I don't know Gary. I don't know how that thing works. The blinds can play variably if that makes it easier. Try a few different profiles for the other players as long as you only evaluate those hands where there are at least 5 opponents. Can that be done? If it can, my guess is that the 98s will show a profit no matter how you turn the knobs. Thanks.
Sklansky and Carson cut the bull dooky!
What is it we can all expect from this TTH simulation? What are you discussing here? Video Poker! Are you two mathaholics implying that some computer is going to tell me when and how to play 98s when I'm on the button? "I know not what course others may take but as for me give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry. He didn't play poker but he wasn't going to let some tyrant rule his life and neither am I. Sklansky, Carson; just tell me what you think. I'll take it from there.
Vince.
Yes Scott, I like that quote.
TTH does more than just math. I will let Gary elaborate.
Sklansky,
Did you read my post or did Z interpret it for you? I know that TTH does more than math. So what? Tell me why I should follow the advice of someone that uses "TTH" as a point of reference. Why would I play 98s according to the results of TTH. That program has no value, IMO. It's a poor attempt at simulating real world conditions. If you are promoting TTH, please elaborate. I don't want Gary's or Abdul's opinion. I want yours!
Thank you very much!
Vince.
Vince,
I don't know what basis you make this claim on, but I would really like to know. I know what my position is on simulations is, and while I don't think that they are wholey accurate, they are usually better than most "pen and paper" analysis that is done. When they are worse it is usually not by much, and when they are much worse, it is almost always because the simulation wasn't set up correctly, or could not be set up correctly.
Most people that understand what the simulation is doing can and do use the information profitably. The key is that, just like books, you can never take the information at its face value, you MUST be able to interpret the results and apply them to your own situation.
That's why pen and paper work is useful, that's why books are useful, and that's why simulations like TTH are useful. Not because they produce correct results and information, but because it is possible to use them to arrive at conclusions which are useful and profitable.
If you feel that you are the "slave" to some "tyrant" I suggest you learn enough about the tool to switch those roles. The computer is only a tool, whether you use it for yourself, or let others use it against you is up to you.
- Andrew
Over the last week I played at th 5-10 tables at poker.com. I started with 200 and after about 10-15 hors of play I was up too 1080. I felt at that point I was doing very well. However I continued to play for maybe 6 hours worth of time and am now sitting at 290.
What am I doing wrong I play tight aggressive, I losen up when I have the button, and occasionaly play hands like J7s, or 56s or even raise with them to throw off observant opponets. The hands that cost me the most money are mostly top two pair and I lose to a flush/str8 draw. Sometimes even trips on the river for someone holding pocket pairs as week as 22. Many of my opponets play any Ace from any position for any amount, even when the betting is capped.
Is there a point when I should just quit playing? In theory I should be able to keep playing quality hands, and I should win my fair share is my fair share nothing more than 9BB? I'm really frustrated here and don't know what to do.
When I'm losing should I stop calling/semi-bluffing on the flop when I hold two over cards? Should I stop playing my drawing hands, even if the odds are correct? Please help.
Baewulfe,
Take heed. J7s, you dump. 56s, you dump. For now, at these limits don't even play them in an unraised small blind. If you're in the bid blind with J7s and catch a jack check and fold. Do not play deceptively to fool your opponents. They're not paying attention. Do not raise with anything preflop except, AA,AK,AKs,AQ,AQs,AJs,KK,QQ and if you are first in JJ,TT. DO NOT play connectors lower than JT for now and only play them on the button unraised. DO NOT play QJo,KJo,KTo,A9o in early position. Do NOT play Kxs unless you are on the button and there are more than four callers, unraised. If you are doing more than this you are getting yourself into hands that can lose you money FAST.
Try this for a week and see how it goes.
SammyB
Go back a few weeks and read all of what Jim Brier has to say on everything. Do a search on this forum to get the threads. His advice is solid and comes from experience at the lower levels. (No offense to all the other fine posters)
"Is there a point when I should just quit playing? In theory I should be able to keep playing quality hands, and I should win my fair share is my fair share nothing more than 9BB? I'm really frustrated here and don't know what to do."
Is there any reason to think you're playing in an honest game? No, there isn't. Until that day there's no real reason to speculate about optimal strategy against someone that sees your cards. On second thought I just realized exactly what that strategy might be. I'll leave it to you to discover it on your own.
Yes,
Do as Scott says.
Leave the fish to me.
- Andrew
You are probably palying cheese and don't realize it.
Some games are just to hard to beat and if you are in one of them your bank roll will deminish until the game changes or you changs tables.
Stop the bluffing/semi bluffing if it is not working.
Stop drawing to 2 over cards if the texture of the board is not condusive to a pair winning and if you have 2 broadway cards that pair on the flop get ready to lose to a straight.
It is the game we play and losing ia a big part of it.
I don't see how you can play computer poker anyway - it seems to me like trying to have sex on the computer which as I understand it is nothing more than self abuse.
Yes: I can see how computer poker money $$ is attractive if you're winning, but to me most of the fun of poker is at a real table with real people you can see, hear, talk to. Even the dealer adds something (and sometimes more).
I think you should quit playing.
You should then study enough until you can see what is wrong with your questions.
Perhaps read the 2+2 books on bankroll and fluctuations. Poker Essays, Getting the Best of it, Gambling Theory etc.
You also might need to study more poker strategy if you are not confident that you are playing a good game.
also:
Although I prefer live poker myself, I can understand the online poker is a good solution for those in many unfortunate locations.
You should be back playing soon!
D.
Make notes of exactly the hands you are losing with and analyze them. If you need help, you will need to crack a few books open, study, and post how you specifically played the hands. A lot of players lose money with the big pairs because they fall in love with them and play them incorrectly.
Think about what kind of information you gleaned about your opponents during that 6-hour crash drive during which, according to you post, you were plummeting at the rate of $130/hour, or more than $14 per hour in a $5-10 game per opponent. (God, you must have been popular). I'll bet it went something like this: "Mr. A won't call a raise without a good hand unless I'm the raiser; Mr. B thinks he can run me over; Ms. C will dump her suited connectors early unless I'm in the pot; Mr. D always plays with crap and loses except to me."
It's extremely hard to play your best game when you're constantly dodging bullets, or in this case, trying to dodge bullets and not succeeding. In most cases where someone is that unlucky, the game proceeds as if from a stacked deck, and the information is all skewed because of the presence of a player that the deck seems to want to punish. After s couple of hours of this, I wonder if anyone was playing their normal game.
As for what to do: unless the game is extremely good (i.e. better than anything I've seen online), swallow your ego and quit, assume your session losses will negatively manifest themselves no matter how well you play, and get some sleep. One can lose the same amount at the same rate over multiple sessions before different players, but at least but it's a hell of a lot easier to do it in one horrible sitting.
Here's the deal. I've been hired as a LL prop. I'm reasonably intelligent, have a degree in Statistics, and am avidly pursuing poker as a hobby.
I'm up $295 in 1.5 hours in 3-6 HE. I'm up $35 in 3-6 7CS in .5 hours while waiting for a spot in 6-12 HE. I get into the 6-12 game and on my second hand I'm dealt 89o two off the button with 6 callers in. I call and the flop comes TJQ. So I play as fast as I can and drag about $100. I play in 6-12 for about 4.5 hours and end up losing $182. That's a swing from up $160 in 6-12 to down $182. In that time I had KK get cracked twice and AA get cracked once - those SUCKED! My AA was cracked by the blind who had Q5 off-suit and flopped 2 pair :(. I played all those hands very aggressively!
My question(s) is:
What do you guys think about being a prop?
Should I stay in 6-12? I understand that I don't have a choice when working as a prop.
Thanks,
-Michael
The attcahed post is for one particular day. In total I've logged a total of 135 hours and am down $280 overall. This includes collections and tokes. But excludes refreshments and tips for refreshments.
Michael wrote: "In that time I got KK cracked twice"
I know this is unrelated to your question, but I just gotta mention that I was playing 6-12 holdem last night. In four hours of play I had pocket KK's five times, and won all five times with 4 to 7 opponents each time. The two times an Ace came on the flop, there was a King along side for trips.
Michael also wrote: "Should I stay at 6-12? I understand that I don't have a choice when working as a prop."
Should you stay at 6-12? Are you asking if you should stick with 6-12 when playing on your own time?
Also, how much does a low-limit prop player get paid per hour, just curious?
Merry-Xmas
Donnie,
It's $12/hr. I figure that I'm at the casino playing about 15hr/week anyhow so why not prop? It's like getting payed to learn. My only concern is that I won't be able to choose which game I want to play.
Yes, I'm asking if I should stick with 6-12 on my own time? I haven't the choice when propping.
I think you are totally crazy but maybe there are other details to your circumstances that could make me change my mind. Usually one plays the game for awhile before propping.
Your post on your bad-beats/bad-session is about nothing. If you are as you say, reasonably intelligent AND you have a statistics degree, then I think you will agree that there is no signifigance to your 1 day results or how top pair didn't hold up a couple of times.
Be prepared to have some big losses and run bad for a long time at some point in the future.
D.
Well I've played for 135 hours. And with my stat background have a very secure understanding of expectation. The fact that I wasn't able to lay down my KK's and AA when in the face of a superior hand has me a little concerned.
But it'll make me learn quicker I suppose.
When you say that you couldn't lay down the King's or Ace's when facing a superior hand, I think that's a very normal phase we all go through as beginning players. Mike Caro has always said that calling too often is one of the biggest(if not thee biggest) problems he sees beginners do, and maybe even some of the more experienced low-limit players too.
I wish you'd post an example of a situation where you knew you were dead, but chose to call the hand down anyway.
12.00 bucks an hour is more than I thought a low-limit prop made, not bad. I would have guessed about $8.00
-Donnie
I don't recall the specifics of the hands. I suppose what really has me bothered is not that I didn't lay the hands down - it's that I was raised a couple of times in the face of a potentially superior hand instead of the calling through the river. I never KNEW I was beat until I saw the other persons hand. On one of the occasions there was possible straight and I was betting into the opponent. The fact that I was fixated on my hand and not paying attention to the board has me annoyed.
Thanks very much for your comments! :)
Merry Christmas!
Michael,
When you say "I never knew I was beat until I(actually)saw the other persons hand", leads me to believe you're really only taking your own hand into account. This is easy to do when you hold such a great starting hand, or especially when a beginner flops trips, since it's pretty exciting. If you think this might be the case for you, or even a little bit so, you have to stop it right now! A really wonderful book that got me thinking about other peoples holdings was and is David Sklansky's book, "Hold'em Poker"(the updated issue for today's double blind structure).Go to part 6 and read the whole section, especially page 86 and on.
It only costs $19.95 and you can pick it up at Hollywood Park Casino(in the back of their gift shop) if you live in the L.A. area that is, they have the biggest selection of poker books I've seen around.
Good Luck, and don't let the small minority of sarcastic people who answer your questions cause you not to post anytime you need help. Most of the people here are very nice.
Sincerely, Don
Michael, I have one question that you could call a huge detail.....The $12hr. that you make - Do you still have to pay collection? If not, you have found yourself one hell of a job. Hell, almost anybody could beat the game if they were automatically up $12hr.
Best "luck" to everybody
Goat,
Yes, you still pay collection and blind. It is semi hush-hush that anyone is a prop at all. More specifically though, regarding the hourly, only $7 of the $12 is taxed. The other $5 is deemed collection reimbursement. I figure with the $12/hour I'm automatically in the hole about $18/hour if I just sit there and pay collection and blind.
Mind you though ... I've taken up poker as a hobby and I'm playing avidly. I decided to check into propping because I'm already at the card club a good 15 hours a week so I figured I may as well make a little money propping while I learn how to play the game.
But I only use discretional income ... I really don't need the $12/hour nor would it be severe to my livelihood if I were to lose several thousand dollars. I'd be VERY unhappy, but that's it. I have a regular job and do MUCH MUCH better than $12/hour.
Cheers. :)
Michael, Where exactly are you doing prop work? I know one player who props at Hawaiian Gardens casino and he seems to get a much better deal. He told me that he gets paid min.wage but ALL of his collections are reimbursed. He seemed like he was very honest so I dont think he made it up. You might want to check out what going rates are so that you dont get taken advantage of by some unscrupulus casino. Afterall, what kind of job actually has you paying off your employer?
best of luck...
As a prop even!
Played 9 hours today and am very happy to say I won $400 today. Was down $250 1.5 hours into it and then up $490 after 6 hours. Then back to up $285 after 8 hours and then finally decided to leave after 9 hours and up a lovely $400! This is very exciting as I am a beginner! (They let anyone prop as long as you're bank-rolled)
I was getting tired in the latter stages so I probably didn't play as well as I could have the last 3 hours. Only two hands stick out in my mind. On one I had top two pair on the flop (A5) and lost to trip 6's on the turn. Put about $60 into that pot. The other guy was sitting one to my right. On the other hand I had pocket 6's two off the blind. UTG raises (other guy who beat me with trip 6's) from the get go. I fold. Flop has a 6 with two clubs. Turn is the last six! River made a flush for the guy. Had I stayed in ... I would have cleaned his clock. Even though he was a pretty decent guy.
The rest of my play was pretty solid. A couple of times I probably should have bet and would have won some pots by no callers. For a short while (1/2 hour) I was in control of the table. Betting with nothing and everyone folds. Attacking blinds. Opponent attacks my blind and I raise right back and he folds.
It was pretty sweet!
Thanks for all the kind advice Donnie and everyone else :)
Quit your job now and wait until you have played many many many many many many more hours. If you are going to be playing hands like 89o from mediocre position for long, this job will cost you everything you have.
natedogg
I didn't know two off the button with 6 callers was a mediocre play with 89o. Do you ever play 89o? I'll play it every time!
Thanks for your keen advice. You say I'm playing losing poker and telling me to quit my job and keep playing losing poker. That'll be good for society on the whole.
Michael,
You have a long way to come - if you can't lay down a big hand you are not there - it takes a good player to lay down a good hand any slug can call with a loser.
I suggest you quit your prop job and play where you are best suited with your experience. Try to play a lot less hands and learn to dump losers as early as possible.
I played with 5 props in LA a few weeks ago and never had it so easy. Guess that's why they are props the casino is cashing in on their bad play don't be one of the suckers.
Are you saying that 89o two off the button with 6 callers is a fold? I'll definitely see the flop for one small bet. And if any of the 3 last to act (one big blind) raise - I'll see how many callers there are for that raise, if less than 3 I'll muck (but this is, of course, situational).
I played again since that first time in 6-12. In the first 2.5 hours I was down $250. In the next 6.5 hours I was up $400. And I left then. Had some good hands cracked in the first 2.5 hours (AA, AK to name a couple). But I knew that if I stayed with good solid play - raising pre-flop with great starting hands, limping in with drawing hands, and throwing some variation in (limping in with bad hands (69o in middle position, A2s in early position). I would win in the long haul and that's exactly what happened. When the bad hands hit, it's GREAT advertisement. And when they don't you may be able to steal the pot (making sure I'm aware of who I'm up against).
This is good solid play - and it's working! However, I am away that 145 hours experience + reading a handful of books does not make a good well-rounded poker player. It'll take years of experience and thinking and studying to do that.
But I STRONGLY believe I'm on the right track. Just look at my record:
145 hours play
Up $150 overall
That's after paying collections and tips which I estimate to be $1100 (good estimate) and $250 (mediocre estimate), respectively.
I still believe your advice is of GREAT value to me. But cut me a little slack - and just give advice; 89o two off button with 6 callers is a bad call?
Mike I was talking about mucking AA KK when you were beat don't know where the 89o came from.
Maybe I was a little tough on you but I hate to see people screw up - guess it is the parent coming out in me.
Oh - thanks DAD! :)
I may have gotten posts mixed up, sorry. Didn't mean to bite your head off. My mistake.
I'm able to read hands from how betting is going pretty well - except, of course, where a superior player may have a better read on me and gets tricky. But I'm having a lot of trouble getting a read on other players. I guess with time I'll start noticing stuff as long as I keep alert and aware that there's lots to learn.
Michael,
Do you prop in the Los Angeles area? I wouldn't mind low-limit proping for $12.oo an hour, if it's like you say. I think you said anytime or day of the week? They don't have a minimum number of days or hours they would like a prop to be there?
Burt
PS: I'm assuming you have to play omaha hi-lo?
Burt,
I've only worked two shifts thus far. But all you said seems to be true. Low-limit 7CS, HE, and Omaha Hi-Lo. The pay is $12/hour ($7 taxed, and $5 deemed collection reimbursement). You sit in on games that are short seated and get up from games when there's a board. And there's some flexibility on sitting down and getting up. All you have to do is pass an informal interview, a drug test, and a background check and you're in -- part time or full time. You do have to follow a schedule which they create with your input.
Post deleted at author's request.
6-12 hold'em
First hand delt A-4, both diamonds. About 6 callers, I don't raise(I have my new-player manditory bet in there, and I'm one seat to the right of the button).
Flop is Q-2-3 all diff. suits, but the 2 is a diamond. Everybody checks to a woman on my right who bets. I DON'T RAISE!(I felt this was a big mistake, since this was such a passive table, and I probably could have seen the rest of the hand for just that one extra small bet[I knew it was a passive table from watching them play a while before sitting down])
Turn is a 10 non-diamond, checked to the lady who bet the flop, she bets, I drop, and of course the river is a five.
Questions: (1)How much of a mistake was it not to raise my mandatory post, particularly with such great position? (I instantly felt like I had missed an opportunity to establish a little dominance, something I seriously need to work on.)
(2)Not raising the the lady's flop bet? Once again, I instantly felt like such a pu$$y!
Thanks for any advice, Alex
I'm curious to see how the experts answer but here's my take.
With Axs, if you're going to play it at all, you want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. So, raising and voluntarily putting more money i the pot would be wasteful. Add to that the chance of a reraise from the buttons or blinds and you're sitting with a big investment for a rather mediocre hand.
The flop of Q23 rainbow with 1 diamond is not terrific. A terrific flop would have been 2 diamonds with one of your cards pairing. However, if you think you can get a free card by raising here it's a good play. When you don't get a diamond on the turn it's drop time. Forget the gutshot 5 on the river, you'll go broke chasing them.
Good luck
i think you're pretty much correct. but a preflop raise isn't the worst thing in the world. especially if you can control your opps. and one more thing. a terrific flop would be 235d.
scott
Yeah, right. You'll get tons of action with that flop! :-)
Sammy seyz: >With Axs, if you're going to play it at all, you want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. So, raising and voluntarily putting more money i the pot would be wasteful.
This is false.
Raising with Axs becomes profitable when there are enough loose limpers in play. For example, A4s will win more than 14.3% (which is about fair share of the 7-way pots) against 6+ opponents and will therefore profit from the six+ limping opponents putting more money in the pot preflop.
I set up three 100000-run Turbo sims to at least try to back up the claims. Here are the results, disregard at will:
Comments:
According to Turbo, limping behind loose limpers with A4s is about $3 mistake in a $10-20 game. The situation is similar (to a lesser extent) with even Q5s (which is as low as I go, suited jacks with no kicker are unplayable), although I'd prefer seven or more loose opponents to raise with suited no-kickered queens. With a suited ace, king or queen, the best ROI (return on investment) against multiple limpers is obtainable by putting as much money as possible in preflop and then going all-in to avoid being pushed off the hand or risking more money when outkicked. This is useful information for all the cheaters out there playing hold'em online. There are many opportunities to profitably disconnect yourself at the right moment, forcing the profitable all-in play.
And of course, keep in mind that raises with suited aces, kings and queens no kicker increase your variance and establishes you as a maniac in the eyes of your opponents. You might not wish to do that. Or you just might, do whatever works for you. Also, good play on the flop is mandatory, which includes a lot of folding when you strongly suspect you are outkicked with the ace on the flop. As Turbo profiles cannot be as smart as you can, I believe the above numbers can even be improved against the fish.
For all the infidels out there in habit of distrusting computer sims, I urge you to give some thin preflop raising a try when in California-type loose fishy games. I have a feeling you could be pleasantly surprised.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I'll agree with you, except that you must consider the types of players in the blinds and UTG. I know quite a few players in the low-limit games that frequently limp in with AA, KK, and AK just so they can reraise.
And they are very right in doing so when Izmet is sitting on the button. When that happens, it's gear-changing time, time for an antidote against their antidote against my aggressiveness.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
With 6-way action either a preflop raise or a call are acceptable. On the flop you have a weak hand, so a raise is an abnormal play. The rammen' and jammen' when done by good players is in shorthanded pots, not 6-way action, cause with so many players the best hand just about always wins, and your hand is not a good candidate for the roses. I suggest you learn what a good hand is before you learn to bet the hell out of a crapper.
I appreciate you're help Mr. Ciaffone, but I'm a little confused how you got the impression that I thought I was holding such a terrific hand? I just thought it might have been to my advantage to raise one small bet on the flop(and to a lesser extent, wanted to know if raising pre-flop would have been a good image play, since it only costs one small bet over and above my madatory post.)
You know, in your own book "Improve Your Poker", you point out(on p.92)that people tend not to notice you when you call or fold, but become very aware of you when you are betting and raising. And since I'm all too often the "selective-passive" type, I just thought raising my mandatory post may have been a good(& cheaper)way of 'sticking out' in the crowd for a change.
Thanks again, Alex
One thing I haven't seen posted here yet is if your Raise on the Flop would have knocked out someone holding something like ATo, A7s or 46 which they would have called with for just one bet. You just added at least 2 more wins to your hand by Pairing Aces. Bringing you from a 4 to 1 Dog to less than a 3 to 1 Dog (if you see the next two cards). Also the Passive style of this table you describe makes me think Raising the Flop is a good play since seeing the last card may only cost you 1 Big bet rather than 2 Big bets given your Position.
By raising here you increase your chances of winning and also increase your effective odds. The analysis is far from complete, but I'm thinking Raise the Flop if the Players are Tight and Passive.
Chris
Chris,
I really appreciate the time you took to help me out. Yours is the type of advice that makes me glad I broke down and bought a computer.
Thank You, Alex
PS: What in the heck are effective odds? If it's hard to explain, maybe you could recommend a book you like that covers the topic. Thanks again.
David gos over Effective Odds in Theory of Poker. If you want to play Poker well you're just gonna have to purchace it.
Effective Odds mean that you have to account for all the Bets on later rounds and add them to the total ammount it will cost you to see the end of the hand vs. the total amount you will win from your opponent(s). David explanes it much better than I, but just remember you have to Lower your Pot Odds if you plan to call bets to see more than one card.
Later, CV
Calling before the flop with 6 players is fine with Axs. On the flop, you only have two choices: 1)Fold- your hand isn't that good, or 2)Raise to isolate the opponent on your right, you have position. On the turn, you throw it away unless your opponent checks to you, in which case, you get a free card and, viola, the straight. By the way, I still think it would have been best to fold as soon as someone bet on the flop.
I think you may have played it correctly without knowing what you did. Your post is not clear, but I'll make some assumptions.
Six players call. $36 in the pot. On the flop, I'm assuming that the lady on your right bet and everyone called? Another $36 in the pot (I'm assuming everyone called).
All you have is a gunshot straight. The odds of getting it on the next card were 10.75:1. When she bet on the turn you were not getting the correct odds to call.
It does not matter that the river was a five. Your odds now are 10.5:1.
Look at it this way, if you were to see the river every time this play occurred you would be spending $24 each time. You would win once, I will estimate the win at $120 based on the action in your example, and then you will lose $252 (10.5 * $24). Do you get it?
Thanks for the math help Mah, and I'm sorry I didn't point out that 2 people dropped out when the flop was bet, which I guess makes it an even easier hand to toss on the turn.
Thanks again, Alex
When you play the marginal hands, you need to always consider the mathematics, otherwise you will end up being a loser. Futhermore, consider how often you will have the second best hand and end up paying someone off.
Except that spiking an Ace will win sometimes and a flush draw could be picked up on the turn as well. So IMO there are a few more POSSIBLE outs than hitting a 5 which isn't the nuts either. I'm not stating that a call is correct necessarily (I like CV's post and Bob Ciaffone's post BTW) but there are some other chances. I suppose that if you knew you would isolate the bettor, you knew the bettor would not re-raise, the bettor would check the turn, an Ace or a 5 would win the hand for you, a raise would be ok. With 6 players this doesn't seem like it would happen very often to me but maybe. With 4 players left it is more likely IMO.
I did not consider the Ace to pair on the turn to be good with this many players. I think in this type of game you'll have a second best hand.
It's an automatic Raise PreFlop.
It's an automatic Raise on the Flop.
You know from my opening post that I agree with you, now if I can just stop being such a BIG pu$$y when it really counts!
Thanks, Alex
I'm a beginner myself and have already read some of the replies here. I must say that I do not agree with Mr. Ciaffone. I think a raise on the flop would have been a good play. Call it a semi-bluff. I would have knocked out even more players (by assumption) as they all would have been calling a double bet except for the original bettor. You had a gutshot and a backdoor flush not to mention an A or 4. An A or a 4 may have only got you in deeper with a hand that is likely not going to be best (A would have been much better than 4). But your raise may have allowed you to see the river for free. And if everyone called your raise, you may be getting correct odds to call the turn especially if you consider implied odds if you hit your gutshot. Plus you're establishing table image.
But then again I'm only a beginner too ... so it's only my two cents.
Alex: To raise pre-flop with this hand is ok, since it is a good nut flush drawing hand and you have a lot of opponents who have already called. But it is not mandatory, sometimes depending on how your cards are running. If not good, a simple call here is fine. Now, on the flop, you do not want to raise, because you are still on a draw, a gut shot straight draw, and a backdoor flush. These are not great draws, plus you would not want to drive out players here. On the turn, you have 4, possibly 7 outs, 4-5's and 3-Aces(which may be good). It's about 7 to 1 against. So, was there 56 bucks in the pot at that time? If so, you could call.
Alex,
You have to understand if you don't hit the flop get out of the hand PERIOD.
Fishing for runner runner is so futile and gut shot straights are so hard to hit it is best to muck and save your ammo for a real hand.
This is the falicy of pot odds, it gives guys like you an excuse for continuing in a hand when you should have mucked it on the flop.
I started doing just what you said, "hit or get out" and it has made an incredible difference in my bankroll. Sometimes, I get the feeling that those who want to stay in because they're getting 15:1 on a 13:1 shot, think they're playing against the clock or something. " Got to play this hand before the buzzer!! Yes, and a foul on the play!!"
If they only knew that by playing that hand it affected the cosmos and the next hand they would have had if they had folded was pocket tens which would have hit quads on the flop against a person with pocket aces.
Or, perhaps they think there's only so many hands you'll get in a lifetime so you can't fold one that should be played for the odds they're getting.
I might not be winning as much as I should, but I'm not losing as often as I did.
Thanks Rounder,
SammyB
Rounder, 6-12 hold'em
I was in the big blind last night w/Q-6 both spades, and the flop came with 2 spades. Small blind bets, and there were enough opponents to where it's always advised to call. "What the hell", I said to myself and tossed the hand. It gets raised behind me. By the river no help, and I saved two big bets. It felt so good, then I picked up 12 two dollar chips and said "thanks Rounder!". I realize this is anecdotal, but it WAS nice to save a little cash for a change.
Thanks Rounder
Gee.
Alex it is a legit strategy to just call on a drawing hand like you had - and raise the river when you hit. I don't do it but alot of players do and it works for them.
But folding on the turn is a mistake. You should have folded on the flop or seen it out - I can't remember the last time I folded on the turn - I really lose respect for players who fold on the turn. Better to call and fold on the river if you don't hit.
Alex, I guess I am a little late to this party but I thought I would give my views. I don't like raising with Ace-little suited despite having posted because I want to see a flop cheaply with this weak, speculative hand and it might get re-raised costing me two more bets to take a flop. I have found that in games with a lot of players, raising begets raising and I don't want to pay a lot of money to take a flop with this hand.
On the flop, raising with a gutshot and a backdoor draw is not a good idea because it could get re-raised and at this point you want to get by cheaply.
As far as your image goes, who will ever know what you did if you bust out and don't survive to showdown?
jim, i am a big fan of your posts here and i always look forward to a response from you when i post, but i think you are wrong here.
the point is that alex doesn't want to pay any more to see cards, if he gets reraised, i suspect he folds.
his chances of making a straight or a flush (by the river) are 20.1%, by my calculations (straight w/ no flush, 16.5%, straight and flush, 0.42%, flush only, 3.3%). so since there's 4 bb in the pot, if he was sure to get the free card, he has odds to raise (which doesn't mean that calling isn't better). slight odds for an all-in raise, and better implied odds otherwise, since he can probably get at least a bit of action on the turn if he gets a 5, or on the river if he flushes or a five comes.
how likely is he to make his draw and get beat? first, what is he likely to be up against here? top pair seems most likely to me. probably top pair no overcard. it could even be a single overcard, like AJ, since we don't know the opposition. if the Qd comes and another high diamond comes, he may hit a boat. he may hit a 5 and a backdoor flush draw may hit. the bb might be on a higher straight draw. but these are all pretty unlikely. stronger hands, like trips, will likely reraise, in which case you fold. the likelihood of the blinds to slowplay is a factor here. but you don't see much checkraising or slowplaying in 6-12 on a not-scary board like this.
what about action on the turn? let's suppose two of the people cold call and the bettor calls. there are 7.5 bb in the pot now. if the turn is a diamond, and the flop bettor opens again, there are now 8.5 bb to alex, who has 12 outs, for an easy call. if it's not a diamond he has to muck.
the crux of the matter is, how often will the turn come a miss and get bet? if it's a lot, then don't raise, if it's normal for people to give free cards, or to check to the raiser, then raise, if for no other reason than for table image.
i played about 20 hours of 6-12 at the mirage in las vegas this weekend. the odds of someone betting the turn were much higher than in my usual 4-8 games, but they were still low enough that i think a raise would be fine, especially when you factor in table image. i have no doubt that this would be totally false in the 20-40 games that jim plays.
looking forward to your response...
conform
Just in case you're curious,
The lady who bet the flop flopped two pair with her 2-3 offsuit. I wasn't real familiar with her, but enough to believe she wouldn't have re-raised me with those two small pair.
But conform, pre-flop if Alex raises and it gets re-raised back to him, surely he will have to call at this point and see the flop. With 6 players there would be anywhere from 12 to 17 small bets in the pot and it is just one more bet so a call would be automatic here. One of problems with raising when you don't have the best hand is that occasionally someone re-raises costing you even more money to continue whereas had you not raised you could have gotten by for one bet instead of three bets. The possibility of getting re-raised, especially by someone who had just previously called, is something many authors, players, and posters on this forum rarely consider.
On the flop, I believe your calculations are correct with regard to the likelihood of making a straight or a flush by the river. It becomes highly problematic to try and figure out exactly how much Alex loses or gains by raising here since it depends on the future action and what happens on the turn. I guess if you were confident that the turn would not be aggressively bet or that everyone would check to you, then raising could be a good play. The problem is that with this many opponents and so many turn card possibilities it is just hard to figure. My instinct is to just get by as cheaply as possible in these situations until I have a better feel for how the hand will develop.
Jim,
Would you have called on the flop like I did?
Yes, I think you have a decent call given the rainbow flop with your gutshot, backdoor flush, and Ace over card. There are about 7 small bets in the pot and when you factor in implied odds, I think you have a call. But if it had been bet and raised to you then I think you should consider folding.
Here's a hand I played in a rather erratic 4/8 game where I'm pretty sure i miplayed the river...
I've only been at the table for about 15 hands...
I pick up TT in early position and call a raise, 2 others come along as does the BB.
The flop comes 9 T Q w/ 2hearts. Blind checks, raiser checks , i bet 2 call blind folds preflop raisers raises and i make it 3 bets . now only one player in late position calls and the prflop raiser calls.
The turn is the Jh.
The action goes check ehck bet call call. (I do have outs and w/the pot that big I figure a call is in order).
The river is another 9 pairing the board.
the action goes bet and i absentmindedly raise. (I think this raise is bad because 1)the player in last positioin has a flush or straight and pbly won't call and the initial bettor may not even call 2)if the initial bettor raises i might be in trouble.)
The player in late position thinks and thinks and finally calls, the initial bettor quickly calls...
I turn over TT and expect the pot, the late poistion player mucks and the intial bettor turns over JJ. Im still in shock!
Please let me know if you agree w/my comments or have any other improvements on my play. Thanks alot!
On the flop, you get check-raised by early position pre-flop bettor. You should have automatically put him on at least top pair top kicker, more likely a set, possibly KJs-if he's loose. Your reraise, however, is good to try and isolate this guy and get a bit more info. Late position player calls two bets-I doubt he's very solid, or he has flopped the straight and is letting you two bozos bet for him. Check-raiser does not cap-I put him on possibly bottom set, maybe AKh.
On the turn, preflop raiser checks, you check(correctly, because the Jh is bad for your hand), late position bets(representing the straight and/or flush), preflop raiser calls, and now you overcall. Obviously, I don't know these players, but I think, if I am you, at least one of them has me beat, possibly both, but I would probably call just because I have a set-like you did.
After the river, you lose concentration. You raise a bet from a preflop raiser after the board has paired? I know you have a full house, but he's betting into two very active players here, he's got to have real good cards, possibly even four 9's. I would make a crying call here and hope that late position doesn't raise, because if he does there is one chance in a hundred thousand-just a guess-that you win.
I know you had just sat down, but you have to give these guys some credit until they prove that they are sincere idiots. I don't think you were nearly suspicious enough.
I like your raise on the river...I would have put the guy that check raised you on the flop on the queen with the ace kicker. I think that putting someone that check raises you on a set automatically is incredibly generous, especially given the fact that it is a 4-8 game...not 10-20 or higher.
You could have also put him on two pairs, perhaps queens and nines and he bet out when the board paired the nine because he had a full house, albeit nines full. I like your raise because your tens full were good against this hand.
Also, the people that are generally playing in a 4-8 game are not reading these posts and wargaming hands. They like to play poker and will call nearly any hand with a preflop flush or straight draw, including kangaroo straights.....
Mike
Hey Mike,
Some of us mullet types read these things too! It's a cheap way to learn a LOT about this game.
Speaking of learning, will someone please tell me why T-T is such a good hand when the pot is raised? The appenders to this forum seem to get VERY aggressive with this hand even in the face of overcards on the flop.
Unless I know the early position raiser is really aggressive, I can't place him on ANY hand which makes me a big favorite. At best he should have 2 overcards, and this only makes me a small favorite. If he has a bigger pair, I'm dominated.
What's the deal here with T-T?
Thanx - Fat-Charlie
Cold-calling a legitimate raise with pocket Tens is close but usually correct. There is a fuzzy line here between pocket Nines (which I usually fold when faced with a legitimate raise ahead of me) and pocket Jacks (which I always call when faced with a legitimate raise). Pocket Tens is a favorite over big slick, big chick, AJ suited, and KQ suited which are hands that players frequently raise with. In addition, some players raise with AJ offsuit and KQ offsuit or even worse (e.g.-King-Jack,Ace-Ten). In addition, the raise tends to help drive out players which is what you want with a hand like pocket Tens and you usually have position over the raiser when the flop comes. I think you would be giving up a little too much if you routinely folded pocket Tens when faced with a legitimate raise.
Jim,
I understand the "or worse" argument. If the raiser could have one or both cards below my tens, I'm dominating him; however, a legitimate raiser will have both cards J or higher. If he's unpaired, I have a small edge. If he's paired, I'm a large dog, and T-T isn't really any better than 2-2 which nobody calls with.
Fat-Charlie
You are right to the extent that when you have the best hand you are a small favorite and when you have the worst hand you are a big dog. However, Tens are considerably better than a lower pocket pair especially Dueces because there are a lot of flops where the Tens become an over pair to the board. This is much less likely to happen as your pocket pair gets smaller. In addition, there are more straight-draw type flops with Tens than with lower pocket pairs like Dueces.
Charlie, I'm a college student, so I generally play 5-10 or 10-20...I can't afford anything else because the swings can be pretty high...
I never call with pocket tens, I reraise to try and isolate or find out if anyone behind me really has a monster. It's been my experience that lots of players raise with Axs, two face cards, or any pair...at the 10-20 game at the trop in AC, you have players routinely raising with pocket 5's and the like...just an opinion :)
Mike
It's been my experience that lots of players raise with Axs, two face cards, or any pair...at the 10-20 game at the trop in AC, you have players routinely raising with pocket 5's and the like
Mike,
Given your experience in AC, I understand. I've never played there; my experience is 3-6 and 4-8 in LV, CT, and 3 times at Bay 101 in CA. Sometimes a maniac at the table plays like that, but I've never seen more than 1 at a time. Loose-passive is my low limit experience.
BTW: 10-20 for a college student? Do the schools pay you now? I did it all wrong!
Fat-Charlie
In her reply to Alex in "Beginnerish Question" below, Erin says that a raise was mandatory with Ad4d in late position with about 6 callers. He had just posted a new player blind and was one to the right of the button. Until now I had never heard anyone advocate raising preflop with such a speculative holding. If it's a free card play I can understand it. If it is indeed mandatory I will try it a few thousand times and let you know the results.
Sammy,
Would you please read my response to Bob Ciaffone(the second paragraph) and tell me if you think it's at least sometimes ok to raise in that situation, for the reason I gave.
Thanks, Alex
Alex, It would all depend on the image you want to have. I can see if every time you raise preflop the opps head for the hills, then sure, you'd want to bang them a couple of times with suited aces and T9s to soften your image. But, first hand at a table to give the impression you'll raise with what I consider to be a long shot will come back and haunt you when you raise with AQ and get 6 callers and they draw out on you. This is just my take on the situation. I'm hoping to hear more from the superstars.
SammyB
I can see raising with Axs in a multiway pot. I can also see raising with it in a shorthanded game. But in neither situation is a raise mandatory or even something you should do "most" of the time. Actually, shorthanded you probably should raise with any ace in late position almost all the time.
An ace and any other card is a favorite against two random holdings, isn't it? Combine that with a decent read on the men to your right and left and it's a much more than decent hand. Any thoughts? Refutations? Suggestions?
You write, "An ace and any other card is a favorite against two random holdings, isn't it?" In a multiway pot, obviously you are going to have others playing A-x also. In that case, hands such as K-Q are favored over your A-x suited.
Whether or not to raise with A-x suited should be viewed from the flop backwards:
What are you hoping to flop? What are the odds against you hitting that flop? What price will you get when you hit your hand? Will you get paid off when you make your hand?
I'm agreeing with the others. It's okay to raise with Axs once in a while, especially if you've got 6-7 callers in front of you. But it's not necessary, and I would be especially inclined to NOT do it if my game had lots of players who tend to limp with big aces (AQ, AK, AJ, etc). One of the problems with raising with Axs is that you pot-stick yourself if you hit an ace on the flop, yet you're drawing very thin if you are up against a bigger ace.
One question to ask yourself is, "Do I think I have the best Ace?" In other words, if you are up against players that would almost certainly not have an Ace (i.e. called in early position, and would raise with AK and AQ and fold anything weaker), then your Axs has more value and might be worth raising.
It has been my experience that in games where a lot of people routinely take a flop (e.g.-5 or more) having Ace-little suited is in mortal danger of developing into a second best hand unless you make a flush. When you raise with what is a weak, speculative drawing hand with a lot of opponents you invite a re-raise and otherwise make the pot huge which makes it that much more difficult to get away from your hand once the flop comes. The vast majority of the time you don't flop a flush draw but catch a piece of the flop thereby luring you into making a lot of marginal calls where the pot is large but your chances of winning are small. It is simply fatuous optimism to say, "Well, if I don't flop a flush draw I can just dump this and go on to the next hand".
Catching top pair with your no kicker hand is a real siren song especially when players in these kinds of games limp in with any Ace (suited or unsuited) but don't raise without big slick.
It's definitely not mandatory.
About the only time to make it, with lots of callers, is to make the pot larger so that more players will stay when you flop the big draw. This is not usually required in loose low limit games where the players stay anyway. I don't believe you give up much by never raising a multiway pot with Axs.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
Hehehe. You'd make a great tout -- I'm not sure if you are advocating that they raise every time with A-little suited or not.
Yes, fundamentally, gambling is solely about getting the right price. But in a big field, I don't want a minute overlay every time, because even though I win in the proverbial long run (assuming my overlay also takes care of the rake), I don't have the unlimited resources of a bank or a casino to wait for the "long run" to give me my fair share.
There's nothing wrong with raising with A-x suited (assuming "x" is small) when all other factors are considered. But raising with A-x suited should be considered a high-variance play. If a person wants or needs to "gamble-up", then I agree with the play.
It's not, "Those that think", it's "those who think". I'm a "who", not a "that".
Gary now I get it you are into "gambling".
It is not for me. I like to see the flop in a Axs situation as cheaply as possible. A lot of good things can happen with this holding but only after the flop.
But keep it up I like your style and wish you could impart it on all my opponents.
thanks Gary,
Erin says that a raise was mandatory with Ad4d in late position with about 6 callers. He had just posted a new player blind and was one to the right of the button.
I wouldn't call it "mandatory," as the added profit is relatively small. I wouldn't suggest raising a bunch of loose limpers with A4s if a player plays poorly after the flop and has trouble getting off an ace with a bad kicker (the tying yourself to the pot effect that others mentioned), and perhaps also if the player has a small bankroll and seeks to reduce his/her variance.
But, you are getting a good price on your raise, and you get the added benefits of: 1) buying the button, 2) maybe getting a free card on the flop, especially in a loose-passive game and 3) maybe getting a tight player to muck an ace with a better kicker because you raised, especially if you have a tight image.
As an aside, I generally separate the values of Axs because there is actually a fair amount of difference between them. HPFAP lumps them together for simplification purposes, but there is a non-trivial difference between the various values of Axs, and there are plenty of situations where A9s/A8s are playable for a small profit, while A3s/A2s are unplayable. (A good example is that A8s will probably net a good player a profit of about 1/3rd of a small bet per hand when the player limps UTG in a soft mid-limit game, but A2s is unplayable in that situation.) I will raise with A9s or A8s after a bunch of loose limpers close to 100% of the time, and I think you give too much up by not raising here with the better values of Axs.
-Sean
I was sitting in a loose, passive $4-$8 game waiting to get into the $20-$40 game at the Horseshoe last weekend when the following hand came up:
I am in Seat #3 with Queen of Diamonds and the Nine of Diamonds. The big blind is in Seat #8. #10, #1, and #2 all limp in. I limp in. The cutoff, the button, and the small blind limp in. No one raises. There is $32 in the pot and eight players.
The flop is: Nine of Hearts, Seven of Hearts, Four of Diamonds
Five of my seven opponents check to me. I bet $4 with top pair/decent kicker and a backdoor Diamond flush draw. The cutoff calls and the button raises to $8. The small blind folds. The big blind re-raises to $12. Only #1 and #2 call to me. At this point it looks to me like I am up against at least top pair with a better kicker and perhaps two pair. The Queen of Hearts on the turn would give me a second pair but could easily give one of my many opponents a Heart flush. My only outs appear to be the black Queens. I decide to fold. The cutoff and button call. There are five players in the hand and $96 in the pot.
The turn is: Five of Clubs
The big blind bets $8. Only the cutoff calls until the action gets to the button who raises to $16. Both the big blind and the cutoff call. There is $144 in the pot and three players.
The river is: Queen of Spades
The big blind and the cutoff check. The button bets $8 and only the cutoff calls. The button wins a $160 pot having the Nine of Spades and the Three of Spades for a pair of Nines. The cutoff mucked.
Should I have weathered the storm and hung in there with my top pair of Nines with a Queen kicker despite the double raise back to me?
"Should I have weathered the storm and hung in there with my top pair of Nines with a Queen kicker despite the double raise back to me?"
Are you looking to build bad habits for your 20-40 game play? I didn't think so.
On the flop you're a long way from the finish line with a lot of uncertainty and many possible ugly cards yet to pop off the deck. It's an easy fold IMHO.
I'm not currently convinced that betting the low top pair in this spot is a good idea. I don't really think of it as a made hand but more of a draw. A cheap or free card might be right.
Jim,
I have an unrelated question that your post got me thinking about. If the flop you mentioned had been all different suits, would it ever be correct to count the cards that could give you an outside-straght as additional outs(the 8's in your situation), or at least refer to them as maybe a partial out, or semi-outs even?
I can understand why someone in the situation you described would not want to bother counting the 8's as even a partial out, due to the 8 of hearts possibly completing a flush for somebody). Plus you were not in a position that would close the betting(something Mike Caro often reminded us to consider when thinking about calling in his tuesday-night sessions.)
-Don
I meant to say an outside-straight draw.
-Don
Don, I am little confused about your question. Replace the Seven of Hearts on the flop with the Seven of Clubs. So now the flop is: Nine of Hearts, Seven of Clubs, Four of Diamonds. I have the Queen of Diamonds and the Nine of Diamonds.
If an Eight comes on the turn, there is no card on the river that can give me a straight.
If your question is: Is it correct to view a "runner-runner straight" as an additional out the way one might view a "runner-runner" flush? My answer would be no because a "runner-runner" straight is much less likely. Suppose you have the Eight of Spades and the Seven of Spades with a flop of: Ace of Hearts, Six of Clubs, Deuce of Diamonds. Your "runner-runner" straight requires two specific cards: T9,9T,54,45,95, or 59. Furthermore, in half these cases you would be drawing to a gutshot and perhaps having to call bets and raises on the turn to see the hand the through.
Sorry for the mistake, and you're right about what I was trying to ask.
Thanks, Don
Jim,
You played it absolutely correct for your $20-40 game but not for $4-8.
Paul
i agree with the fold. but, damn! 93? i just hope you got similar action a few hands later when you held a powerhouse. too bad this isn't your 20-40 game.
scott
Jim, would you not advise erroring on the side of caution in this situation. Had you been in this game long enough to see if anyone raises or check raises with a nut draw ? Is 93 on tilt ? I would think you can't call double raises unless your hand is stronger than you have represented with the initial bet. Until you know the players. An overpair has the same type problem. Could the answer be to not bet out and perhaps display additional strenght at some later betting round, calming all that might overvalue a hand. But it still seems you would have had to have been there with your mind in this game for some time to make those type judgements.
I would probably fold before the flop.
D.
Jim,
This is just my two cents written without checking out the other responses yet. Don't expect rocket science in this post.
If the game is in fact loose and passive, you will have many better spots to get the money. From the sounds if it this was a great game and I hope you passed on the 20/40 if it was tough that night.
With multiple opponents, all that action, and a draw or two (actually several players could be drawing to both straight or flush draws), I think it was it easy fold. So a piece of cheese took down the pot. He played horribly but has the money (this time). That is what keeps them coming back.
The most important aspect of this type of situation is not letting it put you on the kind of mini-tilt thay John Feeney describes in his article. You will get the money in this game if you give it time.
Regards,
Rick
Jim,
It is rare that I disagree with everyone, but this time I am a little surprised at the consensus. There is a decent amount of money in the pot at that point and I'm not even convinced I'm losing yet. Two things come to mind:
1) There are many reasons to raise on the flop. One must consider that some of your opponents are raising for reasons OTHER THAN having a better hand.
2) Your kicker is actually not that bad when top pair is a 9. A 9 is frequently played with straight-draw cards like tens, jacks, and eights. The button can certainly have one of these types of nines. The blind need not even have a kicker that big and its not easy to flop two pair in Texas Holdem.
I don't have much experience at 4-8. But from the times that I have played, and the stories I hear, players don't really need much to see the turn. So I think its pessimistic to believe you are losing and really pessimistic to believe you are drawing slim. It's OK to be losing and still call at this point. You still have a backdoor diamond draw don't forget. You'll lose this pot plenty often. But in the long run I have a hard time believing you've got a negative expectation going forward.
You can all call me crazy, but I'd probably make it 16 and plan to lead the turn if the big blind checked it to me unless a heart showed up. If I got raised again at that point I'd start to think I was behind.
One thing I've learned in the last few years is not to be intimidated by the action on the flop. Players have a tendency to play loose-aggressive on the flop in many cases - often slowing down a lot on the turn. A raise on the turn carries so much more weight IMHO.
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely spots I would fold that hand. Just not in a loose 4-8 game without knowing the players. There are certain players you come to know in your regular game that just don't mess around. When they put three bets in the pot on the flop they have close to the nuts. Then its an easy fold. But in this case....who knows.
That's my two cents.
Kirk
BRAVO KIRK,
Finally someone who knows about low-limit. With all that money in the pot you should definitly call with top pair and good kicker with backdoor flush possibilities. Just remember to play MUCH tighter when you move up to the bigger games.
I just came back from an LA casino (played 4 hours at 2-4 hold 'em, cashed in for only 60 and left up $280, ------at about 10 hours a week, my hourly rate at 2-4 is normally about $20 which is WAY more than anyone should statistically be able to claim at this low limit, I guess I'm lucky too. NB- I am unprofitable at 3-6 and 6-12 at COMMERCE).
In the lower limits, sometimes you'll find the perfect mix of loose-passive-tilt-stupid players. Read 'em, play tighter than them, keep it friendly and they'll throw free money at you. You'll get mad when you're occasionally cracked by baby backdoor flushes but these folks are mega-profitable in the long run. The variance is big but it can be worth it.
N.B. - Reraising can trigger foolish on-tilt play in poor players. They see a massive pot and want to win it regardless of their own cards. You should have good "low limit" starting cards and play for the implied pot odds. (SEE SKLANKSY books got details).
But do me a favor and sheer the sheep. Don't skin 'em.
Peanuts
There was too much money in the pot to fold.
I sure hate those hearts on board and with two players calling 3 bets cold in front of me, it's hard to say that hearts might not be out there. And if the button was a speedster I'd drop.
But if the cutoff and button only complete the action, you were getting 12-1 to call the two bets on the flop. Ignoring hearts, you had two nines and two queens that could improve you, plus the backdoor flush draw. The two queens and the backdoor alone are nearly the equivalent of 4 outs. My rule of thumb for drawing to a good gutshot in a multiway hand is 8-1 on the flop, and you had a lot better than that. This is a passive game, right? If I thought I could get a couple of calls on the end if I hit I'd definitely be there.
I question your statement that "At this point it looks to me like I am up against at least top pair with a better kicker and perhaps two pair." There are so many draws out there that the button and big blind could have nearly anything. As for the field, expect sevens, overcards, all kinds of junk. While I don't think its a terrible fold, I would've called. (But them I'm more reckless than you are, Jim. ;-))
Chris, you are right in that I was getting about 12:1 on my $8 flop call if we assume there are no more raises and both the cutoff and button call. There would be $104 in the pot including the additional $8 I would put in, so this is $96:$8 or 12:1. At the time I make the decision there is $84 in the pot so my immediate pot odds are 10.5:1. But I did not count a Nine as out because I figured between the raiser, the re-raiser, and the four other callers someone had a bigger Nine in which case my outs were two black Queens so I was playing a two outer. The runner-runner flush one could argue adds another out making it 3 outs which is about a 15:1 shot. But even if I turn a black Queen, there are still redraws against me given the two flush on board so I really don't have any clean outs. We are also setting aside the possibility of one of my many opponents having a set.
I just didn't figure that all five opponents were on draws. It seems strange that the button would raise on a weak Nine and the big blind would check-reraise on god knows what (I guess a draw??). And what are #1 and #2 cold-calling 3 bets with?? (Are they on draws as well??). How many Heart flush draws can there be??
I agree that in these games you quickly run out of rational hands to put players on, but this just means that they're playing junk and weighs toward calling instead of folding.
Two points I neglected to mention: (1) you need to adjust for the fact that you'll sometimes have the best hand here; (2) the position of the raisers suggests a wider variety of holdings than would be the case if they were in early/middle. For example, the button could is squarely in a free card position and the blind, perhaps noticing this, could have been trying to shut people out with second pair or a weaker nine than yours.
Also, I normally don't count the backdoor draw as only one out with two cards to come even though it's a 4.26% chance. Most of the time the draw is over before you have to make a big bet. When it's not, it's nine times better with one card to come. When you adjust for this, you have the equivalent of 2+ outs. See "How many outs is a runner-runner flush draw?" by the The Analog Kid -- Monday, 30 August 1999, at 7:32 p.m. and the thread that follows.
Chris,
I think the biggest problem I have with calling here has been brought up by other posters.
You are not going to close the action, and the original raiser is left to act. You are NOT getting 12:1 to call here. You get 12:1 IF...
You could also end up putting FOUR more bets in the pot if the raisers cap the round of betting.
On the other hand, if you call and the original raiser calls, you can probably put him on top pair, or a weak two pair. So calling to gain information here might be correct. But it is an expensive call.
The second re-raiser is more of a problem, he is raising with three players committed to the pot. He could very easily have a flush draw with overcards, something with which raising can be profitable here.
The thing you have to worry about most is either of the raisers (or the one caller) having a small set. It's because of this that I would consider folding. If one of them has a set, you are only drawing to the flush, which is a very bad place to be.
If I didn't know the opponents, I'd think that folding would be the most correct play.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock writes:
You could also end up putting FOUR more bets in the pot if the raisers cap the round of betting.
In a passive game this is paranoia. How often is the betting on the flop capped? You almost need a set over set confrontation.
On the other hand, if you call and the original raiser calls, you can probably put him on top pair, or a weak two pair.
Why not a draw?
[snip]
The second re-raiser is more of a problem, he is raising with three players committed to the pot. He could very easily have a flush draw with overcards, something with which raising can be profitable here.
In which case Jim should certainly call.
The thing you have to worry about most is either of the raisers (or the one caller) having a small set. It's because of this that I would consider folding. If one of them has a set, you are only drawing to the flush, which is a very bad place to be.
The set isn't enough of a threat to worry about. First, they're rare. Second, if anyone's got one it's probably the button, who will 3-bet the flop and signal to Jim that he has to hit a flush draw to continue, and thus letting him get away from his hand more cheaply than when he's against K9 or 97. Third, if the button doesn't reraise he almost certainly doesn't have a set, which would suggest to Jim that his draw and possibly his current hand are both good.
Chris,
Yes you are right that in a passive game set over set is probably going to get you a capped pot. But in a passive game, how often do you expect to see a reraise after a flop? This is a sign that you should be careful.
As far as putting the first raiser on a pair and not a draw, he raised after only two were in, and with players left to act. The raise wasn't a free card play, and raising only two players with a draw is not "passive". So he PROBABLY has a pair. Not surely, but probably.
Like I said, you CAN call to gain information, but it is EXPENSIVE. If I DON'T know the players here, I'm going to fold more often than call.
- Andrew
It's not the 2 hearts that bother me it is the third heart if it falls. Jim is worried about what might be not what is. I think it is a mistake to fold top pair and decent kicker in a game like this plus he has the ONE over card. I like his chances with this board. I play the Q9 like it is the nuts until the board tells me differently.
In a loose 10-20 game, do you usually raise preflop w/ A-J offsuit from early and/or middle position? What about a very loose game? I have been pretty much banging away, regardless of whether anyone has called in front of me, but I wonder if an occasional limp is warranted. I will go back to HPFAP tonight but I am interested in other viewpoints.
No, because Ace-Jack offsuit is not a strong enough hand to be raising with from early or middle position in an 8-10 handed game. If the game is 7 or fewer players, then I will raise with this hand. If I am in middle position and no one has limped in, I will open with a raise.
I will usually raise with this crappy hand if I am in first, regardless of from where. My idea is that this hand is crappy against numerous players, and thus, if I can reduce the numbers of hands that I am against, it stands a better chance of holding up. In very loose games I don't think that it is a great hand. In your post Jim, you say that it is not a strong enough hand to be raising with in an early or middle position in an 8-10 handed game, but in fact, isn't that exactly why you should raise with it as the first one in? I could be wrong...
I think that I should be pitching it into the muck in most of the games in which I play from early position, particularly utg, raising with it if I am first in in middle or late position, and just calling with it if several people have called. If I can isolate a crappy player with it, I might raise after one caller. Does this strategy seem appropriate?
I like your idea about raising with it in early position if you know that your opponents are routinely coming in on garbage.
With regard to your strategy, I think it is sound. I definitely fold Ace-Ten offsuit under the gun or in early position and I usually raise with Ace-Queen offsuit when under the gun. I see Ace-Jack offsuit as being a limping hand and if I felt that it should be folded under the gun due to a specific player line-up then I would probably find another game.
So how come AJo gets so much mention as a trouble hand but not KQo? I think KQo is much more troubling, but I guess I'm in the minority. I just noticed that KQo is listed slightly higher than AJo in the listing of group 4 hands, but I'm almost certain that I do better with AJo.
One quick comment-- the reason I hate limping with AJo is that it gives people with AQo and AKo a license to destroy me. I had previously been limping with it but I think now I'm going to raise. If I get 3-bet, I'm a lot more sure of where I'm at versus if I got my limp raised, and I might also drive out the players who'll fold AQo to my early position raise. Of course this has been debated ad nauseum and whether or not you limp or raise with it isn't of that much importance.
-Sean
Sean you make an excellent point about KQ offsuit. This hand in my opinion is weaker than AJ offsuit because in those situations where no one gets anything, an Ace-high with a Jack kicker can win whereas a King-high hardly ever will. In addition, I frequently do not feel compelled to bet on the end with AJ offsuit in a heads-up bluffing situation but with KQ offsuit I feel the urge to bet on the end in an effort to drive an Ace out.
Sean
I disagree that AJo is better than KQo. The reason is if you hit your ace a lot of times people show you two pair.More people play A7o then K7o thus, when you hit your K or Q your hand tends to win with one pair. I wish i could take credit for this idea but it's in HPFAP and it's correct. Think of the number of times you hit your A and lose to two pair in my games it has been a lot. Good luck Ice
Jim wrote: "If I'm in middle position and no one has limped in, I will open with a raise."
But if let's say there is one or a few callers, then would you at least call? Or does that all depend on the type of people you are up against?
Thanks, pdk
I would call with Ace-Jack offsuit from middle position if other players limp in ahead of me in a full table game. I don't like raising with this hand in this situation because I know I will get called by at least the original limper(s).
So? If you are against aggressive opponents or plain idiots, your hand is probably best and will make profit on the money going into the pot, not to mention buying the button with a raise and avoiding giving the blinds a free play.
Thinking of raising preflop to drive people out of the pot is a fallacy. In EV terms, the best hand preflop WANTS callers.
Reducing the field with hands like AKo servers only to reduce the variance, but does not increase EV, in fact, it decreases it. With an infinite bankroll, when you don't care a bit about variance, you should BEG the opponents behind you to call.
However, reducing variance might be what you want. I don't have a problem with that, as long as in doing so you don't cut into EV too much.
Optimal hold'em play would require big enough bankroll to completely ignore the swings, pushing every smallest bit of positive EV and terrorizing opponents with plays too dangerous for their measly bankrolls. It would only be a matter of time until they get all broke (assuming they play suboptimally).
Raising with AJo is the kind of play I'm talking about here. There are good reasons for not doing it, and I'm all for it, do as you please, it's not a mistake. But the fact remains raising with AJo maximizes the EV. The same goes for raising with Q5s after loose limpers, open-raising with AQo UTG or limp-reraising loose suckers UTG with pocket 88.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I find your approaches fascinating.
How then do you optimize the EV by rasing without getting people to fold, or put another way, how many callers do you need on your raise to make up for those that folded for the raise?
Dear Izmet, 6-12 hold'em
I'm in the big blind last night at the Normandie, where they have no small blind. About 5 callers and a regular 10-20 thru 20-40 player(whose regular game broke)raises on the button. I have A-Q both diamonds, I called. Would 3 betting have been best, in regards to what you refer to as the EV(estimated value?).
Everybody but the raiser could have been holding almost any two touching cards(unsuited). And all the limpers would have called my re-raise, and then certainly a cap at that point from the button.
I think the main reason I didn't re-raise was due to my horrible position, and then to a lessor extent, that I was somewhat intimidated by the higher limit player.
Thanks for any help, Connie
PS: I like the super-simplified explination for implied odds you provide at your site.
Connie, I find your question an interesting one and I am eager to hear Izmet's reply. My preference would be to not 3 bet with AQ suited out of my big blind when faced with a button raiser and five other opponents because I am not interested in shutting people out and narrowing the field when I am out of position like this. In addition, if the button is raising on a real hand like AA,KK,QQ, or AK I am badly dominated in a shorthanded or heads-up confrontation plus having the handicap of bad position.
There are good arguments for calling only (as Jim suggests in his reply). You have bad position for all betting rounds, but a good chance to check-raise the button if the flop hits you, thus narrowing the field easily. This is the standard play "by the book", which increases chances to win the pot and enables you to get out cheaply if the flop doesn't hit.
It's a good, bullet-proof, profitable strategy.
See, if you make the pot too big, postflop play turns into a crapshoot and anything can happen. Most poker players hate that, they hate getting sucked out by freak draws that would have folded on the flop, hadn't the pot been so big. And that's exactly what happens often when a multiway pot gets blown up out of proportions. There are no guaranties, you can flop good and still lose big. You have little control of the play on the flop and beyond, and whatever your edge in postflop play was, it's gone through the window. Swelled pots are a source of frustration. For a drunken, Rolex-wearing German tourist with a miniskirt chick hanging on his shoulder, this is fun. For a pro with a modest bankroll, big pots are toying with death. You can see traces of sweat on his forehead and upper lip. It's a nightmare.
But so what. If you have a bankroll, you should ram 'n jam on the flop. Yes, the skill factor goes way down postflop, but you are having way best of it at the moment. Jamming is profitable.
I assume Connie is talking about a typical California-stye game where players are loose and trigger-happy. The limpers would surely raise with AQ/QQ or better, so we are safe to assume our only concern is the raiser on the button.
This guy can have a wide range of cards, if he is a good player (and even a wider one if he is a maniac). There are many hands that show profit with a raise against multiple limpers. The only hands you that can give you trouble are AA, KK, QQ and AK. Against these hands, reraise with AQs is not such a good idea, as you are either dominated (against KK, QQ and AK) or destroyed (against AA). But even in this case, the five dupes in are covering for you with their contributions (as a good chunk of their money is dead, since they have a relatively small chance of winning the pot). You are not in bad shape even when dominated.
But against all other possible hands the button could have (Axs/K9s/98s/77/KJo or better), you are a happy camper. You will make a load of money even when against a better hand like JJ. But remember, you are increasing EV (drastically, I might add) here at the expense of higher variance. Reraise is a most profitable play, yet you still might not want to do it. Profitability is not the only factor when judging a certain poker play. For some pros living in the van by the river, variance is baaaaaaad. They prefer calling.
How profitable is the reraise (and a subsequent cap if rereraised, Nevada style) with AQs?
I ran a $10-20 Turbo sim for Connie with a player on the button holding JJ and a player in the big blind with AQ (I did not bother to set up the sim with a single blind like Connie's game, because if the game is loose, the blind structure is not that important). The lineup was loose, with players that tend to go a bit too far postflop. To put it simply, it was a fishy table, except for the two test players. I used the same profile (optimized for playing in loose games) for both the button (JJ) and the big blind (AQs). The results after 500000 runs with 5 or more opponents (at least 4 limpers + the button raiser):
AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
JJ, win rate: 28.0%, $ net per hand: $39.27
AQs, win rate: 26.1%, $ net per hand: $20.78
AQs jamming preflop in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
JJ, win rate: 30.0%, $ net per hand: $61.61
AQs, win rate: 27.2%, $ net per hand: $36.81
Against JJ and four other opponents, AQs just flat called, tried to keep the pot small and went for a check raise with top pair on the flop. With no hit, AQ called for one bet with two overcards (which is a pretty much correct play, given the size of the pot). It did quite ok, earning a big bet per hour.
But when AQs capped it preflop, it earned almost twice as much! The difference between calling and jamming was more than one and a half small bet. And that's a lot, baby! Note also the difference your jamming made to JJ's profits. The button should buy you a drink for making him $20 with your aggressive preflop play. You both profited, but the fish should think twice before entering a pot with trash again...
Here's the same sim, but with QQ on the button. The situation seems hopeless, but the fish covered the losses. Jamming with AQs against QQ boosted profit per hand from $3.74 to $09.91. It's not that much, considering the increased variance, but hey, I can use every dollar...
AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:The interesting thing here is that you are still making money jamming preflop even when against dominating hand. The fish in the pot took care of that. With enough callers (10-way family pots), you could safely reraise even if you strongly suspected aces.
---------------------------------------------
QQ, win rate: 31.5%, $ net per hand: $40.76
AQs, win rate: 19.6%, $ net per hand: $03.74
AQs jamming preflop in the big blind min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
QQ, win rate: 33.7%, $ net per hand: $69.93
AQs, win rate: 20.7%, $ net per hand: $09.91
Of course, Turbo sims are perceived as unreliable by most posters here, maybe they are indeed... but then again, they make you think anyway, don't they?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I can't believe the trouble you went to!!
Thanks again, Connie
Izmet mistakenly claims:
>With no hit, AQ called for one bet with two overcards (which is a pretty much correct play, given the size of the pot). It did quite ok, earning a big bet per hour.
That's a big bet per hand, not per hour. I am very, very sorry.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I think you are right in saying that raising just to drive people out of the pot is a fallacy. I guess my concern about raising with Ace-Jack offsuit after others have limped in is that they could have cards that I need to improve thereby crippling my hand plus I worry about getting re-raised from behind and now having to pay 3 bets to take a flop. When I raise with AQ or AK and get re-raised I feel I have more of a hand to fall back on then with AJ although I have to call regardless.
With two or more callers, dont raise. (except maybe in REALLY loose games) With no callers, raise. In a game with lots of individuals that call raises with week hands, almost allways raise. In a game where nobody will call a raise with a weaker hand, only raise in late position, without many limpers.
I almost never raise with this hand from early position, because I am typically personified as a loose raiser. I view this hand as a good hand to trap people with.
In the games I play, you will often see players cold call a raise with hands as weak as J-9s or A8o. I honestly can't remember losing w/ AJ to a better ace that just called preflop after I raised in these games. If a solid player calls or if someone reraises, you have to be very careful, but in these loose games, I think AJ is usually a raising hand from anywhere, even after a call or two. You have to surrender some of your assumptions -- e.g. if you are third to act and someone calls in front of you, he could easily have a hand like A9 or even 67s in these games. The starting hand standards are really low.
"In a game where nobody will call a raise with a weaker hand, only raise in late position, without many limpers"
Are you sure about this? If nobody will call with a weaker hand, I'll always know where I stand. If someone calls my raise, then I know an A is NOT a good card for me and can avoid over-betting the hand. If I just called, I'd like the A on the flop, and it would cost me big time.
Fat-Charlie
Guess that is the main question - what flop are you looking for. Say the flop is AQ7 - or JK7 - You got to hate it and you hit it. Any straight draw is a gut shot and only the A suit is worth a draw.
AJ is a dog of a trap hand and should be played very carefully - I like it against weak players who will raise early with Axs or AT - against tight players a raise in front is a muck for sure.
I will raise in Middle or late most of the time with it but I don't like my chances and have to hit the flop hard to stay in if there is a action in front of me.
AJo is a trap hand and i play it exactly as rounder has mentioned. When i started playing 10-20 i raised in early position and either won a small pot or lost a big one. When i lost i usually lost to the hands that dominated me.It didn't take long to realize that at this rate i could'nt even play 1-5 stud as i would have no more money! Even in middle/late position with limpers make sure their loose not tight limpers as some players never raise with AK,AQ up front because they want to make sure they hit a hand before putting money in the pot. Good luck Ice
Your point about players not raising with A-K and A-Q is well taken; you can be dominated and not know it. A-J isn't so good against these players because you won't know where you're at.
I was trying to suggest that maybe you do NOT need players to call your A-J raise with weaker hands to play it. If you don't have limpers up front who wouldn't raise with A-K or A-Q, then you will know how you stand after the flop. If there are callers behind you, then A-Q-x doesn't hit you enough; you needed J-x-x, but with no trailing callers, you should be in the lead when A-Q-x flops.
It's the tight butts up front just calling with A-K and A-Q who mess this up. I need to sit on these people.
Fat-Charlie
I repeat: I am talking about loose to very loose games. You would not want to sit on these guys -- they cold call w/ J-9s and you want them to stick around.
If I have AJ in early position, and nobody raises the blinds, I figure to have the best hand if an Ace hits, or jack high for that matter.
Most players will raise themselves with an ace better than AJ. Thus you can avoid over-betting anyways.
I was talking about Hold 'em to a buddy of mine over the holidays. He is not a cardplayer, and admits he doesn't have the time or interest to study and become good, but he would like to play once just to see what it is like. I'm trying to figure out some simple and quick advice that would allow his small bankroll (I can't imagine it would be more than $100) to last a while. So far, all I've got is: 1) Only play AK and pairs JJ or higher in most positions 2) play other pairs and A9 suited in last two positions, but only if you can get in for one bet 3) Raise only with AK or high pairs 4)Be willing to toss away cards in the blinds if there has been a raise and you don't have good cards 5) call raises only if you have great cards 6)If the flop doesn't help your hand, get out. 7)If you have the best hand, bet it and raise it all the way. Any other advice for a purely recreational player? Thanks.
Play at my table, please.
I would add:
8. Try to only play in a $1-$2 or $2-$4 game.
9. Watch the game first and don't play if most pots are getting raised before the flop.
10. Make sure you know what the best possible hand is at all times. (Recognize the "nuts").
11. Don't get into a raising war with someone unless you have the best possible hand at the river.
As an aside, a woman who had never played hold-em before entered a small hold-em tournament and won it. This was written up in Cardplayer and the advice her husband gave here was to only play AA and any other two card holding that totalled 20 or higher (as in Blackjack). As long as you don't get JT offsuit, QJ offsuit, KT offsuit, and KJ offsuit too often it might even work!
I read that in McEvoy's column once -- his advice to the woman (I think it was his elderly mother-in-law) was to look at her cards, and if she had a blackjack or a twenty that was two of the same cards (i.e. pairs only), to push all of her chips in. Otherwise, fold. And she did win the tournament, according to McEvoy.
McEvoy's column in Cardplayer was probably what I was thinking of.
There is only one correct advice for a one time Hold'em player (stud advice is slightly different).
The correct advice:
Explain the rules and proper ettiquette. Set a loss limit. Play at an appropriate level given your "fun" money. Then go put your name on a list at a Casino. Sit in the first available seat. Smile at everyone and Gamble! If you find that you are not having fun, quit and go about your business.
Vince.
have fun.
scott
Fairly loose 10-20 at the Taj. K9d. You get a free play in the Big Blind, with 6 total callers. Flop is AdJd7o. You bet out, next player raises, and 2 players in mid position call. Do you raise?
Danny S
Dan, I am assuming that you have the King of Diamonds and the Nine of Diamonds and the flop is: Ace of Diamonds, Jack of Diamonds, Seven (Non-Diamond). Pre-flop you got a free play in your big blind and there is $60 in the pot with six of you taking the flop.
Betting out with only a flush draw into five opponents is not a good idea. You will not win the pot outright and you could get raised costing you even more money to pursue your draw. Furthermore, if you lead and get raised this would tend to drive out players when you want players in to pay you off if you hit. When raised and two players call, you should not re-raise. Again you are just costing yourself money. Agreed that if you hit your flush it is the nut flush but suppose the board pairs and you lose to a full house? This is unlikely but you cannot just ignore the possibility that between the raiser and your numerous opponents that someone doesn't have two pair or even a set.
You need to avoid the philosophy of "first build a pot, then a make hand" unless you have a lot more outs or some reason to think that you can win the pot outright.
Post deleted at author's request.
Well Gary you sound like one of those impoverished $3-$6 players who wins a mighty $10 an hour but cannot seem to find the bankroll to play in a bigger game. I now understand why.
Quoting from your post:
"it depends upon who you think would have bet had you checked and what you think the chances of a raise from an early or late player is."
How pray tell does one divine such things from the original post as written? I would also point out that you are dealing with 5 opponents not 1 or 2.
"you want to be raised, you just want the raise to come after everybody else has called a bet". If you have 3 players already committed to the pot, a re-raise is right. You are a 2:1 dog and getting 3:1 on your money. To not raise is to give money away."
How can anyone with an IQ above room temperature make the fatuous assumption that if the flush comes the player wins 100% of the time? I guess when people raise and many players call, you have never hit a flush and lost to better hand. Furthermore, where is the analysis that shows how much is lost when you miss or when you hit and lose. The fact that it could get capped thereby further increasing your investment to pursue your draw are facts you apparently don't even pause to consider.
Another thing to consider. Wouldn't it be nice to help another player along who is also on a flush draw by not raising him out of the pot?
Jamming the pot on a flush draw is goot when you can count on three or more callers. No need to be mean to Gary here, Jim, as he is right.
I'd often jam even with two callers only, but this is borderline (I'd have to be *sure* all my outs are good and my flush will win), with one additional caller all you arguments about possibly losing to a higher flush or boat are gone through the window as the additional money going into the pot pretty much covers the expenses of occasionally losing when you hit. It's a +EV move. Oh, yes, you will wish you hadn't jammed sometimes, but shit happens. However, jamming on a draw with three or more callers is a profitable play. Learn to see the big picture. Learn to count the money at the end of the year, not at the end of the hand.
Of course, these kind of plays increase the variance, and this might be not goot for some people. I have no problem with that, if that's your thing. A poker move cannot be judged solely by it's profitability. However, if we talk about EV, there's no doubt that jamming on a draw with three callers makes you money in the long run.
I wrote anshort essay on jamming a while ago, you might want to check it out, it's available on my page. See if I can make you think over it one more time.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet, the reason I got nasty with Gary is because when someone tells me directly "BULLSHIT" this prompt an immediate and visceral reaction. All that notwithstanding, Gary's play here is bad poker. See my final post at the end of this thread.
In tougher games. reraising is probably wrong for two main reasons. What are they? However in tougher games betting out may be right since there is a small chance your bet will win it right there and also a small chance your bet will get called but will now allow you to win catching a king or maybe even without improving at all. In weaker games reraising is probably right. And of course one other reason to reraise in both games is so that players cannot be sure you don't have a draw when you reraise in similar situations with a real hand.
One problem I see is that you may get bombarded with chips if you diamond doesn't come and you check the turn (unless the other hands were on draws also). If you bet the turn anyway, you are not getting proper odds for the bet, and may be raised.
Jim is wrong on his odds. You are only 9/47 to get the flush on the turn. 1.8:1 overall turn & river, but only about 4:1 on turn. And some of these diamonds may make someone a boat. You also need to figure in the bets you'll have to put in on the turn. The reversed implied odds here may be offset by the implied odds if you make your hand. Without figuring it out, I'd say it's close. Probably worth it in the weaker games because you will get paid off more often, especially with smaller flushes.
The second problem I see with re-raising is that two pair or trips will probably raise again to make the draws pay. Plus there's also the chance a smaller flush draw will figure he's drawing dead and drop. In a weaker game the smaller flush draws will probably call and the two-pair or trips may not re-raise.
Post deleted at author's request.
The pot will be laying you odds to call on the turn whether you re-raise or not on the flop. This fact isn't relevant either way.
David had asked what the two main reasons it may not be better to re-raise in a tough game and that was what I was responding to. I haven't done a complete "analysis", but I was curious if my thoughts on the problem were in line with his.
As for Jim's reasons, and also for your statement "you're getting your odds form the money going into the pot right now . . .", this just isn't true, unless you're all-in. Your getting 3:1 on a 4:1 shot (at best), which isn't guaranteed to be a winner even if you hit. I think you would want 5 callers if you're looking for odds on your bet. That's not to say that re-raising is not correct most of the time, just that using calling odds on your bet doesn't justify it.
I neglected to mention that for those who think that they are getting some of their implied odds from smaller flushes calling future bets, your chances of drawing out would be slimmer, as their are fewer diamonds available. But I'm sure you're aware of that.
Gary, I'm sure if you wrote a book (Really? I never saw it. What's the title?) then you understand reverse implied odds. So I'm curious what factors you think make the re-raise the proper play with only three "callers". For example, are you hoping that someone might pick up a gut shot to go along with his big pair and will have enough in the pot to call a turn bet? Please explain.
George,
The question is whether to reraise with the flush when you have three players commited to the pot for two bets is pretty much clear as Gary says. If there are no sets or two pairs out there, you are going to win the pot somewhere around 1 time for every time you lose.
The worst situation is that a paired board would make someone a full house. To deal with these odds we need to consider how often you will get the hand you want, a flush with no paired board.
Let's look at this naively at first so we can get a grip on whats going on
1) You turn the non-pair flush, river non-pair (8 of the nine flush cards don't pair the board, 34 of the remaing 46 card don't pair on the river).
8/47 * 34/46 = 272/2162
2) You turn a non-pair non-flush, and river the non-pair flush (9 of the 47 cards are flush cards, 8 are pair cards leaving 30 turn "rags", only 7 of the remaining flush cards don't pair on the river).
30/47 * 7/46 = 210/2162
If we add these two we get 482/2162 = 22.3% of the time we will wind up with the NUT flush. This translates into about 3.5:1 against. However, we know that for this to happen, TWO of the pairing cards are dead. So the actual odds look more like:
1) 8/45 * 34/44 = 272/1980
2) 30/45 * 7/44 = 210/1980
What we end up with is: 282/1980 = 24.3% which converts to 3.1:1 against.
So as David says, if you are against tough opponents who will only raise you or call 2 cold with trips, then you are not going to be making money on the raise. On the other hand, if there is almost any doubt that you are against trips, you should call.
On the other hand if you think you are against TWO sets and a flush draw, you should most assuredly raise. The same holds if you think you are against two pair and a set. With your opponents holding each others boat cards, you swing back to having raising odds to make the flush without a paired board.
The moral of the story is: ALMOST ALWAYS RAISE
- Andrew
I said:
you are going to win the pot somewhere around 1 time for every time you lose.
I meant to say:
you are going to win the pot somewhere around 1 time for every two times you lose.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
"Work it out."
On the flop there are reasons to assume you'll get 3 callers even if the next in line player 4-bets. This translates to 4 players for 3 bets and you're 2:1 to make your hand. For your three bets you pot equity has increased by 4*3/3 = 4. This means you've gained 1 small bet in equity if your flush were a lock when it hits. It's not. This one bet must be discounted by the chance of hitting and losing, and losing will likely be expensive. My gut feeling is that discounting it by 1/2 or 2/3 is about right. Net gain 1/2 small bet or so. (slightly higher if it goes 4-bets on the flop)
Your flop action may have consequences on the turn. Let's say you miss the turn (occurs ~80% of the time). Now you are defending your pot equity instead of building it. You now can expect to add 1/5 of every bet to your equity. At most there will bet 4 players and maybe only three or two. Also your need to check the turn may turn up the heat. Let's say the turn action goes (you) check , bet, fold, raise, call, call. you've put in two big bets out of six and your equity has increased by 6/5 big bets for a net loss of 4/5 of a big bet. This wipes out your previous gain by a significant sum. If your flop raise was responsible for the opponents turn action you've cost yourself 2/5 (half the lost equity) of a big bet, more than you gained on the flop.
Bottom line, the flop raise is marginal and possibly a loser in some situations. It's much more viable against 4 or 5 opponents, three is just not enough.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, you're clearly lashed to this idea pretty tight. It's not my fight to change your mind. I will state that whitout any personal doubt this is a very thin play. +EV, -EV, it's tough to say but it's no big profit center, of that I'm sure. Now try in in positon, then it's a different story.
Post deleted at author's request.
If you know you will be called in all three spots and you are more than 25% to win the pot when the smoke clears, then a raise will show a profit as long as you know you won't fold on fourth st. That is not to say that not raising could conceivably be the better play because it shows an even greater profit. For now I simply want to address George's mathematical error. You do not need to be getting the odds on your raise corresponding to hitting on the next round only.I am sure I don't have to explain further. Also George, you made a reference to implied odds that I do not like. The existence of those odds has little to do with this question and I am concerned that you seem to think it does.
Post deleted at author's request.
but mark glover's pappy is gonna be proud of him.
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
I will send a cab for the rest of you.
interesting posts. everybody is right some of the time and nobody is right all of the time.
it seems to me that there are times when you want to take control of the action, and times you don't. this qualifies as one of those times where you don't want to dictate the action because of your posistion your hand, and the number of players etc. etc. i go passive in these types of situations as it makes it easier for me to escape if need be as well as it helps me to read the table, since they aren't reponding to me. although johns latest comments are correct,there just aren't too many games where being overly aggressive in this type of situation makes sense. even if you are on the button, a reraise probably isn't the right play. seeya
neccessarily the right play. seeya
Damn, now your forcing me to analyze this more than I wanted to. Work work work . . . ;-)
Here I go:
What might happen on the turn is mostly irrelevant to whether or not we should re-raise the flop (It could effect how your opponents play on the turn if we re-raise compared with if we don't. But let's ignore that.).
If we know that all players will call all bets on the flop, then you're getting proper odds to raise. You can figure your overall odds of improving with both cards to come. But as you pointed out, if you raise, someone may fold their hand. So not only are you not getting 3:1 on the raise, there will be one less player calling the other raise, which is three less bets in the pot. If you hadn't raised there would be two other callers money going into the pot (2 bets) (what's already in the pot, including the raise and your call is irrelevant, so long as you are getting proper effective odds to call, and you are). If you raise and one folds, its two callers, one for two bets and one for one more bet (3 more bets). So in effect, you are getting even money on your bet if you re-raise and someone folds (Three bets instead of two in the pot). If nobody folds, then you are getting 3:1 on your raise. So in order for a raise to be correct, both other players would have to call at least 50% of the time (assuming 2:1 instead of 1:8 to compensate for hitting but still losing). Perhaps 60% is a safer figure, allowing that some of the time the other players will be calling on flush draws too, limiting your outs. And whether or not they will call 60% of the time depends on the players. But most of the time (perhaps 95%), I'd think a re-raise would be proper, based on the math! So my previous thoughts on this are wrong and should be ignored.
As for my use of the term "implied odds", I was thinking along the terms of "effective odds", that is, how much more we would have to pay to see the river. But it is not relevant here, we have plenty of money in the pot to call, and this problem was about raising, not calling. So what the hell was I talking about? I have no idea. I confused myself. I do that a lot sometimes, expecially when I have not been thinking seriously about poker for a while. Sorry David, but I'm not the expert you are, and probably not as astute as you might think. I might have potential, but I have a long way to go.
I beleive on reason not to raise the flop is because the raiser is to your left. Save the raise for the turn, so if you hit, you can raise AFTER the player on your left bets and the other players call. This allows you to capitalize when you hit, and save money when you dont.
Ivan,
One problem with this strategy is that it isn't very certain that the player on your left will bet if the diamond hit on the turn. His flop raise from this postion probably indicates he is afraid of drawing hands. He would have to have a lot of "follow through" in order to bet the turn. On the other hand, there is a good chance another diamond draw is out there based on the action. If so and the diamond came, it would be bet for you. So it may still be correct to make the play you indicate.
Regards,
Rick
Jims advice really good and on the button Garys advice is bullshit - Did you really write a book. I hope it sells a million copies and the readers follow your advice to the letter. We need more players chasing rainbows - Thanks Gary.
I know I shouldn't expect much from someone who repeatedly claims that the suited nature of a hand only adds 4%, but since when is the nut flush draw a "rainbow?" I guess you'd rather our hero just check and fold, since those pot odds players who say you have pot odds to draw to the nut flush don't know what they're talking about.
I did have a real reason to reply other than shooting fish in a barrel. No one has noted the obvious that in this specific instance, being up against a set is less likely because there was no raise before the flop, indicating that AA/JJ probably aren't out there. (Although both AJ and a set of sevens could be out, which is almost as bad.)
-Sean
Key word here is DRAW - BTW - what value do you put on suited cards - go on put a % on the added value it gives your hand. If you are like a lot of players you are over valuing it and it is costing you a lot of money - I'd like to know what value you put on them.
Key word here is DRAW
Why does the fact that you're on the draw matter? You have a good draw. Your draw is to the nuts, it'll get there more than 1 time in 3, and it'll usually win when it gets there. If there are 4 callers, and you'll win 33% of the time, for every bet that goes in the pot, you profit. The points that others have made in this thread (about smaller flush draws making it less likely to hit your flush, and the chance of being up against a set or two pair that could redraw) are valid, but you're getting such a good price on your draw from the 4th caller that it offsets any potential problems, and in a loose game, there's a very good chance you're up against junk like gutshots and weak pairs.
And before you say "I'd much rather have a made hand," of course we'd all rather have a made hand. But you can still make a profit from a good draw. The made hand and the draw both profit at the expense of the people that are drawing thin with gutshots, weak pairs, and the like.
BTW - what value do you put on suited cards - go on put a % on the added value it gives your hand.
You can't put a % value because the added value is not linear. For your strongest hands, the added value is small, but for your weaker hands, the added value is huge.
If you open raise under the gun with AKs as opposed to AKo in a fairly loose 10-20 game, mixed with passive and aggressive players, with no rake, you'll probably make $20 with AKs and $15 with AKo per hand. Change it to AJs and AJo, and it's more like $9 and $4.50. In other words, AKs is only 33% more profitable than AKo, but AJs is twice as profitable as AJo. Change it to JTs and JTo, and the value is about $2 for JTs (remember that's open-raising, limping is probably better) and something drastically negative for JTo. In the case of JT, it turns a hand from something that's a mostly unplayable piece of trash outside the blinds or open-raising on the button to a hand that can show a small profit. Those numbers come from Turbo simulations, but I'm sure even the anti-sim crowd can see that the numbers look reasonably accurate.
-Sean
Where OH where do you get these numbers. Heck I really don't care just keep it up.
Sims mean nothing to me they take the human element out of the game. I am using the 4% extra suited gives a hand and will do so until someone proves me wrong.
The lament of the broke poker player - they were suited or he pot was so big. LOL I laugh all the way to the cage.
"The lament of the broke poker player - they were suited or he pot was so big. LOL I laugh all the way to the cage. "
They are usually talking about any 2 suited cards and without the right odds.
Some of the other players here do quite well too even though they correctly play their draws.
D.
Sims mean nothing to me they take the human element out of the game. I am using the 4% extra suited gives a hand and will do so until someone proves me wrong.
The sim suggests that AJs will show 100% more profit than AJo in a reasonably soft 10-20 game. You argue that the actual number is closer to 4%. You really think that the lack of a "human element" accounts for an additional 96%?
People have made some valid criticisms of sims but the relative value of hands can't really be disputed. The order of hands in any game with the sim will always be: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, and TT. (Sometimes TT and AKs get flip-flopped; they're close.) And lo and behold, S&M's hand rankings list the 6 best hands in exactly the same order. You don't need a "human element" to tell you which hands are good preflop. Yes, you can't tell the extent to which an expert player can profit from these hands, but the relative values of hands will remain mostly constant. The sim won't be telling you that AQo is better than TT or something similarly bizarre.
The lament of the broke poker player - they were suited or he pot was so big. LOL I laugh all the way to the cage.
Ok, so playing AKs, AJs, and JTs UTG will make me broke. Do you mind telling me what hands I should be playing UTG?
-Sean
I wasn't talking about AKs - it is the T8s J7s type hands I don't like - why is it such a sore subject with you guys - you love to play to many hands way to much - hey if you want to play the cheese it is just fine with me.
Rounder,
I don't seem to remeber and long protracted discussion about T8s or J7s. I could have one with you, but I seriously doubt it would be interesting.
You seem to be suffering from some strange associative disorder where you align anything good someone says about suited connectors with a particular mental image you have in your mind. While making quick decisions about player personality and type is important at the poker table, actually listening to what people say and trying to understand things is more important away from the poker table.
In truth I think you tend to talk about poker differently from the way you are playing it. Either that or you are fairly ignorant of how limit poker actually works.
Which hand would YOU rather have?
AsKs or JcQh
with a flop of
JsTc2s
As I'm sure you know the DRAW is the favorite in this situation.
- Andrew
I have to agree with Andrew. You apparently either have some dissociative disorder or are incapable of following a logical train of thought. When I refuted your 4% claim, you asked me "What is the actual value of suited hands?" I explained that the value varies depending on the strength of the hand--AKs will probably win a bit more (per hand) than AKo, AJs will win a lot more than AJo, and JTs will win in many situations where JTo is a loser. You respond with a rant about how I overvalue suited hands and you laugh as you walk to the cage. What the hell does T8s and J7s have to do with the hands I mentioned?
-Sean
...?
With a nut flush draw, it is prefectly reasonable to bet out, especially if you don't expect some automatic raise from someone on your left.
The reraise with all the callers is usually good too, I am surprised you are so categorical about not doing either play.
D.
One possible advantage of a reraise here would be to negate the possibility of a flush draw in your opps' minds. A set might more readily put you on J7 or A7 or even AJ out of the blinds and not think a diamond on the turn helped you. I think lower flush draws would also feel more confidentof their hands should they stay in to catch.
I would raise almost every time in this situation. Those players IMO since they called the first raise are going to call one more raise ther's to much money in the pot not to call and at least see the turn card. With three players on a 2-1 shot t/r your getting good odds on your draw. In addition it enhances your table image as somone who will bet on the come and give action that's good for you. Remember this is the nut flush draw. Also, you could checkraise since your in early position and you would know for sure your getting the right price. Ice
I do not like the idea of betting into a large crowd on a hand that has at most nine outs. Consider yourself fortunate that the two players who cold-called the raise didn't instead decide to fold (the more likely scenario). The reraise is not attractive because at least one of the callers figures to have a flush draw, and with such strong betting on the flop you may hit the flush and lose a certain amount of the time. You have 9 cards out of 47 to make your flush on the next card (8 of these are to the nuts). Pumping the pot on a 9-outer is not a good idea when you are out of position, and the other players can see how you react to your 4th street miss--the probable result. With position this type of raise would be a much better move then here up front. Anyone who thinks you are going to win one out of three pots on this hand's betting I believe is mistaken.
Post deleted at author's request.
A number of people who play poker wear funny glasses, that enable them to see clearly the 9 cards that complete the flush, but block out the 9 cards that pair the board. If the flush comes on fourth you can still lose on the last card. If the board pairs and all hell breaks loose, you will not--should not--even be in for the river, much less make your hand on the last card.
I have always disliked this metod of talking about the situation. A beginner may be misled into thinfing that it is just as likely to hit and lose as hit and win.
i think your bet should depend on what you think your opponents have. if you figure to win the pot outright by betting, then it's a good play. but with 6 players (are they tough? passive?) and no raise, do you put any players on a big Ace? on a flush draw? gut shot draw? AJo? 77? At this point the type of game you are in should give you a better idea of what hands are out there and maybe act accordingly.
carlos
I have no problem with reraisng in easy games although it is close if you don't take image considerations into account. In tougher games you are more apt to get raised again and that may well knock out someone which is to your detriment. The other factor is that in tougher games, a raiser and two cold callers makes it quite likely that you are up against at least one other flush draw. This makes you more than 3-1 against winning. There is also a tendency for good players to have a three flush backup when they cold call with only one pair. Finally if there is no other flush draw out, than almost certainly there would be two pair or a set, so again your chances of winning the pot are three to oneish, and a raise aside from image considerations, is probably a small loser.
You know, I usually disagree with almost everything Sklansky says. But that's really a very good analysis.
Did you ever imagine you would get this level or response when you posed this rather simple (on the surface) sounding question? With another 160 responses or so, maybe this will beat Mason's 4c 4d hand on RGP.
Regards,
Rick
And after we reach that exalted level I think the consensus will definitely form on the question and the answer will be,
It depends.
When sincere responses are met with the reply of **bullshit** people start getting tempormental.
Poker snobbery tends to get people a little worked up as well.
Tom,
You couldn't be calling a simple guy like me a poker snob or am I just being too sensitive today?
Regards,
Rick
No I am certainly not calling you a poker snob. This was directed at any earlier post by someone else putting down 3-6 players.
Dan, in addition to the problems I mentioned with your play in my original post I would like to add the following:
1. You are out of position to be making this kind of play. If you were on the button, you might get a free card when a blank hits on the turn and everyone checks to you as the flop re-raiser. But here, you will be first to act so don't ever expect any free cards.
2. The simplistic notion that "if you have 3 players already committed to the pot a re-raise is right because you are only a 2:1 dog" is misleading and dangerous. Imbedded within this statement are two assumptions both of which are flawed. The first assumption is that if I hit my flush I always win. This clearly is not true and was mentioned earlier. The second assumption is that I always get to the river. But what happens when a non-Diamond hits on the turn that pairs the board and it is bet and raised to you? Only a true kamikazee would continue on since it could get re-raised and you could be drawing dead. A sane player will have to fold in most cases. Suppose a non-Diamond hits that doesn't pair the board but a raising war breaks out on the turn like bet, raise, re-raise, and now its up to you. Do you just automatically call regardless of the cost? Do you want to spend $80 or $100 on the turn to see the river? I think you would be faced with a tough decision here. Bottom line is that you will not be always going to the river. It would be nice if hold-em were like draw poker where you can just draw two cards but it isn't.
3. If someone is hanging around on a draw like a flush or a gutshot straight, you really don't want to raise them out of the pot right now. Someone with King-Ten, or Ten-Eight or Nine-Eight who limped in will probably try and take off a card. They should be encouraged to do so.
4. I believe that someone mentioned that it is good to "vary your play" or some other nonsense. If this were a home game where you are playing against the same line-up week in and week out perhaps this would start to make some sense. But at the Taj Mahal you are dealing with huge public cardroom where the cast of characters in a game like this changes every day. It is silly to waste money here by trying to "vary your play".
5. For what it is worth, I spend well over a 1000 hours a year at the limit hold-em tables ($10-$20,$15-$30, $20-$40, and $30-$60). I see guys "rammin and jammin" all the time with their flush draws or their straight draws against a table full of opponents. When they get lucky and hit they seem invincible. But what inevitably happens is that they go broke and stop playing all together or they lose so much money they are forced to step down to a lower game where the price of their folly is not so high.
Jim
I have also put in the same hours you have but only at 10-20. I am one of those people you're talking about rammin and jammin their flush draws but i ain't goin broke. I have found this to be a +EV in the long run. If i am drawing to the nut flush draw and have 3 or more callers,the board is not paired i'm trying to figure out how to get the most money in the pot on the flop. In Dans example the board was Ad Jd 7 this is precisely the board you want. Sure you could be up against a set or a gutshot but thats why your getting all that action on your hand. If you were not against some hands your bet on the flop would win the pot. I agree this will create variance and if you can't deal with that you should not be making this play. Ice
In general I agree with this post. But again, I think it depends. 10-20 in AC is not always the strongest game in the world. I have been in the 10-20 at the taj that reminded me more of a 3-6...especially if there are no "regulars" in it. For example, I played in a game last week where everyone with a pair over 7's would raise pretty much automatically. In such a game, I think a set would be very much unlikely. So there is a good chance you are in there with people with mediocre hands (think JT, J9, A9, maybe even KQ). Conceivably, you can be the only one drawing to the nuts. Your second point, about the "two flaws imbedded" in the theory of 'drawing' to a 'nut' flush, may in fact be valid. But a board of AJ7 is not one that is totally conducive to a full house in an unraised pot in a weakish game.(Especially in a game like the one i played in last week, where players considered medium pairs raising hands but would stay away from A7 unless it was suited (no straight possibility)) There remains the possibility in a weak game that if KK, 99, or K9 hit the board you could win as well. Where am I going with this? In a tough game, where players limp in from late position with 77 AJ or even JJ ( with only 3 people in already) or where players arent scared to drop their dominated weak draws or one-pair hands if they think they are no good, a raise will cost you money. But in a weak game, where calling stations will hold on to that Ace for dear life under heavy pressure (Im exaggerating some but you know what I mean), and 3-4d is in until the river, a raise is probably a money maker.
It has been suggested that one reason not reraise is that it increases your chances of having to call a bet and one or more raises on fourth st when you miss your flush. That is true, which is why if you do reraise on the flop you should come out betting on fourth st. Now you are more apt to only get called. In fact a good argument for the reraise followed by a bet, is that this will often save a half a bet or more when you miss your flush.
David
This is generally what i do. If you cap it pre-flop and come out checking on fourth st. you have essentially annonced your on a flush draw and a good opponent will fire at you on the river no matter what he has if the flush card does'nt come. This is very good advice but i would expect no less from the professor. Good luck Ice
Post deleted at author's request.
Jim -- In the games you play in, you may well be right mostly to shun this reraise. That would be the case for the games I play in. It may be easy to get the impression from David's comments that he's saying, "Oh yeah, you gotta reraise here. It's definitely the thing to do." But if you go over them, it's clear that he's saying it's right *if* it's the kind of easy game where you're unlikely to get reraised with that knocking players out (or you're up against more players...), and there is less likelihood that you're up against hands that take away outs and may put you in a tough spot if the board pairs, etc. He has pointed out that the reraise probably won't be wise in tougher games. I don't think those have to be your hard core 300-600 game to qualify. In my games you'd get reraised here *very* often, and subsequent players would use that info to fold (or spring to life with their sets) a very high percentage of the time. That is why I see the same thing you do -- that the players in my games who jam the pot like that with draws tend more often than not to be those who just play fast, and lose. The better players are pretty selective about when they make these plays.
The rereaise is right under the right conditions, but many middle limit games won't qualify.
Thanks, John! I was starting to get a little depressed at the sheer volume of opinion against me.
Jim
I hope your just kidding about the sheer volume against you. Even though i don't agree with you on this point i look forward to reading all your threads as they are well thought out and very helpful to my game and many others. If we agreed on every thing i don't believe we would have any posters! In addition, hold'em is a very complicated game and there can be multiple answers to the same question. Your a great poster and keep up the good work. Good luck Ice
'
Jim,
I have been working on "Jim Brier Problem #1001" but maybe I should put it aside if you get depressed. Anyway, keep up the good work. Having people disagree with you once in a while is a lot better than being ignored.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I started with #1001 because my checking account did. It made it seem more authentic.
Well, thanks for all of the responses!
I did not reraise here, my thinking was the same as one of the other posters. I did not want to scare off the other flush draw, if there was one. I did feel at the time a reraise would be +EV, but was hoping to trap someone into making a non-nut flush.
Betting out on the flop was automatic, as twice I had bet in similar situations(an ace flopped), and all folded, even against a large field.
For those of you counting "outs" no one has mentioned how I actually ended up winning the hand. An off suit 10 came on the turn, giving me the double gut shot draw, and the river was a beautiful 8.
Danny S
Game is 1-5 spread with $1 blind I am on the button in seat 10 with KQs. Seat 7 raises to $4 and seat 8, 9 and my self call, everyone else has folded. Flop comes 2s7sJs , seat 7 bets $4 all call to me and I raise to $9. All fold except for seat 9 turn is 8h check to me I bet $5. The turn is 5s check to me I check.
My questions are was it correct to raise on the flop? Should I have just checked on the end? seat 9 only had two pair and I won, but was I correct to fear the A of spades? Thx.
Flop raise was OK, fear is the wrong word but you should be concerned about the As and since he could have been playing for the s on the end a check was OK.
You played the hand well but the guy with 2 pair - well all I can say is thank god for those guys who are betting into a flush with 2 pair - he had a few outs and you had the rest of the deck - a position I like to be in.
Baelwulfe,
It is almost always correct to raise on the flop with a strong hand with all the callers are trapped between you and a lead bettor. Your raise could mean many things so you will not loose much action. That being said, this hand may be an exception.
With the second nut flush you might want to wait a round. You hope a non flush card comes and the original better will lead again. Worse card is a four flush, which will kill your action (except from a queen, ten or maybe nine that will probably call you down or an ace that beats you).
On the river I would bet against most players. Few players will go for a check raise with the ace since they realize the board is now scary to you (from their perspective).
Now I'll go see what the infamous Rounder has to say.
Regards,
Rick
A check on the end was OK but a bet would have been marginally better. Perhaps with a bet from you he may have laid down his hand anyway with that kind of a board. Or think of it this way: If you had the nuts are you going to try for a check raise and perhaps miss a bet?
Yes, I think your raise on the flop is correct. There is already a substantial pot and your raise will get called by at least one player.
When checked to on the end, I think you should bet. If your opponent had the Ace of Spades he would probably have bet the river. You will get a crying call from a lower flush or two pair which are far more likely than someone having specifically the Ace of Spades and not betting the river.
seat 9 only had two pair and I won, but was I correct to fear the A of spades?
In general, don't fear monsters under the bed. I would usually only not bet the river here against players who might check-raise bluff the river at a reasonably correct frequency, and you're very unlikely to find such a player at the 1-5 level. I agree with everyone else that most 1-5 players would just bet out here. Like Jim said, more often than not you'll get a crying call from the two pair or set, or someone with a smaller flush.
-Sean
Typical Tight online 10/20 Holdem game. 2.5 players seeing the Flop. The game was better, but has started to become the "Fold to the Button who Raises" game. I'm about done for the day.
Me: In the SB with Jd,5d two players call the BB (one in the Middle and one in Late), I call also. The BB Checks.
Flop: 3d,Js,4d
I check planning to Check Raise when the late player bets. This is typicly how the game has been playing with this funky type of Flop. Everyone checks to late position who bets to try to pickup the Pot. He either picks it up or someone calls. Well I've got a little suprize waiting. To my suprize the BB bets out, everyone folds to me and I pull out the Check Raise. To my suprize, again, the BB makes it 3 Bets. Now I do something I don't normaly do, though I have an abnormaly strong drawing hand. I make it 4 Bets on the Flop. Now to my further amazement, he Folds!
The only thing I can put this guy on is a Jack Weak Kicker that I convinced was drawing dead. What just happened? Should I possibly be making more good hands 4 bets on the Flop. Maybe this guy just got out of line and realized it a bit too late.
Later, CV
Typical Tight online 10/20 Holdem game. 2.5 players seeing the Flop. The game was better, but has started to become the "Fold to the Button who Raises" game. I'm about done for the day.
Me: In the SB with Jd,5d two players call the BB (one in the Middle and one in Late), I call also. The BB Checks.
Flop: 3d,Js,4d
I check planning to Check Raise when the late player bets. This is typicly how the game has been playing with this funky type of Flop. Everyone checks to late position who bets to try to pickup the Pot. He either picks it up or someone calls. Well I've got a little suprize waiting. To my suprize the BB bets out, everyone folds to me and I pull out the Check Raise. To my suprize, again, the BB makes it 3 Bets. Now I do something I don't normaly do, though I have an abnormaly strong drawing hand. I make it 4 Bets on the Flop. Now to my further amazement, he Folds!
The only thing I can put this guy on is a Jack Weak Kicker that I convinced was drawing dead. What just happened? Should I possibly be making more good hands 4 bets on the Flop. Maybe this guy just got out of line and realized it a bit too late.
Later, CV
CV,
I thought the Y2K bug came early with the title of this post :-).
I would tend to lead at this flop with top pair, weak kicker and the four flush. Are you really that sure the bet would come from late position?
As far as your check raise, I guess you need to know your player which is pretty hard online. Most of the time his actions will indicate real strength. I do think having the four flush (and back door straight) gives you the chance to push it a little harder then normal.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I guess I was hoping that the late position player would be the one who bet. See my responce to Jim's post.
Later, CV
I think you should lead on the flop with your top pair/no kicker hand and various backdoor possibilities into three opponents. You cannot be sure who will bet or if it will get bet at all and your hand is too weak to give out free cards.
Once you decide to check and then the flop gets bet by the big blind, I like your raise. The big blind could be betting middle or bottom pair here against only three opponents one of whom has checked to him. When raised again, I think you should call and take off a card. Your re-raise is a really risky play because you are out of position. It sounds like you were trying to "bet your way" out of trouble and it worked.
Jim,
(please excuse the Spelling errors)
I did have the 4 Flush which is why I played the way I did. If I was up against a Jack good kicker I had as many as 12 outs on the Turn alone for 2pair or Flush.
I admit my reraise to make it 4 bets is debateable because I was out of Position. I might have made more money by just calling his Reraise to 3 bets, but this is probably a good hand to make it 4 bets with because I don't want to just make it 4 bets on the Flop with Trips or Top Two Pair. I actually do see some of the same players on-line, and have notes on their play. I suspect they are at least taking mental notes of me.
Here is my view about the Check-Raise on the Flop. I was figuring that if nobody Flopped anything I could pickup some free money when the late position player bet. If I bet out most likely everyone would have folded unless they had a good draw or at least Jack good Kicker. If someone did call my Check-Raise with a ligitimate hand, I wouldn't be too worried because of the strength of my Draws.
Later, CV
I should have said I had 13 outs on 4th.
Just as a little extra investigation I simmed my hand (Hot/Cold) against Jack good kicker the results are pretty interesting. I'm even money vs. K,Jo, better than Even vs. Q,Jo and only a slight dog to A,Jo on the Flop.
Later, CV
I think your last reraise on the flop was correct if you were planning to check the turn if a brick hit. By reraising, you retain the lead and induce your opponent to check behind you on the turn, lest you make a monkey out of him by checkraising him twice. You can then get to the river for two SB's (after his last raise) instead of three. If you just call his last raise, he retains the lead and you must call his bet on the turn no matter what hits. Also, if you just call his last reraise and hit your draw, your opponent is more likely to get away from his hand when you suddenly show strength.
Note that when you check-raise the flop, you have to put in a bunch of bets to accomplish the above result. When I flop a pair with a draw or an above-average draw (12-outer) and there's a reasonable chance that my hand isn't best, my preference is to bet it out and play back if raised. Betting out and reraising helps me protect the equity of my hand when it is the best, keeps my cost of getting to the river relatively low, helps me get paid off when I hit and keeps my opponents a litttle nervous.
Of course, none of the foregoing applies if you really thought you had the best hand at the time, which apparently was the case. My guess is that your opponent had no outs, decided to play chicken with a ragged flop and gave it up midstream.
Jx is a possibility. Other candidates for the big blind's hands are 55-TT and AK/AQ/KQ, maybe even Q3/K3/A3 and Q4/K4/A4. If you find your opponents are often giving up top pair weak kicker heads up, then you should (more) aggressively play your draws. On the other hand, if your opponents are 3-betting you with the hands I mentioned and then mucking immediately to a 4 bet, then maybe you should start looking for a softer game. The pump-or-dump behavior you observed is the hallmark of a very strong player.
-Abdul
Yeah, I should have been in a Softer game. On-line 10/20 is sometimes tougher than expected. Probably a reason for that is because it is the Top Limit. Hopefully, once more people start playing, there will be higher limits than 10/20.
Thanks, CV
Interesting because I would expect the $10-20 online games to be tougher. This is because of the set of people who own computers and are involved with using the internet. I wouldn't expect a lot of loose, passive, unintelligent play from this set of people.
You'd be amazed!!
I think its getting much easier to get on-line. This lets people like Retirees and HouseWives (if there still is such a thing) get on-line and gamble. Heck, I bet a lot of closet gamblers are starting to realize that what they do on-line isn't going to be noticed by their Church or Family. He He He.
CV
(n/t)
Chris (or anybody),
My impression of the online games at the 10/20 level is that they are fairly tight (but not tough). If fact, we dropped down to 3/6 games for the sake of my student to more acurately model the 6/12 games she is playing in Los Angeles. These online games are still tighter than most card club games (of course I don't play mid day on Wednesday's at the Mirage) and this presents somewhat of a problem.
We play on Planet Poker. If you don't mind a hyper-aggressive female player joining your online casino, would you mind telling me where you play? And if you don't, that is OK too.
Regards,
Rick
I play Paradise Poker. Call Sign: Mr._Fish
They've treated me pretty good, and I like the interface a lot better than Planet Poker. I also like the way that they electronicly police the games to make sure no one is colluding. They have 7-card stud that is a very good game. I haven't played the Omaha High game, but they got it too.
I believe the more the Merrier. If you guys start playing, and we can convince other people that these on-line poker sights aren't just scams. We might have a new place to play. Paradise also has a heads-up free hold'em area. A great place to conduct lessons IMO.
I've gotten paid also, but it does take around 15 days.
Later, CV
In Poker Essays II, Section "True or False?", Question 3, you write that JTs is preferable to A6o in heads-up contests. You give two reasons: JTs is easier to throw away if you don't flop a pair and you can when a big pot with it if you hit a flush or straight.
I'd rather have A6o every time. First, heads-up no one is likely to hit anything, so now your Ace is ahead and can win even if chased to the river. Second, playing for flushes and straights is not the way to win at heads-up play. High cards or anything with an Ace goes up in value and hands that depend on hitting something go down.
Scratch all the above if your opponent plays better than you.
Anyway, I'd be interested in being corrected and your further thoughts on this subject.
actually the two hands are almost even if played out to the end blindly. also the majority of flops will hit one of the hands with something in a headup situation. one big advantage to jt is that it can hit second pair and win a nice headup pot or not get drawn out on as easily when you do. i would rather have the ace 6 only if the opponent was a complete check caller and i was assured i could win with ace high. most decent players wont let you see a showdown without a pair. plus those times he shares the ace with you will be a minne disaster for you.
Rounder:
The idea in poker is to win the most money, not the most pots. Ray's post pretty much tells you everything you need to know.
As the game gets short handed the distinction becomes more muddy. Winning more pots often means winning more money.
How can these hands be almost even?
You mean the times that TJs hits a straight or a flush overcomes the times that A6o wins outright with high card? Also the A will win a small percent of those flushes.
That's very hard to believe that A6o and TJs are about even head up when played to the end blindly. Even if you run a computer simulation - the simulation has a limit as to how good it is. And that limit is the "goodness" of the random number generator. As far as computers go, there's no such thing as a random number generator.
I find this perplexing -- how does one come to such a conclusion? And the experts agree! Have you done the theoretical math on this Mason? I believe there's no way to do an empirical mathematical analysis.
I just ran a million hand simulation of JhTh versus As6c. The JhTh won 49.49 percent of the time.
You specify the exact cards? That's not the same as TJs vs. A6o. Sometimes the A will be the same suit as TJ and sometimes it won't.
I believe in your abilities. But I need to ask how much time you've spent understanding randomization and random number generators? Because as far as computers go, there's no such thing as a random number. I am be very hesitant to believe any simulation that uses random generators.
Thanks for your help...
"Because as far as computers go, there's no such thing as a random number. "
Although it is true that there are "no" random number generators there are number generators that mimic randomness to a point that is indistinguishable from the true concept of randomness. Psuedorandomness is quite adequate for the operations that Mason performed to determine the results of A,6o vs JTs. That is as long as the generator is more random than pseudo, a problem the Germans had with thier Enigma encoder during WWII. I believe Mason uses Poker Probe by Mike Caro. Believe what you will but I'll put my money on Caro's simulator.
Vince.
// ...it is true that there are "no" random number generators ... ...the operations that Mason performed to determine the results ... is .. a problem ... ...I believe you ... will ...put ... my money on i...t.
Vince.
//
// ...it is true that there are "no" random number generators ... ...the operations that Mason performed to determine the results...... ...I...will ...put ... my money on //
Touche!
Post deleted at author's request.
Mike,
I just ran a couple of one million hand simulations using two varients of the cards you specify.
First hand: As 6c versus Js Ts. The As 6c wins 51.86% of the time.
Second hand: Ac 6s versus Js Ts. The Ac 6s wins 51.17% of the time.
Regarding random numbers. The generator used in Poker Probe is highly regarded. That being said, there was a problem on internet poker where hackers were able to determine the seed and figure out exactly what was coming. This problem was discussed in some old 2+2 Exchange threads a few months ago and you should also be able to find more searching RGP using deja.com Power Search.
Regards,
Rick
Gee I like starting out the favorite - guess I just don't like up hill fights.
A problem with starting out the favorite in a heads up spot like this is that you may have to call with A-high.
But if you don't make anything with J-10s you are not going to call someone down with J high. Most of the time.
Michael, I would think that whichever player had the better position would be a big favorite over the other player. If you were on the button with Jack-Ten suited and raised with the small blind folding, you have the advantage over the big blind calling with Ace-Six offsuit. Conversely, if you were on the button with Ace-Six offsuit and raised with the small blind folding you would have the advantage over the big blind calling with Jack-Ten suited.
I believe the simulation results are useful in showing that neither hand is a significant favorite over the other hand in a heads-up situation from a theoretical standpoint when all the boardcards are laid out. So then the really relevant factors become position and how the hand gets played.
One other point to consider. If you are on a button steal with Ace-Six offsuit and get re-raised by the big blind after the small blind folds, I believe you are more vulnerable to losing a lot of money than when your button steal was based on Jack-Ten suited.
Typical California 20/40 Hold'em game...you are in small blind - 9 handed.
5 callers - no raises. Big blind will not raise unless he has AA, KK...and maybe QQ.
How bad does your hand have to be to fold? will you call with any pair? will you call with any two connected cards? will you call with any two cards at all?
Q7off? J2off?
Under the conditions mentioned in your post: I will call with any pair. I will call with any suited connector or any suited Ace or any suited King. I will call with any suited one gapper. I will call with a suited double gapper down to something like Ten-Seven suited. I would call with any two unsuited cards Nine or higher. I would call with 98 offsuit. I think I would dump most everything else.
Not much left let's see. 72o
Jim,
I would add just a few more since you are getting 13 to 1 on your call. I think unsuited connecters down to 54 are playable. I think unsuited one gappers down to 64 are OK. And any suited two gapper is OK. Otherwise we are pretty close.
I'm not sure I would add Ax offsuit (many would). I just think this hand is win a little or lose a lot.
Regards,
Rick
The very worst hands are not worth calling with for half a bet: J6, Q5, 72, and friends. For 1/3 of a bet, any two cards will do. For 2/3 of a bet, I'm not so sure J8, Q9, and 75 would be worth playing. Weak nines, tens, jacks, and queens are especially dangerous here, due to the presence of the limpers who likely have these cards with good kickers.
I'll go ahead and back the 2+2 party line that you should probably focus your attention on more important questions, like postflop play. However, you question calling with any pair here, and any pair is huge here due to the implied odds of flopping a set, so that's one place you need to make sure you don't make a big mistake.
-Abdul
This advice is correct but beware of the caution that to play this loose you need to play your hand well. Usually this means not to get trapped. For example, if you flop top pair with a hand like Q3s you will frequently have to fold.
Yes, but I notice Abdul has moved in a 2+2 direction on this since I last saw him post on the topic when he advocated throwing away a fair number of hands even for just 1/3 of a bet. Sheesh Abdul, you're just a dang suck up toady aren't you? ;)
In this situation, there are 5 loose-aggressive limpers, and we are almost guaranteed that the big blind will not raise, so tossing in 1 chip on a 2 chip blind with any two cards is probably correct. With fewer tighter and more passive limpers and a more aggressive big blind, I definitely would muck some hands instead of tossing in 1 chip. It's such a low EV play either way that you should probably call with garbage if you want to appear loose and muck if you want to appear tight.
-Abdul
A likely story. More like, "The truth hurts", don't you think? Didn't realize how you were slowly being converted, slowly transforming, turning into a toady, bit by sucky bit, eh? Now you gotta put on the brakes, terrified of being be swallowed up in an overwhelming born again experience, becoming one with the entity with two big "2"s on its forehead! It was more that kinda stuff -- wasn't it? ;)
Any pair, Axs, 2 paints, 9T on up.
Remember you have the worst position when the flop comes.
You wouldn't play a 98s in this spot? How about a 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s? I read your comments about suited hands. I feel that you are being way too tight in this spot.
Probably would - but would also play them unsuited too.
I like coupled cards as I like pairs pre flop.
I just don't put as much stock in the suited aspect of the coupled cards. Would rather have 89o than 97s.
I think the 8 groups of starting hands in HPFAP is decieving to a lot of players and needs to be challanged - I like the idea of 3 groups and a 4th called DANGER these rags should not to be played without extreem caution.
I am working on a post which will be ready soon.
In loose games like CA or internet 10-20, I think you are giving up too much if you fold even a hand as weak as 7-9o for 1/2 bet. Clearly though, you won't lose much (if anything) in the long run if you tighten up to rounder's standards.
Rounder
You wrote: "Would rather have 89o than 97s."
I disagree. These hands are close even if they are both unsuited. The suited 97 is much better than an offsuit 89. Also note that one of the straights for 89 occurs when the board is QJTxx. This will always lose to AK which will rarely be thrown away when it has a chance to make this hand.
I rate single gaps in the middle ranges to be about 90% as good as connectors and I rate middle card suitedness (against a field) making the hand about 65% or so better then if it were unsuited.
Regards,
Rick
Rick guess it is kind of academic as I don't play these much except really late and if "free" in the BB.
I like to play them against a big field.
Reason I like the offsuit 89 against the suited 97 is the off suited 89 is easier to get away from if you don't hit it hard on the flop.
Guess I am plying to much PL/NL these days.
This internet poker has got my attention. Would anyone be willing to comment on their experiences and prospects. What I'm interested in:
1) Can a good player expect to augment his income just as in any regular game ? 1a) Could this form of poker actually be more profitable ? More Convenient ? 2) Are games available at your site 24 hrs. a day ? 3) What are the better times to play ? 4) Has cashing out and payment been a problem ? 5) Which do you consider the better of the cash money game sites ? 6) Doe's state law currently have any jurisdiction over your internet gambling, poker specifically ? I live in Nevada, and I have heard there is a concerted effort to outlaw and make payment difficult in Nevada to protect Casino interest ? Is this true ? How about your state ? A lot of these companies are offshore so you seem to have no exposure to or protection from the US courts, is that a problem ?
Absent the use of tells and the obvious spector of being cheated, this seams like it might be an excellant way to go, with a wide cast of players, good and bad. Any honest observations will be appreciated. Sorry if this has been discussed already,I missed it.Thanks..
It's very convenient. The competition is about the same at the low limits as AC, (my only comparison) The rakes are down right reasonable. I have had no problem giving or getting money. They have great public relations and are quick to answer any problems or concerns. I do not know of any legal limitations that New York has. Games go 24/7. I most often play on Planet Poker. I've played on Paradise Poker as well. Both sites are good.
.
n
Much has ben said about the erratic play of many players at lower limit hold 'em. Can't put them on a hand, can't put them on a thought.
Since a loose aggressive player is just as likely to limp in with AA, to trap, as to raise UTG with T9s, it would seem you need a better way of determining whether or not to call, fold, raise or reraise than just your cards and position.
Example.
You're in the small blind with KsTs.
UTG bets out, 3 call, you call, BB raises. All call.
Flop Td, 8h, 4h
You bet, to see where the power is.
BB calls, UTG raises.
Now I would think in any normal game you can probably put BB on AKo, or AKs and UTG on an overpair or AT.
However, knowing these players are erratic you might be sitting with best hand. Do you call, fold or reraise?
Since judgement cannot give you the pure answer it would seem you should have a randomizer ready to either call or reraise, I think a fold is premature regardless.
Comments?
As a low limit player I agree with your observations. I've seen many inexplicable plays on the flop in these games. Now, I'm sure some of it would make sense to better more experienced players, but a lot just has to be random.
My interpretation is many LL players try wierd actions on the cheap street trying to fold others which isn't all that stupid! Anyway, many seem to slow down on the turn. I can't count the number of times I've seen a bet, 2 raises, and several calls on the flop and have the turn checked around when a blank hits.
All this suggests (to me) calling with your K-T and betting out on the turn. Another raise is probably legitimate. Your K-T is probably too weak to reraise with because you might be drawing dead (or almost dead). T-8s, 8-8, and 4-4 are frequently played up front in loose LL games.
Fat-Charlie
Pre-flop when you say UTG "bets out" I assume you mean he just limps in and does not open with a raise. Three players call and you call. The big blind now raises and everyone calls. At this point I put the big blind on a big pair (Jacks or better) or big slick.
Your bet of top pair/excellent kicker is correct. When the big blind just calls, I would put him on big slick and not an over pair otherwise he would raise. When the UTG now raises I would put him on AT or KT or perhaps a Heart flush draw if he is the loose-goose type or a member of the flush draw school where they like to raise on their draws when they have mutliple opponents. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 3 PRE-FLOP CALLERS?? DID THEY FOLD OR STAY OR WHAT?? THIS HAS A BIG BEARING ON THE PROBLEM.
Assuming the other guys folded, I would call and take off a card. If a blank hit, I would check and see what happens being prepared to fold if I get any serious heat. The problem at this point becomes one of being a huge dog when I don't have the best hand and still being very vulnerable to redraws when I do given the two flush on board.
Jim,
My point wasn't so much the analysis of this particular hand but more so the problem that UTG AND BB could just as easily been betting with med pockets as anything else. How is one to know considering the fact that many of the more agressive players at these limits determine whether or not they are good by counting up how many inferior hands they overbet and won? And this is regardless of their net winnings. If they've bluffed you they're good, if they've lost money they were unlucky.
My question is, disregarding the actions of people whose play is unfathomable,could you indeed toss a coin to determine the action you should take if only 1 or 2 players remain?
I don't think so. If it were heads-up it might be different but you have to wonder what is the likelihood that BOTH opponents are simultaneously on the same hand doing something goofy. You also have realize that these guys get good cards as well as the rest of us and will bet and raise with them too. In addition, you have to consider the texture of the board. The more highly coordinated it is (two flush, three cards in a "straight zone", or three cards in the "playing zone") the more likely you are to get burned. There is no generic answer to your question. It is always a function of your hand, your position, the texture of the board, how many opponents you have, and what the betting action has been.
Sammy,
I find with this kind of player and this kind of board they will play draws like the nuts and with top pair and K kicker you have to see the turn and most likley the river these guys often get real passive as the betting goes up.
Played in a tighter-than-usual game last night (I play in a lot of loose 10-20 games). I have KK in early position and I decide to limp. I get two late callers and both blinds for 5 way action. Flop is 3-4-5 rainbow. Blinds check, I bet, button raises, all fold to me. I just call. The button is loose aggressive. I could not put him on 6-7 or a set because he would not have raised there. I figured him for A-5s or something like that, maybe 6-6.
Turn is a jack. I lead out, he raises again. I call.
River is a 9. I checked, he checked, and he showed 5-6s before mucking.
I welcome all comments, critiques, and what-have-you....
Pre-flop I think you should raise with your pocket Kings but I sense from your narrative that you had decided to vary your play for some reason.
On the flop I would bet out like you did but then re-raise the button. The button could have a made hand or two pair but he could also be raising with top pair or an over pair. On the other hand, there is definite merit to your line of play of just smooth calling the raise by letting the loose, aggressive player bet your hand for you when you have the best of it. But I would rather do this when I have position over the loose, aggressive guy.
I like your play on the turn and river.
I suspect you may have cost yourself some money by not raising pre-flop but who knows? If this was a tight game you may have chased off some contributors if you raise pre-flop. I also don't like giving the blinds free plays.
Seems like you played the hand OK - a pre flop raise would have been advisable but you seem to have had your reasons for just calling. The board was scarry and with a loose guy in you really can't put him on anything - He could have had a straight made to a draw - you still just had a pair.
I probably would have raised preflop and reraised on the flop to see if he had made the straight while it is still cheap. But you played it differently a bit passive for me but OK.
I like your deception of just calling preflop, but I would then use that deception to my advantage post flop. With a low coordinated flop with you betting out, the best your opp could put you on would be mid pocket pair. I think I might reraise here and confuse him a bit more, after all you're giving him at best a straight draw, top pair or 66. On the turn when you bet out, you might not get raised this time unless he made the straight on the flop. Even with two small pair he might just call. If you don't get raised on the turn, unless the river is a 2 or a 6 I think you can bet out again, as he could also be on 88, 99, TT.
Hello all, I have recently become a patron of 2+2 and have found alot of useful information. I was wondering if anyone could give me general advice on playing the LL holdem tables. I am fairly new to casino play (only played a few times) and have found that I must play very tight at these tables. Bluffing is a lost cause- or so it seems. If you could point me to any essays, books, or general advice I would be very thankful.
I would recommend reading Lee Jones' book, Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em to start with. I also like Lou Krieger's Hold 'Em Excellence book. Continue to play tight, but aggressive. Continue reading this forum as well as the RGP (rec.gambling.poker) newsgroup. Also, read Card Player Magazine, which can be done on line (only a few of the articles actually appear on line). In most cases, the casino gives them out for free. Good luck.
Liquid Swords
I am not sure what limits you are talking about but I feel strongly about table/game selection if there is that opportunity. I like the right mix of players at my table for the best results.
I believe it is almost impossible to beat a table of LL maniacs consistantly no matter how well you play.
So be careful where you play and consider going up in your game if you can. There is a world of difference betwuue the 3/6 and 6/12 games also a kill situation will award a better player.
I agree with you Rounder. I would look for a nice loose,passive game with very little pre-flop raising. Fortunately at the lower limits this is usually easy to find. Sometimes when I sit in a $3-$6 or $4-$8 game while I am waiting for my $20-$40 game it is not at all unusual for me to be the only player at the table who ever puts in a raise before the flop.
Jim I have had the same experiences - Waiting for a bigger game seat at CP last month I sat n a 3/6 game and won $260 in less than 90 min. I rolled over the larger game twice because this seat was so soft.
See I am a woose in a way - I really like easy games.
I'd rather win $260 at the very easy 3/6 game than move up and take my chances with better players even though I have a high EV expaectations at larger limits.
But that's just me.
The only problem I have with pre-flop raising is that it doesn't seem to even phase a bad player holding 5,9o-who gets lucky on the draw. It happens all too frequently and I fear after being beat out by garbage like this too many times it might effect my play-ultratight with the very rare bluff for advertisement. So far it hasn't, I've managed to stick with the stratagy I know will win. Unfortunatly I don't yet have the bankroll or experience to comfortably move up a level.
I also fear that when I move up to a 20-40 the playing style of the LL game (3-6 or 4-8)will effect my judgment. What important changes should be made in going from a LL game to a 20-40? Loosen up a bit? Bluff more frequently? any coments would be greatly appreciated.
Doc,
The best thing for you to do, would be to just give me your money. You know I'm better than you, anyway.
Skinny, If I had wanted your advice I would have picked up the phone and called you. I was specificly interested in hearing from "real poker pleyers" not "I wanna pretend I'm Matt Damon in Rounders-poker players" J/K I'll be glad to sit at a table with you any day At leats I don't have to second guess what you're holding.
I believe it is almost impossible to beat a table of LL maniacs consistantly no matter how well you play
While I always enjoy Rounder's posts and like his analysis, I consider the statement above illogical. Now, I cannot tell you how to beat a table full of maniacs. My experience with these situations is limited, and the maniacs usually clean my clock!
Despite my personal inability to pound these puppies, either it's possible to regularly beat them (allowing for a large standard deviation), or they are playing correctly and understand the game better than we realize. Since I doubt any regular posters here agree with the maniacs, they must be beatable.
Would someone please share the secret?
Thanx - Fat-Charlie
FC,
My experience is - if there are more than 3 ultra loose maniacs playing all the hands and playing them to the river it is very very difficult to win at a table like this. I welcome 2 of these types but 4 or more forget about it, it turns into a crap shoot and I don't like playing poker like that.
I read somewhere that DS is a great table selector I would be interested in knowing that mix of players he likes to have at his table.
Post deleted at author's request.
No Gary I am not frightened or stupid. I just prefer to have a different mix - OK - why do you so called self proclaimed "experts" insist on putting someone down as ignorant, low IQ, stupid idiots if they don;t agree with you. HUH!
Post deleted at author's request.
In HPFAP21, S&M directly address this game. You must play basically only Cat. 1 & 2 hands (that's not precise but gives you the idea). And Rounder, Gary is right - you will make your one giant pot per four hours with a nut flush or nut straight, NOT top pair.
The reason very few of us succeed in a game like this is it is SO boring to fold 98% or so of your hands, and most players don't do it.
As discussed earlier in the thread, game selection can help here. If there is another table where there is very little pre-flop raising, switch to that one.
Dick
You might want to look at my humble page, dedicated to loosest hold'em games.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I'm hoping for some material from 2+2 on this subject but so far it's not forthcoming. Lee Jones has a decent book on the subject but a savy player will find a few flaws in his work. It's probably the best place to start. A computer game such as Turbo Texas Hold-em is valuable for a rank beginner but can build bad habits otherwise, might be worth a look.
The first poker book I read was "winning Poker for the serious player" by ed silberstang, then a book by avery cardoza, both of which were worthless. I read a book called "thursday night poker" by peter stien (or stiener, i can't remember), which was better, but was designed for home games only, and was a very tough read. He is a former probabilities prof. and that was most of what he addressed , and his section on tells is somewhat questionable. Then, I finally bought lee jones' book, and found it to be pretty good. It was the first book I bought that really improved my game, and it is pretty easy to read. However, now that I have read HEPFAP, specifically the loose games section, I have found that I disagree with some of the advice given by Jones.
I guess what I am getting at, go ahead and read Lee Jones, because, like I said, he gave me a good foundation, and allowed me to start winning. But you pretty much have to read S&M if you want to be a winner. You need to realize however, that most of HEPFAP is geared toward bigger games, where the players are doing more than entertaining themselves. The knowledge you glean from this book is valuable, but much of what you learn about specific strategy in specific situations will not come into play in low-limit. As has already been said, keep reading here and absorbing as much as you can. Eventually it all starts coming together!
Mike
There is also a LL poker book on Hold'em out by Ken Warren...it's not great, but does give valuable insight and a complete statistics table with win percentages
Mike
I know that a 3 flush appears on the flop about 5% of the time. What are the respective percentages for a rainbow and a 2 flush. Thanks.
A rainbow flop appears just under 40% of the time. Anything besides a rainbow and a 3 flush is your 2 flush - about 55%.
Fat-Charlie
F-C,
How do your numbers compare to when you are holding 1 or 2 of the flush cards?
Thanks.
I'm reading the limit Holdem section.Bobby Baldwin writes,'I'm usually going to call a raise in middle position with suited hands like K-10,A-10,J-10 and 10-9.Comments?From other reading I basically have been calling raises pre flop with group 1 hands,possibly group 2 if wild raiser.
First, the limit hold 'em section in Super/System was written for a game whose structure was completely different that what is played today. This makes much of the advice inaccurate for today's game. For example, there is advice not to check raise much. To be successful to day you will have to violate this advice.
Calling early position raises with hands like A-10 and K-10 should trap you for a fair amount of money (even if they are suited). The J-10s and 10-9s are not as bad but they are still wrong. The only exception would be if you can anticipate many other players coming in behind you. But the K-10 is still terrible. (Note. When you called a raise in the $10-$20 game Doyle was talking about, it was only $10 to call -- the opening bet was $5. Today you have to pay $20 to call that same raise. That's a big difference.)
The seven card stud section, the general strategy section, and the statistics section still hold up very well today. As for the limit holdem section, I strongly suggest that you stick with Sklansky and Malmuth's version. Super/System, as a hole, is still must reading as it gives you a glimpse of how a poker legend's mind works. While reading the book, make sure to keep reminding yourself that it was written at a time when conditions were very different (as Mason Malmuth points out above). If the author wrote a new version today, there is no doubt that he would write it differently.
How does the No Limit HE section hold up today? I guess the only comparison would be Ciaffone's book and Cloutier and McEvoy's book.
The basic strategy for no-limit holdem recommended in S/S is this: Buy in with an amount that will give you the biggest stack at the table and bully your opponents by employing "power poker" - a super loose aggressive strategy based on running over your more timid opponents. "If in doubt, raise!" This is no doubt a superior strategy if you happen to be the big stack in a tournament or when you're playing in a home game against players who aren't quite sure how to play no limit. For these reasons, I believe that S/S is the premier work on big stack no limit holdem play available. But the world has changed since it was published over 20 years ago. Today, no limit holdem is virtually extinct in public cardrooms. About the only place you can play no limit is in a tournaments. And you can't buy in for more than the other players there. S/S does not cover short stack play, a very important skill in todays tournament biased no limit holdem environment. For instruction in this area, you're just gonna have to go with Ciaffone and Cloutier and McEvoy. They cover short and middle stack play pretty adequately. I hope that Doyle Brunson will update his classic someday. A 5 or 6 part series on no limit holdem in one of the poker magazines by Brunson would be awesome!!!!
Hey,
When is the last time Brunson won anything.
I don't recall seeing him at the final table in any of the last 7 WSOP or reading anything about him recently.
Maybe someome else should write this "awesome" work since the game has changed so much since Doyle was great.
I respect Mr. Brunsons' accomplishments but I don't babe Ruth would hit 25 Home Runs today if you get my drift.
I heard that Brunson doesn't play that many tournaments anymore. This should explain why you don't see his name in the "in the money list" often, although he did finish in the top five at TOC this year. He also won the WSOP razz event some two or three years ago and won the Four Queens summer edition main event (no limit holdem) some three or four years ago, where the final four consisted of Brunson, T.J. Cloutier (a tournament specialist who was/is in his prime), Chip Reese (the person many consider to be the world's best all around player), and Erik Seidel (perhaps the best of the best of the so called "new breed" of mathematical players). I was there when Doyle whipped their butts. And I've never seen him play any limit under 400-800 in my whole life. I've seen him several times play 2,000-4,000. He has obviously been able to sustain his high stakes status - a very hard thing to do once you consider that competition has definitely become stronger since the time he wrote his book. Brunson is considered an old timer but I don't think his brain is stuck back there in the 1970's. I believe that he is an ever evolving player who constantly adapts to the times. Add to that that he is very intelligent and experienced. And you have the best person in the world to write an awesome article on no limit holdem play.
I would appreciate some comments on this hand from a pretty tight but relatively passive Mirage 6-12 game on Christmas Eve. I think I misplayed it and want to avoid similar situations in the future.
After first position, one off button and button limp in I call in small blind with 56h, BB checks. This is only the second hand for the first position bettor so I have no read on her play yet.
Flop comes Jh9h2c
I check, BB checks, first position bets, everyone except BB calls.
Turn is Qh.
Acting quickly, I decide to check to see if I can get a read on whether there are other flushes out there. First position is out with her chips quickly and one off button and button call without hesitation. I ask for time, rethink the betting and decide to fold.
River is Ts.
First position bets, both others call. Bettor rolls over KT, QJ one off button, J9 on button. I folded the best hand!
I realize that if you are going to play suited low cards you want the flush to hit you, but I really thought from the betting that I was drawing dead.
How could I have varied my betting to find out? Checkraise the turn?
Or should I just bet out the turn, showing my flush hit and seeing what develops?
I prided myself on some good laydowns during my trip but this one sticks with me. I don't want to analyze from results, so I appreciate the comments on playing these low flushes when you have to act first. Thanks
If you had bet instead of checked your low flush, you would then be asking 'What should I have done when I was raised?'. That's poker.
When I make a flush I go for it, no matter how small it is. Flushes are hard to make and plenty of players will bet their pairs with three suited cards on top so you can never tell. An optimist with two pair would take those suited cards as help in disuading callers with stronger hands to fold.
The only way to tell from the betting that you are beat is to first convince the table that you hit the flush. Then and only then if you are raised or rerasied should you think of not raising. It sucks but if you were worried just check and call to showdown and take your lumps.
You can't fold!
You need to bet your flush on the turn for a lot of reasons. First your hand is probably the best. The other players may be afraid of a flush and check. If another suited card rivers you will likely lose and you need to make the others drop or pay. I would probably reraise a raise here too.
On that particular board, J92Q there are all kinds of worse hands likely, paints and straights.
Check will the 'Lost and Found' at the Mirage and see if they've found your balls.
Why in the world would you even play low suited connectors if your plan is to check-fold when you make your flush?
u reall need to bet your 4 flush on the flop u don't want to take a chance on a free card being a heart and and someone hitting a heart on the river with the ace bet the flop and stick it out there on the turn
I'm inexperienced and haven't read the other posts yet, but right or wrong, I would have bet the flop hoping to do some fishing and intimitating. What do you think?
Well, It's good that this hand sticks in your mind, which means you probably won't make the same mistakes twice. Anyway, you have 4 opponents. For just this situation, I did a little study on odds, so I would have an idea of where I'm at, when I'm suited, and my 4 flush comes on the flop. With 4 opponents, it's about 5 to 1 against anyone else having a 4 flush. Whatever. The play: Why not bet your 4 flush on the flop with 4 opponents, good enough odds. On the turn, when you make it go ahead and bet, find out where you're at. Take yourself out of a guessing game. If you do not bet, you have just given a free card to someone with any of several lone hearts bigger than your 5,6 to beat you, should a 4th heart come on the river. Back to my coffee.
Yeah if you play small suited cards and you hit the flush you have to ask your self why did I play them in the 1st place.
Since the flop contained only 2 of the suit I feel your hit on turn is good eneough to see it out so long as there isn't a 4th of the suit on the river.
The fact that there 3 broadway cards + a 9 involved would give me confidence my small flush was good with the action you were getting.
You can not fold to a single bet here unless you know the bettor to be a player who would never bet at a suited board without a flush.
You should bet out and then reevaluate if you get raised. In this case, it is an espicially tough decision even if you get raised, because the turn makes a straight, and a player might reasonably raise with a hand like KhTc, figuring he is drawing to the second nuts and going to have to pay off a bet on the river anyway. So even if you are raised, you need to know your opponents.
Good luck.
I agree with Michael Mitchell's comments. I would have gone ahead and bet out after the flop. If you are going to call a bet anyway, why not take the initiative and bet yourself? When the flush comes on the turn, bet again, and unless you were raised and re-raised, you are booked for the trip unless a fourth heart shows up on the river. I think you know in your heart that you blew this one. Don't worry, we've all made lots of goofs ourselves. Just try to learn from it and take it down next time.
Thanks to all for the good analysis. Since I started to play HE a couple years ago I have been searching for a good balance between aggressive and smart; i.e. betting your winners, good draws and bluffs and tossing your losers when you are beat. Getting these situations down will help me, as they will inevitably come up again. Happy New Years.
Kevin
7 handed. we don't know how to play no limit very well at all. blinds are .25, .5. i am utg with KsKh. i raise $4. folded to the small blind who reraises $4. small blind is a good player. i have $28 left. he has more. what should i have done?
scott
Push it all in. Without question. He can only call with AA, in which case you are in very bad shape. I guess if the SB is a total conservative rock, you could put him on AA, but it is highly likely you have the best hand
assuming he would only call with AA, which i agree is a likely scenario, i don't understand the all in bet. if he has AA, which happens a small but not negligble portion of the time, he calls and i am a huge dog. otherwise, i win the current pot of almost $13. if i am leading, i am a pretty big favorite. i am not sure if the pot is big enough to make an all in raise, with the intention being to push out all the hands that i beat, correct. perhaps a smaller reraise, but still enough to make any hand beside AA wrong to call, would be a better play. you would still probably lose the whole stack to AA, but i think you might win more from weaker hands.
scott
scott,
In NL HE pot odds have a lot less to do with good play than does strategy and playing ability.
If your looking for an excuse to dump all your chips in on a KK hand stick to playing limit it is easier to make the calculations and justify your actions.
i don't understand. are you saying it is a mistake to go all in?
it seems it would be a lot harder to go all in with KK in limit.
scott
Scott,
What I am saying is pot odds have alot less to do with decisions in NL than it does in Limit.
You can't look at the pot and decide if the size of the pot justify your decision to go all in. You have to look at "what if" the guy calls me.
In NL the all in bet rarely if ever is a good bet based on the size of the pot.
It is impossible to give you the right play without a solid read on this guy's play. The key here is what he thinks you might raise under the gun. I don't agree with those that think an all-in reraise is the only play here. You are heads-up and have position with a great made hand. Its a good situation to have in no-limit.
Yoyr raise to $4 is excessive st 8x the big blind. You are chasing away the trap hands you want in like KQs and AQ, and are only likely to get played back at by AA, unless some of the players are foolish. You are putting yourself in the win-a-little or lose-a-lot mode. I would normally bring it in for 3.5-4.5x the big blind, depending on the "mood" of the table.
And you should occasionally go for the limp-reraise with Kings or Aces in the first 2 seats, especially if there ae aggressive players behind you. This can get them over-committed with a trap hand and has the added effect allowing you to limp in the future with more speculative hands since they my fear a reraise. Don't go overboard with this though, I would only do it once every 3 or 4 times. And remember, "If you limp with Aces, don't go broke with Aces."
well, i didn't have a solid read on the guy. we were playing mostly limit. but the table thought it would be fun to play hold em with the dealer deciding limit or no limit. a couple of the risk adverse guys actually chose limit. i don't know no limit very well, but i am not so arrogant as to think that i know limit well enough to make up for the positional advantage in no limit. anyway, the guy was a solid limit player.
i agree with your take on the initial raise. i thought i could tempt someone into taking an overaggressive shot at the pot by putting some money in. but, in hindsight, i agree it was a mistake.
as to what he thinks i would raise with, i'm not really sure. but i would actually raise with stuff along the lines of 99-AA, AQs, AKs, AJs, KQs, AKo. this may be way off base becuase of the nature of no limit. but i don't really know no limit. i just tweak my usual loose, aggressive limit game to a tight, aggressive limit game. at least in early position.
scott
Hey scott,
What little experience I have with no limit says that nolimit is the true trapping poker game. That said, i think that a lot of people will play KK early as a limp reraise. If no one raises, then you jam the flop if an ace doesnt fall. You probably will get a raise preflop if there is a pair out against you just on a steal, so this is protection against someone floping a set.
As far as this hand goes, if you really think your opponent is a good player, I would be worried about his raise. The size of the raise says "I want you to call or reraise" He is not trying to drive you off the pot with a large raise. If he did, he might have a good but not great hand, AKs AQs QQ JJ, and he wants you to drop. I think a small raise like this either means your opponent is a passive player who you can push around, or is setting a trap. I dont think your opponent in this hand is a passive player, so I would beware. This is what I was thinking as this hand was playing. I thought that a midsized raise would get you to call with a moderate to good hand , and reraise with a great hand.
How would you have played from my side? Would you have reraised my hand all in immediately? Would you have laid down KK to an all in reraise, or would you have called? I though there was a good chance that you would have let go of ANY hand (except AA) if I went all in immediately. Thus the smaller raise.
All of that said, I would probably not have gone allin in your seat. You had position on me, and hardly lose anything waiting to see the flop. But like i said, i have no experience with no limit either.
I too look forward to others comments.
Todd (the honorary IvyBoy Sid)
well, for starters, i think you played it correctly. i probably would have called an all in bet, but with KK all my money was probably going in anyway. (unless an A flopped. that would have pissed you off, wouldn't it?) but there are lots of other hands that i might have had that are big enough dogs to AA that you want to give me a chance to make a second best hand.
i see your point about the mid sized raise. but does that really mean AA? it seems to, but that conclusion just doesn't sit right with me.
scott
I don't like the taunt bet with AA at all. Good players will see right through it and it makes it easier for them to put you on AK or AQ when you put in a big raise against multiple limpers.
In addition, with the amount that you would have left in your stack ($24 or 6x his $4 raise) after Todd's raise, you would not be making a big mistake to call with any pocket pair and hope to flop a set and double through. If he really wants to trap you, instead of himself, he has got to get you pot-committed and squeeze down your implied odds.
Push in. There are only 2 hands worth going broke with in no limit and KK is one of them.
I think youe small bet of $4 traped him to raise.
I'm curious about something Rounder and you're definitely the guy to ask. From scott's seat we're going to push in and take the chance opps isn't sitting with AA. But doesn't the fact that opps probably is sitting with some Ace come into the process? I know whenever I get dealt KK an ace always seems to find its way onto the board.
If you can get the guy all-in before the flop with AK or AQs against KK, you should take it as you are a 2.3-2.5 to 1 favorite. It is going to be difficult to double through a good player with a much better edge than this. If you lose with the "Ace Magnet", you lose, go into your pocket for more money, and take solace in the fact that you made a +EV play.
Let's look at a simplified analysis, assuming he has AK, and would have been willing to call or raise all-in if you reraised him.
Case 1- You just call. He will flop an Ace about 17% of the time. In this case, you will probably not lose any more money and he will not win any more of your money. So you win $8 from him 83% of the time and lose your $8 17% of the time for an expected value (excluding the blinds and ignoring flopped straights, flushes, and your redraws) of $5.28.
Case 2- You go all-in for $28 more and he calls. Now he will beat you about 30% of the time by the river. So you win $32 from him 70% of the time and lose $32 the other 30% of the time. The EV here is much higher at $12.80, but the variance is also greater.
That's the "math" for those that think "I knew he had AK, but wanted to wait and see if an Ace flopped before committing all my chips. The "poker" is, of course, determining the odds that he might have AK vs. AA vs. QQ and how he will react to your raise or call, play on the flop with an overpair, bluff with overcards if you just call, etc.
Sammy - I have been busted out of more tournaments with KK than any other, hand by far and it is rarely against an AA it us usually against some silly hand like 44 and I lose on a 4 flush on the board with one of the 4's making the flush for the guy calling my all in bet.
It seems like KK is an A magnet but I'd take it every time. I just live being a fav. preflop. The other guy has to improve with a couple of outs all I have to do is get the rest of the deck.
:-)
It could be that the small blind, being a "solid limit player" could be reraising with a variety of hands that are good for limit poker. If you go all in and he folds, you are going to win 16 x the big blind, not bad. If you go all in and he matches you have a big advantage against any other hand except for AA. I once read somewhere that if you aren't an experienced no limit player, the best thing to do is play the odds and take advantage of them when the situation presents itself. The odds say he doesn't have AA, so push all in here.
as can be garnered from various posts in the thread, i raised all in, was called, and found myself against AA. nothing interesting came and i lost.
most responses said to go all in, but i don't think that is correct. how can it be correct to make a bet where the opponent will always correctly fold or correctly call? maybe i should have raised $10 or so, hoping to induce some hands beside AA to call.
i don't know.
scott
In a 7-handed game with a short stack, you gotta have terrific player-reading skills or good luck to not lose big with pocket Kings against pocket Aces.
A third raise of $10 doesn't accomplish anything here given that he will have to act first on the flop. I think I would have called and tried to get more information on the flop before committing the rest of my chips.
Part of the theory behind the all in bet is to get heads up.
Regardless of what others say you want your KK against the other guy heads up. In NL big pairs play best heads up.
Some issues back, one of the poker mags. had an article in it by a fellow who's name I can't recall that said he was in the process of conducting an experiment to test if sitting down to a small limit holdem game with a large stack of chips ($400+) would produce better results than starting with $100.
The idea being of course to gain some kind of a superior table presence with a large stack. He would make the big stack a little more than $400 to give the impression that he was coming from another game and doing well.
I've never seen a follow up article on this. Has anyone else heard what his results were?
The article you are referring to was posted in Card Player Magazine, and to this date there has been no updated article. This approach will yield mixed results depending on how aggressive the players are at the table. You will either be given more respect and able to make more moves or you will be viewed as someone to go after in pots since you will most likely be the money at the table. i do not recommend this play as the risk of putting that many chips into play is outweighing the potential to make a few extra bucks!!
I've seen nothing new.
There are some games, mostly loose ones, where the only table image that gets any respect is one of 'Lucky'. Tight and aggressive is not worth a lick to a lot of suck out dogs but just convince them that you are really lucky and they just might fold is a few profitable spots.
To foster the lucky image covertly buy a lot of chips, four racks is a good start. Loudly anounce your own suck-outs (good idea for anyone). Gamble a little but don't give it away. Good luck.
Nick,
In limit, I don't like to start a hand where it is reasonably possible that I could go all in. I figure I have the best of it when it gets jammed on the turn or river and I don't want to run out of bullets. I also hate to bug the chip runners when they are busy. I'd rather have them available for my opponents.
That being said, four racks for most games is a little excessive. I would buy $200 for 3/6, $400 for 6/12, $600 for 9/18, $700 for 10/20 and $1000 for 15/30 or 20/40. I would buy another rack if I was depleted to about 65% of my original buy in.
The big thing is not to go all in.
Regards,
Rick
Back in May/June I was having a great run of winning sesions. Everything I did was right but I was having a bit of a problem in tournaments. So I decided to challenge myself by just bringing the min. $$ buyin for the game I was playing - $60 for $6-12 $100 for 10-20 etc. It was a great exercise. I kept my winning streak up and learned how better to play stacks when you cannot rebuy. It didn't make any difference to my win rate and tought me to play a bit tighter in ring games and still win.
I really don't think stack size matters except I want to move that large stack in my direction.
It should affect your win rate. You should lose a bit as you will not get the maximum out of some situations. I see a great number of tournament specialists that buy chips this way but I don't believe they do very well. Of course you are a ring game specialist too so who knows.
If you are basing tight/loose decisions on the size of your stack then you must be losing some EV.
D.
And we all know what a slave Rounder is to EV. :-)
It was an exercise I tryed like a basketball player practicing with weights strapped on.
I was giving myself a handicap. Like folding the 1st 40 hands to set up a tight table image.
I do stuff like that, you know what EV SMeeVee.
A Texas Holdem question:
You are small blind with KTo and 5 players are in for one bet, including yourself.
Which flop would you prefer, K, 7, 5 or T, 7, 5 both rainbow?
Comments?
I would prefer the T75 flop over the K75 flop.
T75 gives you top pair with a great kicker. You're going to get action from overcards, and you aren't a big dog to a wired big pair.
When the K75 flops your kicker isn't as good, and action won't be as forth-coming from the wired pairs.
Sound right?
Yes Jon, that is just about how I feel. I have found that when I get the 'T, 7, 5' type of flop I instinctively feel better about my chances and more inclined to be aggressive.
I could have tightened up the question by adding that a late position player raised and everyone called. Then what?
Ask yourself which card on the turn you really want excepting a king or ten. Everything except a deuce has real potential to beat you. With the king high flop there are a few more cards that are not too scarry, Q, J, 2.
A lot depends on what happened pre-flop and where you are position-wise. But generally if you play this aggressively and raise on the flop you can scare out the speculative holdings -- the small straight cards and underpairs. Now you don't have to worry when the smaller cards hit the turn. Raising the flop may also represent to the overcards that you have a larger pair or trips.
I think that if a K flops you aren't going to get any action from those holding a J or Q. When T is the high board card you are going to get action from those cards that offsets the few times when they do happen to make a higher pair.
being little blind i would prefer k-7-5 chances r your kicker will hold up if there were no raises come out betting take it down now
What type of game is this? In a game wtih many sound players I would prefer the king high flop since I could very easily be alone with a king. Other, better kings are likely to have raise pre-flop if they're out there. KJ might limp in, KQ sometimes as well but you might be able to sniff them out for not too many chips.
T75 - now to see if ANYONE disagrees -
I used to like the 10 high flop but now I prefer the K high flop. Especially in a mid-limit game where bigger K's were likely to raise pre-flop.
I believe the comments are correct that you may get a bigger pot with "more action" on the 10 high flop but I suspect the K high has more equity for you.
D.
It's probably fairly close. Without the pre-flop raise, you are very likely in the lead on the Ten-high flop, you have a good kicker, and the over cards will chase. I certainly like this better than worrying about hands like K-J or K-Q that limped in when the K-high flop comes. However, with the T-high flop, the cards are geting clustered, and in the loose low-limit games, there will be plenty of action by people chasing gutshots and underpairs. On balance, I would vote for the T-high flop, hope you can get in an early raise to limit the field, and hope the hand stands up.
What is the general opinion on this video?
Since I spent some time consulting on this video I can probably help. Despite its name it is really aimed for beginning players. There is also about 20 minutes of hype on the tape -- people telling about their bad beats, etc. However, if you are just starting out, the information is fairly good.
I already bought the tape Mason, and heard your name mentioned in it. I liked the video and thought the info was good. But I also thought that about Lee Jones' book, yet it seems to get criticized (not in the video, but here). To me both the video and Jones's book seem very similiar in their teachings. Are they in fact?
If I remember correctly, Ben Tracey admits his tape is for beginners. Lee Jones on the other hand says his book is the right way to play in small games, not just the way beginners should play. That is an important distinction and is why we are critical.
David,
I just don't understand why you are so negative when the subject of Lee Jones comes up. He is so supportive of you and Mason and many other authors as well.
He admits his book is not for rank beginners but for those who have played hold em and continue to lose money at small limits.
He recommends reading Fundamentals of Poker by Malmuth and Loomis for rank beginners. He admits his book is only a starting point and should definitely be followed up with Hold 'Em Poker by Sklansky and then HPFAP before moving up to 10-20.
He calls Theory of Poker the best poker book ever written (can you at least agree on that!).
My impression might be wrong but I get the feeling you and Mason don't feel his book is the least bit informative.
It just seems he plugs you guys every chance he gets in his book and gets no slack in return.
SammyB
I agree.
His book is a very good starting point for LL holdem. Just because he MAY be wrong on a few plays doesn't invalidate the book.
In fact I am virtually certain that if a test were done where new players were given only LJ or 2+2 as their only reference material, that the LJ players would do better at the LL games. If for no other reason that to use the 2+2 material you must cull the appropriate stuff from at least 3 different books to get going where WLH is complete.
Moving up the 2+2 books are more useful though but as Sammy says LJ tells you this in his book.
D.
Are you saying that because Lee is nice to our books that he should be immune to deserved criticism? I doubt the other posters on this forum would take kindly to that.
I liken Lee Jones to a registered nurse writing about medicine. Much of what she says is correct even though she does not understand the underlying theory that good doctors do. Same for Lee Jones. Furthermore Jones filled a niche for total beginners in loose small games that might not be totally filled by my first holdem book. Play like he says and you will do decently in these games. All well and good.
The problem I have with Jones is that he doesn't admit his own amateur status. Rather he implies that his book is for low limit games what our book is for higher limit games. To put it another way he implies that he would do as well in low limits if not better, than an excellent high limit player would do in low limits. And that is nonsense. That high player would quickly adjust and do much better than Jones. There may be a few low limit specialists who could hold their own crossbooking with smart,successful 30-60 players dropping to 3-6 (eg Gary Carson) but Lee Jones is not one of them (At least he wasn't when he wrote his book which I know for a fact.)
The bottom line is that Lee jones did not admit that his was a beginners book about small games, written by an amateur and susceptible to errors. He did not admit that if I or a host of other good player-writers had devoted thmselves to the somewhat oxymoronic chore of writing an excellent book on low limit we could have. Now I don't really suggest he should have made those admissions. He is trying to sell books. But the people on this forum want to know the truth regardless of whether Lee, or any other writer for that matter, is nice to us. So that is what we do.
Why would Jones admit it's a beginner's book about small games when in his intro he says it is NOT a beginner's book about small games. It's not complete, he says that too. But it's a push onto the right road of tight agressive play. It's helped me, it's helped others I know and I think the book can stand on it's own without the author having to prostrate himself at your feet because he is not your equal. As long as you spoke for the other posters taking something kindly or not, let me speak for them and say the medecine analogy is absurd. This isn't brain surgery, it's not even telling someone to tak 2 aspirin and call them in the morning. It's nonsense comparatively. And we can only wonder what magnificent contributions you could have made to humanity if you had used your intellect for good instead of gambling.
Happy and a Healthy to you and your whole family
SammyB
I could have just as easily used the analogy of a car mechanic writing a book on automotive engineering. I am not implying that Jones did something immoral. At least not any more immoral than advertisers do everyday. I was only alerting people on this forum that his book is flawed and that it works for many, simply because most tight strategies, flawed or not will work in those games. As for David Steele's challenge, there is no doubt in my mind that reasonably intelligent players (those who have any hope of succeeding in higher games eventually) will beat small games for more money reading HOLDEM POKER, supplemented with HPFAP and Theory of Poker then they would reading Jones book (except possibly during the first week or two of playing.)
I can't believe you would claim that a new player could make much headway in a week with HP,HFAP, TOP. I believe it takes a lot longer to absorb those books and I don't think they would get someone winning at LL with in a month. As a practical matter they would not even know what they needed to know from each book.
It is much easier to start with WLLH.
You claim Lee Jones can't play bigger games? I know something about this too. I believe he is an excellent player. He is also much more rational then Gary Carson if you ask me.
I claimed he couldn't play well when he wrote the book. Things may well have changed. Also plenty of world class players first learned holdem from my book.
David,
Practically everything I've read about the subject, books, articles, posts, love letters, eviction notices all mention you, David Sklansky, as the foremost authority on gambling. I believe it. Most of the people who read this forum believe it. No doubt you believe it. You're Number 1 Will you not be happy until you're the only 1?
This is not insconsistant with my claim that is is easier to get started with WLLH. Certainly at some date there would not even have been choice for what book to start with as WLLH was much later.
Probably it does not matter that much if you are determined to go through everything quickly while gaining real experience. The order I went worked quite well for me ( LJ, 2+2, everything I can find ). The internet has also been extremely valuable for me.
D.
Sklansky says:
"The bottom line is that Lee jones did not admit that his was a beginners book about small games, written by an amateur and susceptible to errors. He did not admit that if I or a host of other good player-writers had devoted thmselves to the somewhat oxymoronic chore of writing an excellent book on low limit we could have."
My question is why haven't you? Aren't most poker players low limit players? Wouldn't a low limit book reach the biggest audience and therefore the best sales and best profits for the author?
Herf
From a playing standpoing nobody cares about who is nice to whome but from a bookselling standpoint you should care.
I don't see any posturing in LJ's book. He is clearly a far superior writer to any of the 2+2 clan which I imagine might be one thing that bothers you. If he wasn't your comment about HEP/HEPfAP/TOP would be correct.
I don't see the implications that this book is going to prepare an amateur to better at low limit games then a professional (or experienced) player would. In fact in the opening he says you don't need to read this book if "You're routinely crushing the competition in a $30-$60 hold'em game in southern California". Later he clearly says his book covers up through 6-12. The two statements imply that this book isn't for experienced players or for high limit games.
Whether Lee was a good player or not at the time he wrote this book isn't relevant to proveing that your book can EFFECITVELY COMMUNICATE the same or better information to the group of people LJ is targeting.
If you don't understand why your comment about many successful high limit players having learned from your books is at best misleading then you probably couldn't pass the statistics test you think all poker authors should have to pass. Now that might lead to a real paradox!
I have to agree with Michael here.
Lee Jones' books WLLH has a stated goal, and he achieves that goal rather well.
Maybe the metric by which one measures a poker book shouldn't be how correct and complete the information is. Maybe it should be how easily the book can help the target audience improve their game.
- Andrew
No one seems to get my point. This is not about me. It is about the fact that MANY high limit and some low limit players could have written a better book about low limit if they wanted to, in spite of his superior writing skills. The reason being that at the time of his writing it, he did not understand poker concepts well enough to avoid making errors.
Suppose there is a great teacher who knows nothing about algebra. That person can certainly teach 2nd grade arithmetic, probably better than a mathmetician. Once we move up to 6th or 7th grade math, however it becomes another story. While algebra is not addressed directly, enough related concepts creep in, so that the teacher would be doing a disservice if she taught that class. Stuff will come up where the teacher will give a wrong answer or, worse yet, give the wrong reason for the right answer. If there is no one else to teach the class and the teacher admits that she is not always sure about some of the things she says, that is acceptable (especially if she stresses this to those with aspirations to continue with math or science).
The above is analagous to the Lee Jones case. Playing his way will beat most small games. And he does say that the way he recommends is not the way to beat bigger games. But I don't think he says that playing his way, may also not be the best way to beat small games. It would be nice if he did, in the same way that 7th grade teacher should warn her students that there are concepts involved that she is not totally familiar with and thus she might screw up.
In most fields the people who write introductory texts ARE totally familiar with the subject. That is definitely not a sufficient condition to write a good book. But it is certainly a necessary one. Again Lee Jones is under no obligation to let you know that he did not possess that condition. I believe I am obligated, not to the world ar large, but to the people on this forum.
I'm not sure if what Lee Jones thinks of his book, or even what Lee Jones thinks of himself as a poker authority is relevant to the fact that he wrote a book that a lot of people bought and it appears most of them thought they got their money's worth.
I will give you this, David, perhaps Lee Jones' book should not have been named "Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em". Because, after digesting all that I read here and in your books I understand that there is a lot more needed than Jones gives you to win.
However, and I think this is key, if his is the first hold em book you read, and you know there are thousands who play this game without ever picking up a book, you will stop losing. Now, that's not the same as winning, but it's a big step for a lot of people.
His aim is tight, aggressive, low variance. Certainly enough to benefit those now opening UTG with T6s, or raising on the button with J9o with three early limpers.
Baby steps, David. Get them to open their eyes before you ask them to read Theory of Poker.
Read Jones to stop losing read 2+2 if you want to win.
I can agree with that Sammy. Unfortunately I had to use Lee Jones to help make a point to the readers of this forum, that writers on poker, are generally not as competant in their field as writers in other fields. The top players in the country are already well aware of that. But intermediate players who are avidly trying to improve there game may not be. I expect to say more about this subject but I am done with Mr Jones. (I would suggest, however that it might be a good idea for Lee, now that he has evidently improved his understanding and his play to, come out with a new edition and run it by me first.)
I have read a lot about Lee Jones book. I have never read it and don't plan on doing so. I don't need it. Most of the comments I see about the book are very positive. In fact the only negative comment I have ever seen was from David. Nevertheless I appreciate David's honesty and I think it takes guts to say the things he says unabashedly.
I also happen to believe that David is a bit miffed at missing out on the market opportunity that Lee Jones book fulfilled.
On a somewhat curious note I was in Vegas one time waiting for a seat and eavesdropping on a conversation David and someone else were having about Roy Cooke's latest Card Player article. They went back and forth a little and then David said that Roy "actually made a mistake about that." Interesting. If I ever write a book I wouldn't think of publishing it without having David read it first.
I think I understand what Mr. Sklansky is trying to say. If you write a book on poker stating the right decision but NOT the right reason for making that decision, it may cause a problem later on. If you try to make an adjustment in a game (as frequently happens in tougher mid to high limit games), you won't be able to make it correctly because you won't know the reasoning that made the initial advice correct. This is probably why Mr. Sklansky says he can write a better low-limit book. Besides telling you the correct decisions, he could probably tell you the proper theory behind them as well, so that you can change gears when necessary, thus achieving a higher win rate.
However, beginners may or may not be "serious students of the game". Therefore, they may not want to invest the mental energy in reading a text heavy on theory. A lot of these players want to play "cookbook poker", simply follow instructions and start winning. Personally I dont see anything wrong this, if it works. When they move to a bigger game, they can get more theoretical and get away from the "cookbook" approach. Ideally, the best approach in building a winning player is starting off on heavy theory, testing the theory against computer opposition, then start at low limit and work up. But let's get real, how many of us got involved in poker that way? Not me, that's for sure.
David, I've read LJ's book ... and my game has benefited from it. I've read you're HE books also and haven't found myself yet capable of recognizing situations where I can put your more sophisticated concepts to use. But I'm working on that.
I wonder if you could point out a couple of specific errors that LJ makes in his book. This would be of great service to me since I do not possess a firm understanding of most of playing HE. Understanding his perspective through what he writes and then seeing the reasoning that makes his assertions incorrect would be a GREAT catalyst to my own growth as a poker player.
Thanks,
Michael
I don't have the book in front of me so I am doing this from memory. But his mix of starting hands is way off. For example, he doesn't recognize the value of small pairs in the games that he is talking about. He shoud be playing them much more liberally.
Post deleted at author's request.
"Advocating playing small pairs "liberally" in a fast-action low limit game by an inexperienced player is simply lousy advice."
Badger,
You make this blatant statement "...is simply lousy advice." Yet you offer no proof just an opinion and you don't bother to explain more than to say inexperienced players should focus on learning to play KK and KQs. That is just plain lousy advice! Inexperienced players must focus on learning the basics of poker playing. Tactics first! Learn betting, raising, check raising, calling, folding etc. If they learn these tactics by waiting for premium hands they will never become experienced poker players. At least not in the one lifetime they are allotted. You also know as well as I do that Mason made his remarks based on the correct way to play small pairs in low limit lots of callers holdem. Of course It's just my opinion.
Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
Mason meant to play small pairs in multiway, unlikely to be raised pots, where you generally flop a set or fold. That's a lot easier to do than play KQ when the flop is AQ4 or J63. Did you think he meant something else. You need to read our books. (See $400 offer above.)
Post deleted at author's request.
"Yes it's an opinion, Vince. So was mason's statement. Become a high school geometry teacher if you need people to show you their proof -- in the 35th message in a thread."
Badger,
O.K. you got me on that one. besides I couldn't pass geometry let alone teach it. Seriously though I did say tactics first. Even though it's hard to understand and believe me I know it sounds like double talk I agree with your point on learning strategy first. Now how cna that be if I promote learning tactics first. I guess have a hard time distinguishing one from the other. Not that I don't understand the difference but in poker the distinction is small, IMO. Tactics are so intertwined with strategy that when you promote "Tight and Aggressive" the tactics must be understood fully to play well with this or any other strategy in poker. Thus my statement "tactics first". So when you say "Tactics are trivial" you pierce my heart with you steely steely blade. (you see I'm California Dreaming about Hotel California. Wish I were there right now). Since you feel that way I doubt if anything I may say would be we correct in your eyes. Except maybe "Happy New Millenium".
Vince
I notice you qualified that with 'fast' low-limit games. In my experience, most low-limit games are relatively passive. In such games, you should play small pairs from any position, IMO. And I think they are a lot easier to play than hands like KQo, especially in loose games.
Post deleted at author's request.
1. I don't believe Jones intended his advice to apply specifically to aggressive games. I think he meant to cover both aggressive and passive games.
2. Mason simply said that "...he doesn't recognize the value of small pairs in the games that he is talking about. He shoud be playing them much more liberally."
I am looking at segments from the book that support both of the above. I have to go, but if you'd like quotes, I could provide them later.
the small pair issue is just one item and, as it's been a long time since I've reviewed the book in any detail, I have little opinion on it as a whole.
An interesting thing about the Badger posts is that he constantly tells me I'm out of touch because I play in those "tight" Nevada games. Yet his advice is to play less hands than I do whenever we talk about these loose low limit games. It sounds to me like Badger is the one who is out of touch. His advice seems to be more appropriate for a highly aggressive high limit game played by highly skilled players.
Post deleted at author's request.
Please Make Recommendations! Ok I'm a total novice to Texas Holdem. My background: Im in my mid 40s played poker most of my life. Used to play at several of the L.A. clubs, mostly the "Bike" in the mid to late 80s. Only played 7 Stud and Lowball. Usually played 12 or more times a year, at the clubs, otherwise mostly home games. I was mostly a winner, moved from, 2-4 to 3-6 then 5-10. Got involved in other hobbies. I am coming back to poker and where I now live, in N.Calif. there are only little card rooms and they mostly play T.Holdem or Omaha. Games are $1-2, 3-6 and 4-8. I've played in the last 2 weeks 2 diff. clubs and all the above games. I'm about even. for a total of about 20 hours play. I don't think the competition is very tough, and I believe with study I can dominate these games. I own several books on poker the Best being "Super System" and "Seven Card Stud" for advanced players, by ( Malmuth, Sklansky). I have also "Big Deal" Anthony Holden (great motivational book about poker) I have just purchased: "Winning Low Limit Holdem" Lee Jones "Hold'em Excellence" Beginner to Winner" Lou Krieger ** I would have purchased Sklansky and Malmuth books but they weren't available at my local Barnes & Noble. Will go to Amazon.
So help me with a training course to win at T.Holdem. 1st Reading What books in what order? 2nd Training excersises, 3rd What software.
Goal:
1st beat local games up to $4-8
2nd play occassionally in Bay Area in $5-10 and 10-20 hopefully win.
3rd If modestly successful, play in tournaments. I love the concept and want to try this. I've played in 4 local tourneys just little stuff and have a, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd.
The best Book so far is "Super System". It helped me play casino poker in LA. I have read the Holdem section but it might be a little dated. The "Seven Card Stud" by Skl/Mal is ok but hard to read. Hopefully their later books whick I will read are better. I liked Super cause it not only gives you plays and such but the tables in the back are very useful. I read Holdem Excellence 1st: My take on this book is, Was useful with its chart of openning cards, information was basically very useful, but a lot of the info was vague. I then read Win.Low Limit Hold'em: I like the book very much. The information was very similiar to the 1st book but it was easier to digest. I was immediately reading other players hands better. I believe this has to do with a logical approach to presenting the information. **** As for the comments flying about here. I am willing to be a test subject for each of the books. If 2+2 is willing to send me copies of "Hold'em Poker" by David Sklansky and "Hold-em Poker for Adv. Players" by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. I will do the following:
1. re-read Winning Low Limit Holdem, and play for 40 hours T.Hold-em either 3-6 or 4-8 I will daily post, playing conditions, hours of play, playing results. If I feel the book helped me I will mention how the book specifically helped. I will try to follow the books instructions.
2. I will then read 2+2's books, and again play 40 hours of T.Hold-em same games. Report daily the same info. Especially how the book helped me.
Does Sklansky and Malmuth, need my endorsement? NO! I've read enough from reliable sources that tell me that their books are the best on the subject. Does Sklansky and Malmuth care if their information can be easily digested by novice Holdem players? Remember a tool is only useful if the person trying to use the tool can actually make use of the tool. New and better tools come on the market all the time, that improve on an older tools capabilities. ..
You already have played about 20 hours of hold'em. Hmmmm. Here's an alternate experiment.
1. Re-read Lee Jones and play 40 hours. Record your results.
2. Read a collection of Shakespearean sonnets and play 40 hours. Record your results.
Although I expect re-reading Lee Jones will benefit your game, I also expect you would do better during the second 40 hours. Why do you suppose that might be?
Shakespeare sonnets are the biggest fish in the world?
Lee Jones's pseudonym is Shakespeare?
Shakespeare's pseudonym is Lee Jones?
Mason likes Shakespeare but hates Jones?
To Be or Not to Be? That is the answer!
Sklansky thinks Badger is Lee Jones?
Badger likes Shakespeare and will help you during the last 40 hours?
MVP and RSP think Vince is an idiot and I hope they are reading this?
Z hates me and P. Feeney and thinks shakespeare is a penguin in bears clothing?
Experience is the best teacher? Well maybe not the best but pretty good?
Vince.
I'm sure an additional 40 hours of play and re-reading the mentioned books would provide great benefit. I asked several questions, you could only raise one answer. Shakespear is not being played at this table so doesn't apply here.
D.W. wrote: "I asked several questions, you could only raise one answer."
I *chose* to respond to one proposal. Many of my posts try to encourage clear thought and solid logic.
"In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
Vince understood the reason for my reply. Vince reads most of my posts, and his logical reasoning seems to have improved considerably over the past couple months.
Why do you suppose that might be? ;-)
Speaking in my defense :-), SammyB said:
"It just seems he plugs you guys every chance he gets in his book and gets no slack in return."
Very kind of you Sammy, but not, I fear, relevant. As David points out, this is not an issue of quid pro quo [1]. It's an issue of usefulness at the tables and factual accuracy. I'll let you all fight that out.
But I'm touched by your well-meaning defense.
Regards, Lee
[1] I was going to say something here, but my brain stopped me.
The word "plug" was poorly chosen. Recommend would have been better, and not in the sense of "Hey, I'm pushing yours how about something in return." But, it was clear as I had stated during this thread and one other that you were not setting your book up as the beginning, middle and end to poker. My take was that it served to put people on the right path, stop them from being donaters, expand their thought processes at the table and make them aware of the complexities without boring them to death. That's what Theory of Poker is for :-). To abuse one of David's analogies, he would expect you to be able to perform open heart surgery before you are capable of writing a book on CPR. (hyperbole, I know) And as much of a supporter of yours that I am, Lee, I will not enter one more discussion on your book, until there's a new one to rip to shreds.
Warmest regards,
SammyB
What are the major differences, if any, between the 15-30 Hold em games at Bellagio in Vegas versus the 15-30 Hold em games in LA and San Diego? I know that the rake structure is different which may affect game play. Also, I have heard that the California games can have less talented players and much more "action." Is there really anything to these claims or does the good player need to be just as discriminating about table selection and hand selection?
D-M
I live in Arizona but play in SoCal and Vegas a lot - the difference is Vegas is like pro baseball and SoCal is like "A" minor league. I'd put Arizona as AA minor league. I am basing this mostly on the looseness of the maniacs their poor play and how many you run into in both areas.
D-M,
Rounder makes a nice analogy. Majors vs. Minors.
Recently I found the Taj/AC full of Major leaguers at the 5-10/10-20 games. Each table I played at had half tough tricky players and half rocks. Hard to win. About the same time I played in No. Ca. and the game was just like the So Ca games I fondly remembered. Minors A Ball is about right....
Mark
At the 15-30 level and above, if you play in So. Cal. you still must be very discriminating about table selection, but not to the level that you must be in Vegas, where some games just don't look profitable at all. In so. cal, you have more selection of places to play at those levels as well.
The ante structure helps to make loose play more correct in So. Cal. At a 15-30 in Vegas, you pay (at a full table) $2.50 per hand, but in California you pay $.28 more, due to the fact that a full table is a table of nine. This makes looser play more appropriate. Shorthanded situations develop more frequently in So. Cal as well, because of the one missing player, the fact that you can eat at the table and a lot of people will take out buttons while they eat, and due to the high proportion of superstitious morons in California who will not be dealt to by their unlucky dealer. All of these things make playing at these levels in California tricky, despite the fact that the players are generally worse.
Do not try to steal the blinds as often in California. You will get caught much more frequently. Bluff less, value bet more. I think in the long run, an excellent player will eek out a slightly better hourly rate in So. Cal, but that player must be able to make significant adjustments.
Post deleted at author's request.
Vegas is cheaper than California. Even so, most pros would rather pay the higher fees and have more action in the game. California has a lot of good players, but you get more bad players at each table, on the average, than in Vegas. When deciding whether the game is good, you pay more attention to the bad players than the good ones. The style of play is clearly diffeent in California from the rest of the nation; more aggressive, looser, and trickier. Frankly, the California style lends itself very well to tournament play with a high ante structure; less well to cash games, where you can feel more comfortable about sitting back, waiting for a good hand, and then picking off one of the action-givers.
I'm going to New York to celebrate the turning of the milennium. I met a really nice guy named John at the Taj that told me of a club in Manhattan where they offer poker games.
I believe he said it was called the "diamond club"...I've lost his phone number and e-mail so I have no way of finding out from him...
If anyone knows what it's called and where it's located, please HELP
Mike
Diamond Club 132 West 20th Street (near 7th Ave) (212) 727-1956
Good luck on new year's. Stay the hell away from Times Square!!
shooter
Thanks Shooter...unfortunately I don't have the good sense to stay away from Times. I've been planning this for 8 years. :)
With this flop, what are the odds of a fourth suited card coming on the turn or river, assuming I have 2 flush cards in my hand (like a small flush), and also assuming I have just one flush card in my hand (like the ace)? Come on you math wizards, I know you're out there. Thanks.
Mike I believe the odds of another suited card coming out on the turn or river, is 8 out of 47 depending on how many players are at the table. If its a full game the odds are 8 out of 33 or 8 out of 31. But be aware that just because you have the ace doesn't mean you are a guaranteed winner. I was playing in a 2-4 game recently and was in the same situation when another suited card came on the river, even though I had the ace i lost to a straight flush.
Mike asked
With this flop, what are the odds of a fourth suited card coming on the turn or river, assuming I have 2 flush cards in my hand (like a small flush), and also assuming I have just one flush card in my hand (like the ace)? Come on you math wizards, I know you're out there. Thanks.
-----------
Daniel Replied:
Mike I believe the odds of another suited card coming out on the turn or river, is 8 out of 47 depending on how many players are at the table. If its a full game the odds are 8 out of 33 or 8 out of 31.
----------
Daniel is misguided here...
The odds of the turn being a suited card when three of that suit are accounted for on the flop is 10 out of 47.
There are 47 cards that you have not seen and 10 of them are the suit you are looking for.
The number of players in the game has absolutly NO relation to the odds of the next card being a match for your 3 flush.
Sean
Sean,
You forgot to account for the 2 suited cards (small flush) or 1 suited card (Ace) that our hero is holding in his hand.
So, either 8 out of 47 (39 to 8 or 4.875 to 1) or 9 out of 47 (38 to 9 or 4.22 to 1).
If a suited card doesn't hit on the turn, you still have to think about the river. Depending on our hero's holding, there it is either 8 of 46 (38 to 8 or 4.75 to 1) or 46 to 9 (37 to 9 or 4.11 to 1).
Note however that whether you are holding 1 suited or 2 makes comparing these numbers like comparing apples to oranges. If you hold 2, and a 4th suited hits the board -- you lose. If you hold 1 (the Ace), and a 4th suited hits -- you win (most likely). The above numbers must be used accordingly. How to use those numbers is the question I have.
Comments?
Jon,
I think we are reading the original question differently... As I read it the original poster has a total of 3 cards to a flush after the flop (using both his hole cards and the flop).
If this is the case then 10 flush cards remain and a fourth flush card will appear 10 times out of 47.
So maybe we are both right but answering different questions...
Either way Daniel is dead wrong in his statement that the number of players at the table has any relation to the odds of the next card being suited.
Sean
Yes, the original post is somewhat ambiguous. I think it can be read both ways.
Yes, and you are right about the number of players not affecting the probability. The probabilities involve unseen cards, and the only seen cards are those in your hand or on the board.
Jon, I believe you are correct. I saw a post where a fellow was afraid of his made flush on the flop with his 5,6 suited in his hand. As it is almost 5 to 1 against another flush card coming on the turn, if he knows this, it should give him confidence to bet the hand. Also then, when I hold the lone ace, it is a little over 4 to 1 that a flush card will hit on the turn, or a little over 2 to 1 to hit by the river, assuming I planned on seeing the hand through. These odds would probably be more helpful in a no limit game.
2.17-1 (31.45%)
It really irritates me to sit down to play cards, and getting my leg stuck to the bottom of the table. A poker table is not the place to stick chewn gum for discarding. Has anyone else ever had this problem?. Its happened to me dozens of times and I consider a disgrace to the game of poker! Anyways just a note.. If you see people do this, I suggest calling a floorperson immediately and notifying the casino of this persons actions..
It really irritates me to sit down to play cards, and getting my leg stuck to the bottom of the table. A poker table is not the place to stick chewn gum for discarding. Has anyone else ever had this problem?. Its happened to me dozens of times and I consider a disgrace to the game of poker! Anyways just a note.. If you see people do this, I suggest complaining, Thanks
Never happened to me.
Now if the gum was under a Hold'em table, and had some implication as to how you played the hand (ie you were so startled that accidentally mucked AA) I can see why this might be relevant to the Hold'em Forum.
Worm, please direct your future gum posts to the "Other Topics" forum. Thank you.
As a newer player, I was just starting to congratulate myself for adivining that UTG meant under the gun. Imagine my shock and chagrin to find out it really pertains to the man under the gum.
Worm,
Yeah, I hate it too when people have guns under the table...never know when you might get shot. OH, YOU SAID *GUM*...sorry wrong forum.
hehe
Mark
One of things i found most interesting about Las Vegas is at the Mall the signs do not read "no shirt, no shoes...etc." but "No firearms aloud"(translated: check your heat at the door)
Hi Ray,
I am a wuss NYer, so I am not used to people carrying guns around that people can see (the under-the-coat Uzis, that's another story; oh and the on-my-shoulder Uzis I've seen in Brazil, those are another even more scary story for another time), but I had one interesting and scary experience in Lake Tahoe a few years ago.
I had just flown in (great plane ride by the way), from SF. I sat down for a snack at one of the sandwich shops in one of the casinos...some guys walk in with full extended families, lots of moms and dads and kids and grandmas and grandpas, etc etc (15 of em) and lots of bulges under the jackets where parts of revolvers can be seen. Well, next thing you know, a casino manager type walks into the eatery flanked by guards with guns in holster - but hands on guns...
"Gentlemen, you have to check your guns" whisper whisper....
"Not where we live we don't and we sure like to keep em on us" says one of the family members.
"I'd really really like if you would check your guns with us. Let's discuss this privately please, since guns aren't allowed in here" says the casino guy.
This went on for TEN MINUTES.
Well they did eventually walk off with the casino manager, check their pieces, and I ate very quickly and left....
Sorry Mason,
Mark
thats those wimps from lake tahoe. up here in montana they would have had to pry them from our cold dead hands.
Hey,
Heres any intersting story, in a home game I was playing, someone stuck a piece of gum under his card table. He was doing this in order to hide cards!
It turns out he would stick an Ace, or whatever important card under the table, and on to the gum.
We caught him several minutes into the game, and man did we beat the $h!t out of him.
From now on whenever i sit down at a table, i check that there is no gum underneath, a quick glance is all it takes.
Happy New Year everyone
Last night 5-10 HE; most 10-20 players waiting for a game to start. I had A-Jo in BB. Lady UTG opens and three limpers; I call. Flop is J63, I bet, UTG raises, limpers fold I call. Turn is A; I bet lady calls. River is rag, I check, lady bets. I now am 80% sure she has trips but call anyway. She opened with 66. Comments please, do I pay her off? These guys don't need to see weakness but I am sure I am beat. Thanks, Dave
I think you have to call here. If you lose well that is poker but she could have 2 pair or something like QQ. I'd say she 60% to have you beat.
Not a bad call by any means.
I agree, although I don't think that with her play she was that big a favorite to have you beat (60%--I would have lost more money on the flop with this hand.) You have top two with a fairly strong hand which a lot of people wouldn't put you on, she didn't raise on the turn as well, indicating she could have had K-J, or QJsuited. I would have bet the river...
Always call. Even if your read is correct and she can beat aces, her most likely hand is still one of the 4 remaining AJ's, assuming that she wouldn't limpt UTG with 33 and would raise preflop with JJ. With the pot laying you 6.5-1 folding is a terrible mistake. Of course, she might almost never play AJ up front, but then it becomes a bit hard to put her on 66 as opposed to something like AKs (going for a limp raise preflop and a semibluff raise on the flop).
I now am 80% sure she has trips
Didn't you just answer this yourself? The pot is laying you better than 4-1.
Fat-Charlie
thats right..call
Last night I was in a hand and release top pair with the 2nd nut flush to hit. It never came, but a one card straight show up on the river. The player bet on river and I release the hand. He shows me the bluff. I was going to explain to him that what he did was a bad play. I am not the type of player that he should have shown the bluff to. I would have released that hand over and over again. Should I have told him that that play will cost him a lot of money in the long run? Or is he correct?
s
The guy is giving you information for free. He is either:
1) More concerned about stoking his ego by showing people his great play;
2) Trying to put you on tilt or otherwise throw you off your game;
3) A rare bluffer, but thin value better who is setting you and others up to call his value bets on the river in the future.
In each case, you can judge his future actions and learn something from his play in the context of this disclosure. Why comment at all?
or 4), there was another player in the hand who the bluffer thought would continue tilting if he knew he'd folded a winner after being run down hand after hand. In this case perhaps the bluffer made a calculated display in order to keep player C, whom you didn't mention in your post, and who was tilting, as he is prone to do, on tilt. Player C did in fact stay on tilt and proceeded to spew another rack and a half after you left the table. At the time I agreed with your critique of showing the bluff (N's chips were already live, why push it?), but N never slowed down so perhaps showing the bluff put him over the edge.
Also, player A, the bluffer, bluffs constantly. I think you have a clear call in that situation as everyone folded behind player A making you last to act and there was more than ten big bets in the pot. Yes? spitball
Yes Spitball, you are right , he tends to look at his hole cards for a second before he put the money in the pot. That is one of his biggest(of the many) tells, I think that is what bug me the most, is my error. When he looks at his hole cards and tilts his head side to side he has the nuts.
I'd just say nice hand - he showed you cuz he is not gonna bluff again for a while. Or he is just dumb.
I think he is dumb. He was called down and lost alot of money that night so I heard
Since I often see players admit poor plays to the rest of the board for the sake of learning and entertainment, here's a hand I played yesterday that I'm slightly ashamed of:
At the Trop, 2/4 game. I'm in the BB with 7T offsuit. About 4 or 5 players. Flop comes 6 8 J offsuit. First bets, all call. Turn comes 9. Check to me, I bet. One other player calls, so we're heads up. River comes 5.
Now, I should let you know that this is after about 10 straight hours of play, so it's about 6 in the morning and I'm glazed over, ready to quit any hand. Not reading the board correctly, I think I have the nuts. Of course, I don't. I bet. I get raised. I re-raise. He re-raises. I pause. . . . look at the board AND AGAIN come to the conclusion that I've got the nut. I re-raise. He re-raises. Finally something inside chickens out and I call, figuring maybe I'm reading the board wrong (which I was). He shows A7 for a 9-high. I show the jack-high and take it. I know I screwed up, but what HE was thinking, I have no idea.
happy new year, shooter
I've seen this type of board misread a hundred times. His play was as bad as yours, when neither of you are holding the nuts. But somehow both players get so focused on the hand they are holding they both lose sight of actual nut hand. This is nothing new, especially when it's six a.m. in the morning. Luckily for you he was as glazed over as you were.
$5-$10 on button with AcQd. 6 limpers, I raise, sb folds bb calls, all call. Flop QcTh7h. All check to me. I bet. sb folds rest call. Turn Ts. All check to me.
I'm thinking it can never be right to check and give all those draws a free card, but I'm thinking someone out there has a ten.
Comments?
Bet. If you're raised, you're probably beat or being bluffed. As you raised pre-flop, I don't think anyone would bluff, so you're probably beat. If you're raised, the pot is laying you about 10 or 11:1 by my reading of your post and your only out is an Ace. So, I'd say bet and fold if raised.
comments on my comments?
shooter
Shooter I think a Q will halp him a bit more than an A.
Then again, if you're being bluffed or you're against a draw, then you've got 2 queens and 2 aces as outs, unless you're against the flush draw, which wipes out one of your queens as an out. See, this is why it's so important to get a read of the other players early. I guess I stand by my first post. . .bet and fold if raised.
what happened in the end?
shooter
If he's against a ten he's got two outs - a queen, in which case it doesn't matter if he's against a flush draw.
Sammy, You have to bet it out. Don't give the drawers a free card and if you are check raised well you are probably a loser.
No guarantee there IS a T out there!
I bet, there was, but I did fold on the check raise and two overcalls, so it wasn't so bad.
Typical result for raising a bunch of limpers with AQo, they all check to you on the flop, all call correctly and then hit their 5 outer.
( I realize this is just an anecdotal hand )
D.
Do you know where i could find an odds charts for hold'em with an 'outs vs odds against'? For draws with 2 cards to come "and" 1 card to come.
example:
Outs / Odds against w/2 cards to come
(4)-------(5.1 to 1)
A pocket size one would be nice, but I could xerox a chart out of a book, shrink it down in size and get it laminated.
-Greg
47 unseen cards after the flop.
2 outs = 23:1 Odds
52- 5 = 47
47- 2 = 45
44/ 2 = 22.5 or 23:1 rounded
3 outs = 15:1 Odds
52- 5 = 47
47- 3 = 44
44/ 3 = 14.6 or 15:1 rounded
and so on
If your going to the river then the outs are times 2.
ex) 4 flush has 9 outs to hit the turn 4:1 right but 9 X 2 = 18 (47 - 18) /18 = 1.6 or (or 2:1). If you miss the turn then it's back to 9 outs and 4:1
From this u can just make your own sheet......
Sucking out is a bit different. Check some other threads on this subject.
Best of it !!
MJ
>If your going to the river then the outs are times 2.
Whoaa! Hold it buster, it's not so simple!
Suppose I have 24 outs on the flop , does that mean I have 48 outs when going to the river? With 47 unseen cards, does that make me a 100% favorite then? Can you guarantee one of those 24 outs will hit?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Whoaaaa Hold it buster !!!!!!!!!!!!
"On the flop, if you are planning on taking your draw to the river, then you effectively have a bit less than double the number of outs for one card: "
From your home page on "Abdul's Theory of sucking out" u say the following???
Sure, that's the point. You have LESS than double the number of outs.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Your math is incorrect with respect to two cards to come, as Izmet shows. The reason is that you are double counting, because sometimes you will hit your draw on the first card.
The correct way to determine the probability of improving with two (or more) cards to come is to first determine the probability of not improving, and then subtract this result from 1 (or 100%)
For example, in the case of a flush draw, your chances of not improving are 38/47 * 37/46, or .65 (65%).
Your chances of making the flush with two to come is thus .35 (35%), and the odds against hitting the flush are .65/.35, or 1.86 to 1.
Another reason he can't just multiply his outs is because with 2 cards to come, he will also sometimes hit BOTH outs on the same draw.
We've had this discussion several times in the past, and there's one thread in particular where several different (and accurate) methods of calculating odds with more than one card to come are shown.
I see... thanks for the correction.
MJ
Using the formula from Steve then I get the following.
Outs ... Odds with 2 cards to come.
1 = 22.5
2 = 10.8791208791209
3 = 7.00740740740741
4 = 5.07303370786517
5 = 3.91363636363636
6 = 3.14176245210728
7 = 2.59136212624585
8 = 2.17941176470588
9 = 1.85978835978836
10 = 1.60481927710843
11 = 1.39689578713969
12 = 1.22427983539095
13 = 1.07884615384615
14 = 0.954792043399638
15 = 0.847863247863248
Best of it !!
MJ
Trusting your math and some NL rules of thumb, it looks accurate to me. The most important rule of thumb is that 13 outs is approximately even-money.
I was recently playing in a 2-4 hold-em game at a local casino, and I was waiting for the button to pass by to jump in. I saw the man next to me bend the corner of his card pretty far back, I thought nothing of it at the time. The next hand I jumped into action, I had two pair on the flop and was re-raised by the same gentlemen who bent the card. I called and the river brought the bent card which was a jack, to give him the inside straight. Before making the straight he had nothing, he obviously saw the bent card coming to the river!! What would you do in this situation??.
Point out to the dealer that the card is now marked and ask for a new setup.
And next time you see someone do that you'll think something of it.
Education can be expensive.
"What would you do in this situation??."
I'd start looking for an easier 2-4 game.
This stuff is on tape - tell the floor what you suspect in private - he can review the tape and if you are right the cheater will be kicked out for ever.
hi,
I am only 15, and have never played in a casino, but in home games often encounter cheaters.
Heres a remedy that always works (now listen carefully)
1) Make a big scene of the whole thing.
2) Beat the $h!t out of the guy
3) Take his money
4) Never invite him to another one of your games, and inform everyone you know of his cheating ways, so that he will never get a game
:)
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Good advice. It'll be a miracle if you make it to 16.
Happy New Year
Tonight I broke my 30 year record for a loss in a 10-20 game. 100 big bets. I didn't make ONE straight or flush, so I stayed until I did, but it never happened. No matter WHAT I had it was never quite good enough. It was brutal. Really brutal.I'm so numb I can't think. Will I ever win again?
What do you think the other players at the table were thinking as you pulled out your last 5 C notes? I'll take a guess. They were praying you had another 5 after that because it was all going to be theirs soon enough. There is no good reason for a meer mortal to loose 4 racks in any game. You can not be playing your best game and your opponents know it. They will rip you to shreds.
About 4 days ago at Deja.com, Doyle Brunson told how Annie Duke/s(?)lost four full racks of black chips($40,000)to some guy he considers the meanest poker player alive.
Can you say TILT? You play to win, "not make a straight or flush". Once you get such a mentality, it's over.
Although my fellow posters did not express it before they ripped you to shreds let me say, "Man, what a tough night. I've had them myself. Got to get your confidence back, man. Without that you'll never recoup."
Having said that let me now join my fellow posters in kicking you when you're down.
What the hell were you thinking. Whether you believe in luck or not sometimes the gods are agin ya and you've got to learn to either take a break or switch something around so the bad vibes can't find you. Cash in your chips, get new ones. Win a few hands at 3-6. Grab a doughnut. Something!!
Happy New Year
...
100 big bets. WOW what a record. Hope 2000 is better than 1999 for you. BTW what ever made you think you need flushes and straights to be a winner. Maybe that was why you lost - do you lose all the time or was this an anomoly. If you are losing regurally maybe you ought to review your opening standards.
Yesterday, I won 73 big bets in 3 1/2 hours and I NEVER made a flush. I did make 2 straights however.
At this game, this guy sitting on my left made a comment that he was drawing to flushes all day and didn't make one I said "Hell I never make a flush" he said "why?" I said "cuz I don't play suited cards" now I am about $400 up and the whole table looked at me in amazement and this guy said "you don't play suited cards" I said "nope not just cuz they are suited" When I was racking my my chips this guy said where can I find a good book on HE I said try 2+2's HEfAP and gave him the 2+2 page he said thanks - I did comment that he won't find the suited thing in there. :-)
Giving the fish lessons Rounder?
You GO!
- Andrew
We've all been there, and I mean ALL of us, even those who won't admit it, as you had the honesty to. Anyway, will this help you to possibly set a loss limit in the future for any one session, and any one day? To get up a loser at the table, when the cards are running bad, even when you've got more money in your pocket is to me, a sign of maturity, and you'd be surprised at the respect you get from other players. The next day, and there always is a next day, you will be proud of yourself. In the meantime, it sounds like your experience HAD to happen......once anyway. True? Good Luck.
I need some insight to a hand I played several months ago and haven't forgotten. It's a 5-10 game at the Taj and I'm in the SB with KK. The preflop betting is capped by me and a guy in seat 4 (who incidentally, had AA).
The flop comes J-7-4 with the seven and four of diamonds. I bet, seat 4 raises, and this lady who plays ANYTHING (loves suited cards) raises again, I assume she maybe has A-J or 2 diamonds and pop her again. The aces fold.
The turn comes, 2 of clubs, I bet out again and she raises...I call. The river comes and is the Jack of diamonds, the absolute worst card in the deck I could have gotten. I check and than fold after she bets. I'm fairly certain that either tripped her up or gave her the flush, but it was a big pot with 5 preflop callers (hey, AC at night with the regulars).
I never saw her hand, and the guy with the aces was clearly exasperated, he just knew I had flopped a set of jacks. I'm not proud of the laydown, in fact, I still regret it, but what does everyone out there think?
This pot is so big that you must call if only for two reasons that have nothing to do with your certainty that she is not bluffing. 1. She may have overlooked her hand. 2. You cannot show players that you are even CAPABLE of making this fold as it will make them play trickier and thus better against you in the future.
You raise a very good point about players overlooking their hands. My experience has been that this happens more often than one might think, particularly at the lower limits, and especially when potential straights are involved. When the pot starts getting very large (i.e. 15 big bets or so) I tend to think a call is warranted on this basis alone.
You gotta know when to hold em, and know when to fold em. Does that help you any?
Your hand reminds me of when I go to an antique auction, let a guy outbid my on something, then I wonder all the way home, should I have bought that? So, I cured that. From now on, if in doubt, I simply buy it, and let him guess.
Mike that auction thing can be expensive but I get your drift. I usually put a limit on a particular piece - I deal in high dollar pottery (other pottery too) I also will pick up the odd piece being undervalued by the yahoos at the auction if there is one.
Hey I just remembered this is a poker (gambling) forum but life is a gamble isn't it?
Don't let this hand eat at you. It was probably a good laydown - why are you so worried about it? You out played the AA and the lady probably did have your pair beat.
I have a few hands that haunt me once and a while but nothing as cut and dry like yours.
Of course it was a bad fold. Somewhere along the way in your poker career you will find that the advice Sklansky & Malmuth (and Z) give all of us is correct. Use it!
Vince.
The only hands the lady could have reasonably held that you could beat were QQ or 74. Nevertheless, I agree that the pot size justified calling one more bet.
MJS
Counting up the bets: Either 4 or 5 (do they have a bet and three or four raises in AC?) small before the flop times (at least) 3=conservatively 12 small bets or 6 large already before the flop, then 1+2+3+4+1 or eleven more small bets on the flop =11.5 big bets, plus four large on the turn = 15.5 and finally her bet on the river =16.5.
You know what she could easily have had? Queens.
In this instance, I'd say that a set that became a full house on the river is more likely, but if this lady truly plays anything, you are getting 16.5 to one that she is bluffing or has Queens, or maybe had 7-4 (she plays anything right?) Although I'd bet you'd lose this final bet 9 out of ten times, I don't think you'd lose it 15 out of sixteen times. If she bluffs 7% of the time, your call on the end has positive expectation.
The Aces played poorly as well. If I had either one of your hands, I would have lost more money with them.
Thanks for your insight, guys....I'll remember that next time, guaranteed.
Mike
I've seen this play several times and I actually used it tonight (last night):
After the river card there's 2 or 3 people still in the hand. A player has a hand that may or may not hold up, so out of turn turns his hand up on the table and says, "I've got kings", to which everyone opens their hand and he drags the pot.
When I did it I was first to act and said, "I've got a king". There were 3 people in the hand still and the third guy opens his hand and had TT. The other guy opens his and has QQ. I drag the pot.
Is this dirty? It's like co-oarsing(sp) the other players into just checking the river.
BTW - I played 6 hours at the 6-12 table today and took home $550 in profit.
Next time someone does this put a bet in IN turn and you will probably win the pot.
I think it is silly not dirty.
Yes, I thought of this as well. That sure would be hard if you're beat though! That's definitely playing for them to make a FTOP error. But in order to give them the opportunity to make this error you have to make the error yourself - with certainty!
:)
So it's not a foul or anything? I can't request the dealer declare their hand folded?
At Spirit Mountain Casino, in Oregon, a player exposing his cards out of turn has a dead hand if 'its done to influence other players'. Seems like a good rule.
That is generally a rule in tournaments. Never heard of it in a live game, but it probably is some places. As far as exposing your cards out of turn the dealer should take control of the gae and aks you if that's a check when you turn up out of turn.
How do you cope, when you're at a Fish Festival, and you can't catch a starting hand for over 4 hours? Then in the wee hours in the morning, the game starts to slowly break one by one, until you are forced to confront the fact that the party is ending, ending, ending, ending--it's OVER, you've missed the boat. Might as well get going, it's a long drive home.
Keep score by the month instead by the session. 'Course this leads to odd situations too. I started December badly. I'm now a couple hundred ahead and don't really want to play today because if I lose it'll be the first losing month in two years. Stupid, huh?
It does sound kinda silly, but it also shows a high degree of 'perfectionism', which often is an important component for success(and for ulcers).
-Paul
I played, got stuck, got solidly ahead and quit. Bring on 2000!
You look yourself in the mirror and say "Thank God I'm a solid player. Any other fish would have gotten sucked in and cleaned out."
And you kill 'em next time.
Sitting in my normal loose passive 4-8 game.Player to my left is one of the better players in the room,15yrs exper./wins/text book with few modifications(ie plays all pairs any position and AX suited the same,like I said game is loose passive.In late position,the entire table limps in and the players behind him are passive,he limps in with 3s7s.He got lucky board shows 77 and he scoops very large pot.These were very weak starting cards for him,at the time I assumed the volume of players involved gave him motivation to take a shot.After the session,I'm wondering if this was actually a good play.Comment?
Sorry realized it too late.Don't see as time efficient to re-type there.Any answers here would be appreciated.
Being a good player is relative. He did have a bad hand a seven high suited. But the rule about playing almost anything (two suited cards) before the flop is that you have more than six players in with no raises and the players after you most likely won't raise (he was in late position). And most likely if he didn't flop those trips or two pair, a flush or straight he would have folded at the first raise or a bet on the flop hoping for a free card.
How do you know when it's time to move to higher limits?
I just began playing a little more than 3 months ago. I started at 2-4 and had a pretty tough time of it. On your guys' advice I moved to 3-6 and found that I played better. I played so much better that one day, last week, I was up $300 in the first 2 hours. So I decided to get in on a 6-12 game. Since then I've been killing the 6-12 game. I've only played it 4 times for a total of 20.5 hours, but I'm up in 6-12 $934. I've been on rushes at times and I've been VERY patient at other times. I'm not able to read players too well at all, but I am able to notice which opponents I need to be careful with and I am able to pay enough attention so that I don't lose track of the action or whose doing the raising and what position they're in. And I have a theoretical understanding of what position means and I put more emphasis on a players position when I've decided they're good and less emphasis on a players position when I've decided they're calling stations. In other words I've read S&M on HE and Poker.
This forum has helped tremendously ... so how do you know when you should move up?
Thanks,
Michael
I'm not sure what you're asking as no one will tell you that you should never sit in a higher game until you've got enought dough to play it day in and day out. But if you're talking about playing higher more or less permanently, you need to be as concerned with your bankroll as you are your ability to beat your opponents. If you're a winning middle limit player, you can lose that $900 in a couple of bad sessions. If you don't have the funds to stay with the game, you might end up perpetually returning to $6-12 or $3-6 in an Sisyphusian effort to grind out a stake.
Also, for most people it takes the better part of a thousand hours to see pretty much everything you'll see at a hold 'em table and to get a good feel for just how you're beating the game. But if you feel you're already there, you should be limited only by your bankroll and the relative skill of your opponents.
Looks like you have found out.
Mike, What is your goal - mine is to win money at ring games so I try to find the most profitable situation - yesterday I was at a 5-10 game waiting for my 10-20 seat - I was running all over the 5-10 could have played these guys blind - won $733 in 3.5 hours.
Why move I made a good profit for the afternoon and took my wife out for a great lobster dinner - point is play where you can score the best. It is not always in the bigger game.
Sklansky's going to love that one, Rounder!! :-)
Happy New Year
SammyB
Sammy,
It is mind over matter - I don't mind cuz he don't matter. :-)
Have a profitable 2000.
What was it about Rounder's post that you thought I wouldn't like?
It was a reference to the thread about if you can beat a 3-6 then you should play 6-12 and so on until the Peter principle takes effect and you're living in a van by the river.
Post deleted at author's request.
The rake doesn't bother me in the least bit. It is a cost of doing business - the personality of game is a lot more important - I let the marginal players worry about the rake and make the money from them. I usually take a lot more off the table than the house so I think players should be worried about me instead of the money going down the "other" black hole at the table.
Fact is one should play the most profitable game available it doesan't matter if it is 50 miles further and has a bigger rake it is the fish that make the game profitable.
Speaking of Rake, can anyone think of a reson that a high rake could be a good thing?
Vince.
Rounder, as much as I love your posts, I can't believe you take more off the 3-6 table than the house. You're talking 10+ BB/hr. That would even feed my body!
Fat-Charlie
F-C it was in a 5-10 game in Aurora. I am at 15 bb per hour while in Illinois for the hollidays.
My wife and I have been eating very well lately - :-)
I, of course, would like to win money. And making about $90/hr at the 6-12 table is MUCH better than I do in my day job. But this may only be an anomoly -- $90/hour or even $40 or $20 per hour may be a tall order at the 6-12 table on the average.
As you know, I've been propping. Last night they bounced me around pretty good. I started at 7:30pm, but got to the Casino at 4pm. I played 6-12 from 4 till 8:30 and was up $290 when they asked me to move to a 3-6 7CS table. Everyone at the 6-12 table was saying "where are you going? You're running so good!" I said "gotto mix it up a bit". When I got back to the 6-12 table I was told a guy moved to my seat and won 5 hands in a row (doesn't mean I would have won the hands, but it means something). I came back to the 6-12 table twice for about an hour each time and won about $125 each time (in different seats -- as if that matters). I probably could have made a great deal more GREEN had I stayed at the 6-12 table the whole time. This really makes one think!
Maybe I'll try 9-18 if they ever offer it at CPH&C. I hear it's a live game!
Thanks for your commentary!
:)
Happy New Year!
I made quite a bit of money ($5K+)in low limit holdem (3-6 through 6-12)and stud (5 and 10 at the mirage) in Las Vegas a couple of years ago. I spent a great deal of it as well and gave some to my wife and fell on hard times (car accident etc.)
Eventually, I started playing in the ten and twenty hold em games at the Horseshoe, and did fairly well. My bankroll was approximately $2500 and growing to $3500. Tried my hand also at 10 20 stud at the mirage.
I had three losing sessions that cut that bankroll in half. I was not playing badly, just playing in bad games. Within a month after that, some further losses wiped me out completely. Next thing you know, I was back at $3-6 and 4-8 having the worst slump imaginable for months. I ended up wiping away half my hourly rate in the lowlimit games (I had been making over twelve dollars an hour in 3-6 through 1-4-8-8 hold em, and almost $20 an hour playing 5-10 stud.) I went broke. (Poker wise, I am doing quite well at my profession.)
The point is: Wait. Learn to pick your spots. Build a bankroll. If you have been averaging more than two big bets an hour, you are getting very lucky. You are averaging something like eight. Y YOU HAVE BEEN GETTING LUCKY, AND NEED MANY MORE HOURS BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO MOVE UP.
On the other hand, if you are playing in So. Cal (it sounds like you are) I believe that the outrageously high house drop will beat you in the end if you stay at the lower limits. The time charge is the way to go. Try playing at the Bike if you play anywhere, or the Normandie. They have good mid limit games with a cheap time charge.
I paid the bills for three years playing mostly 3-6 and 4-8 holdem in Washington and Nevada. When I moved to LA, however, my profit margin plummited even though the games were usually looser. I quickly realized that the button collection was to blame. In the raked games of Vegas and Washington, I paid a much smaller portion of the drop than my relatively loose opponents, since the drop is paid by the winner of the pot. In LA, I think it is necessary to play yellow chip games (with a time charge) to make significant money. When you are ready to move up, I would recommend moving up to 10-20 ($5 per half hour plus free food at the Normandie) rather than 9-18 ($4 per hand paid by the button).
It's late into a 6 hour session for me and I'm ready for bed. Playing $2-4 in a fairly typical low-limit table 5-6 seeing the flop, even if raised (in most cases). I'm ready to pick up, next for the BB and pick up 3s3h, normally a hand I'd fold in early position.
But...
Since this is my last hand I decide to see the flop if it's unraised and call the $2 and only one other player folds (typical unraised $2-4 pot at this table, if it was raised one other player would have probably folded)...
The flop comes Ts8s3d...Whooo hoooo...I think for a second, then reality sits in and I realize how weak my set is...The blinds check and I decide to check the set and see who's going to bet it. It's bet, I check raise (why I don't know, except I thought the bettor was on a flush draw) and we loose two more players. Well the turn is the 8d, giving me a baby boat, it's checked to me (the blinds are still in, althought with what I have no idea, str8 draws?) I bet, get raised by the orignal bettor that I thought was on a flush draw.. I chicken out and just call as we loose more players to put it to me, the raiser and one other player.
The turn is the 6s, I call time and stew a bit, wondering if the other player that's betting is on a pair like TT, etc. rather than a flush draw... I check, the other player checks and the original bettor (who I'm now sure has a bigger full house) bets. I make a crying call, the player in the middle drops and the other player turns over AsJs for a FLUSH!!! I'm sitting there kicking myself for not raising and turn over the 3's full to drag a good pot (to the sounds of his screams about how bat it was to play 33 from early position).
After this long winded commentary, did I play this hand like a wuss or did I play it correctly (ignoring the fact that I played the 33 from early position where I's normally dump it).?
Why did you think your set was weak on the flop? It was unraised pre-flop so you had every reason to believe you had the best hand.
You asked for honesty, so I'll confirm your suspicions - you played it like a wuss.
DrToast has this one right you played like a wuss. Also in a game where you can expect multiway action you can go ahead and play the pocket threes up front. Also flopping a set with a large fireld and a flush draw I prefer to bet into the field since you figure to get callers and you aren't going to be able to knock out the flush draws with a check raise so why knock out hands like one pair that are drawer slim or dead against you.
Randy R.
6-12 Hold'em
I have Q-10 offsuit in late position, no clubs.
Flop is: 9-J-K w/2 clubs
Semi-maniac on my left(on button)raises my bet, then the raising war breaks out.
I stop after putting in about 9 or ten big bets worth of chips, probably because of the two clubs on the flop. He could have had Q-10 of clubs, I thought.
Turn: J, no club. I bet, he raises, I call.
River: K, no club, but board has double paired.
Final Board: 9-J-J-K-K
I check, he checks his pocket 9's, I yell "Chips".
Question: Is it a mistake to get into a raising war when you flop the nuts. Especially when there are two cards to come, and with a 2 flush on board?
How about if I had had the Q-10 of clubs, then would I have been justified in going all in on the flop? I probably would have bet my remaining 40 chips or so(approximately).
Thanks for any advice, Don
Whom did you say was the maniac? I'm not sure you can put a guy on a flush draw on the flop if he puts in 9 bets. I'm suprised he flopped a set of nines I would have thought kings.
The straight, especially with 2 clubs on board is quite vulnerable. A reraise, on the flop might be okay. But once the board pairs I think you can fold up shop if he raises.
After the board pairs on the turn, I would check and call both the turn and the river. The problem with betting out and folding to a raise is that the maniac could also have QT and the board pairing might not slow him down. (The guy did go 9 or 10 bets on the flop with bottom set vs a possible straight.) Also, if I'm in the maniac's position and have QT against a player capable of folding, after that raising war on the flop I would probably raise the turn (and check down the river), because there's a very little chance I'll get reraised with a hand I can beat.
-Sean
Sometimes you will be in a position where you flop the best hand and can get lots of bets right now or you can get your raise in on the later street. If you are in a position where a card can easily come and beat you (such as a flush card in this case or the board pairing) you may want to wait to the later round. If the bad card comes you can just call it down. If the bad card does not come you can get the raise(s) in on the turn.
Here's a simple example. Suppose you are heads up on the flop, you have a good hand such as top pair, your opponent bets, and somehow you know for certain he is on a flush draw. Do you want to raise immediately, or should you wait to fourth street to make sure the flush card does not get there (and the size of the bet doubles)?
I disagree with Mason Malmuth's suggestion that you may want to wait for the turn to raise (if a safe card falls). Low-limit maniacs will often "gamble" with you on the flop with just a flush draw or bottom set...even though they know you probably flopped the nut straight. If you wait for the turn, however, these same maniacs will usually be less willing to gamble (unless they've made their hand). So get your money in the pot while you have the best of it! Once a scare card falls, I would check-call to the river.
You had the nuts at the time but the board was the kind I am caucious about.
I will suggest even with the beat you took it is not a bad play to do the same thing getting all in even with a tough board with the nuts on the flop they will hold up eneough to be profitable. I will always want to have the last bet as long as the other guy is still LOOKING for his hand.
I agree with Rounder, and if it had been No-Limit I wonder how many people out there would have gone all in on the flop? I think I would have since he was a semi-maniac, and there being of a chance of him having something like A-3 both clubs.
I don't think Don put him on Pocket K's like Sammy suggested, because that type of player rarely smooth calls pre-flop with pocket K's, probably not pocket J's either.(There was no mention of a pre-flop raise)
Danny
Getting free-rolled isn't as bad in limit as it can be in pot-limit or no-limit. I would also probably stop around 9 or 10 raises, but if I held QTc, I would certainly have gone all-in on the flop unless I was risk-averse for some reason. (I.e. if the game was great and those were my last dollars.) If you hold QTc there's no way that you don't have the best of it. If your opponent has a set or a bigger flush draw, you're still a decent favorite.
-Sean
Sean,
Unfortunately, you continue to use runon sentences. Nobody can respect your opinions now.
$3-$6 Online
I held 4d4s in early posotion and called along with 6 others. Flop 4h6c7c. I bet.
button raises, I reraise. 4 left. turn 7s. I bet. call, fold, button raises. I put him on 87 hopefully.
I reraise, call, call
river Ks
I bet, raise, call, I reraise, call, fold.
Comments?
Sammy easy to put your head down and raise with an improver plopped set to a boat a well hidden one to boot. I still don't get the "feel" for online poker - maybe some day I'll try it.
I think you might have gone 1 too many raises on the river. The raiser on the end is someone who'd been passively calling the whole way? After you've bet and re-raised the turn, if someone raises the river they either have you beat or are an idiot, and since he'd been passively calling on the turn and then fired on the river, it wouldn't surprise me if he held 77 for quads. If the player in question doesn't play that well and will raise with relatively weak hands, I'll make it 3 bets with less than the nuts, but I think bottom boat might be a bit weak because there are a lot of hands he could hold that could beat it.
-Sean
The raiser on the river flopped a baby straight. He held 35s.
Well, put a check mark in the idiot category. One thing that I forgot to mention is that if this river was heads up, when deciding whether or not to reraise, is that if you're beat, you will very likely be reraised again on the river and you'll have to pay off. But, it's fairly unlikely that you'll be reraised with a hand you can beat. You need to take that into account when deciding whether or not to reraise for value--in other words, you need to be about twice as likely to hold the best hand to reraise. This hand was 3-way which makes it different, but the same concept applies.
Abdul wrote a good essay in the Intelligent Gambler on this concept that came from an RGP post called "A 30-60 hand against Chris."
-Sean
"Well, put a check mark in the idiot category." For future reference,you might consider using subjects in your sentences.
For future reference, You might refrain from runon sentences in your posts.
way to go sammy! you know i like raising. the punk was slowplaying a straight, right? the fool. make 'em pay.
scott
The Gambling Forum Archive
Hold'em
December 1999 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo