![[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 h