I'm holding JJ in a low limit ( 2 - 4 ) and I'm in mid position. I raise the preflop and both players call.
Flop comes Jd 6h 7s.
The blind bets, I raise and my friend calls cold in late position ( I consider him to be a good player. Figure he is on a staight draw. ) and the blind calls.
Turn comes 8c.
The blind bets, I call crying and my friend and in late position calls. (?)
River comes 7d
Blind bets, I raise, reraise behind me, reraise by the blind.......
Since there was no cap, we had about 15 bets each before the big show down....
blind was holding 54s. (Which I believe was a poor play because the board paired up. He should have known his straight was no good.)
I had J's full and had 2nd nut which lost to quad 7's which my friend was holding. (which on the raising war I figured someone had it.... but I had to know)
What is the chances that with a three person holdem game that all three of us have great hands with both cards playing?
See you tonight Andy for another weekend show down!
any comments?... This is my first time writing in so please don't rip me apart.
What is the chances that with a three person holdem game that all three of us have great hands with both cards playing?
100%, it seems. I don't really consider idiot straight with the board paired to be a great hand, and top full vs. quads isn't all that rare in hold'em due to the community cards.
100%, it seems. I don't really consider idiot straight with the board paired to be a great hand, and top full vs. quads isn't all that rare in hold'em due to the community cards.
For future reference,for your opinions to be respected online, you might consider using proper English in your messages.
Playing in loose games I'm forever deciding which flushes to play. How would you play 87s differently than 86s preflop? I notice S&M have many starting hands between them. But all I can see favoring 87s is the one extra dumb straight. Let me thank the 10 or 20 of you who regularly contribute answers for us newbies. I've been following for months.Without your generous advice I could never have afforded to learn the hard way. Now I see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not a train.Rounder, they should pay you for your unique perspective. (BTW I'm up $1200 after 110 hrs. Was stuck $600 before reversing.)
The one extra straight possibility will add up in the long run.
RD & Mike
It just isn't the extra straight it is the nuts I am after any straight you use both coupled cards is a nut and I love nuts. I get bashed for this thinking but I'd still rather have 89o than 97s - for alot of reasons.
Hey I have been preaching this for months now.
Play the mid coupled cards weather suited or not in late positions hell the 8 high flush is probably a loser anyway.
The connector is the nuts, except for when 9TJ hits the board, in which case there are two different straights that could beat you. There are three different ways (discounting overcards) to hit the nuts with the connector. There are two ways, with the one gapper, one way with the two gapper, zero ways with the 3 gapper. Just adding my two cents worth.
You have 8c6c in the SB, BB has 8d7d, the two of you see the flop of 7h6s2s...
I'd be very interested to hear from some of the expert players on this hand. I don't just want to know whether I could have made a better play, but rather if I could have had a better thought. I feel that I could benefit greatly to hear how an expert would have thought this hand out differently.
There was a straddle button in this 10-20 game and it was in play for this hand. A somewhat loose but experienced tricky player (tp) made it $30 from UTG, and a strong player (sp) to his immediate left capped it at $40. Everyone folded to me in the LB and I called with KK.
My thoughts: I'm not crazy about my position and I'm not sure if the fact that I didn't get a raise in hurts me. Although my calling $35 cold should say I have a big hand. (especially to the strong player)
The flop came Qh,7c,3s. I bet out.
My thoughts: I want it known that I have a hand. I'm sure tp will raise regardless of his holding and this allows me to see how sp reacts.
tp raises, sp re-raises, I call.
My thoughts: I don't think I gain much from capping here and I want to see now what tp does.
tp caps, sp calls, I call. Turn is 5s. (Qh,7c,3s,5s) I bet out.
My thoughts: Obviously, we all have big hands. I fully expect tp to raise me here (and I think that tp and sp know I know that also) which should put sp to a tough call with many holdings (including AA,KK and AQ). If he even calls I will seriously consider mucking!?? I don't want to fear monsters under the bed, but AA has been a concern from the beginning as well as QQ. I'm willing to pay one of these hands off, but not both.
tp raises, sp thinks for a long time and mucks, I call. River is a 7s. I feel I have forced my hand as far as possibible. I check, tp checks and my KK wins. Turns out both tp and sp had AQ. I found this hand to be pretty intense and would appreciate comments. Again, not just how the hand was played but what a a good player would've thought differently. I feel I was weak at least in my thinking. I was very concerned about AA and QQ and if sp even calls the raise on the turn I would have seriously considered mucking. I definitely muck if he re-raises? Thanks again!
Ask yourself exactly what range of hands are consistent with the actions of the strong player (4-bets preflop then 3-bets on the flop)? The very worst possible holding is exactly AQ, don't you think? It's also the only one you can beat. Tricky player is a little harder to put on a hand but again it's hard to imagine a hand worse than AQ and easy to imagine a few better than that, 77 for example.
I think you were fortunate to get the money but I'm no expert.
Your thinking here was incorrect. You gained tremendous advantage by not making a move prior to the flop. You should have checked the flop and let the game come to you. You are not letting anyone know anything by betting out. You could be betting Q with a K kicker and since they both have top pair with top kicker they are going to jump all over you. You should have checked the flop and reraised after tp & sp bet and raised. Now you put pressure on them to figure out your hand, or just call and wait to 3 bet the turn. You also lost a player on the turn who would have paid you off, if you had checked. The board was very favourable to you all the way and you should have played it as if you had the best hand (which you did). If you had waited and 3 bet the turn with a check, neither player would cap it on you, because you have now annouced that you have a strong hand, but if they cap, then and only then should you consider that you might not have the best hand, but you would still call. I know it's easy to analyse the hand since we know what the players were holding but if you had check raised, your opponents are now under pressure instead of you and they could make a costly error as well.
I liked your play till the turn. Because the flop was not dangerous I would have check-raised on the turn. Then bet the river unless I know I am beat to possible AKs, AQs, Ax,KQs. If the flop would have been dangerous such as 2 suited card or open-end straight draw then I would have bet the turn hoping to get raise to limit the field.
If I check the turn, most likely, it gets bet and raised back to me. Now what do I do? I have an almost impossible call and may very well lose the hand now since I have to put one of them on AA or QQ.
Would you call 2 bets cold here, or cap it? I'm pretty sure I'd muck for 2 bets cold on the turn.
You're wrong about one thing, AKs -- the idea that your thinking was weak. I think you played the hand great! Against most players I would be uncomfortable with this amount of action, but you seemed to know how aggressive tp was and how he would react to your bets. The normal play on the turn would be to check-call, but your bet into the previous capper followed by tp's raise (which you thought he might make without a great hand) may have made sp throw away even AA. Bravo!
I would have capped the pre flop action and had the last bet on the flop I feel in charge here unless an A hits the board.
You just can't put good players on AA, a rock yes but a good player is tough to put on a hand in this situation. The hand would have played out differently if you had capped the pre flop so maybe you were better off just calling. But folding an over pair in this situation is wrong.
The pre-flop betting was already capped before the action got to Aks according to his post.
Unless Aks is a nut, tp and sp should know that he has a strong hand to cold call the flop and then bet into the raisers after the flop. If mistakes were made, then they were made by sp and tp by over-valuating or over-betting their hands given the pre-flop calls and post-flop action from Aks.
Aks's mistake is contemplating a muck on the turn, and possibly not check-raising the flop which is when I think a check-raise is the most effective in this situation.
It is debatable how to play this hand. The one comment you made that worries me is that you were ready to fold on fourth st. if you thought you were beaten. I wonder if you realize that the pot was almost big enough to call one bet simply to try and snag a king. I have often seen good payers incorrectly fold an overpair in these situations. Don't forget your implied odds either. Also even if you had no intention of calling on the end, if there was even a tiny chance (1%) that you could win (or tie) a showdown without putting more money in, a call is clearly right on fourth st.
There is a fading thread far down the forum in which David Sklansky single-handedly attempts to belittle Lee Jones and his book 'Winning Low Limit Hold'em'. David's stated goal in knocking down Jones is to benefit all of us that might be duped into believing this book was written professionally by a professional. He further seems to believe that the advice of Jones is likely to be dangerous or at least lead players astray on their way up the hold'em ladder.
I believe that if you buy this book because you're currently not beating low limit hold'em AND you have the desire and discipline you will beat low limit hold'em damn quickly. That's all the book promises. It's not promising to make you a poker professional. There is no suggestion that you'll succeed at mid limit games, just low limit. The book delivers. It may not be the most complete or most correct but it's a very efficient tool to learn how to win.
That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche? It's my guess now that there is so much jealousy and dislike that a 2+2 book that improves upon Jones is out of the question. Working with Jones is also out. But why, oh why attack Jones you unthinking business man?
Every book that Jones sells keeps another player "in" the game if he succeeds. This is your future customer, David Sklansky. This is the guy that will buy $1000 in poker books with his expanding bankroll. I know I did.
You and Lee jones are in the same figurative boat. If you make the effort to belittle his work and poke a hole in his end of the boat, his end will go down while yours rises. In the end however, the boat sinks with both of you aboard.
Lastly, Lee Jones is a really nice guy. He may have moved on from poker author to other things in life, I don't know but his work has made a lot of losers into winners. For that you should be grateful.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Do you seriously believe that I could not almost instantly beat a small limit game for more money than any player who does not routinely play 20-40 or higher (assuming we know the specific players in the game equally)? Thinking I couldn't, is like thinking An NFL football player wouldn't almost instantly be the best player at a high school rugby game. Even Lee Jones himself, I am sure, would agree with that. There are some higher limit players who would have trouble with small limits, but that is because they play by the seat of their pants and don't understand the underlying theory and the strategy changes that are necessary. But that wouldn't be the case for me or most of the successful high limit players. Furthermore with a mere ten or twenty hours of experience and a few hours of relection afterwards, any possible edges on some aspect of the game that a more experienced small limit player would have would be quickly eliminated. (The very best players such as Chip Reese didn't spend much time playing small, not only because they started with more money but rather because when you have this much talent, beating small games badly is a piece of cake and they quickly move up.)
This also brings up another bone I have to pick with you Badger, regarding The Theory of Poker. When I mentioned in another thread that an aspiring studious player could quickly move up to 6-12 if he read that book, you replied that I was being disengenuous because we admit that our books are for higher limits. Well that is true for some of our other books but the Theory of Poker is by definition for ALL limits since it tells you what to think about depending on the situation. Since you haven't read that book you wouldn't know.
Getting back to your initial comment. I don't suppose you would like to take the other side of me crossbooking Lee Jones or any small limit pro, playing 3-6 holdem. We would of course have to play at least 50 hours at a minimum of 10X stakes. Most of your disagreements with me cannot be definitively resolved. But this one can, if you make it worth my while.
Post deleted at author's request.
It is becoming clear to me that you have a distorted view of both my opinions and writing talants and that this could be fixed if you only read The Theory of Poker. So I up my offer again. Order the book. Read it. If you can honestly say you are not glad you did, I will send you $400. Period.
Badger's original point, which is valid, is that most poker books--yours included, valuable as it is---tend to convey the impression that there is a "fixed" viable strategy for low-limit Holdem. Of course, this is not the case: there are so many variables: game structure, quality and style of opponents, amount the house charges to play, etc. In addition, there is the matter of definition. I don't consider 5-10 or 6-12 "low limit". I'm sure someone who normally plays 20-40 or higher, does. So if you make a generalization such as "3-3 can be played profitably in a low limit game" the natural question must arise, HOW low of a limit? against rocks? nut cases? In CA where the rake is prohibitive? In WA where the rake is affordable? etc. etc. etc. It may be impossible to truly convey a thorough strategy for low limit holdem in any book less than 2000 pages long. I've read your book. It's one of the best poker books I've ever read; the exposition is clear and lucid; the points made are valuable; the coverage is thorough. As a FOUNDATION it is unparalleled. However, it falls short of arming the novice against all variations and all situations--but then, no single book can be expected to do that. I would like to see, in fact, a book devoted to just the above topic---how to change one's playing style(s) to adapt to conditions, and how to recognize beatable (and unbeatable) games, and how to evaluate poker venues. And re your offer to Badger: send ME a copy of your book, and I'll read it and profess to hate it for only $300--a 25% saving to you! (I'll do anything for a few extra buy-ins :)
Post deleted at author's request.
I already read The Theory of Poker and thought it was great...but I'd be willing to say I didn't like it for as little as $50. You can e-mail me for my street address. :-)
Post deleted at author's request.
Undertanding the problems associated with low limit play, especially for relatively new players is not about what you play preflop for one bet, 2 bets, 5-6 players or more. Most of the money will be lost on later streets when the situation has changed for the worse but the novice doesn't see it. Example
Late Position. Hero calls early position raiser with KQs.
Flop is KcQd4s. Okay he's flopped top two pair and raises the preflop raiser. The river is a 4c. In the seasoned player's mind warning bells are now going off. The novice still thinks he's got a great hand and gets into a raising war with the preflop raiser who he knows couldn't posssibly have raised preflop with a 4 in his hand.
Most beginners and non studying players don't lose their money by not knowing when to get in, they lose their money by not knowing when to get out. They can calculate pot odds and implied odds and percentages of hands that can beat them in a flash but they have no experience to let them know that AT with a flop of AQ4 is a loser when a solid player raised UTG preflop. They've got top pair with a decent kicker. After all some of the players at the table play any ace. They've thrown away 20 hands in a row. They've got a pair of aces and they're playing them.
It takes a lot of experience to know that when you flop bottom set and your raises are not respected that you just might be in trouble. In the Fundamental theory of Poker Sklansky points out that if your opponent is playing his hand in a different way than he would play it if he knew what you held then he's making a mistake. So, it would seem that when you've made it clear what you hold and you're still getting raised it might be time to give your opps some credit. Beginner's don't do this, novice's do this right after they call the last raise and then say, "I knew I was beat!!" Most of the hands I win at low limit are because I'm playing AQ and raising, typical low limiters ae playing QT and they call all the way to the river. After all, they read somewhere that top pair is a decent hand. Just reading books and reading these posts are not the whole answer. Many of Abdul's posts and Izmet's posts are clearly titled as questions that should be thought about, not necessarily answered. Thinking, thinking and more thinking is required. Getting a read on someone as impossible as it is at low limits is essential. Being able to reraise UTG in early position with AJs because you know UTG would smooth call with any real hand is where money is made. Only the player at the table at the time can best know when to fold or raise when his flush hits on a paired board. But, that's only if that player even knows how to analyze the information at hand. It's much much more than whether or not you play small pairs preflop. You can't just memorize a table and odds charts and expect the chips to flow your way. You have to know how to play poker, and no book in the world can teach you that.
Bravisimo! Very well said, Sammy.
But... Don't you think that knowing the odds, charts, et al is a very important foundation for learning to play poker properly?
I think it's indispensable. But it's not enough to make you a long time winner.
While I agree with with this post with respect to the point of "experience is the best teacher", I'm not so sure I agree with the rest of it. Can low limit be beaten without ANY previous experience, just based on reading? Probably not. But most low limit poker (again MOST) is played by people who don't know ANYTHING about odds or odds tables. You are going to tell me that a 3-6 table where 7 out of 10 players consider J4s a decent hand knows about odds? I really hope not! If most players knew about the odds and charts and tables, low limit, high raked games would be unbeatable. No way. At a typical 3-6 table most players don't know and frankly don't care about the odds of hitting a flush with one card to come or whatever. Sort of like a $5 blackjack table where someone hits a 12 against a 6 showing. In these games, you make most of your money off your opponents bad plays. Thus a low limit book should attempt to prevent you from making these plays. Give them starting hands to play so they don't play junk. Let them know that when 3 flush cards are on the board to consider that someone might have a flush. When there are four cards in a row, having the lower card to make the straight is not as good as having the higher card to make a straight. This alone should be enough to make low limit a winning proposition for people who read the text.
Mr. Sklansky seems to be a big fan of sports analogies, so I will give him one. Nobody is saying you can't beat low limit. You probably just can't make winning at low limit holdem as easy as possible, which is what you have to do to reach novices. An NFL coach is probably a much better tactician than a PeeWee league coach. However, if an NFL coach was assigned to coach at the PeeWee level, he might not get as good results as the best PeeWee league coach. Not because he could not come up with a strategy to blast every PeeWee league team out of the water, but because the strategy he devises can not be implemented successfully by his PeeWee league team. A good PeeWee league coach may only understand football at the most basic level, but yet may be able to get the most out of his players using a simplified strategy that works well for his PeeWee league team.
This is a poor analogy. You cannot compare coaching with participating. Sklansky is a poker player not a poker coach. Take an NFL player and put him in a PeeWee league and a lot of other coaches will be PeEing their pants.
Vince.
Huh? Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said no one is doubting he can't beat a low limit game. Coaching and participating is not analogous. Giving advice in books to low limit players and coaching small time players is. When you are writing a book you are not playing poker, you are helping teach others how to beat it.
Yeah, well maybe you were clear enough and I just blew it! Did you ever think of that. Huh! Sure, sure, Vince is always the brunt of the joke. Well you won't have me to kick around for a while. In the future, please be a little less clear in your anaolgies so I can at least come up with an excuse or maybe even make it look like you screwed up.
Vince.
is that someone who knew the subject better, would necessarily be a worse teacher of beginners. This might be true in some cases, but certainly not in mine or many others. Making the book cookbookish and not too intimidating, while at the same time EXPLAINING THINGS without logical errors, or giving downright wrong information (not because you are trying to simplify but rather because you don't know yourself) is not that hard. I really don't want to belabor the point but I have no choice when you guys don't get what I am saying. So I will say it again. To write a good simplified book for neophytes that goes beyond extreme basics, takes both a decent teacher and a relative expert in the field. The top texts on almost all serious subjects are written by authors who pass this criteria, and they must necessarily be better than books written by those who don't. Poker unfortunately is an exception.
Though the point made is very valid, I'm not sure if my sixth grade science book was written by a PhD, much less a Nobel prize winner. For all I know, 2+2 could come up with the best LLH book of all time. The rest of the books are certainly great. I was merely trying to convey the point Mr. Badger was attempting to get across. Writing a good low limit book does not involve only the strategy needed to beat the game, but the simplicity in order to get your points across to those who may not as of yet have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of poker.
Post deleted at author's request.
The athlete analogy doesn't apply since I write as well as play. I agree many highlimit poker players would write bad books although some wouldn't. The Vince Lombardi analogy is better. But I would change a few things. First of all, peewee football is not analogous to 3-6. Those who play 3-6 in public cardrooms are at least equivalent to junior high school players. Secondly I agree that an NFL coach may not do quite as good a job as junior high coach who was especially good at his job. But that would be true only if that guy knew football ALMOST as well as the pro coach.
There is no doubt that a Phd may not be able to teach high school physics as well as a great teacher with a masters. But there is also absolutely no doubt that the best high school physics teachers do not include people who didn't graduate college and merely got a B when they themselves took the course. That is the better analogy to what we are discussing.
Post deleted at author's request.
Uhoh, I actually aspire to be a highschool physics teacher after I make my millions. Seriously.
(Nobody's gonna read something this far down in the thread, but I'll post it anyways.)
... And while we've invoked professional football coaches, I would like to say that someone with a world-class understanding of physics or biology or foreign policy or a lot of fields would probably make better coaches than the majority of those who do so now. The experiential lore isn't that daunting compared to say law school or medical school. What's at the core is applying this experience plus reasoning skills and solving problems. With a modest investment of time to acquire the lore, great analysts and decision makers should fare best. Granted, there are managerial and psychological issues, but these are no different than those faced in a variety of fields.
The reason you don't see more crossovers is probably aritificial barriers to entry erected by those who perceive the incorrect set of skills as being necessary for the job. Fields without these barriers (like poker) bear out that the lore aspect is overrated as intelligent new crossover entrants surpass the less intelligent.
Probably preaching to the choir here, but this is kinda germane to the question about those who can and cannot.
JG
TOP deals with "what to take into consideration" not with specific recommended plays. It is, IMHO, the most complete general strategy poker book ever written - with concepts that can be tailored to ANY LIMIT, to ANY GAME, ANYWHERE. I believe that any player with at least average intelligence and less than 6 months of hands on experience but who has fully comprehended the theories in TOP can outperform a player with at least average intelligence, has 30 years of hands on experience but who has never read TOP.
That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche?
Mason posted recently that 2+2 were approached about publishing WLLHE but declined. I'm not really sure what their objections are--I've seen criticism of Lee's suggestion to use the "raise the button with medium-sized suited connectors" play (I think David said that play isn't terribly useful because loose players will call too much anyway), but that's a relatively minor point because the only drawback is that it increases your variance; it shouldn't lower your EV.
The only real "objection" I've ever had with the Jones book is that it's often referred to as "The Bible of Low Limit Poker" when it's really a relatively simple guide, and I don't know if Lee necessarily referred to it as such.
Sean,
Your use of runon sentences is excessive. Please correct this poor style in order to develop respect in poker "fora" (as you put it).
Though I don't own WLLH, I did skim through it at a bookstore once. From what I saw of the book, it advocated a very straightforward approach to LLH, almost a "cookbook" approach. This is as opposed to the more theoretical advice given in 2+2 on how to play DEPENDING on the situation. I think the approach in LLH makes it much easier for the beginner to understand. A lot of people dont want to be doused in heavy theory. They just want to play winning poker, and from what i have heard the jones book helps them to do that.
I don't really know David but so far I've never seen anything that I would attribute to spite. I think he really believes he is helping the world by pointing out weak poker thinking and from what I can tell is useing LJ as an example (most likely because its shoved in his face so often). His metric for book value appears to be correctness above all. I can easily see this attitude. For example in a thread on the Theory forum a CS PhD candidate (name elided to protect the guilty) suggested somebody read some total piece of tripe produced by Sams in order to get an intro to the programming trade. My initial reaction was much as David's might have been about LJ's contributions to poker education ignoring the fact that effective communication to newbies is a positive value add (actually I think the Sams cr@@ is far worse then John Patrick on BJ but pretend its a lot better and the comparison stands). David's metric doesn't include the communication aspect so we're going to disagree. Such is life. Its good to have people with all viewpoints commenting.
One thing that has puzzled me lately is 2+2s pulling away from low limit. In the "bankroll" threads one of Mason or Dave made the comment that playing at those levels really isn't worth their time to worry about much. In those threads up through 3-6 was clearly low limit and 6-12 seemed to hover on the edge (personally I think its clearly low limit). Since they state their books are for games through 30-60 they seem to really be limiting their market. As somebody else pointed out the majority of players exist below 10-20. It may be that 2+2 thinks the majority of players willing to buy a 2+2 book really exist between 10-20 and 30-60 but I would think the low limit threads that seem to premeate this website and RGP would argue against that.
Whether the reason 2+2 chooses to ignore LL games is truely because they don't understand low limit games as Steve suggests or because its not of interest to them doesn't really matter to me. It opens up a market for the LJ's Izmet's, etc. of the world to fill up. If as David suggests there are a lot of people who could do better thats great. Until they do its a moot point.
FWIW, just buying LJs book probably has about the same probability of making you a successful low limit player as only buying one of DS's book (say TOC to make the example extreme). The probability is very low. The ability to think analytically is probably a bigger indicator then what books you pick up (David's comments in RGP about SAT scores would appear to support that).
Our target market is mostly those players who are interested in making real money playing poker. This could be someone just starting out and playing at limits $3-$6 or lower, or someone struggling at $10-$20 or higher. That is the main market for people who are willing to shell out $30 or more for a poker book.
My guess is that if you go into a large poker room (Commerce or Hollywood Park would be good examples) and do a survey of people playing $3-$6 or lower the majority of them will tell you that they have never read a poker book and have no interest in buying one. So just because you see many players in low limit games it doesn't mean that that is where the market is.
With this being said we do have some material targeted for players at the level that you are talking about. First is the FUNDAMENTALS OF POKER written by Lynne Loomis and myself which targets players who are brand new to the game and is recognized today as the best beginners book. Second, is our book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING (written by David and myself) which is an overview of all those casino games which are beatable. (The poker section in Gambling for a Living uses some material from the Fundamentals of Poker.)
You make the assertion that if you go to 3-6 tables most players have not read and would not be interested in buying a poker book. Most likely true. However, I think you miss two points. 1) There are many more players at LL, and therefor a larger potential pool of customers to draw from. A smaller percentage interested in book learning than at higher limits, but since there are more players, a fairly good size crowd. 2) Those of us who are (currently) playing lower limits would jump at having another book written specifically for this type of game. Since 2+2 is probably the most respected name in poker publishing, I think you are missing a huge potential market. The success of Lee Jones' book points to this. The length of this thread and the emotions stirred up also points to this. My 2 cents: if you don't want to write it, invite some of the more knowledgeable LL players on this forum to submit proposals for a book outline, or outline a book and ask for contributors for various topics and chapters. You could even have authors offering different points of view on the same subject, explaining their strategy and rational. LL players also need advice on the emotional aspects of the game, such as dealing with loosing streaks, which only comes from years of experience that most LL don't have yet. Yes, it will require a good deal of editing, but I think the financial rewards will be worth it. Toss in that making winning players out of losing players is great karma (putting odds in your favor you won't be reincarnated as a garden slug or lawyer) and you have a complete winner on your hands.
We are actually willing to do most of the things that you suggest. But we are not willing to step a new writer through a book. I have stated many times that if anyone on this forum has a completed manuscript we will be glad to look at it. If accepted, David and I work with the author to make sure that the book meets the standards that Two Plus Two has established. We currently have two new books in this process right now and they should be released this coming summer.
But I am not interested in seeing just a proposal. For our purposes and limited resources this is not enough. Perhaps if we had a large staff of people and did not care as much about complete accuracy as some publishers do we would do things this way.
So let me state it again. If any of you out there are putting a book together we at Two Plus Two would be more than happy to look at a draft manuscript, If it is very good with the potential of becoming terrific, we just might accept it.
Post deleted at author's request.
Luckily for Mason, John Feeney didn't see this warning until it was too late.
Post deleted at author's request.
I have no idea Gary. In any case Mason has him in his clutches now.
Post deleted at author's request.
I understand that as part of the deal, Feeney has to provide free psychotherapy to all the other 2+2 writers. The opportunity to avail yourself of John's services might be just the incentive you need to reconsider your stance and submit your book to Mason. Unless of course you think John will be too busy for you.
My door is always open for Gary. But he'll have to go off the meds and check all weapons at the front desk. First we'll work on resolving his Oedipus-Malmuth complex. I notice that it flairs up along with signs of oral sadism whenever father Mason reprimands him. Yet, it is often calmed by supportive distractions from the kindly uncle David figure. With any luck the transference will put me in the David role, allowing the therapy to progress smoothly, resulting in the publication of Gary's book with a new title, "You're Just Wrong (But I'm Okay Now): Raise that Draw!"
Than maybe I can cure the "Mad" Genius.
But seriously, I thought Mason's simply telling me, "I'll let *you* post on the Forum for FREE, for a WHOLE YEAR. For you, no subscription fee!", was way more than enough compensation for a book. What am I missing??
Post deleted at author's request.
Uh, hu... Go on.
I'd suggest the concept of dueling authors is more appropriate for an advanced book. Maybe as a collection of reviewed papers on coordinated topics.
You don't want to confuse newbies on their first outing. Giveing them a consistent party line and plenty of pampering (how to hold cards, how to buy in, etc.) is as important as anything else. If they have the aptitude they will get to the right stuff quick enough. If they don't it doesn't really matter.
Isn't Lou K. and others working on a "Poker for Dummies"? That may give the community another viable low limit poker book.
Mike wrote:
For example in a thread on the Theory forum a CS PhD candidate (name elided to protect the guilty) suggested somebody read some total piece of tripe produced by Sams in order to get an intro to the programming trade. My initial reaction was much as David's might have been about LJ's contributions to poker education ignoring the fact that effective communication to newbies is a positive value add (actually I think the Sams cr@@ is far worse then John Patrick on BJ but pretend its a lot better and the comparison stands). David's metric doesn't include the communication aspect so we're going to disagree. Such is life. Its good to have people with all viewpoints commenting.
I, of course, am the PhD candiate in question (guilty as charged). I find it humerous that you chose this context to mention this old thread. I also have to say that I have no clue who Sams is. I recommended an O'Reilly book. I'm not a big fan of them myself, but I do think that the Learning Pearl book is pretty good.
The metric I was applying was based on several things. First, if the person doesn't want to take the academic route, they are probably very practical, thus I picked one of the most practical programming languages for people who are not software developers. Second, since they are most likly smart and a self-starter, I felt that an O'Reilly book would probably hit them at the right level.
If I really did feel that said student was interested in getting into the the "programming trade" I would advise them to go to school. On the other hand if they just want to have fun and be productive, I think that my suggestions weren't outlandish.
Maybe it is like the DS vs. LJ debate, one cannot write (or recommend) a book without considering the audience.
- Andrew
It wasn't you. ORA is a well respected technical publishing house. Sams is a crappy "learn perl/java/buzzword du jour in 10 easy lessons" kind of publisher. I didn't even realize you were a CS PhD candidate.
All hope is not lost. There is another ;)
woo hoo !
"woo hoo !"
Andrew:
You sound like you went to the University of Virginia. I have real trouble with that.
WOO HOO !
"That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche?"
The Lee Jones book was offered to us first. I turned it down.
Mason wrote: "The Lee Jones book was offered to us first. I turned it down."
Reminds me of a record producer who turned down The Beatles in '61, good move!
David says in thread "In Defense of Lee Jones"
(I would suggest, however that it might be a good idea for Lee, now that he has evidently improved his understanding and his play to, come out with a new edition and run it by me first.)
It seems he ran it by David the first time. Okay, maybe Mason didn't want to publish it for conflict reasons, but certainly it must have been in your hands. Did you offer to look it over then, as you are doing now? If your first allegiance is to make sure the poker public is getting the best product, that was the time to do it.
Okay. I am going to tell a couple of things that I have always kept private. When the book was first offered to me all I saw was a proposal. It was obvious from the proposal that this text would not meet our standards unless we did a great deal of work on it. If my memory serves me well there was even suppose to be a fictitious character named Davon which the book would feature. In a letter to Lee Jones I turned the text down and recommended to him that he drop the ficticious character which to his credit he did. (I even received a letter back from Mr. Jones thanking me for my time and effort.)
Perhaps a year later Chuck Weinstock was in town with a draft copy of the manuscript. He asked me if I would look at it and give him comments. I worked my way through the first four pages of strategy and marked those pages up. I also told Chuck:
1. It just wasn't worth my time to work through the text at a detailed level. 2. That now having seen the manuscript I would still have no interest in publishing it.
If you find this book helpful to you then that's great. I believe that following its advice will make you a small winner at the low limit games since it will have you playing much tighter than many of your opponents. For some people that's a big improvement.
I also believe that our limited resources here at Two Plus Two (and this includes both my time and David's time) were better spent elsewhere.
I'm not going to offer any opinions here - I just wanted to say that Mason's recollection of my offering the book to him first is 100% accurate as far as I can recall (it's been about six years now). I did drop the fictional character idea, no doubt at least partially because Mason thought it was a bad one.
Happy new year y'all.
Regards, Lee
Lee:
I'm happy to see this post. I understand that you have become quite a good player. I hope you realize that the points we made about your book was nothing personal, but simply to let people know that many of the books that compete with us were written by excellent writers but who had less than a firm grasp of the subject as compared to writers in other fields. I am sure that you yourself upon rereading your book find things that you would like to change or either explain differently. We look forward to seeing a new edition and now that you have reached a greater degree of expertise we would be happy to add our input to any perspective new edition you decide to put out.
And finally, both David and I hope that you become a regular participant on this forum.
Mason,
I'm curious. Upon rereading your books, do you find things that you would either like to change or explain differently?
I know what the book did for me, it enabled me to play safely and sanely with positive EV while I learned to play a stronger game.
I watched last year's WSOP on ESPN and was hooked on poker. I bought Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky read it and headed off to the casino.
I really was not ready for that book or it's teachings and it showed. I read Lee Jones book, and started having good success in the 3-6 games (averaged $10.50 per hour for 145 hours in Atlantic City). As well as running over a 1-4 home game I play in ( I average over $90 per 5 hour session in this game. I intentionally give money back if I get much over +$100 so as not to disrupt this game).
Anyway I moved up and tried 5-10 a few times and got clobbered! I went back and read David's book again and it made much more sense! Now when I read Lee's book I see the obvious failed logic in some of his writing. But Lee's book enabled me to get to this point without going broke!
I equate it to skiing... you teach people to ski in a wedge, and then once they gain some confidence you explain that the wedge is useless and teach them to ski properly.
Sean
And wouldn't you agree it doesn't take Jean Claud Killey to teach you how to ski in a wedge? As a matter of fact anyone who has skiied in a wedge could teach it!!
NO I wouldn't agree. See my Vince Lombardi post above,
Perhaps there is another element here we are overlooking and that is one of communication. If the pupil doesn't get it it sometimes has little to do with the education or credentials of the teacher.
An NFL coach thrown into the middle of a jv season would certainly be a fish out of water because he has no reference as to what his new team is capable of. He can't possibly know the competition because he didn't play 8 games against those kids last year. So, in this analogy it comes down to who would do the better job if the experiences are equal. Now, given equal experience and two coaches, one with pro credentials and one with jv credentials, communication would then be a major factor. Who will the kids respond to, who will get the most out of the kids at practice, who will teach the play book in a way that 10th graders can understand. Well, chances are the high school coach teaches other courses in school so he can relate better. As for you not accepting the skiing analogy, I still feel the best person to teach a youngster how to wedge down a hill would not be Jean Claude Killey or even the instructor at the slopes. It would probably be the kids older sibling who was wedging the previous season. There's communication there that supercedes a PhD.
Why are you not understanding what I am saying? Your points would be valid if 1. We were talking about absolute beginners which is not the case here. Jones was not calling his book a purely beginners book. Rather he claimed his book teaches a very good way to play small limits. Furthermore 3-6 players are not total beginners. (If he was instead showing a movie star who had never played poker, enough to keep from embarrasing himself in a celebrity tournament he might indeed be the best for the job.)
2. A great teacher must know his subject rather well for his teaching skills to matter. Jones did not at the time he wrote the book.
I will try one last analogy Sammy, and then I am done with it. I will use golf. You are a beginner. You shoot 130. It is time to take lessons. Unquestionably you might find that the best teacher for your specific circumstance may well be a less than pro golfer (maybe a 78 shooter) who understands your specific needs. The question is how far down can you go? Assuming he is a young coordinated man he could not be a great teacher, even for a beginner such as yourself, if he only shoots 90. The fact that his score is that high means his knowledge about the game has some serious flaws though he is still much better than a duffer. And there is little doubt that those flaws will translate into worse instruction than you would get from a much better player who knows how to teach adequately even if your only goal is to break 100. Though it might have been good enough to win, Lee Jones could not break 90 even playing only 3-6 at the time he first wrote the book. This is my last post on the subject.
Your phrase, "knows how to teach adequately" was essential to this argument.
I'm on the button,with AA.3 limpers,I raise 2 callers.Flop 4,4,9 rainbow.SB bets,2nd calls,I raise,both call.Turn is A,I win pot with boat,SB had set of 4's. After hand over regular says to me why would you ever raise on flop theonly thing SB could have was set of 4's.My logic:if he re-raises I know he has 4 and can proceed with that info. I'd rather error on the side of being aggressive.Comments?
Although some may argue for the merits of simply calling all the way with this hand, I'd like to say something for playing it straightforwardly and raising on the flop. The problem is that a mere call may fool one of the players in the middle into thinking something like two 10s are good. If they subsequently raise the initial better on the turn, having put him on two nines, it puts you to a tough decision. It is often much easier to play a multiway pot if the oppentents have some idea where you're at.
I'd like to add that if the two callers are good players, who would be likely to raise on this flop with a hand such as 10s and fold a weak hand, raising the flop may still be correct. Even though the aces are weaker in this spot (because a four is more likely out), they are still too good a hand to fold and you don't have to bet if it's checked to you on the turn.
Finally, as to what the regular said about the small blind having a four, my experience tells me an unknown player will not have one far more often than he will.
I have found in poker as in most of life it is the aggressive that prosper.
I really like these "regulars" asking questions after the hand is over.
Post deleted at author's request.
good raise. the sb could have a 9, a wired pair, or he could be pure bluffing at a "blind" flop. there are tons of hands you would have riased with preflop that are not wired pairs or include a 9 or a 4, so they think they can push you off overcards. your raise is not for information, per se. i think it is a raise for value. he might reraise with just 2 pair, thinking you are taking a shot at the pot or that he can get a better two pair to fold. assuming you don't fill out, i would call the sb down if he raised or bet again. but if he never took the lead back i would bet the turn and the river.
scott
Pre-flop your narrative is a little confusing to me. I gather 3 people limped in and then you raised. It sounds like the small blind called your raise and only one of the three limpers called. This means that two of the three original limpers folded rather than call a single raise back to them. Is this right? What a bizarre game!
When the flop comes with a small pair and a medium size card, this is a good flop for you. The small blind betting out could be done with just top pair, not necessarily trip Fours. He might even be betting an over pair. After the bet is called by one of the limpers, of course you raise. You beat top pair or any other pair the small blind could have led with.
The "regular's" comment about the only hand the small blind could have was a set of Fours is obviously coming from someone who doesn't understand poker. Many players would lead with a top pair of Nines against only two opponents in case you were raising on over cards. Similarily, when the board flops Nine-high, many players would bet out with pocket Tens or Jacks. Some might even bet a medium pocket pair if they think they have the best hand. If you are re-raised then you will just call and take off a card.
All your plays and thought processes were correct.
As an aside, the small blind did not have a set of Fours. The small blind had trip Fours. A set is specifically a pocket pair with one on the board. If you have a set of Fours then no else can have three Fours. When you have trip Fours someone else can also have trip Fours. Huge difference between the two.
Seems like you played for about 36 hours straight before you posted this. I hope this was not a no-limit game. How could you possibly as Jim pointed out loose 2 out of 3 limpers in any limit hold-em game. And did you see the SB 3 fours. If you did one of you needs some serious work to do.
P.S Vary your play as you like here it won't matter much. Do not listen to so called regulars.
if this was a no-limit game forget everything I said.
If you want to play poker in the Western US you HAVE to play limit HoldEm. Ecch. This is like only riding bicycles equipped with training wheels, or only eating oatmeal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, or if every channel on cable showed Gilligan's Island 24 hours a day. Nonetheless I accede to reality. So I sit there, hour after hour, throw a hand away throw a hand away throw a hand away throw a hand away aha! get AK suited, raise, flop comes 678 of spades, my AK is diamonds, throw that hand away, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Limit HoldEm has to be the most dull, unimaginative poker game on Earth. It's less skillful than Old Maid. You can't put any moves on because the bet size is so small relative to the pot that the lemmings just call, call, call. You play KK for the last raise, Gilligan hangs in with J5 suited, rivers a flush, and there you are. Nothing to do but throw away the hand. It's IMPOSSIBLE to sneak up on anybody. I win at this game--don't get me wrong--but it bores the living CRAP out of me to do so. I'd rather be ironing my laundry. The only thing I can try to do is as they say, "switch gears", but playing crap cards costs me money just as it does anyone else, and it makes no impression on the zombies at the table anyway. Can anyone offer an insight on how this game can be beaten without boring oneself to death in the process?
Sounds like you ought to find another hobbie.
I play most of my poker in the west and I don't find it boring at all - I like tossing hands in - :-)
I played ofver 1200 hours of ring poker last year and over 89 tournaments - mostly NL HE and I an no less the worse for wear.
I think you need to review your priorities for life.
Post deleted at author's request.
I know your backround from reading your messages on other boards.I also make money from a variety of casino sources,as you do.I found out a long time ago if you don't enjoy at least some aspect of something its not worth it.In my case VP,bores the hell out of me an I don't play much anymore.I played FT BJ for awhile and when the luster wore off it was time to expand.In poker its even more important,if your personality does'nt match there's a problem.I think it is far more complex and challenging(assuming you are moving up)than any other casino game.
Get a walkman and a tape of Rage Against the Machine.
It seems to me that your boredom is derived from the fact that you're just plays "cards". You're focus is on card rank and suit only, not on the breath and depth of the overall challenge. Frankly, I agree - the game is a bore when you play with blinders on and just see your pocket cards and the board cards. I'd suggest getting much deeper into the game, i.e., develop strategies, employ psychology, and win with style. The game will come alive!
Deep in a thread buried below Mason Malmuth says that one of things wrong with Lee Jones book is that he doesn't emphasize the importance of playing small pairs more liberally.
Badger then states that this is horrible advice. (I'm paraphrasing.)
Badger is completely off his rocker. Not only is knowing when to play a small pair ESSENTIAL to winning at holdem it is vital to your overall bottom line. Sets, are one of your biggest money makers at holdem.
I don't see anything wrong at all with teaching a new player the value of playing small pairs in certain situations for the sole express purpose of trying to flop a set. No set, out you get.
Mason 1. Badger 0.
Post deleted at author's request.
On the other hand, if you gave the advice to ALWAYS play any pocket pair in any position in a typical low-limit game for one bet you couldn't go far wrong either, and these are just the types of hands that inexperienced players should play, since it's a lot harder to get into trouble with them.
When I'm in a loose passive game, I play small pairs from anywhere. I call raises with them if I think I'll get 5-6 way action or better.
I rarely play small pairs in NL HE in a full table as they won't stand a raise but in limit & PL I play a pair from just about anywhere I put alot more value in a 44 than a 78s - they are easy to get away from (no set no bet)and if you flop a set or a 4 straight say 3 5 6 you have taken one of the outs out of play and the 44 is probably good anywhy at this point.
Post deleted at author's request.
A set is a set. Set over set is rare enough that you don't have to expend a whole lot of effort thinking about it. I did the math a while ago on the frequency of losing a set to a bigger set (it's in the archives), and I've forgotten the exact numbers now, but it was rare enough that I decided it wasn't worth worrying about until I was actually in a hand and had heavy evidence that I was against a bigger set. In terms of overall EV, it doesn't make much difference.
And if you want to improve the flop advice for small pairs, instead of 'no set and out you go', it's simply a matter of saying, "If you think the pot, plus implied odds, plus a chance of a raise behind you, equals enough equity to warrant drawing for two outs, call. Otherwise fold." That is still a lot simpler for novice players to understand than a situation where you have something like 89s, and the flop is K93. Here, it's all about judging your opponents, the live aspects of your kicker, whether you have the best hand, whether you have a 3-flush or 3-straight to go with your pair and how much value that adds, PLUS everything else that the small pair player has to worry about (pot odds, chances of a raise behind).
Where weak players lose money with small pairs is when they blindly hang on to them all the way to the river, wildly hoping that they'll hit a set and/or their hand will be the best at the showdown. THAT is expensive, but it's an easily correctable error.
In tough games like you and I normally play, this isn't the case at all, and small pairs can be tough to play, simply because we're often heads-up or in 3-way situations where our small pair has a good chance to be the best hand, but it's expensive to call when it's not. That calls for a lot of judgement, and maybe that's coloring your responses to the low-limit game.
Just for the record Dan, you forgot open end straight drwas and occasionally gut shots as well.
Post deleted at author's request.
Are you sure about that? Given the hands that other players are likely to play, it seems to me that a set of Queens is more likely to lose to a straight than a set of 3's. And I would think that a set of 3's would make more money than the queens, simply because of their hidden nature and because they'll get more action from overcards, higher board pairs and overpairs, etc. I think this would more than offset the added risk of set-over-set.
Add to that you would probably raise preflop with QQ putting everyone on notice that there's a hand out there.
Post deleted at author's request.
Agreed, but the other side of the coin seems just as strong to me. For instance, action that you get on a Qxx flop when you have a set of queens is likely to be low-EV, or even action that you don't want (4-flushes, open-ended straights). Action that you get on a 3xx flop when you have a set of 3's is more likely to be high-EV action that you do want (overcards that are drawing dead to your hand, for example).
I'm not completely sure how it all comes out in the wash, and the difference is going to depend largely on the types of players you are facing, but it's close enough that I'm not going to worry about it too much. Gimme a set, let me put in my chips, and I'm happy.
I would appreciate some expert advice on the best play in this situation often encountered in low-limit games. Let me describe a particular hand to facilitate discussion. You are one of 7 players to see the flop for one bet each. You have QT and must act first after a flop of Td-9d-4c. Your opponents are likely to call a single bet on this flop with hands like 45, AQ, or even Ac5c (backdoor flush draw). The line-up includes a couple of loose-passive players who will limp before the flop with big pairs, and a few loose-aggressive players who routinely bet (or raise) on the come. Therefore, a check-raise opportunity is very likely. Should you bet, check-call, check-raise? If you go for a check-raise, would you prefer the pot to be opened by someone on your left (perhaps allowing you to trap callers for an extra bet) or someone on your right (perhaps allowing you to thin the field by forcing opponents to cold-call two bets)? If you decide to lead bet and are raised by a late position player (after a couple players call), should you reraise? [I would usually lead bet and call one raise in this situation.]
Would the optimal play differ if you held KT or AT rather than QT? What if everyone put in two bets before the flop?
One thing is for sure: you ain't a gonna' win this seven-handed pot unless you get SOME players outta there. However, one bet isn't going to do the job, as you point out. I would check, hoping someone in the latter positions bet, angling for a check-raise to squeeze out the middle-position hands. After that, assuming I was successful in reducing the field to two or three players, I would still consider that I would probably have to improve to win, or at least survive a flush draw or a straight draw---in short, still a dog to win but perhaps with pot odds to compensate. All in all, I wouldn't exactly fall in love with this hand or this situation. This is PRECISELY why the intermediate face-card hands (KJ, Q10, K10, QJ, etc.) are so dicey.
I assume you are BB as to play this hand early without being BB is probably a big mistake to begin with.
This is realy a situational play - as are most in poker - but in the situation you describe. Early position with QT and top pair with nice flop for your hand I would lead bet and call raises hoping to thin the field.
I believe at this table, in this situation, I would check and call one bet on the flop, and go for a check-raise on the turn if no overcard hits. Your opponents are much more likely to fold for two big bets rather than two small bets.
The situation you have outlined is one of the more difficult in hold-em, specifically flopping top pair/mediocre kicker in an unraised, multi-handed pot. I believe 2+2 and John Feeney have discussed this situation. The key is anticipating where a future bet might come from and then how to use that to thin out the field. If you think it might come from someone in late position, then a check-raise could be highly effective. If you think an early position player will lead, then the check-raise won't be as effective. On the other hand, do these players bet and raise with come hands? Given the coordinated flop, this is quite possible.
My own preference is to simply bet out in these situations and see how the field handles it. An early player might raise with a weaker kicker or on a come hand which would help thin out the field. I would then call a single raise back to me. I normally would not re-raise given that coordinated board except for perhaps Ace-Ten (Top pair/top kicker).
If the pot had been raised pre-flop it might depend upon where the pre-flop raiser is. If he is in early position, I would probably lead into to him. If he were in late position, I might "check to the raiser" and then check-raise but this is very dicey. The problem is that if his pre-flop raise was based on just over cards he may decide to check along and take a free card after everyone checks to him.
To me, check-raising is a bit like being in a Catch 22 situation. If someone bets, your hand is not worth nearly as much as it would be if nobody bet. (If everyone checked, you would certainly want to play the hand over and bet the next time.) I prefer to bet the flop, since what I am hoping for is that nobody else has enough strength to bet. Maybe some of you play in games where someone always bets, regardless of whether anyone hit the flop. If so, I am truly envious. In most of the games I have played in over the years, betting into five people shows a certain amount of strength, even if you are in late position and the field has so far checked. My point is if someone bets I do not like my hand as much as I do right now.
Thank you for sharing your views. My own approach to such situations has evolved over the years. Influenced by S&M's emphasis on thinning the field, I used to favor check-raising with top pair in multiway pots--especially when loose-aggressive opponents were sitting on my right (I generally attempt to select a seat where this will be the case). If someone on my left opened the pot, I usually just called and reassessed the situation after the turn card.
More recently, I've been influenced by Mike Caro's argument that early raises in loose games primarily drive out the longshot hands from which you would have otherwise profited. However, I suspect that letting the fish linger in the pond contributes more to one's variance than one's expectation. In fact, I'm really not sure whether it adds anything to one's expectation. Nevertheless, I usually lead bet these days...unless I expect the maniacs on my right to bet!
If I bet my judgement often failes. If I check and see what happens my judgement also often failes but not as often as when I bet.
May I suggest to try to sell your hand to a player next to you for $3. Maybe he or she can have better luck with it.
I'm posting this to both our forum at www.TwoPlusTwo.com and RGP.
In a previous post Mike Caro challenged someone to count the combinations of hands that his PROFESSIONAL HOLD 'EM REPORT says to play when someone else has raised in early position and there are still many players left to act behind you and no more than one person has called between you. This I did. (I needed to take a weighted average since some of the hands he only plays two-thirds of the time, and some of the hands he only plays one-third of the time.)
The bottom line is this. When there is an early position raiser, Mike Caro's charts have you play about 15 percent of the time — 13 of this 15 you are just calling.
Let's compare this to HPFAP. We on the other hand depending on the game recommend playing (often reraising) 4 to 6 percent of the hands (plus very occasionally an off beat hand for deception). Furthermore, many of the hands that he plays that we don't are those that are in danger of being dominated.
All comments are welcome.
On RGP Gary Carson pointed out that against a very tight player the "liklihood of being dominated is dependent on the hands that the raiser likely has."
He then gives an example where you would be worse off playing KhQh than 6c2s against a tight early position raiser.
Here is my response.
Gary:
You have just made a very strong argument that against a tight early position raiser you are better off calling his raise with 6c2s than with KhQh. I happen to agree with you, and in HPFAP we give a warning that "Against an extremely tight player in a tough game it may be correct to throw away some Group 2 hands such as: AsJs and KhQh," See pages 20 and 21 of HPFAP-21.)
As for where these hands are ranked, they are ranked on how well they do overall assuming you play them correctly. In the situation that you describe, they both should be thrown away. However, in many other spots the KhQh should be played while the 6c2s should be folded. For example, suppose the very tight player that you describe throws his hand away, and now it is your turn. You would certainly want to play the KhQh but would probably fold the 6c2s. On page 14 of HPFAP-21 we state "However, there are many exceptions, which will be discussed in the text. In fact, the starting hands actually move up and down the hand rankings depending on the circumstance. Because of this, it can be a mistake to rigidly adhere to the hand rankings. Again, make sure that you understand all the discussion concerning how the individual hands play."
By the way, I want to congradulate you on raising a very important point. Even though some hands are clearly better than others if played properly, they can become suicide to your bankroll if you begin to routinely call raises with them and will actually hurt you more in the long run if you call these raises than other hands which appear far inferior. This is because hands like AJ, KT, QJ, suited or not, can easily make second best hands against a raiser.
The following is a post I put on RGP that responds to something that Mike Caro wrote regarding my original post. Please note that Mike did not dispute the 15 percent figure. He did however continue to claim that in the hands of the right players his strategy is at least reasonable. I would be very curious to know which of our learned forum members agree with him, and which ones agree with me. (My position being that it is far from reasonable. If I thought it was close I would have never made such an issue out of it all these years.) (Keep in mind that he did call it a "Professional Hold 'em Report" with the implication that it would therefore work well in the middle limits or higher.)
Mike:
Even if you can play more hands for profit than I could, there is no way in my opinion you or anyone else can play as many hands as your chart recommends (15 percent of the time against an early position raise) and do anywhere near as well as if you played far fewer hands in this situation. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE HANDS THAT YOU KNOW WILL LOSE MONEY FOR THE SAKE OF OVERALL PROFIT. However, the number of hands you play in this very precarious situation is outlandishly high. Maybe the world's greatest player would be well advised to play up to 10 percent of the hands. The 15 percent that you recommend (again in middle position against a raise) virtually guarantees that even a great player will lose in all but the easiest games. And those games where your strategy shows a profit, he would show a far greater profit if he played fewer hands against the raise.
Now that I have at your request Mike counted the hands, and posted it on RGP and Two Plus Two, I have no reason to say much more. (At this point I am curious to know what others think of my conclusions about calling raises COLD this often.) For those who are not sure of what 15 percent entails, this includes his recommendation to call with Q9 suited and J8 suited all of the time, AJ offsuit and 97 suited two-thirds of the time, and KT offsuit and 95 suited one-third of the time.)
In my opinion if Chip Reese had to play this way before the flop, he would be hard pressed to beat a typical $10-$20 game. And if he could beat it it would be much less than if used the before the flop strategy of S&M, Abdul, or Gary Carson.
By the way, what exactly did you mean when you wrote:
"Please don't do this anymore. You'll feel better if you don't. And I really do care about your well being."
Mason Malmuth
The most potentially dangerous or at least one of the most potentially dangerous situations in Hold'em poker is cold calling a raiser. Habitually making a call with mediocre hands in this situation can turn a winning player into a loser. I am not a fan of the term dominance, but it does apply here, and it should be relatively easy to see the potential disaster when holding a hand like Q9s or J8s in mid position against an early or even a mid position raiser. Obviously the "Mad" part of Caro's handle applies to his advice here. That said, an arguement can be made for calling/reraising with a hand like 45s
Vince.
I found the recommendations in the Professional Hold'em Report confusing. Just so it does not sound like I'm slamming Mike Caro, I'll tell you what I like. His Draw Poker and Statistics section in Super/System and his book of tells. Now, I think that his Professional Hold'em report is just a scam to make money, and I do not see how he can honestly defend it. He says that it will confuse your opponents, well the recommendations confused me. I do not understand how anyone can win with this strategy, unless they are plain lucky.
Caro wrote: "Please don't do this anymore. You'll feel better if you don't."
Reminds me of the comment he made to you in response to some criticisms you were serving up on this same topic at Deja.com months ago.
He finished defending his hold'em report to you by saying something like, "Now go to your room."
Plain & simple, I think he's an overly sensitive control freak who can't figure out how to get you under control.
Keep up the good work Mason, GTO
GTO wrote (in part): "Plain & simple, I think he's an overly sensitive control freak who can't figure out how to get you under control."
GTO --
Your accusation is outrageous and it triggers something inside me so primitive that I am actually trembling as I type these words. I am neither sensitive nor a control freak, and I will do everything in my power to prevent you from ever posting anything like that again.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
Mike,
I've been reading everything you've posted here and on rgp, recently and archived. You seem to take an incredible amount of flack for someone so helpful and warm hearted. The question of who's the best poker authority will never be answered definitively, but there's no doubt you are far and away the nicest guy, and every where else but 2+2 that means a helluva lot more.
Regards,
SammyB
IMO the Professional Hold'em Report by Mike Caro is not a scam. I don't believe that it is sold anymore and I believe it was written in the mid 1980's. The starting hands section of this report is very poor IMO. I was very disappointed way back when with my purchase and have moved on. I will say that I agree that Mike Caro has made quite a few contributions to poker which include:
1)Draw poker section in Super System.
2)Poker tables in Super system.
3)Draw and Lowball charts that he used to sell.
4)Book of Tells
5)ORAC
6)Many good essays on poker.
7)Poker Probe
to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I find a lot of the hold'em advice to be obscure and I would guess that Mike would say that it is too sophisticated for me to understand. Maybe it is. I will post this on RGP as well.
Tom,
I know, I was the one that called it a scam. I purchased this report over a year ago. Now, I am strickly speaking as a consumer. What makes it look like a scam is the way it is packaged. But, a lot of players are attacted to books that say "Professional" and "Advanced". It was marketed as a Professional report, but does not have the appearance of one. People judge things by the way the look, not the content. The value of the report could be argued for a long time. I'll refrain from making any comment about anyones books or reports in the future. I regret I even said anything.
Mason writes: "All comments are welcome."
Looks like being right is the most important issue and you win there. Congratulations.
Trivial! Did you say Trivial, Badger. O.K this is between me and badger and with a little luck SKP will help me. So Everyone else that doesn't see any value in what I write. Bye. Of course this is my last post for a while so.. so.. so what. Then bye. no not you Badger you gotta read this. Yes you do! Tell him David.
As I was saying Trivial. You called Tactics trivial. That was bad but not as bad as me letting you get away with it! I just got out of the shower and I was steaming. No not because of hot water because I let you get away with Trivial! Trivial. Look mr World Chgampion. Yeah I know you know poker stuff. O.K. I'll give you taht. But there is obviously something missing in yoyr game. Oh! Now I remeber. Aren't you the guy that said "I hate poker". Don't deny it I read your interview. Which brings me yo the thrust of this thread. (that's pretty good, Thrust of the Thread) Tactics are trivial, huh? Well let me tell you that if you pay a little attention here you may just rurn you hate for poker into love. Trivial. Listen, is there anything better, anything at all better, anywhere anytime any place anything better than, (well maybe a night with Lady Gambler mgiht be right up there, no from what she's implies it's gotta be better, o.k. let's discount that type of better thing); as I was saying is there anything better anywher than, O.K. SKP this is where you come in. Get ready to yell with me. Let me digress one moment. speaking of the interview you, oh Mr. Steve "Badger" (I won't reveal your last name here, ettiquette) gave to CP or PD about your victory in Omaha. I recall a certain hand that included an A,5,x,x. That play has a direct bearing on my attack on You. Oh Badger. I know what a badger is by thwe way. Get your teeth into something and you never let go. How well Sklansky knows that. Anyway, Badgerinio ( just incase you got some Italian in you). The little trivial message I have for you is, yell it with me SKP:
RAISE!
It's so beautiful that I had to leave it on a line by itself. It is poetic poker all in one word.
RAISE!
Still think tactics are trivial. When you RAISED with that A,5,x,x did you use that silly little California term . Poop it up! No way you said RAISE! Why because you and I and SKP know just how beautiful RAISE sounds.
Now if that is trivail then throw me in that briar patch!
Whew, I'm glad I got that off of my chest. Thanks for the help SKP.
Vince.
This post is to thank David, Mason and Specifically Ray Zee about advice that they gave me in this forum.
I was playing in a 4-8 game the other day and was doing well. ( I had just won a large pot ). I noticed that almost everybody in the game was playing very straigt-forward. If they had a hand; they bet, and if they didn't have a hand they'd check.
About 3 hands in a row I had playable hands in late position. I'd limp, the flop would come , and I'd bet if no one led out. I must have stolen about 3 pots when a player at the other end of the table said, "Do you always bet?"
My first instinct was to be a smart aleck and say "If you don't think I have anything , raise me." However I remembered Ray's advice in a previous post which was to never let your opponents think you know anything about the game. I said absolutely nothing, which is a hard thing for me to do. Needless to say the game continued on for a couple of more hours and I was able to steal a few more pots because :
I KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT
Keep up the good work and thanks for all that you do to help poker and poker players.
Tom B.
Tom B.,
Ray's been telling me to keep my mouth shut for months both on and off the table. But I always answer him with something that sends him back to the cave. FOADZ
paul
I've had a similar experience, but I tell them "Wouldn't you bet Aces if you had them." "I must be lucky today."
this is a hard lesson that I still haven't mastered. I'm making progress
Keeping my mouth shut at the table was my new years resolution for last year. I held to it well and had a nice year at the table. I preach to my friends that play that running your mouth does nothing but negative things when playing poker.
I was playing in a "rock-em/sock-em" $20-$40 hold-em game over this past weekend at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana which is closing their poker room on Monday January 3. I am on the button with the King of Hearts and the Nine of Hearts. Keith Lear, grandson of Bill Lear(founder of the Learjet Corporation), is worth millions and is playing in this little game because he is bored and has to kill some time before going home for the evening. Keith promptly sits down under the gun so he won't miss his $40 straddle. Two middle players limp in. Dominic, a speeder from Dallas who usually blows off a couple dimes in these sessions, calls from the cutoff seat. I call from the button because it looks like I will get good multi-handed play here and I have good position. As expected, both blinds call. Keith glances at his cards and raises to $60. Everyone calls. There is $420 in the pot and seven players.
The flop is: Ten of Hearts, Three of Hearts, Deuce of Diamonds.
Both blinds check. Keith bets $20. Both middle limpers fold. Dominic raises to $40. I call with my big flush draw since it looks like this pot will grow to about a grand. Dominic is probably raising on top pair or even middle pair. Keith of course could have anything. Both blinds fold. Keith re-raises to $60. Dominic makes it $80. I call. Keith caps the betting at $100. Dominic and myself call. There is $720 in the pot and three players.
The turn is: Three of Spades
Keith checks. Dominic bets $40. I call with almost $800 in the pot. Keith raises to $80. Both Dominic and myself call. There is $960 in the pot.
The river is: Six of Diamonds
Keith bets $40 and Dominic calls. I fold. Keith wins a $1040 pot having the Ten of Diamonds and the Three of Diamonds for a full house on the turn. Dominic had the Ace of Hearts and the Ten of Clubs for top pair/top kicker on the flop.
I lost a couple of stacks of red on this one. Is there any way I could have gotten away from this hand?
no
thanks
Let me add my two letters worth.
no
Vince
David,
I'm glad to see you are back to your old self. I was starting to believe some imposter took your place that actually had typing skills for the last few weeks.
Regards,
Rick
Drawing to non-nut holdings is a sad necessity at limit hold'em in pots that have been jammed preflop. You are even forced to to things like drawing to a flush with the board already paired, and so forth.
Drawing to non-nut holdings is a sad necessity at limit hold'em in pots that have been jammed preflop. You are even forced to to things like drawing to a flush with the board already paired, and so forth.
Yes but Bob, my question to YOU is would YOU have even entered this pot with the Kh9h on the button in the first place?
...
Jake I posted my response before reading the others and I am suprised more didn't question Jim's calling with the K9s to begin with - once there, he was stuck in the hand even with the board paired under the circumstances.
Rounder:
Good job for posting your response before reading the rest. Your opinion was in the minority, this is true. But if we all were in total agreement, then there would be nothing to debate.
Therefore I encourage other readers to do the same thing. Sometimes you may say what you think and then get totally blasted by the rest of the readers. Sometimes this will cause you to re-evaluate your thinking and change your mind, perhaps learning something in the process. Other times you may steadfastly defend your position despite all opposition.
At other times it may be appropriate to read all the responses and then reflect back upon them, this is true. This type of post has value as well so I just had to throw this paragraph in....
At any rate we are all entitled to our opinions in this country, and the minority opinion is to be protected (despite any unpopularity). Without someone to disagree with, there will be no debate (and no reason to post poker hands on 2+2). Good job Rounder for saying what you really think.
Dave in Cali
An argument could be made for not entering the pot in the first place (as Carter and Jake alude to). The biggest problem that I see is that you are probably only going to feel good about drawing to the flush. Any pair you hit in a "rock-em-sock-em" game is going to be hard to defend, and is going to be vulnerable to disguised garbage.
That said, I think that calling on the button is probably better than folding, as long as you can handle the inevitable "bad beat" and acompanying swings.
As for the play of the hand, the only thing I *might* have done would be to raise on the flop in hopes of buying a free (or cheap) card on the turn. The raise is pretty close to even value-wise, and probably gets you some ev in deception.
It all depends on wheter Keith would respect a second reraise from the button or not.
- Andrew
Good point Andrew! On the turn, Keith checked when he filled up. However, if I had capped it on the flop, since I knew that Keith would probably cap it anyway, Dominic might have also checked to me on the turn. This would have saved me $80.
i have nothing interesting to add but i agree.
no.
scott
Just be happy that a rag heart didn't show up on the river, Jim. That would have cost you at least a couple of big bets, I suspect, as it would be hard to put Keith on T-3. It's nice to take down those big pots, for sure, but to make them big you've got to put in the bucks, and as we both know, they don't always come through.
P.S. Tough luck on losing your card room. Does this put a big hurt on local poker, or are there other rooms nearby? Or does this mean you are now on the weekend shuttle to Vegas every week?
This puts a big dent in local poker in the tri-state area of East Texas, Southern Arkansas, and Northern Louisiana (called the "Ark-La-Tex") because there are no other public card rooms. This means that there will be more home games springing up which is illegal in these states resulting in more raids, more robberies, more scams, etc. The problem is that in Louisiana, the river boats are only allowed so many square feet for gambling so while the poker room made money, it was decided that slot machines will make even more money given the limited floor space.
Since I was averaging about $30 per hour in their $20-$40 game based on about 700 hours of play, this really hurts my annual earn. When I retire, I will probably move out of the area.
Jim consider Phoenix - the 20-40 at Casino Arizona is populated by several very rich people and is as loose as any Southern Cal. 3/6 game. Since I don't play that in game I'd welcome you to Arizona. :-)
Jim the problem is in the quality of the cards you played. K9 just is to weak a holding to be trapping maniacs with. Once you were in the pot you have to play it whe way you did.
Last night in an aggressive 10-20 game I was in BB with Qc2c flop was 8c9cQ - next two cards were blanks.
I was leading the betting and it cost me 1/2 stack of red to see a QT - guy on my right says. Weak kickers cause a lot of players to lose alot of money. DUH - how could I have gotten away from this hand? - answer is I couldn't - had to play it out strongly and that is what I did.
I'm not quite sure I agree - I think calling a straddle raise with K9s on the button is reasonable, then calling the three bet is necessary due to pot size. I would not have called with K9s in early or middle position, but I think it was OK on the button. I think Jim got trapped but did not really make any mistakes, including BTF.
That is a matter of opinion - the K9 is a dog of a trap hand and I avoid it most of the time. He knew if he hit the flop, like he did, he was in for a long expensive ride to the river so that is what happened.
Guess a grinder like me just doesn't like long expensive rides like that.
Actually Rounder you make an excellent point. I was not just limping in for one bet here but rather I was paying two bets despite the fact that it was due to a straddle. In addition, knowing who the straddler was meant that there was an excellent chance the pot would get raised again so I was looking at three bets to take a flop. The real issue is that while K-9 suited plays well on the button against a large field, is it worth paying 3 bets to take a flop?
Jim,
I think you just answered your own question. The answer is NO.
Paul
Rounder:
You do make a good point so perhaps I will re-evaluate my position on the matter. The main thing is that it probably WILL be expensive to go to the end in this particular game, and a re-raise BTF is a good possibility.
I would never take a flop for three bets cold with K9s, but I would gladly call a maniac straddle raise (most of the time, if I had position). However, given the aggressive nature of the game, one could conceivably consider folding this holding in this situation.... If Jim could REASONABLY expect that one of the blinds would raise after he called the straddle raise on the button, then folding would have been in order. That may have allowed Jim to avoid the trap.
But in Jim's defense, I would have probably played the same way and lose the same amount of $$ on the hand. I guess I'm just a loose lucy compared to you Rounder!
At any rate Jim's original post generated great debate so good job Jim.
Dave in Cali
This is going to be a strange one so bear with me. the common theory is that when in loose games, "play more hands that can make big hands", such as you played. It makes sense, but the problem is that unless you play in these games on a regular basis the wide downward swing you experience when you pick up a draw, and lose will end up being a large spike on your earnings graph. My only suggestion would be to play more conservative until you are ahead for the session before you start chasing with draws, unless this is your normal type of game you play in,(which is rare). I know that this will get poopooed, since you never know when you are going to make the draw, but you need chips, and you need to have confidence, which is what you lose when you lose a couple of racks. So what I'm saying is you have to take into account the mental side as well as the odds. Obviously, losing so much on one hand even though you had the best of it bugged you(as it would with most of us)otherwise you wouldn't have wqriten about it. seeya
You make a good point Al. I don't know if I played the hand correctly although I think I did. But in games where you have a couple of maniacs like Keith and Dominic, it can get expensive and for many players it may not be worth it. This is something to consider when you sit down in a game where you think you have the best of it. It really goes beyond bankroll. A single session and sometimes an entire weekend can get severly impacted by the outcome of just a few hands such as these.
However, I did manage to win about two grand over the weekend in this game.
Jim,
It seems that the underlying sentiment in all the responses was sympathy. We've all been there and we all know it hurts. Knowing how disciplined you are I would gather if K9s came to you on the button later that night you'd be playing it, though. I think your fans here on the forum would appreciate a couple of hands where you reamed these guys. After all, if you took two grand from them it couldn't all have been bad beats.
Happy New Year,
SammyB
Jim:
From the action you described, I somewhat suspected that you might see a boat by the end. Two pair on the flop vs. top pair was a perfectly reasonable possibility, given the action and aggressive nature of your opponents. Another suspicion would be that one of them flopped a set, especially since it went to five bets. Caution should be in order if the board pairs.
However, there is no way I would have folded your hand even with the 5 bets on the flop. The pot was big and you had a draw to what would probably be the best hand if you hit.
It even seems reasonable to suspect a possible full house on the turn. However, if we expect these worst case scenarios on every hand, we would all go bust from folding the winner too often. I think you have to make a crying call on the turn and still try for the flush.
On the river, I would simply skip the raise if your flush gets there, due to the possibility of being reraised by a full house. Just call if you make your flush.
This is one of those unfortunate situations where the worst case comes true. But if you replayed the hand over and over again, I still think you would have a positive overall expectation, and therefore you made the correct play.
This message was posted before reading the other responses, so let's see who agrees with me!
Dave in Cali
Dear 2+2ers,
I stopped by The Hawaiian Gardens Casino at around 2:00 am sunday morning(saturday night). One 6-12 hold'em game, and easily one of toughest game I've ever seen for that limit. I can't believe I sat down in it, but I had just spent 2 hours waiting to get into an incredible 6-12 game at a near-by casino that was locked up tight before giving up, then it occurred to me to come down and check out the Hawaiian Garden casino.
The game had four regular tournament players, two very aggressive players, one fish who was doing pretty well cold calling raises and re-raises pre-flop with 10-3 suited, then making his hands on the river. And one knew guy who I'm about to play a hand with. I played one hand from a position other than the one and only blind(no small blinds here)in the two times the button had gone around before leaving(collection is an awkward pain in the ass $3.50, because of the 50cent chips).
I had pocket aces(both black) two positions before the button. I raised the two people who had already limped, blind calls, four people in pot(the fish folded on the button, damn!)
Flop: 10-8-4 w/2 hearts.
Everybody checks to me, the UTG player threateningly holds up 3 chips to let me know he means business(that's always a relief to see), I bet, blind drops, the other two call.
Turn: 7 hearts
UTG bets out, the guy between us drops, I call.
River: black 8 (the fish lets the table know he would have made trip 8's, he's stunned), Final board, 10-8-8-7-4 with 3 hearts.
Under the gun bets out, I call. He eagerly/smilingly turns over his Pocket Queens and loses.
Question: How big of a pussy was I for not raising on the turn when the 3rd heart hit? It reminded me of how powerful The Protected Bet or Raise is(Caro's betting with impunity). But latter it occurred to me, that even though the under-the-gun's bet into me was protected with the possible flush(and to a lesser degree, a straight), I could have raised with impunity using the same damn board! When that occurred to me, I felt like a Big Pussy(about 2 hours latter). Sure, I would have raised on the turn if I had had the ace of hearts, but that doesn't take any guts.
Any advice appreciated, Martin D
utg strikes me as a very bad player. with AA, you are not getting a better hand to fold. you may be able to slow the betting down, but you probably don't want that. there are lots of pair/draw hands like T9 that he could have. also, JQ. one card flush draws etc. i am not conviced this guy has a made hand, but it could just be hindsight bias. in the future don't post the result in the same post as the question.
anyway, as i don't think this guy has a made hand and i think that a player this weak would call a raise here with top pair, pair/draw, or an overpair, i would raise. the pot being protected would push towards the raise, but i think it is a raise anyway. what the protection allows for you to do is fold to a 3 bet. this guy limped and did not reraise preflop. he check called an overpair on the flop. he needed to see 4 cards not A or K to feel comfortable with his pair of queens. this passive guy thinks he's so clever bluffing the flush. a lot of guys would have bet the flush on the flop. or raised your bet to get it heads up if his flush draw was overcards. this guy reraises i think you are beat. that you are able to fold here, makes your raise even more correct.
i just skimmed through my post and i don't think it was written well. my thoughts don't seem to flow logically. sorry. my point is that you should have raised. but you are not that big a pussy. a big pussy would have folded.
scott
Re-reading my opening post, I realize it might be a little confusing since I misspelled the word 'later' more than once, and the word 'knew' when I meant to say 'new', as in "new player".
Sorry, Martin D
I think your play of calling on the turn was correct and raising would have been bad poker. First of all, if the guy has the flush you can easily get re-raised costing you even more money. Secondly, by just calling you induce him to bet on the end which may not happen if you re-raise and he was fooling around with something like bottom pair and a Heart flush draw.
Martin you really didn't know this table yet. I think you played the hand well eneough on the flop (you could have check raised the UTG) turn and river are scarry cards for sure and it isn't about guts - to much guts will get you in trouble - it is about making good decisions - you made the right decision here so don't worry about it.
I think calling the turn was correct. You would make that raise if you had outs to gain an extra bet if you get there on the river. For instance with a set or if one of your aces was the flush suit, with the three suited cards turned.
D.
Has anyone taken Phil Hellmuth's course on how to play texas hold'em from www.hungryminds.com. If you have, I would like to know what you thought of it.
Post deleted at author's request.
Mah,
You will find what you are looking for on RGP. I think if you do a search for Phil Hellmuth you might come up with it. The course got bashed, so did Phil.
I'll assume its bad. Thanks for the info.
A couple of months ago ray zee stated in a response that if you only win with good cards you'll be a loser.
I played this over the weekend at a #5-$10 table at tbe Taj. The table had been pretty passive up to this point. The hands I had won that went to showdown had been with AQ, TT, KK, ATs, QJs. For most of the two hours I had folded.
I got dealt T9s one right of button. 4 limpers, cutoff raised. I decided to chance it. I reraised. Button & blinds fold, everyone else called the dbl raise. I figured I was sunk. Flop was J32 rainbow, not even one card in my suit. Check to cutoff who bet, thank you, I raised. cutoff and 1 other call. Turn is an Ace. Check to me, I bet, all fold. As I'm stacking cutoff said, "Nice strong betting" I told him it was easy when you have a strong hand. My point is, regardless of the prevailing opinion that low limit is "No fold'Em" there are opportunities out there. I didn't bluff again the rest of the day except for semi bluffs with lots of outs, but that one hand taught me a lesson about what it means to play the people and not always the cards.
SammyB
Timing is everything with this kind of move. The trick is to knowing when to bail when it starts to go bad. Also the times it works must be balanced with the total lost when your caught. It sure is fun when you can pull it off though.
Best of it !!
MJ
Sammy,
The trick is knowing your players and your table image.
It isn't important what your image is so long as YOU know what it is not what you think it is.
Last night I was in a 10/20 hand early position short handed just 6 players with 9T called flop came jj9 I bet it out quick and got a caller a guy who knows I (play a lot of tournaments out west) turn a blank I bet he mucked A9 and asked me was it JQ or TJ I said 9J - But it is situational isn't it.
It's a myth that you can't bluff in low-limit poker, because bluffs rarely work. However, when they do work you win bigger pots than in tighter games. If your opponents don't adjust their calling frequencies properly when considering the size of the pot, you should be bluffing more often on the river. Also, in loose games the players play weak hands, which often means they wind up with weak hands.
I was in a hand in a 5-10 game a while ago when I flopped an open-ended straight flush on the flop. There were something like 7 callers, raised pot. I bet the flop, it was raised in late position, I re-raised, and about five people called. I bet the turn, there were four callers. On the river I missed, but the pot was huge, and I bet out again. Everyone folded, and I dragged a pot with something like 40 small bets in it. That one play paid for an awful lot of bluff attempts.
When you are in a multi-way pot with a big draw and pump it hard, your opponents will put you on a big hand. In a tough game, they'll fold and get out of the way. In a weak game, they'll still call you with bottom pair, gutshots, 3-flushes, and all sorts of garbage, hoping to improve. If they don't improve on the river, they'll have nothing at all or a weak hand that they may fold for a bet.
Don't go nuts with this idea, but pay attention to situations where it may be correct to fire that last bet out on the river.
For example, pay attention to what the last player or two to act may have. If you think he's on a draw, you may be setting up a good bluffing situation. If you bet the river, the other weak hands will be less likely to call you to 'keep you honest', because they figure the players behind them will. But if the players behind have a busted draw, they can't call.
>When you are in a multi-way pot with a big draw and pump it hard, your opponents will put you on a big hand.
I thought this was about "low limit bluffs"! If anybody is thinking at all, one extremely common thought would be like "since he bet, he must be on a draw".
If your image *at*the*moment* is someone that only bangs at the pot with a big hand, then the bluff may well work often enough to turn a profit. If you've ever been caught without the goods, you'll find 4 callers.
It all depends, like everything else in poker. Use your best judgement. Just don't exclude the possibility of winning with a bluff, just because it's low limit.
Next time you are playing, count the number of pots that are won uncontested, or are checked out with no one having a pair at the end. I think you'll be surprised at how often it really happens, even in low-limit.
Notice how being 3-handed on the end might have increased the chance of the bluff suceeding. If you had the choice of bluffing one opponent that had a 50/50 chance of having a mediocre pair or a busted draw, or two opponents each with the same 50/50 chance, you'd often prefer two opponents instead of one because (1) opponents holding mediocre pairs will tend to think less of their hands when you bet into two people and (2) one of them has the threat of a possible overcall, and knows they may have to beat two opponents. If these factors make an opponent with a pair half as likely to call (note that half is a lot), you're probably better off with two such opponents instead of one on the end, although both situations would clearly warrant a bet.
But I like how this post illustrates the requirements for bluffing in a low limit game.
To even think about bluffing in loose limit hold 'em game, you first need an image of playing quality hands and not bluffing. Many players think they have this image when they don't because they underestimate just how long their opponents remember.
Second, your opponents must be capable of folding. The old saw about never running a bluff against a calling station is more of a good rule of thumb than an axiom. However, when you have two opponents that play until the play until the river to see if they make a pair, and they both muck after you bet on the end, well, that's not really bluffing, is it?
More precisely, your opponents must be capable of folding and the board must encourage them to fold. Boards that have a dual character of being threatening but unlikely to hit anyone are good candidates. The J32 flop in the example given is perfect for this because it was unlikely to give anyone a good pair or draw while the single facecard would give Sammy's opponents something to worry about, namely an overpair or a big set. Then, when the ace lands on the turn, they know their chances of being beaten have increased. It was Sammy's image and his betting in conjunction with the board that made them think: if I wasn't beaten before I probably am now, if not by Sammy then by someone. Although a rag on the turn is less likely to help someone, you need the ace (or other high card) to convince the guy holding 66 or K3s that he doesn't really have a chance. It's much easier for an opponent to talk himself into calling when the board looks like xxJxx.
The final thing that made this play work was Sammy's consistency in betting and willingness to follow through. Many bluffs are ruined merely because the bluffer slowed down or blinked for a second when the turn didn't help them. You need to remember that your are, after all, bluffing, and not hoping for some miracle. (Some players go for the "resurrection" bluff on the river after checking/calling the turn. The miracle here is that this move succeeds at all. Against unusually thick opponents, it sometimes does, but it more often wrecks what could have been a perfect play).
I was just left of the BB (first to bet preflop) and had pocket K's. I raised (as I would always do) and everyone folded (full 5-10 table). I "stole" the blinds from 3rd position. My "stupid" question (from a relative beginner) is: would it EVER be right to just call in this position and not raise? Do you purposly allow lesser hands to try and draw in order to get more money in the pot, or do you ALWAYS raise to get those players out (Ax, etc.) ? Is there any advantage in the long run to just calling? I'd be curious to know people's thoughts on if you would win more money in the long run or you're just allowing lesser hands to out draw you. Thoughts?
I would virtually always raise with a big pocket pair under the gun. You probably have the best hand and have the most to gain by raising. Furthermore, you don't want to give the blinds free plays. Suppose the flop comes Nine-Five-Deuce and the big blind has Nine-Deuce which he would have thrown away had you raised? Instead of winning the blinds you end up losing a stack.
The only time I would even consider just limping in would be if I were in a home game where I am playing against the same line-up players week in and week out over the course of a year. I might limp in occasionaly with say the black Kings (or some other random combination) so that my play wouldn't be so predictable. But in a casino or public cardroom where the cast of characters is constantly changing, I simply always raise. The other thing to consider is that unless the hand goes all the way to showdown, no one will ever know that you "varied your play".
If you had a crystal ball you could tell the future.
Bet the KK for value and to clear out the T3 bb that may hit 2 pair on the flop and cost you money.
I love people that don't bet big hands when I am in the blind giving me a free look at 3 cards. WOW - what a gift.
Raise, raise, raise.
In the low limit games in which I play, I constantly see players limping in early position with big pairs. Once in a while, I get surprised when they show down AA or KK with no pre-flop raise, but usually one of three things happens:
1. They leave bets on the table by not raising when players who limped in would have called the raise anyway, and their hand holds up.
2. They play the hand passively after the flop, and seem happy to show down a big hand when someone else leads the betting, and they leave money on the table post-flop.
3. They get run over by hands that correctly limp in for one bet, or blinds that get a free look at the flop and hit a split two pair or something like that. Then the KK bitches and moans about "never winning with KK, so why raise?"
I would sooner vary my play by occasionally raising with 98s, or a small pair on the button, than by checking KK UTG. I just can't bring myself to do it.
With a big pair like AA or KK, your objective is to make people put as much money in the pot as possible before the flop. You don't want to force people out of the hand, but you DO want to make sure that if they play against you it is as expensive as possible for them, because you have much the best of it going in. In a very tight agressive game, where you are almost guaranteed a raise behind you if you just call, it may be correct to sometimes call and go for a re-raise. I like this play more with AA than KK, but it can be done with both.
If the game is tight enough that there is a reasonable chance of just winning the blinds with an UTG raise, you should consider raising with more hands from this position, until your opponents stop giving you as much respect.
Come on Dan do you really want 5 or 6 shooting at your pair with all the junk out there. Unimproved Big pairs just don't play well in multi way pots - I want to get heads up as soon as possible with a big pair.
Maybe I have had KK & AA snapped to many times but I am sure my thinking is clear here.
Rounder,
Let's say you raise UTG and everyone calls anyway. If I'm in that position I want to have AA, KK.
Yes, I want nine callers, provided they are playing for as many bets as I can make them pay.
I'd rather be up against 3 players paying two bets than 6 players paying one, but I'd rather be up against six players playing two bets. This applies especially to AA, which is just a HUGE favorite over any amount of callers. Even against nine callers going all the way to the river it wins 30% of the time. Any time you have this hand, you should be happy that anyone else is willing to pay money to play against you. Just don't let them in cheap.
Dan, does this also apply if I am in the BB and everyone called? Is it too obvious to raise from the blinds? I am assuming a game where almost no one will fold after calling the first bet.
Forget about being 'too obvious' in a game where everyone calls. The deception is going over their heads.
Even in a game with very good players it would be correct to raise if you have more than a couple of callers, because of the opportunity cost of not raising. Remember that the flop misses most people, so if they are going to fold on the flop anyway, you've lost any chance to make them pay.
I will sometimes slowplay aces or kings out of the big blind if I am heads-up or three-ways against tricky players. The basic equation is simply, "How can I extract the most bets from these guys?"
This happened last night in a 15-30 game. I'm in the big blind with KK. Everyone folds to a late position player who limps. The next player raises, and everyone else folds. I smooth called. The flop was jack-high, and I trapped a guy with AJ for 3 big bets.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, I think Rounder means that big pairs are less likely to win the pot against a lot of opponents versus fewer opponents. However, I agree with you that big pairs get more than their fair share regardless and raising is for value here.
The point is "unimproved" big pairs - I guess I am playing a lot of NL HE and in that game you want to get heads up with a big pair.
I also prefer and strive to get the field thinned out when I am on a big pair. It pays off for me to knock out the guys who will draw out to beat my me or the Ax who may flop an A.
Big pairs win fewer pots with more callers, but they win more money. Your objective should be to win more money. But you have to be able to stand the variance, and I know you are very variance-averse. Still, these big pairs make up a good chunk of your profit in holdem, and it's important to play them correctly.
On the other hand, your strategy of always raising with them before the flop is very close to being exactly correct anyway.
I don't think I said "always raise big pairs" but if I did it was a mistake I don't "always" do anything at a poker table.
My objective is to win money and I do. All I am saying is Big Pairs play better (win more - a lot more) against smaller fields - I can prove that you can't prove they will win more money against larger fields because of the situational aspects involved.
And you're simply wrong. We can analyze this three different ways:
First, the simple one - run a simulation with all players going to the river on every hand. You'll find that as you increase opponents, the EV of Aces and Kings continues to rise, with a possible plateau at 8 or 9 players. This, BTW, is about the worst-case scenario for Aces.
Second - run a simulation in Turbo Texas Holdem. Again, as the number of callers goes up, the EV of Aces and kings climbs.
Third, do a logical analysis - Remember that Aces and Kings also make big hands and win huge pots - they flop sets, and they make a strong two pair when the second or third board card pairs. They also win their share of flushes and straights. But even just one pair is a pretty good hand in Holdem, especially if it's an overpair to the board. Your opponents with a pair are drawing to five outs, and you have a redraw to beat them if they improve.
Also remember that in large multi-way fields there are often some players drawing dead to others, and some that are drawing very thin. The hidden nature of an overpair makes this more likely.
Finally, you can ask the other authorities on the board, who I believe will agree with me. I know Gary Carson does, as he has added his comments to this thread.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I read your posts and get the sense you know what you are talking about. However, when you put Rounder and EV in the same sentence all that goes out the window. :-)
Sammy,
I don't get it. These guys are making my point for me they want to win a bigger pot 30% of the time and I want to win the pot 85% of the time - maybe I just like winning more than they do. I am out to win money without big variences. Does that make me a bad person.
:-(
Rounder,
They will never understand your point of view. I got it the first time I read one of your posts. Play good cards up front and it should be painfully obvious when the flop has missed you or hit you. I'd say you should write a book but you could probably explain your philosophy in 2 pages so how much could you charge? I read everybody's opinions here and I've learned a lot. But when I'm at the table I bet my money with stuff I've learned from you and Jim Brier. Solid cards, lower variance. Maybe I'm not winning as much as others would win with my cards, but I'm not losing as much as I used to lose with my cards.
Sammy fact is I have written a book it is about 100 pages and covers 4 groups of starting hands for limit HE and 3 groups for NL HE tournaments are covered too (last group is the muck group in both). I plan on (self) publishing after I win a Major tournament. My system is a lot more complicated than it may seem at 1st. I can tell you this there are not a lot of long dissertations about calculating pot odds when going for "back door" hands. I simply suggest getting out of the hand if you don't hit the flop. Gee what a concept.
Well Gary you bring up an interesting point. Is it better from an EV standpoint to have 6 opponents each putting in one bet or having 3 opponents each putting in two bets? In both cases the pot size is the same. However, it could be argued that the 3 opponents putting in a double bet means you are up against better hands than when 6 players put in a single bet. But then 6 players may have more "collective outs" to beat your big pair. Does anyone know what the answer is?
I like the 3 player scenario 2 better - with any luck you are dominating other pairs and maybe AK-AQ. It may not be the right answer but all those collective outs scare the beejesus out of me with an unimproved big pair. I have showed down a big pair on the river with 3 drawers and I was drawing stone dead -had no chance any card beats me including a set making one.
Not the kind of poker I like to play HUH!
Post deleted at author's request.
Thank you. Good answer.
(P.S.-How can I get your book? I have left messages but no one returns my call)
People who tell you to never limp with big pocket pairs are, IMHO, falling into the trap of focusing on winning pots rather than winning money. It could be correc to limp if the game is tight enough that an early position raise has a good chance of winning only the blinds and aggressive enough that you will usually be able to reraise preflop.
With that said, I would very very rarely choose to not raise with KK. If you decided to never limp with KK you certainly could not be costing yourself very much. With AA you can limp-reraise more, because you don't have to worry about someone limping with a weak ace such as Axs and then calling you down with top pair.
David
Although you may wish to occasionally limp-reraise with a big pocket pair (AA), I wouldn't bother in this case. If you are a beginner, you are probably playing low-limit where no one is paying attention and varying your play has little use. The limp-reraise play may work better if you are playing against decent players (rarely found at low limit). In no-foldem games, simply ALWAYS raise with big pocket pairs early. You will steal the blinds from UTG (once in a blue moon), but you will be called by worse hands quite often.
Also, you cannot let anyone in for cheap in this situation or you will wind up regretting it. Charge them extra to see the flop with those trashy hands! Don't take a chance on the blinds getting a free play (as Jim pointed out).
Don't hesitate to raise and don't try to get fancy, just play your hand....
This is a classic example of a what my friend Gary calls a "high class problem" -- you have the nuts and are just trying to get the most money possible from your opponent.
10-20 game. I have KK. On the turn, the board is 3-5-Q-K rainbow and I am heads up against an aggressive and decent player. I bet, he raises, I reraise, he caps.
River is an 8.
Do you ever try to get an extra bet by check-raising or do you always bet out? It's strange to me that someone rational would cap the turn but then check the river when a total rag hits, but I hate to miss a bet. The player raised preflop, so he could easily have a set of queens. I am sure he has at least KQ.
The way I come out is you should bet because you might even get really lucky and get raised, and you know he will at least call with such a big pot.
Note that in this hand, my opponent could not put me on KK so easily because I did not put in a raise preflop (I was a blind and called 30 -- I did not cap, and it was 4-way preflop).
Thanks.
SW
It's 1 or 3 (if you bet and he either calls or raises and you reraise) versus 0 or 2 (if you go for a check raise). I would definitely bet in this situation.
Really not a big problem. It isn't missing a bet what ever you do on the river. You mised the bet preflop but since you may have had your reasons for that it is OK.
Unless you are up against a hyper-aggressive player who will bet on the end almost 100% of the time but will hardly ever raise your bet on the end, betting is almost always right in this situation.
I think that if this guy has been betting and raising all the way then bet out. He capped the turn !!
1.) He was not betting/rasing on a drawing hand. I would have to say he has a piece of the Q or flopped trips.
Bet out and hope for the raise. Your going to get at least a call. (but I think he's gonna raise, he did last time)
Nothing worse than going for the river check raise and getting nothing on a strong hand.
Best of it !!
MJ
Scott,
Another Scott! Why do so many Scott's participate in the forum and so few Rick's? Anyway, this is my two cents without looking at the other responses (I would be surprised if they disagree).
First, why didn't you cap with your kings pre-flop? You are giving away too much EV here. If you are worried about giving your hand away, then add a few hands that you would cap pre flop that are only marginally worth doing it with.
On the river I would bet 100% of the time (unless I had a tell that indicated he would bet for me). You would be hard to put on kings (since you didn't raise pre-flop) and most players will raise one more time with a good set with this board.
The times to consider checking are when you have been putting in last action and a scare card comes on the river. That isn't the case here.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks. There are too many Scotts, and too many Canadians, in the poker world.
I agree with your advice and was just making sure -- it's pretty obvious. I cap w/ KK just about every time, but I threw this in -- I got lucky, but it did make me some extra dough.
Would you ever cap with JJ in a multi way pot, against decent opposition? AQs? I like the idea of setting up your opponents so they can't lock in on AA or KK every time you cap. Do you always cap w/ QQ?
Hopefully, we won't be playing in very many games where pots are getting capped otherwise it could get expensive. I cap with AA and KK. I will 3 bet with QQ and AK suited and of course call if capped back to me. Frankly, deception is not worth much in big pots that are jammed and capped since anyone with any hope at all will stay through the river once they pay to see the flop.
In the $20-$40 game this past weekend at the Horseshoe in Louisiana I played in a four-way capped pot with the black Aces. On the turn, Keith Lear announced that I had specifically the Ace of Spades and one other Ace (Three Spades flopped). I got paid off by him and one other player at the river anyway since there was over $700 in the pot.
Scott,
At least I can keep the Canadians straight in my head on the forum. The same can't be said of the "Scott's" :-).
Anyway, you wrote: "Would you ever cap with JJ in a multi way pot, against decent opposition?"
Keep in mind I play in California where the cap is one bet and three raises. I would tend to cap with JJ against weak opponents when I have less then four or more then six opponents. With less then four I figure to outplay them and with more than six I get good odds when I hit my set. I will throw away jacks against a very solid early raiser and an equally solid mid position reraiser. Few others do.
" AQs?"
I would cap in a volume pot and also against a small field. I may only smooth call an early position solid raise with a couple solid cold callers.
"I like the idea of setting up your opponents so they can't lock in on AA or KK every time you cap."
I agree.
Do you always cap w/ QQ?
No. I like HPFAP 21st Century advice on this hand. But I will mix it up here since it is close.
Regards,
Rick
Chalk it up to my lack of experience if this is a dumb question, but why is your opponent's 3rd raise considered "cap" on the turn when you were heads up, and why didn't you keep reraising until he quit, considering that he has only a 43-chance of drawing ou(the 4th Q)?
Yours is an excellent question. In some casinos if three or more players are in the hand at the start of a betting round and one drops out, the cap of one bet and three raises is still in force.
It would make sense to raise until someone runs out of money on the turn when you have the nuts and know that your opponent cannot even tie you. Some players fear that if their opponent gets lucky and draws out on them, they don't want to lose their entire session bankroll.
The casino (online in this case) only allows three raises, even heads up. I wish that were not the case.
Badger stated on RGP that the main difference between our cold calling raises in middle position strategy and Mike's Holdem Report chart, stems from the differences between California and Vegas games. We address LV, Mike addresses California. This is why I say that Badger needs to read our books (and Mike's holdem report for that matter) before he writes this stuff.
We take great pains to distinguish between Vegas style games and LA style games in some of our writings and point out how that changes your strategy. In the ongoing debate, Mason said we play between 4 and 7 percent of hands for a double bet against a rational early raiser when we are in middle position. The 7% basically applies to California games. Mike Caro plays more than twice as many. But he also wouldn't appreciate your charge that his strategy is for one type of game only.
In any case while it is true that you can loosen up somewhat in certain situations in the looser games of California, the fact is that you should not loosen up that much in the specific situation where you are just to the left of an early position raiser. The reason has little to do with domination. (In fact, as Tom W. pointed out, there is an upside to being dominated when it is headup and you have position. That is that it is easier to steal when it is less likely he will pair.) The reason you can't play alot of hands in this spot even in looser games is that the calls from the people behind you are often unhelpful when you have a merely good hand and are already facing an often better hand on your right.
Of course you already know this Badger. You wouldn't play many of the hands Mike suggests, nearly as often as he suggests in Las Vegas, California, or Madagascar. In any case I stayed from the original point. And that is that we frequently mention what we consider to be the appropriate stategy changes based on the size, type, and structure of the game. You may not agree with all of those strategy adjustments but please do not imply that we do not advise them There are still people out there who have not read our books as you well know.
Post deleted at author's request.
Is it just me or is Badger never wrong?
"Is it just me or is Badger never wrong?"
The sun rises in the morning, death, taxes and Badger is never wrong.
Biggest -EV game I know is getting heads-up against Badger in a game that uses a keyboard.
Post deleted at author's request.
What kind of idiot are you? I say in the post I was wrong! I shouldn't have done something. Eat paste, jerk.
World class defined.
A World Class what? Oh yeah, it's in the suject title.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger:
I think you are out of line and owe an apology. Yes I know I am holding you to a higher standard. But I think that if you think about it you will agree that you should be held to a higher standard.
Best wishes, Mason
Post deleted at author's request.
Anger Management Classes are cheap and starting sometime this month or early Febuary. Check out your local Adult Education class schedule.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger:
There have been so many personal attacks made against me -- some on our forum, but mostly on RGP -- that I couldn't come close to counting them all. This even includes threats on my "well being." Since you are now entering our arena, you are just going to have to understand that most of these attacks are just people taking shots because of your success, and you if you continue to react to them in this manner, it will only hurt you.
Post deleted at author's request.
"...you are just going to have to understand that most of these attacks are just people taking shots because of your success, and you if you continue to react to them in this manner, it will only hurt you."
The number of shots is squared when successful and egotistical, as in Mason's case.
The number is cubed when you add in Badger's attitude. He deserves all he gets.
Post deleted at author's request.
"Badger deserves all he gets"
You can say that again! He makes me ashamed to admit I'm gay!
Butch
Mason,
And to what kind of standard should we hold you?
You accused me of misquoting or misrepresenting hands. Three times, I asked you to offer even a single example to substantiate your charge. Three times, you ignored my request.
I never really thought you had enough class to apologize for your false accusation. But I still hope you have enough shame to admit you made a mistake.
reminds me of a nietszche quote: " you are not great enough not to know hatred and envy; be great enough, though, not to be ashamed."
(just adding to the noise) brad
why is he so cool?
"i do not want to be a saint. rather even a buffon. perhaps i am a buffon."
scott
When Mike Caro wrote the original version of this report which had similar advice, the year was 1984. Hold 'em did not become legal in California until 1987. (By the way, I was there when hold 'em was legalized. So I am fully aware of what those games were like.)
1. The fact that the report is ten years old is not relevant as long as he is still selling it. Besides, many of MY books are that old and have stood the test of time with little or no revisions. (Two of them were ADDED to greatly but only slightly revised) 2. The fact that more people will cold call raises behind you does little to rescue the chart's recommendations. Some hands he calls with such as T9 suited are now OK. Others like 95s are merely less bad. But other hands like KT offsuit are even worse to play in these games (unless people are calling cold raises with truly horrible hands, which is not the case in most decent size games, even in California.)I do agree as I alredy strated that you should play more hands in LA but not nearly as many as Mike suggests. 3. So you took me up on my offer about the Theory of Poker did you? Where I am essentially laying 400-30 odds. And in order for me to win you have to publicly admit that there was somehing in the book that you consider worthwhile that you didn't already know. Uh Oh. I wonder if Izmet would be willing to cancel our bet in return for taking on this one.
David wrote: "Besides, many of MY books are that old and have stood the test of time with little or no revisions."
In some cases, that could be a weakness rather than a strength.
Playing in an online $2/$4 game. I have the button. Get dealt QdJd. 5 call and the guy in seat #9 raises. I call him and 3 others call. Flop is 2c8d6d. Checks around to me, I bet. one calls everybody folds but the guy in seat 9 and he raises. I call and the other guy left folds. Turn is Ad. He bets and I call. The river is 3d. He bets then I raise and he calls. I show my flush and he flops over 2hKd to take the pot with the higher flush. Should I have done anything different? This what happens in a lot of loose games I play in...
I would have played it differently and still would have lost. Since I had no hand but a draw I would check the flop and take the free card saving myself two bets. I would have raised and reraised the turn when I made my hand, and called the river.
This guy seems/is a big idiot since he had the nuts on the river and did not raise you back (well he has got other leaks as well but this one just shows that he is just completely out of it) That being said I don't think you should have raised on the river. He is either bluffing and will fold or will reraise (Oh yeah it appears he can call too).
The way I see it.
He was not in the mood for any more donations.
I would have raised his bet on the turn when I had the second nuts. It is highly unlikely he has specifically K-little of Diamonds. There is no point in making it any less expensive for him to draw against you with a set or two pair or even the lone King of Diamonds. You raise on the river was bad poker when there is 4 Diamonds on the board and you don't have the King of Diamonds. I am amazed he only called your river raise and did not re-raise with the nuts.
Seat #9 is a joker and in 2/4 your going to get alot of people playing junk cards. Just know that this guy plays junk and wait your turn, you will get that money back with interest ( - the rake of course)
Best of it !!
MJ
P.S
Rasie with K2o from a blind .....ROFLMAO
You should have raised on the turn when you hit the flush - to charge anyone with the bare Kd the maximum to try and draw out on you. There were really no other draws on the flop but a straight draw or a flush draw. Since the board didn't pair on the turn, the only way you are beat at this point is if someone has specifically Kd with another diamond.
On the river the Kd beats you and the 4d5d makes the straight flush. On the river I would just call if bet into again, since you can pretty much expect to be beaten at this point. You stand only to lose by raising the river. It is highly unlikely that your raise will be called by anything other than these two hands, but you will certainly be reraised if one of these hands is out there! Raising on the river is suicidal. You stand absolutely nothing to gain but everything to lose.
Bottom line: RAISE THE TURN AND CALL THE RIVER!!!!
I think you should have considered more carefully what your opponents might have held and you would have lost less $$.
An example of this is illustrated by a hand I played in my recent tahoe trip. I was going to post it separately but it goes with this post so here it is:
I had Qh2c in the BB and no one raised. 5 player see the flop which is Jh 9h 10h. I flopped the open ended straight flush draw.
The SB bet into me. I just called since I didn't want to drive out players (I might have raised if I had better position). To my left, UTG raises. I read him for having flopped a flush already or maybe two pair. At any rate, I knew he had a vulnerable hand and was going to charge people to draw out on him. Another player, a VERY tight player, called the raise. I pretty much knew he could only have the bare Kh or Ah. With a flush, set, or two pair he would have certainly reraised. Anything less he would have folded. I call and UTG calls.
On the turn the 3h hits the board, giving me a flush. The SB checks to me. I really believe my read was correct about the tight player, so I check. Sure enough he bets. I call and UTG calls.
On the river a blank hits. I check, UTG checks, tight player bets, I call, UTG folds.
This was a case where I could not fold a good draw, then I could not fold a really good (but non-nut) hand. But, since I considered what the other players must have had, I lost far less $$ on the hand than I could have. I strongly considered folding on the river but the pot was big enough to force me to call. Raising would have been suicidal for me since I still would probably be forced to call (with a losing hand).
Dave in Cali
Curiously, when UTG tossed his cards in the 7h flips over. A dealer told me that the jackpot there is 4 of a kind or better beaten, only one card has to play in each player's hand. Assuming the dealer was correct, then If the 8h would have hit on the river, we would have hit the bad beat jackpot (my straight flush beating his straight flush). Even more ironic is that someone had just won it a couple days before and it was relatively tiny, only about $1,500.
Not to nitpick Dave but the Five of Diamonds and the Four of Diamonds does not make a straight flush. The Deuce on the flop is a Club and there is no Seven of Diamonds on the table. I agree with the rest of your analysis. Good Post!
m
Having put the tight player on a big heart, the better play might be to bet the turn and throw away if raised. This only costs you one bb rather than the 2 bb it cost you to keep him honest.
In hindsight (which of course is 20/20) I think you are probably right. Bet the turn and fold if raised. Since I would have only had two outs (assuming he had the big heart) It would not be worth it to draw. If I considered the possibility of a bad beat jackpot, it might be worth it, but it would usually be a waste of $$ to chase jackpots so I was not even considering that at the time.
yeah, yeah. raise the turn and call the river. blah blah.
reraise the flop. shake things up. this punk check raised a late position bet. your reraise will convince him he has to hit to win. (maybe he has a flush draw or a straight draw or what he will percieve as a 5 or 6 outer. if comes back at you with a 4-bet on a likely overpair, two pair,set, then you have to hit to win and you're sorry you raised. but make him convice you he has a hand.) he will call to take a card off. when he misses the turn, he will fold to your bet. and if he hits, you still got outs.
say it with me vince (if you're still out there)
RAISE!!
by the way, taking a free card is a bad idea. 10 sb in from preflop. you have 15 outs against anyone with a not great hand. (and 9 against the 2 pairs etc.) don't give a free card, take the pot. i play these real thick semibluffs, with position no less, very aggressively.
scott
Raise the turn. You have made a big flush. You must make anyone pay to see the river here. You were a 5 to 1 favorite to win the pot. When the 4th diamond came on the river, just call as he could have either the lone ace or king, as he did, and which happens. But you must call the river, in any event.
Just thought I'd spark another inferno here on 2+2 My delima is this: I'm a novice Hold'em player, Only played a few times in the casino. I also consider myself a student of the game, that is I enjoy reading the books, learning different tactics and stratagies etc. Being a novice with a limited bankroll and little experience I am forced to play in the LL tables. I haven't done poorly but also am not crushing these limits yet--I'm about break-even at this point (about 20 hrs. of play). I'm considering buying LJ WLLH to help my game at these tables. I have read many of Caro's and have a firm understanding of the concepts given, specificly in Fundamental Secrets of Winning Poker.
I'll quit rambling now and get to the point.
1. Will WLLH help me win at LL without destroying my ability to adjust when I move up in limits?
2. Are the concepts described in WLLH any different (better suited to LL)than the ones in Caro's FSOWP and Book of Tells?
3. Is it worth my 20 dollar investment when I already understand fundamentals?
4. IS the only thing I need at this point more experience and dicipline rather than WLLH.
I have read only good reviews of this book (with the exception of this forum) and would like responses to the questions above. I also fully intend to buy Hold'em for adv. players; I've also heard nothing but good reviews.
thanks for your coments DocMartin
With regard to your questions:
1. Yes, it will. However, Sklansky's Hold-em poker and the loose games section of Hold-em poker for Advanced Players will also help you.
2. I am not familiar with Mike Caro's books. I have read his articles in Cardplayer. My impression is that he is knowledgeable but you should not be worrying about "tells" at this stage of your playing career.
3. When we as poker players wager hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars playing poker over the course of a year, whether or not to spend $20 bucks on a book seems like a small decision to me. I recommend you buy Lee Jones book and any other books that you can read which will help you with your game. Books are a very modest investment. If you learn one thing from a book that allows you to win a pot you have usually paid for the price of the book.
4. I think you need the books I mentioned plus a lot of playing experience. I also recommend you start posting problems on this forum for review and comment.
Jim B writes "1. Yes, it will. However, Sklansky's Hold-em poker and the loose games section of Hold-em poker for Advanced Players will also help you."
I have it str8 from the horse's mouth that the "Loose Games" section of HFAP is not for clueless, low limit games. That advice will cost you money if mis-applied to typical no-fold'em CA style low limit poker.
The advice is specifically for games that have a few players that are too lose pre-flop and play well thereafter. Some CA 20-40 games might fit this model but very few CA 9-18 games or below will.
Regarding WLLH by Lee Jones, buy it! It'll get you to the winners circle by the fastest route.
By all means buy and read these books and Brunson's bible too, if for no other reason than knowing what your opponents have read and are thinking about. One pot you might otherwise have lost usually pays for any book out there, two makes a definite profit. WLLH is a good text, I found Sherer's No Fold'em Hold'em very profitable, but be warned, misaplying the info therein can be hazardous to your bankroll.
I also have read and understand the basics of poker. My question is do I have to read a LL book for LL games or can I get by with what is recomended for the higher limits? Thanks in advance.
'
Employing techniques that work in higher limit games while playing at low limit tables is often a big mistake in my opinion. This is especially true in the case of deception tactics. Many times you'll represent a strong hand and employ strong betting tactics in the hope of pot stealing. Usually the players at low limit don't recognize this and are therefore immune. They will then procede to draw winners on the river and you'll be left looking at them, thinking to yourself "I can't BELIEVE they stayed with that junk". What I'm saying is, in low limit the winner of the pot is more often than not the person with the best cards, not the best poker skills.
So, I think it's important to understand the difference between low limit and higher limit and play the two with very different strategies. Again, this is just my opinion.
By the way, I've been reading all of this debate about 2+2 vs. Lee Jones. I've read both sides, and I'd like to commend Mason and David for their integrity. When they were presented with the original version of WLLH, they turned it down because they didn't feel it worthy of their name. Despite the great success that the book has had, they have stood by their decision that it wasn't 2+2 material. That's worthy of praise in a world where the bottom line is usually the arbiter of quality. Regardless of the number of copies sold, they did not believe in the quality of the book itself, and did not accept it.
I've read both HPFAP and Winning Low Limit, and have found both to be helpful in increasing by bankroll. So, I'm not taking sides for one or the other.
shooter
"...I found Sherer's No Fold'em Hold'em very profitable, but be warned, misaplying the info therein can be hazardous to your bankroll."
This is a dangerous book. Of all my 40 or 50 poker books I wish I'd never seen this title. I can't put my finger on exactly why but I've done some serious losing after the two times I've read it. I won't be reading it again any time soon.
I agree with Jim Briar's post.
I would just add that before you start to play higher limits you make sure you understand the differences and know how all the plays in HFAP can be used. I would also get a firm grasp on "running bad" and other bank roll issues as everyone here seems to ask about that.
I would also argue for buying all the useful poker books. There are more but here is the starting list.
After Jones:
HFAP, Improve Your Poker, Poker Essays I and II, Theory of Poker.
D.
Since I am the worlds foremost authority on everything I think I'll chime in here.
I haven't read a poker book in quite some time but when I first started learning to play, many, many moons ago, before I became the undisputed king of poker that I am, I read EVERY SINGLE BOOK I COULD GET MY HANDS ON!
Now, I couldn't tell you Lee Jones from Tommy Lee Jones from Indiana Jones or James Earl Jones but if I were just starting out playing poker I think I would have to give it a little look-see. Know what I mean?
That being said I think a word to the wise should be sufficient.
On a somewhat lighter note. I will be at the Rio Carnival of Fun in a few days. I will have a booth set up there and would love to meet and talk with any and all poker players from all over the world. For $5 you will even be able to get your picture taken with me, BobA928674. (Just doing my part to help promote this wonderful game of poker.)
Here's my list:
1. Hold'em Poker--Sklansky 2. Theory of Poker--Sklansky 3. HPFAP 21st C--Sklansky & Malmuth (read Wild Games and Loose Game sections). 4. Super/System--Brunson (His general poker strategy and his analysis of flops is great, but some of his betting stategies are outdated since the game he refers to is a single blind game). 5. Poker Essays I--Malmuth 6. Poker Essays II--Malmuth 7. Improve Your Poker--Ciaffone
Greetings and Happy New Year to all: I was back east to see my family for the holidays, and this hand came up one late night at the Taj. 3-6 loose passive HE. I am BB. Dealt 7-9 spades. 5 limpers. I check.
Flop: 8 spade, 2 spade, 4 I bet. 2 callers.
Turn: 10 I bet. Call. Raised! I call. Other guy folds. Heads up.
River: x spade. I check. Bet. I call. I am scared of my baby flush. I think I am up against a higher flush.
1. Curious to see what you all thought my opponent had. 2. I do not think a re-raise was in order on the turn. Is the check-call ok on the river, or do I come out firing.
I'll post results later - Probably tomorrow. Thanks, Tim
Hi Tim!
Pre-flop you got a free play in your big blind against 5 opponents.
On the flop I am assuming that you flopped a Spade flush draw and not a Spade flush. The "4" I assume to be a non-Spade. You bet your flush draw into 5 opponents and got two callers. I don't like betting flush draws into a large number of opponents unless I have some over cards or other drawing possibilities to go with it. I am not interested in getting raised and having to pay more money to pursue my draw, especially when it is not to the nuts. Reduce the number of opponents to fewer than 4, I would bet because I could win the pot outright given that board and I still have my draw if I am called or raised. If on the other hand, you flopped a made flush then by all means bet it vigorously because your hand is vulnerable to being outdrawn by someone with a big Spade and you want to make them pay to play.
On the turn, I assume the "10" is not a Spade. You have now picked up an open ended straight draw plus your flush draw. This is about 15 outs (9 Spades plus 6 Non-Spade straight cards). You have only two opponents plus the turn card is a Ten which is an over card to the flop. I like your bet under these circumstances because your opponents may fear you have a pair of Tens beating their pair plus you have a lot of outs if they call or raise. When raised, I would assume the raiser is not on a draw but rather has a made hand like two pair. Of course you call and are heads-up.
On the river, I would bet figuring that my Spade flush was good given only one opponent who raised on the turn.
I put the raiser on a Tx maybe an 8-T. Turn call OK. I think you missed a bet on the river, you should have bet or check raised. If you bet and he raises then you just call.
You probably just missed one big bet - an hours work for some guys.
guy has 2 pair. i bet 10's and 8's. check raise the river. he'll bet and call with his 2 pair.
you're right about the turn. i'd reraise a 15 outer on the flop or on the turn with position. not on the turn out of position.
sorry again about just missing you in ny. we'll have to catch the jazz club sometime.
scott
Thanks folks for your responses. Jim, I mulled over the betting on the flop for a while. Since this game was so passive, I did not really fear a raise, and since my flush draw was so small, I wanted to try to get out others. On the other hand, in thinking about it more - who would drop a 4 flush on the flop? Duh. Live and learn, but again, I did not fear a raise, and Rounders "Good things happen when you bet" adage was going on in my head.....
The raiser had a set of Tens.
Scott - Sorry we missed each other too - I'll be back there at the end of Sept, and probably spending a lot of time in Manhattan. Try to see you then....
Rounder - I agree with your advice. I think my largest ongoing error is not being agressive enough... I am ususally fairly agressive, but I think I fall short sometimes, which costs me some bets... I'll get there!
Thanks again folks...
Best Wishes for a great New Year, Tim
Passive when you don't have a hand and aggressive when you do. :-)
Tim, I see you posted the results about an hour ago after getting responses from Rounder, Jim Brier, and scott, so I will give you my 2 cents worth before I look at their comments and the results.
I like the bet on the flop. You have 5 opponents, and a draw to the flush. Gives you a chance to get some money into the pot if you hit, disguises your hand a bit, and puts pressure on the overcards.
Turn bet is automatic. You have now picked up the open-end draw in addition to the flush. Raise puts a crimp into things though. I would not re-raise heads-up. You are likely looking at at least A-T, or even a set, and a re-raise from you is unlikely going to get the opponent to fold.
On the river, I would bet out. You can't be sure that he will bet, but once you check and he bets, I would check-raise. If you get re-raised by the A-T of spades, congratulate him and move on. I would not expect to see that type of hand because you probably would have been raised on the flop by a big spade draw hand.
Greetings,
Here is a hand I played recently where I think i played it correctly but wasn't sure.
I call on the button w/ AJo 5 others see the flop w/me.
The flop comes J 8 8 rainbow. Check, check, bet call raise to me. I call i understand the raiser may have trips but there is a very good chance I hgave the best hand. the initial bettor calls and 3 see the turn.
The turn is another 8, now I'm pretty sure i have the best hand though I may be splitting the pot. (He may have an 8 but I thought that very unlikely and i didn't want a K or Q to draw for cheap.)
The action went check bet and i raised. call and the bettor reraised. I thought about folding and now wished I hadn't raised. I called and the other palyer folded.
The river was the Q but considering the size of the pot a mistake would be catastrophic so i called and saw the last 8.
Seems I have gotten into troulbe thinking it was very unlikey someone had a particular hand , and it turned out he did...
Here is another example: (I won't give allthe details but I have A J Q 8 in the BB in O/8 the flop comes A J J and then two low cards fall. after check calling the flop and betting the turn and nto getting raised and then it got capped on the river after I iniatially bet I called 3 bets to see AA).
Seems most of the time in these situations one is better off playing aggressively as possible or am I playing too riskily?
Thanks in advance.
Yeah the 88 on the flop would slow me down a lot. You hit the flop and played it OK the turn was hard to play and I think I would have played it the same as you did BUT you could have raised pre flop on the unraised button with AJo it may have cleared out the junk that beat you.
Similar hand: Last night I had KK raised with 4 callers. Flop 877 - I bet no raises so I think I am clear of trip 7's turn is another 7 I an certain I have the best of it now so I raise the pot with 1 caller. River is a 2 - check to me I bet and am raised - what is going on here? - I reraise - she hits me back so I call. I call full house 7's full of K's she shows 88 for 8's full of 7's. This old battle ax slow played her full house on the flop and turn - fooled me all to hell. Oh well that's poker.
I dont think the raise preflop w/ AJo will get rid of anyone except maybe the blinds...(It certinaly wouldn't have clear out the 89s ) A pb with a raise in late position is it hardly ever gets rid of anyone. I think a raise is good if it is AJs but off suit I usuaully dont'. TOo tight?
Thanks for the response.
Not raising with AJo on the button is not too tight IF you are certain everyone will see the flop anyway.
You probably should have three bet the flop. You had position, and this would have likely driven out the overcards. If you are reraised, then you have a decision to make - it certainly helps to know your player here.
If the player just calls you, you still need to proceed cautiously on the turn, especially if the 8 doesn't come. You have set yourself up to be trapped with the additional aggression on the flop, so I would tend to check behind my opponent if he checked to me on the turn.
When the 8 falls though, its hard to avoid losing chips here. If your opponent checks to you, its way too conservative to check. The most likely scenario is he calls and then tries to check raise on the river. If he bets into you, you're just going to lose two more big bets. Tough to avoid.
I do not think that raising before the flop would have helped you in this particular case. With that many players already in the pot, if you raise it should not be with the objective of limiting the field. Its not going to happen.
Good luck.
Recently took a short trip to lake tahoe and wound up playing 2-6 spread limit at Harvey's casino.
As far as the structure, the rake is the same as atlantic city casinos but the limit is 2-6 on every round. this effectively makes the game much bigger than 2-4 and somewhat bigger than 3-6.
There was only 2-6 holdem at low limits. (As an aside, there was also 1-5 stud but I did't play it very long.) My observations on the holdem were based on about 12 hours play.
My observations regarding the strength of the competition: There are many local regulars who are fairly strong players at tahoe. it was fairly easy to pick them out after playing with them for a while and starting up some conversation. One local (who plays very well) told me that the games are very tight during the week when only the locals are there! Fortunately, this was a weekend and it was crowded so there were plenty of weak players. My estimation was that there were an average of 2-3 very bad players and 3-4 weak-tight players in the game at any given time. There always seemed to be at least one competent player at the table at all times (other than me). All the competent locals pretty much bet 6$ all the time so it was more like straight 6$ limit holdem than spread limit.
There were some hands that stood out:
First hand: I get AA in the BB (blinds 1+2). Two limpers plus the SB call, I raise the full 6$. I want any caller to be making as big a mistake as possible by calling. The button and the SB call. Flop is Q 10 4 with two spades. I know the loose player on the button will call to the end with any draw no matter what. SB checks and I bet 6$. button calls and SB folds.
Turn is offsuit 3. I bet 6 and he calls.
River is a K, no flush. I somehow know that I am now beat so I check. Sure enough button bets 6 and I am forced to call. He has K10. Although he beat me on this particular hand, I played it correctly - I charged him the maximum possible to draw at his 5-outer. Those are the breaks - and I'd do it again.
Second hand: I have KK in the BB. 6 players limp and I raise the full 6$. five players call.
Flop is Ks Qs Jc. I like flopping a set but I hate the straight and flush draws against me! SB bets 2$ and I raise to 8$. To my dismay, four people call! I hope my hand holds up!
Turn is an ugly 10d. SB bets 6$. I am certain that he must have an ace, probably AK or AQ. He is a pretty good player but has not always raised with these hands. I am certainly beat for now and may even get raised again and possibly reraised if more than one player has an ace. I just call the 6$ and decide to see what my pot odds are when it gets back to me. I do have ten outs to make a boat or quads, and the pot is big, so I will probably be going to the bloody end on this one! No one raises but two other players call. My read is that one or both has a flush draw.
The river is the beautiful Ks, giving me quads. I bet 6$ again. Neither of my opponents raises but both call. SB folds. Before I laid my hand down he says "pocket kings" (looking at me) then throws his own hand in saying "AQ". Let me just say that there is at least one local regular who is a great card reader! To both our surprise, one of the other players has an ace! Why he didn't raise the turn is beyond me! the other player had made his small spade flush.
third hand: I get KK again in middle position. I raise to 8$ after two limpers. Loose player on button calls, SB calls, both others call.
Flop is 10 5 2 rainbow. SB bets 6$ and I raise to 12. Button cold calls, other player folds, SB calls.
Turn is 3, no flush possible. SB checks, I bet, button calls, SB folds.
River is the Qh. I get a pretty clear read that the button has just made two pair, so I check. Sure enough he bets. I actually considered folding, but he has bluffed before so I have to call due to the size of the pot. Button has Q10 and made two pair on the river. Once again I played it right and charged my opponents the maximum to try and draw out on me. Only problem is they sometimes get there anyway.... I know if I made this play many, many times I would make lots of money in the long run, which is the real objective of playing winning poker.
Overall I would say it is probably not worth going all the way to tahoe just to play at harvey's, but if you happen to be there anyway, perhaps you should check it out!
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Dave
Have attended 3 Sierra poker classics for ~3 days each time and action was nearly identical to what you describe. What has changed is comps/or lack there off. No more casino rates on rooms and food accumulates at .25$/hr. Formerly was a good bargain but I suspect lack of competition has played a role in decreasing fringe benefits. Best of luck, Gary
Loose/passive (seemed to be when I was watching the game from the rail) nine-handed $4-8. I am on the button with 77. UTG folds, everyone calls, I raise to build pot in case I hit. SB folds, BB calls, everyone else calls.
(I had just joined the table and was not familiar with any of the players)
Flop is 6s Qd 7c. BB bets, three callers, I raise. BB reraises, one caller, I cap it, both call.
Turn is 10d; two diamonds on board. BB bets, player between us folds, I raise, BB reraises, I call.
River is 5s. BB checks, I bet, he raises, I call.
BB turns over 8s 9s for the straight. Why he reraised on the flop with that I'll never know I had put him on AQ or 67.
Did I play too aggressively...am I gonna get killed if I keep playing like this? Should I have just check-called on the turn and river? And is there any way I could have known I was beat? Thanks in advance
You raise with a hand like 77 "in case I hit" and you wonder what the guy with 89s is raising for?
Did I play too aggressively...am I gonna get killed if I keep playing like this? Answer is yes - aggressive is good but controlled aggression - you were guilty of looking at what you had not what the others had, when entering a game it is prudent to see a few hands before getting into full war mode - I like to see 20 hands and play very few before that - sets me up as a tight player and I get a good look at the opposition.
Q: Should I have just check-called on the turn and river?
A: call the turn and check call the river.
Q: And is there any way I could have known I was beat?
A: Since you didn't know this guy he could have had QQ (that is what I would have put him on if you had not told us the result) in the hole and not reraised preflop. He may have put you on AA KK AK - who knows. Good to know the opposition I think it is very important part of winning poker.
sucker,
I would have put the BB on a set of sixes, or possible straight draw if he is very aggressive. From his betting on the flop, I would not think he had AQ, otherwise he would have raised preflop. It's possible that he had 67, but since you had two sevens with one on the board it's not a likely holding. The queens are very unlikely, otherwise he would have raised.
On the turn I would have called his bet since the other player dropped and it appeared that the completed straight did not worry him (did he hesitate at all or did he come charging). Then if he bet on the river, I would have called.
The way I see it is the straight becomes more of a likely hand on the turn, and now you are drawing for a full house to beat him. If you did make a full house on the river I would bet and/or reraise depending on what he did.
The anti-hero was in the Big Blind. From this position, many players wouldn't raise with AQ or even QQ's, especially with all the pre-flop callers. Many, maybe most, players would cold call the raise from the big blind and hope to hit big on the flop.
Big Blind could have also been playing 66's, 67s, or even Q6s/Q7s, given all the pre-flop calling, and possibly even KK's.
Of all the possible hands, the only ones that beat the hero are QQ and 89. I would have raised the turn as you did, and if re-raised then I might slow down on the river. When I raise pre-flop with 77's (something I would rarely do), and flop my set I'm not going to slow down on the turn.
PRC
I made my conclusions on the BB and I'll stick to them unless some expert says I'm wrong. A person this agressive on the flop would be three betting QQ and AQ preflop.
Yes, I'll agree it's possible he could have called a raise preflop with Q6s, but I'll say the Q7 and 67 are unlikely (if you do the math you will see why I say this).
I agree that the re-raise on the flop by the BB is a stinker to figure, with his draw, making it two bets to those behind him. When he comes out betting on the turn after you had capped the flop, is when I might back off with the raise, just call. He was definitely aggressive, and capable of a check-raise, also. I'm sure you will know him better next time.
I agree with an earlier post that you should have know the players better before jamming the pot, especially after the turn. After the flop, there are 14 big bets in the pot (plus the small blind post). Had you smooth-called the turn, your pot odds are 14:1. But since you raised the BB's turn bet and got re-raised, you reduced your pot odds in half! When the BB bet the turn, I think you should have offered some respect and just called.
The BB sounds like a good player who raises after the flop with the nut straight draw so you don't put him on a draw. He jams the turn because he made the nut, and he has you pegged because he was able to check-raise the river (you may not have known him, but it seems he knew you'd bet into him on the river.) His river check was great because he presents a fear of the 567 straight draw.
I would not have put him on a set given the way he lead the betting on the flop and turn. Q6, Q7, and 67 don't sound right either. 89 fits though. You should not have known with complete certainty that you were beat, but you certainly should have known that you were facing a big hand, not 2 pair. Nevertheless, after the turn there are 20 big bets in the pots and your only drawing to 4:1 against for a full-house. So you had hang and pay him off regardless.
Properly played...hard luck.
>>>Loose/passive (seemed to be when I was watching the game from the rail) nine-handed $4-8. I am on the button with >>>77. UTG folds, everyone calls, I raise to build pot in case I hit. SB folds, BB calls, everyone else calls.
I don't really agree with the build the pot logic... By putting this extra money in the pot you are giving a lot of post flop draws pot odds to call. I think you are actually increasing the likelihood of being drawn out on if you do hit and throwing money into a pot you are not likely to win against this many callers. Unless I can seriously thin the field with this raise I just call. Also the raise leaks information I don't wan to leak against 8 callers.
>>>(I had just joined the table and was not familiar with any of the players) >>>Flop is 6s Qd 7c. BB bets, three callers, I raise. BB reraises, one caller, I cap it, both call.
Honestly I would put him on the str8 draw when he bets. If he has trips he probably wants to get a checkraise in here (or some folks like to slowplay them). When he reraises I think he is trying to slow you down on the turn if he misses. Your preflop raise and aggressive play here have to be screaming trips to this guy.
>>>Turn is 10d; two diamonds on board. BB bets, player between us folds, I raise, BB reraises, I call.
So he is completely unafraid of the str8 that just came out and he bets into you... I have to put him on the str8 here with QQ a distant second. Again he has to know you have a set at this point so what else makes sense for him to bet with?
>>>River is 5s. BB checks, I bet, he raises, I call.
>>>BB turns over 8s 9s for the straight. Why he reraised on the flop with that I'll never know I had put him on AQ or 67.
On the flop he had an open ended draw to the nut str8 (as well as a backdoor flush possibility) and he can feel pretty confident that he knows what you hold (some set or an overpair as a second). I think putting him on AQ or 67 is probably a mistake, if he has any sense he is afraid you have trips and neither of these hands has much hope of drawing out on your trips. Even if he gets the boat he has to be afraid that you have a bigger one. With the str8 draw he has 8 outs to the nuts (and the backdoor flush) and he knows with the amount in the pot you will have to call him down if he makes it, if he misses he can fold. You are married to the hand at this point but he will KNOW if and when he needs to get off of it.
>>>Did I play too aggressively...am I gonna get killed if I keep playing like this? Should I have just check-called on the >>>turn and river? And is there any way I could have known I was beat? Thanks in advance
I probably just call preflop, depends on the game. I like your reraise on the flop, but when he three bets I would slow down. I think I check call the turn and call the bet on the end. Especially on the river your bet does not make sense to me... he is only going to call (or raise) if he has you beat at this point.
Of course I have the benefit of hindsight here but I would be very afraid of the str8 in this hand.
Sean
There is a certain type of aggressive player, who does not like being raised, and re-raised. This player might be one of those. He says, if you want to gamble, let's gamble. With his draw to the nuts, it's probable that he jammed with his hand, on the come.
Ok,
I play at a table that usually has around 4-8 players on it. $5/10 holdem. The games are absolutley nuts to say the least. about 80% of the players are habitual bluffers. Normally this is a good thing.. but not when you're the only noe that isnt at the table. I normally wouldnt even play in these conditions.. but I work there so I have to.
Anyways.. my point is, this is an insane game and it is very,very difficut to make any profit here. I will give you to very typical hands at one of these games. I need all of you to give me your honest opinion as to how to play in games like this.. here goes:
1) On the Big Blind. 5 way game. Dealt Q4. The Big-big bluffer who we'll call Al, raises. everyone calls (alot of the time there is even a re-raise after that!)to me, I fold. Same thing happens on small blind... I fold. Thats $8 right down the drain in a matter of a minute. Its just about capped all the way to the end, only to real all of 3 players have nothing but Q or A High. Other %50 of the time, they have something decent, usually caught on the turn or river.
2) On the button with we'll say QJs. Al of course enters with his raise, maybe another raise behind him, 3-5 callers. So now its to me and its $15 to get in now. Of course.. Call. Flop comes out 2-8-5 Rainbow. Terrible flop, right? Well, apparently not?? Its capped before it even gets to me. Of course I fold. Same thing.. sometimes theye have great hands, sometimes they all have nothing at all. But either way they Raise,raise,raise the whole way.
This is making me pull my hair out.. But what can I do? How do I play this?
Thanks, Kman
K-man you need to read the "Wild Games" chapter in HPFAP-99 on how to play in these games. Basically the advice is to limit your play to AA,KK,QQ, and AK suited when you know every pot will get capped pre-flop and on the flop. Now this advice assumes a full table. It sounds like you are in a shorthanded game most of the time with less than 8 players. I would then add AK, AQ suited, and maybe AQ. You may want to throw in JJ although this could be dangerous if you are constantly facing 3 or 4 opponents. After having said all this, I would add:
1. If you play the recommended way you will not be playing very many hands and it will be very obvious to your opponents. If this is a home game there may be some social problems emerging.
2. In shorthanded games you are putting up a lot more blinds and frequently playing facing a lot more raises. Many players find themselves playing marginal hands to keep from being shut out of the game altogether. This increases your variance greatly and does little for your expectation.
3. You may want to seriously consider playing in another game.
I used to play in a game very similar to this. One of the things that worked for me was playing any pair and see the flop. I usually didn't have to worry about oversets because my game was not raising with AA, KK, QQ. With those hands they'd sit back and trap you.
You have described the absolute maniac game from hell. No matter what you do, your variance in this game will be VERY high compared to a reasonably normal ring game. You must play premium hands only when calling three or four bets BTF. You have to severely punish the maniacs when you get a good hand since you will lose so much $$ seeing the flop and then having to fold the rest of the time. No matter what you do, this game will probably be difficult to beat and frustrating. If you have the huevos to withstand the rollercoaster ride, and you read the wild games material, and you play with extreme patience and discipline, you can probably beat the game. But if you could find and easier game you will probably have a much better expectation. In my opinion the best "maniac" games to play in are the ones with 8 fairly typical players, ONE maniac, and one open seat for you. With several maniacs in the game it becomes much more difficult to decide what to do.... At any rate, I
Good luck
d
You have described the absolute maniac game from hell. No matter what you do, your variance in this game will be VERY high compared to a reasonably normal ring game.
You must play premium hands only when calling three or four bets BTF. You have to severely punish the maniacs when you get a good hand since you will lose so much $$ seeing the flop and then having to fold the rest of the time.
No matter what you do, this game will probably be difficult to beat and frustrating. If you have the huevos to withstand the rollercoaster ride, and you read the wild games material, and you play with extreme patience and discipline, you can probably beat the game. But if you could find and easier game you will probably have a much better expectation.
In my opinion the best "maniac" games to play in are the ones with 8 fairly typical players, ONE maniac, and one open seat for you. With several maniacs in the game it becomes much more difficult to decide what to do....
At any rate, I FEEL YOUR PAIN MAN!!!!!
Good luck
Dave in Cali
I've been lurking for several months and have benefitted greatly from the give and take.
I have been playing $5-$10 in AC for several months and have done pretty well. I feel I could also beat the $10-20 but have a limited bankroll and am worried about hitting a bad streak right off. My question is, should I play $10-$20 and limit my exposure to the increased variance by curtailing the types of hands I play? My plan would be to play fewer small pairs up front, play fewer suited connectors, and continue after the flop only on strong draws and top pair, good kicker stuff. I feel if I play my regular game without these hands I will increase my bankroll faster than playing my full game at half the limits.
Comments?
If you are a solid winning player, I don't believe you have to vary your play too much in going from $5-$10 to $10-$20. The big difference you may notice is that in the bigger game, more pots may get raised pre-flop and there will be fewer players taking the flop. When this is the case, then your observation about pairs and suited connectors is a good one. On the flop, while I think you may be correct in not leading without top pair or a quality draw, I think it will be frequently correct to call with middle or bottom pair and perhaps an over card if the pot was raised pre-flop and it only costs you one bet to see the turn. Furthermore, if you are in a shorthanded pot, you should frequently lead with middle pair or a good draw since you have a reasonable chance of winning the pot outright plus you have outs when you are called.
With regard to bankroll, if you are a winning player I think you need a playing bankroll of around 5 grand for $10-$20 and I would have a session bankroll of about $500 to $1000. Now you can get by with less than 5 grand if you are willing to drop back to $5-$10 if you start running bad. In Mason Malmuth's book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", he has an excellent discussion of bankroll requirements for various limits. I strongly recommend that you purchase this book.
Todd,
The thoughtful game you describe sounds like a winner except for the pairs it is a similar game I play and regurally beat 4-8 to 10-20 games 8.2 times out of 10.
I put a higher value on small pairs and Axs than most and less on mid/small suited cards coupled or not.
My thinking is flopping a monster or near monster for 1 or 2 sb's is a great way to make a huge pot. As far a I am concerned a set of 2's - 8's is as good as a set of anything else and is real easy to get away from if youdon't flop to it. If the board pairs your in for a full house - now that is the way I like to play poker - all the best in your new limit.
I still have trouble justifing moving up when the action and money is so good at the lower limit in the house I spend most of my time in. I am lookng to do the 15-30 thing later in the year but I am the sort of guy who likes the softest seat he can find.
You should not tighten up your game JUST because you wish to go up in limit - you should play every game (no matter what limit) according to the character of the game. It is true that the games tend to get more aggressive and somewhat tighter when you go up in limit, so perhaps tightening up is correct for that reason. However, I have played a bunch of poker in AC, and sometimes the 3-6 games (especially at trop) are so tight you can hear them squeak, while the 10-20 games are loose lucy. There is a large variation in the types of games found in AC. The type of game you are in should be your reason for playing tight/loose, not your bankroll or lack thereof.... If you are playing tight just because you have moved up in limit with a small bankroll then you are not playing optimal poker. I think Jim's comments about bankroll are right on the $$ and you should read Gambling Theory pronto if you have not already....
Dave in Cali
Todd:
You have actually hit upon a formula first proposed by David Sklansky. That is when playing a bigger game on a small bankroll play a little tighter than what you think is correct. This way you reduce your win rate a little, reduce your fluctuations a lot, but still win more in the long run than you would at the smaller game.
However, from your post you may be making a mistake as to exactly where you are tightening up. Giving up on some of the marginal hands before the flop makes sense in the situation that you describe. But giving up later in the hand, on the flop and beyond might prove too costly. For example, suppose you are in the blind, get a free play, flop top pair but don't have the greatest kicker. Quickly giving up here can easily cost you the whole pot and could be a major mistake. Of course if the action indicates that you should do so then that is another matter.
Good luck. Let us know how you do.
Mason Malmuth wrote: You have actually hit upon a formula first proposed by David Sklansky. That is when playing a bigger game on a small bankroll play a little tighter than what you think is correct. This way you reduce your win rate a little, reduce your fluctuations a lot, but still win more in the long run than you would at the smaller game
First proposed by David Sklansky? I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Poker players have been doing this for years. Sklansky is not the first nor will he be the last to come up with this kind of idea. Obviously a person jumping up to twice the limit will play conservatively at first...especially on a limited bankroll. It's no different than staying at the same limit after a long dry spell. You cut down your variance and for the most part stick to the big pairs and big suited cards in multiways. I think your books are pretty decent but don't give yourselves too much credit.
The variance will occur no matter how tight you play. A bad streak of cards is much more than just a run of crappy starting hands. A truly bad streak of cards hits you by giving you second best hand over and over again. You can play tight as you want, a bad run of cards is irrelevant to your style of play. It's just a bad run of cards.
If you don't have the bankroll for a higher limit game don't play it because playing tighter or not will not change the chance of losing a lot of money in a bad streak.
natedogg
Post deleted at author's request.
All tolled I'm ahead $2600. at the 5-10 game. I started with 2000 so I guess I would consider my bankroll to be around $4000-$5000. I had thought if I tried 10-20 and hit a cold streak, I'd go back to 5-10 with 3000.
Post deleted at author's request.
Thanks Gary, sincerely.
I think your analysis of my situation is one of the most perceptive things I've ever read here. I won't move up till I know I can play my game, win or lose.
Thanks again.
This is a hand I played a week or so ago, I'm not convinced I haven't missed something in my thinking so I thought I'd see what you guys think.
4-8 Hold'em. I'm in middle position and limp in with QJs. 6 players see the flop. Flop is AKQ rainbow. It's checked to me, I bet, it's folded to the Button who raises, remaining players fold, I call. Turn is a K. I check, Button bets. I think for a moment and call. River is a blank, I check, Button bets, I call.
My thinking on the turn is that the Button likely has an A, possibly a Q but I'm fairly certain he doesn't have a K, AQ, or JT.
Assuming I'm correct about what the Button is likely holding, should I call the turn bet? How much should the small possibility of him having a Q affect my decision to call?
Is 8 big bets a sufficient size pot to justify calling at the end on the small chance he had a Q?
The decisions on the turn and river seem marginal to me, is there something I'm missing that makes these decisions more clearly correct or incorrect?
Pre-flop you limped in with Queen-Jack suited after other players limped in ahead of you. This is fine. Six of you took the flop.
Once the flop comes you need to realize a few things. It is highly coordinated and incredibly dangerous. All you have is bottom pair and a gutshot straight draw. Furthermore, even if a Ten comes you could easily be splitting the pot with someone else who has a Jack. If a Jack comes you have two pair but you could be behind if anyone has a Ten. Someone could also have a higher two pair and not have raised pre-flop. Don't fooled by the fact that some of the players checked to you. Betting into this flop is a very bad play with your hand especially with 5 opponents. You should simply check. At this point the pot is small with only 6 bets in it. You don't want to bet and get raised. When you bet and it gets raised there are 9 bets in the pot and it costs you one bet to see the turn. You are now in a tough spot. You called and took the turn heads-up.
A King on the turn does not help your hand. I think you should fold because your chances of improvement are slim. At this point there are 12 small bets in the pot and it costs you 2 bets to continue. I would fold. Not only are you badly beaten right now but you could hit a card on the river and still lose.
If he has an Ace you are badly beaten and I don't understand how you can be confident that he doesn't have a King. I think your decisions on the turn and river were bad but I believe your most serious mistake was betting the flop and getting lured into this hand in the first place once the flop came.
Thanks for your comments, they are helpful (as usual).
Point taken on the flop bet.
Clearly if there is any kind of chance he's got a King my call on the turn is horrible. To be honest I had no concrete reason for being confident he didn't have a King, it was just a feeling. That the feeling was correct is perhaps not enough.
This flop has you dominated in so many ways and your outs are thin..pot size not that big **fold** when you see the King hit the turn.
Best of it !!
MJ
I noticed on Abdul's page he values AA as 4 times the blinds. I would assume he would then advise not to raise the blinds out but to call. If this is correct, what other hands should you limp in on the button or 1 right of the button with rather than try for a steal?
Depends on what type of players are in the blinds.
MJ
Rounder and Gary Carson
although abdul has some interesting theories you cannot use this as a guide. If i have a player who seems to be defending his blind more than normal, I'm going to raise it. further if you are in late posistion, when you raise you are more likely to be on a steal, so when you actually have aa, you should be raising them. you have to be balancing the math with psychology. seeya
Post deleted at author's request.
I tend to agree with what al just said.
If the game is so tight that an early or middle position raise is likely to steal the blinds then a limp-reraise try may be worth it. However in very late position it will just look suspicious in that type of game so better to raise and hope someone puts you on a weaker hand stealing.
I think the major alternative to this limp-reraise strategy is just to find for more hands to raise with initially.
Also in the games I play in ( 15-30 in CA ) the strategy is not required.
D.
Okay, I'd like to take one more stab at this perennial subject. I'd specifically like to hear some responses from David Sklansky, Mason, Ray Zee, Abdul, and Gary on this, as well as anyone else who wants to chime in.
The question is this: If you have Aces, how many opponents are optimal?
My position has always been that the more callers you get, the more money you will make, provided they pay as many bets as possible. In other words, you'd rather have 3 opponents paying 2 bets than six opponents paying one, but you'd even more like to have six opponents paying two bets.
Or more simply, let's say you raise UTG with your aces. What's the most number of callers you want to see? My answer is nine.
Dan I think it has to depend upon what kinds of hands these callers will cold-call a raise with. If I had pocket rockets I would love to have all my opponents have big slick or big chick or KQ or AJ. I will have them so badly dominated that my chances of winning are excellent. On the other hand, suppose all nine opponents have a different pocket pair? I will be playing a two outer the vast majority of the time. Suppose they all have suited connectors? There are a lot of "collective outs" against me. Ironically, the truth may be that your EV might be higher against a table full of solid players in this situation than against a table full of loose geese who will call with any pocket pair, any connector, any suited hand, etc. as long as the whole flock is coming in. But of course I believe you will win money regardless.
Jim,
It took me over two hours to check out your answer as I got pulled away to do battle with my wife's HMO.
Anyway, if your opponents will play any two cards then I still want them all in there. After all, aces flop big sets and fill up like any other pair. Plus they will always be the best two pair if an board pairs a card no one has. Then throuw in your four flushes to either of your aces.
I also agree that you will be in even better shape if the majority of the field has high cards. Then you dominate. and will get action. But this would likely occur if you raised UTG then got a bunch of semi-rational callers (which would be a freak). And the later postions would have the odd ball cards which could hurt you (such as 65s).
I'm sure one could set up a poker probe were aces are almost dead. But that is of academic interest only.
Regards.
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I agree completely.
However, in Jim's post I could imagine an unusual/freak case against decent opponents where you would completely dominate the early cold callers with hands like KQs, AK and so on then be a little vulnerable to the smaller suited connectors that would correctly play in back due to the size of the field. It would be so rare that I don't ever intend to go into the math or logic much further :-).
Regards,
Rick
Dan,
I won't look at Jim's answer yet.
You asked: "Or more simply, let's say you raise UTG with your aces. What's the most number of callers you want to see? My answer is nine."
I want eight callers since if I had nine callers there would be some sort of misdeal as in Los Angeles we only seat nine players to a table. Also I would prefer the betting get capped pre flop.
Sorry to disagree this time since I usually like your thinking -;).
Regards,
Rick
It depends on the table - solid players I want as many as possible - AA dominates pairs and premium hands. Loose table I want 2 or 3 - don't like all the collective outs shooting at my PAIR of A's.
I know I am in a minority here but I am swayed by my NL HE tournament experiences.
Post deleted at author's request.
All theory aside, I would want no more than 2 loose callers. If the table is tight, maybe 3 tight callers.
I don't have to inform anyone on this forum that aces win small pots and lose big ones unless you snag another ace.
Post deleted at author's request.
X
i agree with you and rick even though you two seem to disagree.
scott
how much standard deviation can you take?
While a case can be made for low-variance play, you'd better make real sure that your quest for low variance doesn't cut into your EV too much.
Aces and kings make up a significant chunk of your overall winnings. You should strive to maximize the profit from these hands. Any attempt to play them 'conservatively' is misguided, IMO.
yes, but i meant in a general sort of way, if you raise under the gun and everyone calls, is this the sort of game you want to be in?
Post deleted at author's request.
It would be instructive if someone runs some simulations on this question taking one ace out of the deck.
David,
I'll give it a try. Right now I'm surfing this website, about to write an email, litstening to some MP3s, and will try to run this on Poker Probe in the background under DOS. If I still have a machine left I'll get back to you with the results.
Regards,
Rick
David,
I just ran 1 million hands using Poker Probe. The game is ten handed and I took the ace of hearts out of the deck. The hand was two black aces and all of the other nine hands were random (i.e., redealt each hand). Since it was run in a DOS emulation window, I couldn't easily cut and paste the charts here (I know it can be done, I'm just too tired to figure it out).
Here are the numbers:
AcAs wins 25.77 % of the time.
Each of the other nine hands win 8.25% of the time.
I hope you find this of help. The aces did better then I thought with one ace removed. If memory serves me, they should win about 32% of the time without the ace taken out. I may run another probe and post it if I'm still up.
BTW, Caro's Probe ran flawlessly under DOS and didn't cause my MP3 player to hiccup once while I was also doing email. I wish I could say the same about many Windows programs.
Regards,
Rick
David,
I just ran one hundred thousand hands using Poker Probe. The game is ten handed. The hand was two black aces and all of the other nine hands were random (i.e., redealt each hand).
Here are the numbers:
AcAs wins 31.25 % of the time.
Each of the other nine hands win about 7.65 % of the time.
I might try it with both aces taken out of the deck and see what happens. Insomnia has its upside.
Regards,
Rick
David,
I just ran one hundred thousand hands using Poker Probe. The game is ten handed. The hand was two black aces and all of the other nine hands were random (i.e., redealt each hand). This time both the red aces were removed from the deck.
Here are the numbers:
AcAs wins 19.57 % of the time.
Each of the other nine hands win about 8.90 % of the time.
Once again, this is better than I expected. Could Dan Hanson and Gary Carson be right ;) ?
Regards,
Rick (who never complains when he gets aces cracked)
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
But what about a nine handed game :-) ?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Years ago I remember a hand where a guy reraised my UTG aces out of the small blind and I had capped. We both knew we had to have high pairs or high cards to play this way. Anyway the flop came all small with two of my suit. The turn comes small again except now I have a three flush. We put in about ten raises on the turn. On the river I made my nut flush and got one more raise in. The guy went nuts and threw the cards at me. What did he expect? Anyway, I guess we agree on this one. But regarding Mason's play of the 4d 4c ...
But of course!
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Dan, since the percentages for aces are based on the hands being played to the river, then if you were up against 8-9 players everytime, you would have to play to the river to maintain profitability. Since this isn't going to happen in the real world I'm guessing that roughly half the amount of players is actually optimal for aces in the real world. 4-5 callers no math, simply logic. if it's flawed..... i'm listening. seeya
I don't think that idea holds for AA. For other hands where you need to make something more almost for sure it will be less clear to see the turn and river but it will be pretty easy to see the river on those hands you can win.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
I agree with this advice from Gary. The fact that you can sometimes lay them down correctly makes them more profitable than the hot and cold sims indicate IMO.
dan, the funny thing about this crazy game is that things change from one street to the next. the odds say that aces wii stand up well against multiple players, yet when the flop comes you might not want them in there.i think aces would be the only hand where you would want many players in pre-flop.seeya
It occurs to me that if you want alot of players in against you with aces, then you must play to the river everytime to let the percentages workout for you. you would be the bettor until someone else shows strength, and then passively call. if you don't do this(andwho is going to), then you want fewer players against you which would probablybe about half as many, so 4-5 players is probably optimal.seeya
This doesn't make any sense to me. Could you elaborate?
flop 678 , 2 hearts, you hold AsAc. you bet, raise , raise, raise. sure , you might fill up, accounting for a certain percentage of win with AA.
Brad,
Obviously I'm on Dan's side here despite my tounge in cheek reference to only wanting eight opponents (since we only seat nine).
Pre-flop I'm willing to gamble with them. That doesn't mean that I will go the river with them every time when I have heavy heat, multiple opponents and a very unfavorable flop.
I remember David Sklansky saying during a seminar at the Commerce a few years back that the typical aspiring 6/12 player in California probably makes more from a medium pair than aces. He was implying that medium skilled players just don't know when to lay down aces. But almost all top players make more from aces then any other hand.
Regards,
Rick
im just elaborating why a few less players might be better, in relation to the percentage of aces holding up when going to the river. obviuosly you dont go to river here. ( so % would be less than theoretical, right?).
I'm still not getting you. If some players fold before the river, then the chance of winning with AA goes up. If Aces fold before the river, it's usually because they are drawing dead, or very thin. Pocket aces are not a hand that you typically are going to fold incorrectly unless you play pretty badly.
In the real world, the hidden nature of an overpair with Aces means it's more likely that your opponents will make errors against you, rather than the other way around. So any real-world situation should favor Aces even more as compared to a sim.
Aces only do worse than the sim if you're a weak-tight moron who raises before the flop and then folds to a bet every time there's a threatening board.
Quite frankly, if I have red aces and the flop comes Tc9c8c I am going to be relatively disattached to my aces, unless the pot is SO huge that there are pot odds for pairing the board AND spiking a set..
But you don't think you would fold those red aces for one bet? Curious.. this is a hand where I *usually* bet and fold at the first raise..
M.
The answer, as always, is 'it depends'. It's not a certainly that someone has a straight on an 89T flop. More likely, if you face a raise you are up against two pair, an open-ended strait, a hand like TJ, AT, JJ, etc.
When the pot is large, it's important to be able to figure out where you stand, because Aces have a lot of outs against two pair (5 on the flop, 8 on the turn), and folding incorrectly in a big pot is a large error.
So this is one of those judgement calls. If you are ALWAYS betting into the field and then throwing away your aces for a raise with a flop like this, you're playing them way too tight. Don't players in your game raise for free cards? Wouldn't a player raise with AT, TJ, 9T, 78s? Make sure you're drawing thin or dead before you lay down Aces in a large raised pot.
I you don't go to the river with Aces, you better have a very scary board, probably a 4 card straigt, 4 card flush, or 2 pair on the turn, with heavy action. And if you have any part of those draws, you still might have to go to the river.
Folding Aces on the flop has got to be even harder. I might fold on a KK2 board if there is heavy action, but I'm still might be going to see the river, just in case the other two bettors have smaller pocket pairs.
- Andrew
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 January 2000, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: brad
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 January 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Max it out to 9, no question.
D.
AA - 1 A out 5 callers with the following hands - KQs -99 - 45s - AT - 78o.
Id' be interested to see these more realistic results. As there are very few hands with everyhong calling with random hands.
A fellow imsominac - waiting for 5am to leave for the airport.
Post deleted at author's request.
You can always build a multi-way combination that will make any hand a loser. That's not the point. How about your real-world situation where you get five callers with hands like this:
1 - AQ 2 - QJ 3 - JJ 4 - KT 5 - 9T
Against that field, Aces are a huge winner, because the players are duplicating each other's hands and outs.
These exercises are pointless. As Gary was alluding to, any real-world situation would favor Aces over ten completely random hands because some cards are weighted more than others in terms of possibility of being in a caller's hand. If you get 9 callers in a medium-loose game, it's much more likely that they are duplicating each other's hands and outs than you would find in a completely random sim.
AA one out - 2 callers - one with KK the other with JTs - Thanks,
Rounder,
You get to fly to some fun destination and I have to work early tomorrow. I'll have to pass on this one but maybe some fresh troops can step in here.
Regards,
Rick
Dan,
I haven't done any simulations on this issue, nor have I read all the previous responses to your post...so I hope this is not repetitive. At first, your expected profit would increase dramatically with each caller; however, I think the magnitude of the increase would diminish with each additional caller (especially if your opponents call your raise with quasi-reasonable hands and not total garbage). If your EV were graphed as a function of the number of callers, I would expect the curve to begin to plateau...perhaps around 6 or 7 callers (though your variance would continue to increase with each caller). At some point (perhaps after more than 9 callers), the curve might begin to slope downward (reflecting diminishing EV). Of course, AA would remain the most profitable hand against any number of opponents.
It would be interesting--if not particularly useful--to explore this issue using computer simulations.
You're right, and against callers with random cards the EV curve with Aces starts to flatten. Call-to-the-end sims show a slight decrease in EV between 9 and ten callers (assuming an 11-handed game). Since the real-world should favor aces more than the sim does, I have to believe that the EV of aces continues to rise dramatically with each additional caller.
This consensus of all the expert opinion is frankly a surprise to me. Although I always knew that AA was a big favorite and a big positive EV even against a full field, I thought that it suffered from a degradation of EV if more than X hands were in against it.
Given the consensus: What should be the optimal pre-flop strategy? It sounds like, IF your reading of your opponents says that a pre-flop raise from your position and current situation will drastically limit the field, then maybe you should "slow-play" your aces. Example: UTG raises and you are next. And on the other hand, when most players are already in, you should always put in a value raise.
Can we possibly quantize this by saying, just try to maximize the pot size? Just a shot from the hip; comments welcome.
Dick
>It sounds like, IF your reading of your opponents says that a pre-flop raise from your position and current situation will drastically limit the field, then maybe you should "slow-play" your aces.
Only with an intention of reraising if somebody raises behind you.
Aces want more money in the pot, not more opponents. Each one is an additional problem to deal with, but you need his money. You want to raise, THEN you want callers (to get money in). Two callers for two bets are much better than four callers for one bet. Three callers for two bets is better yet. One caller for five bets would be a dream come true.
Limp reraise with aces is the best play of them all, if pulled off successfully, as you trap the field for three bets, those who bail out are leaving dead money in the pot which is very goot. If everybody calls, you are happy also. Variance goes up and you might dislike it.
With the best hand preflop, you are raising *for value*, NOT to thin the field (which is also ok, as it reduces variance). This goes for any hand, not just aces, if that hand is best preflop.
(I define the best hand preflop as the hand with highest win average with no betting after the flop).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I don't have time to read all of the posts but it seems that those I read missed the point. That point can be explained better by using this contrived example. You call with aces in first position. Everyone else calls to the button. The small blind puts his money in out of turn and the big blind checks out of turn. Before looking at his hand the button says he will either call or fold, it is up to you. Assuming everyone is all in at this point what would you have him do. In other words does the increased money make up for the the decreased chances even assuming his hand is random. My guess is that the answeer is no if there is an ace out.
I ran some sims using this contrived example. Everybody calls preflop for $10, there's no betting postflop.
In a 100000 run sim, with another ace out (possibly two), win rate for pocket ace drops from 32.2% against 8 opponents to 28.1% against nine opponents. This translates into aces winning $28.10 ($100 * 0.281) per hand against nine opponents, but $28.98 ($90 * 0.322) per hand against only eight. David is right, when at least one ace is out, it's a little better to have 8 than 9 opponents (if there's no betting postflop).
However, in the same situation with at least one ace out, it's better to have 6 opponents (win rate 42.6%, $29.82/h) than 5 (win rate 49.4%, $29.64/h).
If another ace is NOT necessarily out (but it might be, or both), aces win 34.9% of the time agains eight, and 31.3% against nine opps. This translates to aces winning $31.3 against nine people and $31.4 against eight. There is no significant difference if the tenth player calls or folds (again, if there's no betting postflop).
As these were no-fold 'em sims and the opponents held random cards, be careful in interpreting the results. It should be clear though that aces do not really mind a large field. It's essential to raise, though, as if the callers must pay multiple bets to see the flop, postflop betting will not compensate for their preflop mistake when trash hands hit it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I said in an earlier message that simulations with all players seeing the river shows the EV for aces peaks at around 9 callers. So with one Ace out, I would expect that EV peak to come somewhat earlier, as your results indicate.
I think all this contrived example proves is that there is a point at which you would rather not have any more callers, but that point is high enough that you just don't need to worry about it. If you call-reraise with aces instead of raising UTG, you're more likely to get something like 7 callers in a loose game rather than 3 or 4 if you had raised. And even if all ten players do call, the EV difference is pretty slight.
There are two far more important issues when deciding whether or not to raise with Aces. In a tight game, the probability of winning only the blinds with a raise, which costs something like half of your EV, and a much more important factor in loose games when deciding to call-reraise with aces is the possibility that no one will raise behind you. Missing a raise with aces can be a mini-disaster. If five people would have called a raise, but 7 go into an unraised pot, you've just lost a ton of EV. So small differences in probability of a raise behind you make much more difference than the EV loss on the small chance that you get ten callers instead of the optimal 8-9.
I know I'm going to reamed for this one but, what difference does it make how many callers you want when you raise under the gun? Does wanting 8, get you 8? Does preferring a limp reraise get you a limp reraise? Raise the Aces or limp in forget about it. It's out of your control!
Nothing is completely out of your control. You can somewhat control how many people call by limp-reraising, which would be a big no-no if you really wanted to thin the field. You can also control how many people call you by manipulating your table image. If I wanted to always thin the field with AA and KK, I would never bother to raise UTG with hands like TJs or 99, since the only reason you really do that is to improve the action you get on your premium hands.
I was reading the post 3-6 taj hand and was thinking about it. *Defense against trips*
Is there a good one?
We all know when we make trips that we hope to rake a pile of chips, but someone must be giving up that cash to us and we to them.
Any thoughts on defense against trips...?
Best of it !!
MJ
I tend to raise on the flop if no other real draws are possible and keep my eye on any disinterested callers that casually cold call two bets. These guys often hold the key card.
Because the entire world seems to think slow playing trips is correct I will usually bet out with them. Many players can not figure you to play in such an obvious manner.
With a set I will bet for the same reasons - no one puts you on them. I will continue to bet and reraise them until I know I am beat.
"cold call two bets."
I thinks this is also the key (as I paid to find out)
flop: 3h-8d-Qs
I had KK UTG and raised, to my left re-raised (AK as it turned out) the guy next to him cold called the 3-bet.
looking back this is the only hand he could have had. He floped trips..
I will watch for this next time. I got burned twice by trips that night and just can't seem to figure out why but now I see what to look for.
Any other ideas?
Thanks
MJ
MJChicago,
It doesn't have to be as obvious as calling a bet and raise with a rainbow unconnected board. Let's say several players take the flop for one bet. The flop comes a Q 7 3 rainbow. An early limper bets and a reasonable player calls with a few more yet to act. Ask yourself, what hand would he call with?. There are no draws and he would raise with a decent queen (or even A7 sometimes), If he pops it on fourth street whan a blank hits you can be pretty sure he has a set of sevens or maybe threes.
Regards,
Rick
it's just tough if you don't get the raise on 4th street (slow play)then what? It's a tough read when your opponent has trips. At some point ya you think what the heck can this player have by then it's sometimes to late. I was just trying to find out if there is a way to tell sooner that later.
Thanks
MJ
in small blind holding 99
theres an early raise from very good tight aggressive player.
folds around to me, I re-raise.
Is this a good raise? I tend to think it is.
flop: Q,rag,rag- no flush
I check, player bets, I raise, player calls.
River: insignificant
I check, player bets, I fold
Clearly I put myself in a bad situation with this hand. What should I have done differently?
Is this a put on or what? If I palyed this way I'd quit playing poker and get some professional help.
The hand was seriously misplayed. If you can't see that you ought to try craps or roulette it might be less expensive - BTW what was the turn card?
Thanks for the response Rounder.
by the way, if I ever see a guy that calls himself Rounder in a card room I will be sure to kick the shit out of him.
Sorry pal I thought your post was a put on. I should not jump to conclusions.
On the other thing - If you want a piece of me you better bring some friends.
A good player who raises in early position will have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT or AK,AQ, maybe AJ suited or KQ suited. There are 30 ways he can have a bigger pocket pair than you which means you are a big underdog. There are about 40 ways he can have one of the other holdings which make you a marginal favorite. So almost half the time you are a huge dog and the other half you are a small favorite making you an overall money loser in this situation. Couple this with the fact that you are out of position for the rest of the hand makes your re-raise a very bad play. I believe just calling because you are partially in is the most appropriate action at this point.
On the flop your check-raise is a bad idea. It would be much better for you to lead with your pocket pair and hope he has big slick or AJ suited otherwise you are beat. You learn a lot more about your opponent's holding when you get raised than when you are in a check-call mode or even a check-raise mode. If raised you should fold. If called you take off a card. I have been in situations where the pre-flop raiser actually folds but this will not happen very often.
The player calling your check-raise on the flop in most cases means he is worried about you having Queens.
On the river, I believe your fold was correct.
You should just call the pre-flop raise and then bet the flop and see what happens. If you encounter any heat, fold immediately in most cases.
Jim:
I agree with you completely, but let me ask you this -- in my experience, you will frequently get raised in this situation even when the raiser misses (i.e. he will semi-bluff w/ two overcards and/or back door draws, etc.). Should you always fold to the raise? Some players will even raise you on the flop and then check behind you on the turn. Plus you may catch a miracle card on the turn. These two possibilities warrant an occasional call in my book, depending on the player and his propensity to raise early with some of the lesser hands like AJs.
Retort?
SW
I think you are right. You really to know your opponent in these cases.
You(Jim) have an interesting post with the number of ways of AA, AK, etc. As for original poster, don't worry I'm not going to give you any more heat. except. with this opponent, you know he is playing big cards. So, why not wait to see what the flop brings. With this flop, it would be ok to bet out, to see where you stand. If he just calls, you are probably in the lead, if he raises he may have Q's or a bigger holding. Pre-flop you could raise with 99 when you have many opponents, hoping to hit a set, but you would have to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do you? (hehheh.)
Jim,
After posting my own response I was pleased to see that you and I are pretty much on the same page. I have one question: Didn't you miss the TURN card or have I just woke up in a parallel universe where holdem is now a three round game?
Regards :-),
Rick
Actually Rick the original poster, Ivan Putski, missed the turn. His post went from check-raising on the flop to a blank on the river while never mentioning the turn. I guess I sort of over looked the turn as well.
Jim,
If you look at my post I ended up deciding what he meant was that he gave it up on the turn but wrote river. And I really did reorganize my sock drawer that night.
Regards,
Rick
I must agree that you put yourself in a bad situation with this hand.
I don't think I would call a raise with 99 in the small blind from a tight aggressive player in early position in a potential heads up situation as you described. This is the same old story. At best you are a slight favorite. At worst you are a massive underdog and you have the worst position.
If I had called, I wouldn't have played the hand like you did. I would bet the flop. Whether your opponent has a hand or not, you are going to get raised (remember you have bad position). On the turn I would bet and see what happens. If you get raised again, it's decision time. Is a tight player going to bluff raise you? If you get called, you are also had because he obviously will have a better hand than yours.
If you do get called on the turn, you can either bet or check and call but I believe the outcome will not change.
ps... I am a bit negative this week because I've had my ass kicked for the last two weeks so consider the source.
Happy New Year anyway
if this player tends to be weak tight then the re-raise makes some sense. but you should probably come out betting on the flop instaed of check raising imo. again, alot depends on the type of player your opponent is in situations like this. in general though, you want to have posistion if you are going to re-raise with medium pairs.The thing to remember is that this type of raise is a "fast" play, so you really need to be aware of who it's against more than any other factor. seeya
Where do you play? I'd like to play there some times....
Ivan,
I'll answer this one without peeking at the other responses yet.
"in small blind holding 99 theres an early raise from very good tight aggressive player. folds around to me, I re-raise. Is this a good raise? I tend to think it is."
It depends. What does your opponent think of you? Just how good is he? Will he cap (I'll assume a three raise cap) with big cards since he has position as well as capping with big pairs? Does he lay down overcards against pressure?
Anyway, keep this in mind. You are either a small favorite (against overcards played well) or a huge dog (against overpairs). These are the only cards your opponent is likely to have.
"flop: Q,rag,rag- no flush I check, player bets, I raise, player calls."
If you three bet the flop and he didn't cap you might as well come out betting. This puts a lot of pressure on AK and may fold the underpair bigger then nines (JJ or TT) with one more bet on the turn.
"River: insignificant I check, player bets, I fold"
What happened to the turn?! I'm answering this post and there is no turn card! OK, since I am already pregnant I'll assume you meant turn. Since you check raised the flop and were not reraised you must lead out again on the TURN. Now I sound like Vince Lepore.
"Clearly I put myself in a bad situation with this hand. What should I have done differently?"
First, proofread your posts and don't forget to include the TURN. Also, nothing is really a "rag" or "insignificant". Put a card in there. Make it up if you have to. Look at the way Jim Brier and skp (where are you skp?) write their lead posts. Clear, concise, complete.
Regards,
Rick
Note To Myself: Listen to Louie/Lucy Landale and never answer a post that contains the word "rag". Take an extra valium tonight. Take a jacuzzi and get off this stupid computer. Clean up the house a bit. Organize my sock drawer.
Good essay by Mr. Reber on this site where he talks about "soft steaming" -- that is, tossing in a loose call out of boredom. I know it's a leak for me at times -- inevitably you flop a draw or top-pair-weak-kicker and lose a bunch.
Related question though: in loose games, which I play in a lot, I think you are supposed to play a few hands like KXs, especially with position. Sklansky said one of the reasons you can play it is b/c you are strong enough to dump it if a king flops and you get heat. My problem is that some of these games are SO loose that someone will bet into you with middle pair or even a gutshot at times, so it's hard to release that king. How bad is it to pursue the hand for one bet after say a bet and one caller, if you have the button? It may just be better to always dump unless the bettor is a maniac and can be isolated -- you can't be giving up much in EV if you let these hands go if you flop a king only....
Comments welcome.
Scott,
Regarding "soft" steaming, don't forget to read John Feeney's articles in this and the next issue of Poker Digest. They are gems.
Kx suited (I hope you are reading my "student", since I'm still "steaming" about this one :-) ) can generally be played under the following circumstances:
1) When in very late position and attacking the blinds with a raise. You don't want tricky or aggressive blinds here.
2) In late position against a few passive predictable opponents for one bet. This is when you really aren't getting odds on your flush but should make money if you flop a king and you know what to do per HPFAP.
3) In late position against many opponents for one bet. Here you probably won't make money when flopping a king (without let's say the back door flush draw) but will make money on your flush draws.
You wrote: "My problem is that some of these games are SO loose that someone will bet into you with middle pair or even a gutshot at times, so it's hard to release that king."
This is a loose and aggressive game. Don't play the king small suited unless you are getting enough opponents to make money making flushes.
Regards,
Rick
Hey Rick,
When is your "student" going to win the WSOP so we all can stop hearing about the fact that u have a "student" . We are all students of the game so stop flaunting the fact that you have a "student" we get it.
TableGuy
Table Guy,
Look, she is a lurker and it just so happened she played this hand way out of position so I wanted her to wake up to this fact. I will avoid this in the future but you should also realize we post for fun here too and many of us are getting to know one another as people. Generally I'm not known for flaunting anything (you should see my wardrobe or lack thereof).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
You're a real class act but I still think you should have let this guy know where to get off ( a la Badger). Whatever you do, don't change anything about the way you post. One day I'll get to Cali and I'm dying to meet your student. Keep us posted with her progress.
Best to you,
SammyB
Post deleted at author's request.
Rick,
I had a few moments and was lurking. This tableguy fellow seems to be another one of those non contributors that have a lot of pent up hatred inside. They look for nits to pick. Please, Please, Please do not listen to someone that wishes only to criticize. You and YOUR STUDENT and tales regarding your experiences are very valuable indeed. I wasn't going to post until after the COP but felt like adding my support to someone that has helped me with my poker playing.
Vince.
BTW - Say hello to YOUR STUDENT!
Table Guy -- Maybe you've just skimmed a few of Rick's posts where he mentions his student. I would think that if you were more familiar with them you'd know that he is not flaunting having a student or holding it out as some sort of sign of being a keewl poker dude. In fact he has usually come across to me as very humble, actually down playing his knowledge and ability. Ease up, take it in the spirit intended, then when his student does win the WSOP you'll be there cheering her on!
Table guy lurker,
How come you don't want Rick's student to be mentioned in this forum? She has done nothing to irritate you as I can recall. Who knows, maybe by Rick admonishing her on her mistakes while she's reading his posts might just put all the stuff straight into her head and accelerate her learning process. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't think he's a guy that shows off what he's got as your post implied. I've read all his brilliant posts and my thoughts are either he's a walking encyclopedia or he's got an IQ that borders on the genius line. Can you say the same about yourself?
Now, since you have no worthwhile contribution to offer to this forum except to incite in a negative way, why don't you either shut up or go back to your lurking mood, okay?
Rick, when your student wins the WSOP, can I be your student too?
If the action is loose and aggressive you do not want to be playing this hand. In a loose aggressive game, I ask myself what is this hand worth if it was not suited? Not much. Especially, if its K3 or K2. The problem with playing this hand is when you pair the K what's your kicker worth?
What you're really playing Kx suited for is its flush possibilities. You want a passive game where alot of people enter the pot and your oponents are docile. Because, you don't want players with smaller flushes like 67 suited to fold.
10-20 game, tight table. im on a run of bad cards (really!) and have folded somewhere around 30 or 40 consecutive hands (really!). tricky1 (strong player whos been raising for the past hour and buying pots on flop and turn) brings in for 20 one to left of utg. folded to me, see QQ, 3 bet, on my left tricky2(a loose readable player on a hot streak) caps it. all else fold and we 3 take flop. rag rag rag. rainbow nothing. t1 bets, i call(?) and t2 calls. tricky1 doesnt like it that im still in. turn rag. t1 checks, i check(?), t2 checks. river an ace. t1 bets out, i dont think he has it, but of course i have to call(?) anyway, right?, and t2 calls. i win showdown t1(pckt 7) t2(top pair T, hit on turn).
my thinking afterward is
1. a loose player gets callers, a tight player catches bluffs.
2. if i showed aggression and raised it, i might start a cascading tricky effect that could hurt me.( i raise flop, t2 reraises to drive out t1, and t1 rereraises to drive me out. now if t1 bets turn and river, how do i call?(even the turn?). )
brad
raise on the flop, bet out on the turn, and bet on the river. bet your hand until some tells you they have a beter hand, then call
Me thinks you missed a couple of bets. Ace on river bad though making AK good against ladies, proceed with caution. Bad runs make for bad play in me humble opinion, makes one overly cautious with good hands.
have you ever been sandwiched between 2 trickies with big, big stacks?
brad,
If you weren't running bad the position you indicated, *between two trickies with big stacks* is a wonderful place to be with QQ and all undercards on the flop. Raise until you are reraised then check and call all the way.
I agree with mark. You should raise the flop and bet the turn because you have to best hand and are playing with loose callers. You should try to get the most bets in that you can. Additionally, raising on the flop prevents t2 from correctly calling with hands that may beat you (AT or something like that). Betting on the turn does the same sort of thing. You don't want to give any free cards, especially with a vulnerable holding like QQ.
You shouldn't worry about being raised and reraised on the flop since you figure that you have the best hand (if you don't figure that, why are you playing QQ?). I would continue to think that (with these players) until an overcard came, at which point I would be merely calling.
It was capped before the flop and then everyone is checking. These seem like weak players to me and you seem to be overly cautious. You have a good hand , and when given the chance, you should put money in the pot. There is always "scary things" on the board, or players that are tricky, but when someone shows weakness....... they are usually weak. don't spend your time worrying about being check raised or whatever. it's going to happen and you can't do anything about it, but bet your good hands when you can and make them draw out on you if they are going to stay. I could go on here....goodluck, seeya.
Play your hand, if they are making a bunch of moves you have remember that and keep your eye on you hand and it's expectation as a winner. Dont be bullied around, and dont let fear of their bullying keep you from maximizing the return on your monsters.
You flopped a good hand and did nothing to protect it. This may induce a bluff sometimes, but will cost you a lot of money in the long run. The check on fourth street was very bad. It is one thing to play tight before the flop, and quite another to never spend a nickel to protect your hand after you get a good flop.
These guys aren't to tricky - you muck 40 hands and are calling their bets they have to put you on a monster. BUT if you were aggressive I think they may fold here. SO you probaly maxed out this pot by pure luck. You can't be giving anyone freecards when you have an over pair. You bet the turn I think these tricky guys fold like a cheap suit - A is scarry so your call here is OK but you missed the flop and turn and had a chance to lose the hand.
tricky1 went 11 (!!) raises on river without the nuts a few hands before this. (and he checked the turn.) (am i out of my league?)(sigh !?). they both had big stacks.
f
d
d
Where I play there are a couple of maniac players that seem to have an unlimited bankroll (they must have). One night in particular there were a couple of them sitting right next to each other and drinking. It was capped pre-flop about 50% or more of the time and there was an average of 4-5 players per pot (the other players seemed to be going along and playing their regular stuff plus steaming a little I'm sure). What is the correct playing strategy? What do you think my hourly rate would reasonably be in this game with proper play? (the maniacs also played and raised about 10% of their hands blind).
I'm also interested in how to play against maniacs post flop. Should I be raising and reraising with marginal hands (top pair weak kicker)? Should I call down almost any decent hand?
Thanks for any help.
Robin,
First you must realize the impact the maniacs have on your regular opponents. If they are normally a little too loose they will tighten up pre flop and become tougher since they realize it will cost them to see the flop. On the other hand, some will be on tilt and may join the maniacs.
Any hand you play is going to take a lot of heat. So stick to the better pairs and big cards. Drawing hands will cost you (do you want to pay four bets against three opponents with 87 suited?). If you can get head up with a single maniac then a hand like Ax suited will make money.
If you play well your hourly rate should be higher but not as high as you think. Your swings will be much greater. So for some players this may be a game to avoid.
Anyway, there is a long thread from a few months ago called "Playing against multiple maniacs" or something like that. You should be able to find it in the archives.
Regards,
Rick
I suggest you purchase some poker books, this kind of thing is covered there.
D.
Really? I own almost every 2+2 poker book but haven't seen anything my specific questions, namely proper pre-flop play. Perhaps you can give me specific titles of other books that cover this scenario.
Post deleted at author's request.
Have you read the chapter on playing against a maniac, and the one on wild games in the new edition of HPFAP? They should set you on a good course. Rick Nebiolo hit some key points in his post above.
Classic anti-maniac strategy if at a table where others will not readily call 3 bets cold is: sit on the maniac's immediate left and reraise him to isolate him with good hands that can be taken to the river on their own merits.
Yeah sorry I thought maybe you didnt have any. HFAP has it covered.
D.
Guys like this need a good thumping once and a while. They usually straighten up after you hit them for a few hands. It is impossible to assess your EV in this game but with 2 mainacs in the same game and the rest average players I am beginning to drool like my 110 lb German Shepard drools in expecation if a big T-Bone steak bone.
I'd tighten up a bit but play all pairs - looking for the set on the flop. If you don't hit your flop muck as it will cost you a bundle to see out the river.
Guys like this don't respect raises or position so you have to play smarter than they do - is there a chance they are "playing together" - if you play steady poker and don't tilt when they Bad Beat you (which they will) you should beat the pants off these guys ni the long run.
Two maniacs sitting next to eachother can be a very profitable situation--especially when you can snag a seat on their left. With this position, you can play more hands after the two maniacs have limped into the pot. Keep in mind that pairs go up in value and small connectors go down in value when loose-aggressive players are in the pot. When one (or both) raise (or have not yet acted), you must play very tight--especially when you are not likely to be able to isolate them by reraising.
After the flop, you can protect your moderately strong hands by raising the maniac's loose bets to thin the field. When you are isolated with the maniac(s), you can let them bet your hand for you: just call with your marginal hands; raise on the turn and/or river with your strong hands.
Where is this 10/20 game?
Hey Robin,
Is this in San Jose? Last time I was there 2 guys played in the 6-12 game (down from 20-40 or somesuch), raised most every hand pre-flop, about 30% while not even looking at the cards. They were drinking a lot, and they lost about $1 grand each while I sat there.
1. I sat to their left. If they had been on my right, I think I would have taken a dinner break. Even though I knew what to expect.
2. I tightened way up. Only played two cards of a, k, q, j, and pairs down to 9.
Maniacs are good for the game, I think, but you must be way careful.
Mark
This game is in Seattle. From reading the responses perhaps it wasn't clear enough exactly how this game was being played. I've read some material on playing against maniacs but this was beyond anything I would have imagined. Literally 1/2 the pots were capped before the flop. There were the two maniacs drinking next to each other but other usually normal players were raising and reraising on hands like AJ off and worse. I mean at least 50% of the players were playing worse than their normal game. At least one normally good player went on tilt and played every hand preflop, even if capped and he had 23 off. Post flop, most people tended to drop fairly easily (no surprise since they held crap) except maybe the two maniacs who would raise and reraise with anything from a flush or straight draw to middle pair of better.
The reason I posted this was because of the extreme nature of the game. Position hardly seemed to matter preflop. I would think that the correct preflop play would be to tighten up significantly. I mean you could wait an hour or more to play a hand because there was so much money in the pot before the flop in relation to the blinds. Perhaps group 1 hands plus medium pairs with many players in?
Post deleted at author's request.
I've been playing HE now for about 175 hours over 6 months and am a losing player, about -$3000 in ring games. I lost about $1200 in 4-8 and 6-12 when I just started out but had read HEAP. I've lost about $1500 playing 10-20 for 85 hrs. more recently and about $300 somewhere in between in 6-12 and 8-16. The thing is, all the games I've played in seemed beatable. I mean the players just sucked. You know how you look around the table and see some players that must be losing $50 an hour? That's the way it is almost every time I play 10-20 but I can't seem to win. I'm not talking about a long run of bad cards, just losing. I don't see any obvious errors in my play, but how can I know if I've never been a consistent winner?
Basically I'm looking for some responses on how I can better assess my play.
Nobody is a winner after a couple hundred hours. One reading of HFAP is only a scratch on the surface. STUDY it, along with other top poker books (the best list for good poker books is in the back of Gambling Theory and Other Topics). Then you will need all the experience you can get. Poker is so hard that it takes years to get good at. Dont be discourage by a rocky start. Study,thinking and experience are the keys to sucess.
Here is what you do. Remember exactly, the hands you've recently played where you might have some questions. Post them here and if we tear you a new ###hole then you suck (if you do truely suck). Don't fear though, because that is the fastest way to get better. It also helps us with our games as well. I've been playing 2 years now and I'm still improving on my fundamentals.
Later, CV
When I am losing I go back to basics. Like when I can't play golf as well as I know I can - Check stance, grip, back swing etc. Poker is the same - start with your hand selection - biggest problem suckie players have is playing to many hands and playing marginal hands from marginal positions.
If you are losing that much money consistantly YOU SUCK! But never fear your game can be salvaged. Get selective about what you are playing and where - are you calling raises in mid position with J9 are you raising loose players from early position with a couple of suited rags ect. Are you finding yourself calling on the turn looking for a miracle card on the river. If you are doing any of the above then you need to clean up your act.
Hope this helps.
From a low limit players perspective I feel if you have doubts about your game you shouldn't be playing 10-20.
A lot of people on this forum miss this point but the name of the book is hold em poker for ADVANCED players. Those are players that are already winning consistently but are trying to get a bit more of an edge and eke out another BB an hour if they can. It's a very difficult book if you are not completely versed in the fundamentals, because it is written from a perspective of adding to a strong game not creating one. Play 3-6 for 150 hours and post your results and some of the hands you played. You'll find out pretty quickly and cheaply where the holes are.
Good Luck
The most common error, and I suspect the one you are guilty of, is playing too many hands. If you are very tight and play only 10% of the hands or less, and spend the non-playing hands watching the play of others, you should do much better.
You must be patient and observant. When you get beat in a hand, do you think you just played poorly or did you telegraph your hand?
Play in a game with a friend who is a better player than you and take a break after an hour or so and discuss some of the hands you played.
A beginner trying to assimilate Sklansky's newest Holdem book for th 21st century is difficult. Start with a beginner books first, like his basic holodem book or Nelson's beginner book. Try a lower limit where you will not be intimidated. I play a lot and win alot, but I can be intimidated in the 10-20 games.
After playing to many hands, the second biggest leak is calling to much, mostly on the flop, but also all the way to the river.
I wonder if the number of showdowns on the river you win would be a good indicator of whether you are taking your hands to far.
In other words, when a hand reaches a river showdown, what percentage of hands do the good players out there win.
I have no idea what a reasonable percentage would be. Can the better players out there help?
I'm excited about the concept, but need more information before deciding if it is useful.
Jim, Rounder, Rick, Louie, SKP, John, David, Mason, Abdul, Dan, Andrew, and another dozen good names I missed: is this a useful concept, and what would the percentage be?
PRC
A- Take a look at what cards you start with. Make sure they're appropriate cards in relation to your position, as well as the type of game (loose/tight)
B- Position is a huge factor in hold 'em. Play only strong cards in early position. You can loosen up a little when you are off the button
C- Analyze the board and determine what possible hands people could be playing with or for
D- Analyze the play of your opponents and put them on a hand. Do this throughout the hand and game
E- Make sure your getting odds from the pot. Don't play K5s in hopes to make a flush if you don't think it will pay off
F- Try to seat the loose aggressive players to your right and the tight timid players to your left
G- Be PATIENT and do not go on tilt. When you feal your game getting away from you and you can't think straight then take a 20 minute break or leave outright
Remember there are players out here who have been playing poker for 3 years and 30 years. The player who has been playing for 30 years may suck and the player who has been playing for 3 years may be good. Poker is an artform that requires hours of studying, dedication, and commitment to be good at
Good Luck to you..
Didn't get a chance to read the other responses.
I'd be willing to bet (so to speak) that you have no idea what the other players have; these bad but experienced players know what YOU have; you do more paraniod calling then betting, and you often call the turn and fold you shit pair on the river.
Play less hands preflop. When watching the opponents, try to imagine what hand YOU would have if you checked/bet/called like they are. From their, you should be able to put them on actual hands based on how they play.
Play at home with Texas Turbo whatever until you are confident you can beat their good lineup.
- Louie
One thing that took me some time to realize was that noticing that my opponents played terribly was not evidence that I played well. I'd see someone take down a pot with 94s or raise with queen rag and think, what an idiot, and then go play ATo and KQo under the gun and call raises with JTo because "I had position" and remain flabbergasted that I was struggling to break even. The fact of the matter was that we all sucked, just differently, and while my opponents might have been losing a bit more them me we were all either getting creamed by the truly good players or just trading our money back and forth.
Here's my top ten list for how you can tell if you suck:
1. After playing few hand over a couple of hours, you fear your opponents won't give you any action unless you do something very soon.
2. After losing, the only hands you can remember losing with were high pocket pairs and sets.
3. You have the stamina to play poker for 13 hours straight, no problem.
4. You sometimes feel more miserable at the table when losing than you do anywhere else.
5. You know not to play a small pair under the gun but figure it's safe to limp with pocket fives after the first three players muck.
6. When the flop comes after you've folded, you first check to see what you would have made.
7. You find it frustrating that you sometimes lose hands that you were supposed to win.
8. After not getting a playable hand for quite some time, you breathe a sigh of relief when you look down and see Kh6h.
9. When you think about poker away from the table, you think about you'd play a straight flush against someone's quad kings.
10. You play ATo and KQo under the gun.
Chris,
Awesome list!!!
Mark
do i suck if i sometimes play KQo UTG, but never ATo?
In addition to this great list, here are what I think the biggest "drainers of cash" were back when I was a losing player. The first two "drainers" are related (for example, playing a lot of ragged suited cards often gives you longshot flush draws.)
1. Simply playing too many hands. Try not to call a lot of raises out of position. If you fold away hands for an hour or two, don't worry about it. Wait for your chance to play solid cards. This was by far the biggest drainer of money on my game. Avoid hands like Q-5s, J-6s, that may look good (hey you can go high, low and get a flush!)but are long term losers. Remember, you need a better hand than usual to call a raise as well, unless the raise is on a steal.
2. Going to the river on longshot draws. Figure out the odds of making different hands, and then try to figure out if you are getting correct odds for chasing your hands. There is a DRASTIC difference in taking a card off on the flop because of the small bet and taking one off on the turn with its double bet. You will very often be receiving correct odds on a non-raised flop for your draw on the flop, but should often abandon on the turn when your pot odds disappear (as an aside, also don't make the mistake of chasing to the river and always folding without bluffing. Many times your opponent is also on a draw and may have a hopeless hand as well. If they see you are going to the river and then folding when you miss consistently they will just bet out heads up on the river regardless.)
3. Getting married to hands like big pairs all the way until the river all the time. If you are calling several raises on a coordinated board with a single pair, it may be time to fold it. When to do this comes with experience.
4. Staying in a game that started out great but ended up bad. Often in public cardrooms ou will find yourself playing at a table that looks drastically tougher than it was when you first sat down. When you see this, pick up your chips and either find an easier game or leave. In a public cardroom you are undern no obligation to stay in a game that has become tough.
Hope this helps.
You say:
"Basically I'm looking for some responses on how I can better assess my play."
Here is how:
1. Buy texas turbo holdem. Make a strong lineup. Play against it. Slowly. With you 2+2 book(s) open in front of you! Beat it. Until you can beat a strong texas turbo, you are giving your money away.
2. Download gpkr and play irc poker. Play as if it were real money. Until you can win consistently there, against other humans, some of whom are good (some are terrible, just like in the casinos), do not play in the casino. You are giving your money away.
If you cannot beat both texas turbo and gpkr consistently, you should not play in a real 10-20 game. Period. If you can beat em both, you should hold your own against some real 10-20 games, but not all of them all the time.
Mark
Robin, can you give us an example of a hand, perhaps one which you've lost, so we can take a look at it, and then beat up on you?(just kidding.) (You would not be losing any money this way.) Perhaps then, we could find out if the cards are just running against you, or if you might be able to use a suggestion or two. Similiar situations come up all the time in Hold-Em, as regards hands and positon. Poker is supposed to be enjoyable, not a drag all the time.
I saw this 10-20 hand (typical action game).
Joe limps (hoping to reraise) OTG with AA, 4 callers. Flop is T42 offsuit. Player A opens and all except one "retiree" type caller in middle position fold. Joe bets retiree calls. Turn is a 2. Retiree bets, A folds.
Is this a totally ridiculous fold? Not a whole lot is known about the retiree except for the stereotype.
BillC,
I assume player A is Jim. Why didn't he bet the turn when the board paired small? But he checked and a rock bet. How often do rocks hold a duece? Note that even rocks will bet when someone shows weakness on the turn in an unraised pot.
Bottom line. There is no player on the planet I wouldn't at least call down in this situation.
Regards,
Rick
Bill tell Joe - You can't judge a book by it's cover.
He had to call here - the old guy was he in the bb. Even so it was a mistake to fold the AA.
I see no reason for AA to check the river except to go for the check-raise. Checking-and-folding is reasonable if you have SEEN the rock's better hand.
What was the turn card?
- Louie
Had a rancid session last night at 20-40. Tone was set by the first hand. I come in and post one off the button. Two loose callers to me, I raise w/ AQo, fold to the small blind who 3 bets. Big blind, both callers and I call. Although it was $40 more each, I cannot credit the BB or either caller with much necessarily. They are all loose, even very loose players. The reraiser I don't know well but I have seen her enough to know she is not a maniac.
Flop is Q-4-6 rainbow. Not too shabby. SB leads out, BB folds, call, call, I raise, call, call, I call. Turn is a 10 (fourth suit). SB leads out. Hmmm. One call, one fold to me, I call.
River is a 3. SB bets, loose guy calls, I call. SB shows 10-10. Caller mucks -- he had (get this) 2s3s.
Comments on my play? Would you/could you lay down on the turn? Her stop-and-go move tells me she can beat my hand, but I have seen some strange things in ths game, and I did not know her very well, as I said. I was of course well-prepared to see AA or KK, but not 10-10. Tough first hand.
SW
I would have had her at either: paired 10-10 to A-A, AKs/u, AQs, AJs, or KQs pre-flop since raised she raised it to three (considering she was a good player).
The fact that she merely called your post-flop raise, would have me eliminate AA, KK, and AQ as possible hands. That would leave her with either QQ, KQs, JJ, or 1010.
When the 10 dropped on the turn, I may have raised her. When she re-raised I would have put her on 1010 or QQ(slowplay but unlikely since I have a queen), and would have folded. However, by merely calling on the turn you gave yourself another card and were able to see her cards for the same cost as if you raised her.
I probably would have played the hand the same way though, since I was not familiar with her play.
I don't think you play the hand badly. In all reality, you probably couldn't have gotten away from the hand or saved any $$ on it, you were stuck to the end. If you think about it, you had the best of it on the flop, and she just got very lucky. Also, she probably should have check-raised the turn since you would have probably bet had it been checked to you (to avoid giving any free cards). Only if she had played this way could I conceivably see you getting out of the hand for one fewer bets, assuming you would in fact fold for the turn raise. At any rate, I think you played it fine and just got unlucky.
I hate it when a session starts of badly, but what can we do. Sometimes you lose the first hand or two and it takes forever before you even catch up to where you started. The mark of a good player is one who can get past this sort of thing and still play his best game despite losing the first few hands. During my last session I lost the first 3 hands that I went to the river, two of them to three outers and one to a five outer. But what could I do, the fact is I would have wanted them to call had I seen their hands, since I had way the best of it. Sometimes the fish just get lucky.
Next time you should try to get luckier! (haha)
Dave in Cali
You played correctly. Folding is not to be considered.
The small blind is a poor poker player. Pre-flop, 3 betting with pocket Tens against a legitimate raiser who raised after others limped-in is bad, especially when you consider the poor position. The flop bet was terrible poker when you have 4 opponents, one of whom raised and then a Queen flops.
I was playing in a loose home game (which, thanks to you guys I finally was able to beat with some authority) and I was purposly not betting on the river even though I was pretty sure I had a winner in a lot of cases. I would do this so I could be the one who called, and got to see what hands they were playing with. I think this helped me better read everyone which allowed me to win more pots (even though I missed a few bets by not betting or not check-raising).... I was consitently able to read their hands towards the end of the night (which is when I really was able to make my move) b/c I was able to see how they played each hand. If I were to bet, and they called, I would never know how they played a drawing hand, or how they played a small pair. What do you guys think about this practice, and is it worth missing a BB here and there in order to be able to win the next pot? I certaintly think it helped last night.
Thanks for y'alls help in improving my game.
SB
This could easily be a valid play in a home game with regular opponents. It's value in a public cardroom would be much less, perhaps negative.
When playing in home games you may not wish to extract the absolute maximum out of every single hand, mainly because you want to be invited back again. With this in mind, your tactic of not always betting or check-raising the river may have some usefulness, especially since you will often get to see their hands. In home games this may have the further benefit of inducing some bluffs when you have the winning hand, plus keeping up your popularity at the same time.
I wasn't quite sure about the title of your post at first, but it's a bit more clear now what you meant. Why would anyone purposely lose bets?
One more thing - y'all? Was this game in Texas or something?!?
Good luck in the future
Dave in Cali
Actually, I'm in Dallas, so yes... good call!
It might also help to know that this is a VERY LOOSE home game in which if anybody has the slightest chance of having anything, they stay in til the end... which "calling" seemed to help b/c I got to see almost everybody's hands.
Thanks "y'all"
SB
No SB I don't like missing bets like this at all. Instead, watch what these guys show down when you are not in the hand. Over time you will get a good read on their line of play. Some players have the habit of insisting on seeing their opponents cards at showdown even when they win. They are entitled to do this but it is annoying and can frequently embarass or humiliate someone which should be avoided.
Jim ,
Why can a player request to kill a winners hand in a casino. I never quiet understood this. I win a pot cause my 1 opponent did not call. Why is he allowed to ask to kil my hand then show my cards?
Thanks
MJ
If no one calls your bet on the end, no one is allowed to see your cards, period. I have never heard of winning a pot and having to show your hand when your final bet was not called.
The game is 4-8 (blinds1/2).I have Ac10c earlys position,I limp in.8 of us see the flop,no raises.Flop Jc,5d,7d,all check.Turn 2c,I bet 1 caller.River blank winner shows me As5.This was an uncharacteristic bet for me.When the table checked around interpreted as weak,I figured I'd knock most out and since I was on flush draw would build pot.(Semibluff?). Second question,with AJ suited 2 off button,4 in ahead of you,blinds that defend,would you always raise pre-flop,if not what % of time.
When a blank comes on the river you may want to consider betting again and taking a final stab at the pot although you do have a good Ace and can beat many Ace-high hands the caller might have. If the "blank" was a King or a Queen your river bet might scare him into folding his pair of Fives. When you bet the turn like you did, which was an excellent play on your part, you should seriously consider following this up with a river bet since from your opponent's standpoint you could have been betting two pair on the turn.
Sorry, I over looked your second question. I like raising with Ace-Jack suited when I have good position and multiple opponents. Since many of my opponents limp in on garbage I like raising when I think I have the best hand and a nut flush draw possibility. I will sometimes do it with Ace-Ten suited as well especially if I am in the cutoff or on the button.
The problem with your turn bet is the difficulty you have in representing anything. Would you have checked a Jack on the flop? Would you have not raised and then checked a pair of 8s with one overcard? Do you often check-raise the flop? Yes, there are SOME hands you can represent that can beat a pair of 5s but a whole lot, such as a flush draw, that you cannot. Now had the turn card been bigger than 7 its a different story...
If I had A5 I would pay it off on the river against most players capable of steals or semi-bluffs.
Your "knock most out or build a pot" rationale doesn't look good. You are unlikely to get 5 callers so "building a pot" has negative EV. Knocking most out doesn't do you any good unless you knock the rest out on the river.
Your inability to represent a reasonable hand coupled with your unwillingness to bluff again on the river heads up makes your turn bet a bad one.
In this situation, there are no "blank" river cards. EVERY card can easily make you or the opponent, neither of which probably have much, actually like it, appear to like it, or fear it. A river 2 can convince the pair of 5s that you just made trips, any middle card can make a straight or a pair, a heart makes a flush, etc.
-------------------------
With the exception of some really tight and predicatable early position callers, I would always raise with AJs 2 off the button with 4 callers. You PROBABLY have the "best" hand and are going to win more often than the number of callers you get.
- Louie
But Louie when everyone checks the flop, I have found that the first guy to bet the turn frequently wins it or at least gets it down to one opponent. When this move is followed up with a river bet, it has been my personal experience that I win a high percentage of the time. Typically, a guy in early position catches a piece of the flop but checks into a large field. Then on the turn, he catches a second pair and bets. Other times a guy in early position flops a monster and checks planning to slow play or check-raise. He then comes out betting on the turn.
I agree with you in that I would have liked to know what the river card was. But I like MS's turn bet here because he can win the pot outright and he has outs when he is called. Frequently anyone who calls him is just on a draw themselves. I just think he should follow it up with a river bet.
1. My problem is the card on which he chose to start betting. What is he trying to represent by betting out on the 2 for the first time? A set of 2s or a club flush draw? An overcard semi-bluff is also likely.
I think any pair is justified in calling right now, and any pair will win. I would have checked it through.
2. I like the raise with AJs 2 off the button with 4 callers.
You are correct Jon in that it is hard to represent something. However, it is also hard for your opponents to have anything as well given the lack of betting on the flop. Many of them will say, "this card didn't help me, might as well fold". It is not so much that you are representing a strong hand as it is the fact that they don't have one themselves. They may make a mistake and fold. Again, you have outs when you are called. This approach is highly effective when you have a small number of opponents in an unraised pot.
We have all heard how it is an advantage to act last. However, in hold-em there are situations where the first guy to get in a bet has the best chance to win the pot. I believe in unraised pots followed by no betting on the flop, the first guy to bet the turn usually wins.
Betting out 7 opponents happens rarely. You must expect to steal twice. Knocking players out really only helps when the opponent with a big Ace folds and then you catch an Ace; and increase of only 2 outs part of the time.
Also, in this game you can gain 14 for a risk of 8 or odds of only 16:8 = 2:1. In a normal 10/20 game with 4 callers you can gain $50 for a $20 risk or 2.5:1 odds and are much more likely to succeed since there are less opponents and they are less likely to check any pair in the 10/20. The 10/20 bet is MUCH more profitable and I make it often as do most players.
- Louie
Good point about the number of opponents. The value of my play declines sharply with 7 opponents. You are correct. thanks!
1. I don't like your bet on the turn at all. You are playing 4-8, well forget 4-8 you have 7 players so right away that should tell you something. Go for value here. Check.
2. I'd like to come in with a raise.
1-4-8-8. I am 2 before button. I have pocket 7's. I bet out. 4 go to flop. Flop 738 all differente suits. There is one bet and I raise. All get out except one guy in middle position. Turn is 8. We get into a raising war. River is rag. We raise and reraise. He has 83o. I have played with this guy and if he had had a pocket pair he would have reraised me on the deal so I did not put him on 83 - obviously. Comments and critisim appreciated?
Don't get into a raising war on the turn when the board pairs higher than your set especially when it is the top card on the flop. Go ahead and raise or re-raise but you need to realize that in the face of repeated raising your hand is vulnerable. At some reasonable point, just back off and call.
I wonder if you can consider each bet/raise/re-raise as demonstrating an exponential growth in the strength of your opponents hand. In other words, when he raises I am twice as wary, and when he re-raises I am 4 times as way. Maybe it is twice as wary and then ten times as way.
How much stronger a hand do you give your opponent as he raises and raised?
PRC
It is not linear. It is more exponential. This is especially true once the boardcards appear. When your opponent is looking at the same board you are and is willing to pound away it quickly means he has the nuts or a hand close to the nuts if he is at all sane. One of the classic mistakes I see made by players at all limits up to $30-$60 is putting a player on a hand early on and stubbornly refusing to adjust that evaluation in the face of repeated raising. I have twice seen players have over $1000 in chips in front of them in a $20-$40 game and raise themselves right out of money because they could not believe their opponent could beat them until they were shown the nuts.
In a big bet game like pot limit it is understandable to lose all your money at one time without the nuts. But in limit poker it is simply inexcusable.
Its OK not to put him on 83. Did you suspect 87? But what DID you put him on? What are the chances he's going to give you that much action with 3sFull? I suspect you failed to consider what he thought YOU had.
Generally, figure out how much action he'd give with the hand just worse than yours (the one you WANT him to have) and then raise once more than that, perhaps twice depending on his brain-dead aggressiveness rating.
- Louie
I have been playing hold 'em for less than a year. Following Malmuth's advice, I am trying to build a bankroll (which is sort of difficult as a grad student) and sticking to the low limt stuff in AC(5-10 and below) until I develop a better bankroll and develop as a player.
I was sitting on the big blind with AQo. Two weak players call and the button raises. After seeing this guy play for a bit, I know him to be a loose raiser, especially preflop. I call. I now think that I should have reraised, forcing the weak players to call two bets cold and given that the raiser was a loose raiser.
The flop was ten high, rainbow. I check. It is checked to the button and he bets. I raise to get it heads up. The two players in between fold and he calls. I bet out on the turn and he mucks his hand.
The end result was acceptable, but I am not sure I played optimally. I think I should have raised preflop? However, given my situation on the flop (i.e. that I hadn't raised preflop) is the check raise a good play? Here was my reasoning. I definitely want to get heads up to increase my chance of winning the pot. Forcing the players in between to call two bets was the best way to accomplish that. I also thought that there was a good chance that I was winning given that it was checked to the button and he was a loose preflop raiser. When the turn is a rag, a bet there is almost automatic, because if I don't he will, and I still don't think he has anything. I'm always looking to learn, so let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Carlos
You have very good reasoning skills for someone who has been playing for only a year. You must have been reading a lot. Keep it up. You're right, you should have reraised preflop in order to eject the two limpers out of the pot, thus isolating the loose blind stealer with your AQo.
Thank you much for the compliment :)
Pre-flop re-raising with AQ offsuit is risky when two players limp in and then the pot gets raised. Even if the button is a loose goose, these guys raise with their good hands as well and your hand is not worth spending two additional bets in this situation. The other problem is that you are out of position even if you can get it heads-up which puts you at a severe disadvantage. I would just call the raise and not re-raise. On the flop with 3 opponents, I would probably check although I would like to know the specific cards on the flop. When bet into, I would probably fold but it depends on the board.
Basically you are simply trying to "bet your way" to victory with no hand, no draw, lousy position, and three opponents. This seems to me like good, old fashioned gambling not playing with an edge.
>>Basically you are simply trying to "bet your way" to victory with no hand, no draw, lousy position, and three opponents. This seems to me like good, old fashioned gambling not playing with an edge.<<
On the other hand he may have had the best hand with his AQo. If not it was probably pretty close between the original raiser and AQo. Running the other guys out who may or may not have marginal hands doesn't seem like a bad play to me. It may have been risky but I would venture to say that it probably increased his winning percentage. He also may have 6 outs.
You are right Tom and I guess that is why they call this gambling. The way the hand played out "any two would do". It is just that when I start pouring a lot of dough into pot with multiple opponents especially with a re-raise and no position, I would want to have a little more than AQ offsuit. Of course I want to play the hand and take a flop but in those situations where the raiser or one of the other opponents may have a better hand, I am not interested in increasing my cost. It addition, it could get capped further increasing my cost. When the flop misses me completely, I figure I probably don't have the best hand (and may never have had the best hand) which means I have a drawing hand. But what I am drawing to with my measly 6 outs, a possible pair?
Hey,
If he's playing low limit games (I don't know about AC, but I imagine they're fairly similar everywhere) then he almost assuredly does not have the best hand. As I'm sure you know, some people in low limit games will call any number of raises with any hand but pure garbage, and so I wouldn't doubt that someone has a small pair already, or some kind of cockamamie draw (runner runner straight and flush draws seem to be pretty popular in 3/6 games =) that would keep them in the pot. Isolation is a tactic that I would say rarely works in low limit games.
The fact that he won the pot is nice, but I would say unusual.
I wouldn't describe this play as gambling at all. With the right line up players, I'm certain that it has a positive E.V., and isn't that the what "playing with an edge" means.
There are 9 small bets in the pot, when the hero check raises, giving him 4.5-1.
The only hands that absolutely dominates our hero's are AA and TT; against KK's or QQ's he has three outs. Against the host of other hands that a loose raiser raises from late position he has 6 outs or already has it beat. These include JJ, 99, 88, AQ, AJ, ATs, A9s, KQs, KJs, and I have seen much worse raising requirements than these. Lets fudge and give him 4 outs if already behind. That is roughly a 10% chance of improving to best on the turn.
Lets also give Carlos a 15% chance of having the best hand. I haven't bothered to figure out the chances of the above hands but I think 15% is fair enough.
Converted back to odds, Carlos is a 4-1 dog, getting 4.5-1 on the play.
Now, before I get completely flamed, a few caveats.
1) The above figures are very subjective, and are only for illustrative purposes only. Clearly there is the chance that one of the limpers is also waiting to check raise, or the pre-flop raiser may re-raise, etc. Knowledge of the players would obviously be important. I am also ignoring the chance the pre-flop raiser will lay down a better hand when Carlos bets the turn after the strong check raise on the flop. My point is you don't have to make to many outlandish assumptions to make this a decent play. 2) This is my first detailed post on strategy after lurking and asking questions for a long while. Tear me to pieces so I can learn even more, but be polite or my feelings will be hurt. 3) Finally, this play obviously increases your variance, as well. Given Carlos' concern about building up a limited bank roll, I don't think playing the way Jim describes would be a bad idea at all. The positive E.V. of the play can't be very high.
PRC
Actually, PRC I did not mean to imply that what Carlos did was bad poker. It is just different than the way I would play the hand. I guess a lot of it has to do with mindset. I believe that most of the very fine posters and players on this forum make a lot more bets and raises pre-flop and on the flop then I do. To me they are poker optimists. They look at a situation and try to see how they can win the pot. They view betting, raising, and check-raising as tactical weapons to be used in winning pots. The result is that they get into a lot more tough situations then I do and many of them are obviously very adept at "gunning their way out". But to straight-forward, simple-minded Jim, in general, I want to have the security of a real hand when I start committing a lot of money to a pot in the face of numerous opponents who are betting and raising and appear excited about their hands. Same thing on the flop. If the flop doesn't fit my hand, I am not real enthusiastic about trying to pour a lot of money into pot with bets and check-raises when faced with multiple opponents. I am reluctant to spend money trying to drive out opponents when there is a good chance I don't have the best hand. When I do this I am usually just helping the guy that has the best hand and locking up a good second place finish for myself.
Poker is not about winning pots. Poker is about winning money. One of the ways to win money is to lose less in marginal and bad situations then the other guy does. But to do this you need to recognize when you are in a hazardous situation. Being out of position with no hand, no decent draw, and lots of opponents is a hazardous situation. The mindset that says "maybe they will all fold, maybe I have a better hand, maybe if I keep betting I can win, maybe I can draw out, maybe they don't have what they are supposed to have", etc. is one oriented towards winning pots.
Jim,
I agree with virtually everything you say. I am sensitive to variance, and try to keep it low. In a full game with several bad players, I would never make the play that Carlos did. There are so many times when I have the best of it, I am hesitant to put money into a pot in marginal situations, even if I expect it is a positive E.V. play.
However, in short handed games, where image is more important, I would be very inclined to make this play even if I felt it had a neutral E.V. for that hand. The image of a tricky, aggressive player would add value to any hand I play later.
My one quibble is when you say "The mindset that says 'maybe they will all fold, maybe I have a better hand, maybe if I keep betting I can win, maybe I can draw out, maybe they don't have what they are supposed to have', etc. is one oriented towards winning pots." I was careful to say that under the right conditions, the play in question could easily have a positive E.V. To me, this means that you are trying to win money not pots though there is obviously some overlap. If playing a hand will show a profit over time you should make that play as it wins you money and pots, given that you have the bankroll and mindset to sustain the higher variance.
Thanks for your responses., I'll freely admit that I am a HUGE Jim Brier fan, and usually scan the board quickly to find your posts.
PRC
Okay, on the preflop play I'll split the difference between Kojee and Jim. I'd say make the reraise *if* you think there's a very good chance it will drive out the two in-between players. Otherwise don't.
On the flop you made a reasonable play. It's a bit of a tricky judgment call. You have to have a feel for the button's play. (Will he call you down all the way with any little pair? What is your current image with him?) But your AQ has a reasonable chance of being the current best of the two hands out (once you get the other guys out). If not, it has probable outs. So there's a grey area between value betting and semi-bluffing in this spot, in which you can legitimately play.
Just bear in mind that the ideal scenario -- which was what happend for you -- requires that you *both* knock out the two players and get the button to fold, or draw out on him. When you consider all that, it's close. But you were thinking well about it.
What about this catch-22: If he raised pre-flop with a poor hand the T-high flop might have given him best hand. If he had a legitimate raising hand he likely has the best hand pre-flop and post-flop.
Your AQ is a clear favorite over a loose raiser so 3-betting is certainly an option. But in a small spread game knocking out the other players isn't profitable, and is UNPROFITABLE if either has an A or Q. In a normal structured game (say 10/20) this is an easy 3-bet since knocking them out IS profitable as the pot is already relatively larger.
On the flop this sort of raiser is a big favorite to bet no matter what. Check-raise was excellent if the two in between will bet into the raiser if they make a pair of 10s. In this case, you have actually LAST action on the flop. Real players in their situation, however, will also check-raise when they make a pair of 10s, and may very well 3-bet YOU figuring their kicker was better causing you to put in 3 bets with just overcards. I hate it when that happens; DOH!. These sorts of players are better off if you 3-bet them out of the pot before the flop, thank you very much.
Sooooo ... In the spread games 3-bet the good players out of the pot but just call and keep the bad players in the pot. In structured games only keep the worst players in the pot.
Having said all that, there is no shame in calling and trying to win with top pair.
- Louie
Carlos,
This is another one I answer without peeking at the others yet.
I like just calling pre flop most of the time and reraising just some of the time. The nice thing about just calling is that the checkraise works so well on flops like the one you got since your hand could be anything (which means it could have hit a ten high flop). You also can get away from terrible flops more easily. When you reraise you are giving out a fair amount of information to your opponents and the hand is not that strong. Plus you really can't checkraise to narrow the field anymore since they expect you to lead out on the flop.
After the smooth call before the flop, you played well post flop IMO.
Regards,
Rick
When playing bridge many times there is one longshot of a distribution that must exist for a hand to be made. You therefore must play for that distribution. (Rubber not duplicate) If the only way the contract makes is for the outstanding trumps to be divided 3-2 with the player on your left holding exactly the QT, well, then to play it any other way is a mistake.
The hand that has caused so much controversy and was resurrected by Mason's column is a good analogy to bridge. You have T9s, the flop is A76 and the pot has about 12 small bets in it. (This part is vague so I am extrapolating) The authors say a bet here is mandatory and they are without a doubt right. It doesn't matter what hands are actually out there. The only chance you have to win this pot is to catch an 8,9 or T and at the same time get a weak ace and overcards out, in case a T,9 comes and then a K,Q,J. You must assume there is no big ace out there already and even if there is by betting out you might get to see the turn for 1 bet and catch the eight. Just play the hand as if the cards are as you need them to be, and the players will react as you need them to react, until proven otherwise.
By this reasoning, shouldn't I always bet with 52o, with a flop of AKQ, because I must assume that I will get runner runner trips?
- Andrew
SammyB unfortunately you cannot play poker like bridge without losing a ton of money over the course of the year. I am not arguing with the 2+2 logic line here about this particular case but I can tell you that our goal is not to win the most pots but rather to win the most money. If you are routinely betting in situations where you will usually get raised or otherwise have very little chance of winning you will be costing yourself money in the long run. The fact that you occasionally drag a pot once in a while because of an unsound bet or raise will not compensate for the numerous times you lose more than you should in your attempts to do this.
It is true that your best chance to win a big pot is to simply bet and raise at every opportunity because once in a blue moon you can literally "bet your way" to victory. The problem is that the vast majority of the time you will be losing more than you should and you cannot win enough when this works to make it profitable in the long run.
The play 2+2 is recommending may well be correct but not for the reason you mention in my humble opinion.
Jim,
You know how much I respect your opinion (humble or otherwise) but I am talking about this particular situation. From my understanding of 2+2's opinion a bet out in early position gives you the only chance to win this pot. By representing an ace, you could conceivably get KQs, KJs, QJs to fold if they have to make a decision with a few people after them yet to act. If there is a big ace out there you're not winning anyway. Hopefully the bet will be raised back to you and you can fold with insufficient odds for the gutshot. A bet out, in my humble opinion, presupposes that catching a nine or ten on the turn will give you a likely winner. Without that optimism, there is no reason to not check and hope you get a free card and catch an eight. So, because the pot is big, and there is a possible distribution of hands that might make a bet effective, betting out is the only possible course of action. Of course if no help comes on the turn or if it takes more than one bet, you are so out of there.
SammyB I believe the 2+2 position is that betting out does NOT give you your ONLY chance of winning but it gives you your BEST chance of winning as opposed to checking and calling. With a large pot, you clearly have an interest in the pot even with a gutshot so you would call anyway. (e.g.- 12 bets pre-flop plus more when you check and call someone else's bet so the odds favor going for the gutshot). By betting you may be able to get a secondary hand (a guy who doesn't have an Ace but King-Jack) to fold thereby increasing your chances if no one has an Ace or if the guy with the Ace folds downstream.
The debate we had on this a few months ago was whether it was worth the cost. The cost is simply that you will frequently get raised resulting in you having to pay more than one bet on the average to pursue your draw as opposed to checking and calling or having the hand checked around resulting in you getting a free card which will never happen when you bet. How does the increased probability of winning the pot tradeoff against the increased average cost? Sklansky maintains that we are only talking about a fraction of a bet so betting is the right play. But betting out is not the only way to win the pot and I do not believe this is the thrust of their argument.
The difference between this case in poker and your example in bridge is in the amount you can win verse the amount you can lose.
In the bridge example your potential lost is minimum. Your potential gain is very large compare to your potential lost. So you play it to make the contact or so many tricks in duplicate bridge or team competition. This happens very often in high level bridge competition.
In the case of this poker hand that is not true.
I am quite capable of representing AA and often do successfully but I just get queezy at the thought of drawing to an inside straight.
Not my style.
But when you hit it, cures that nausea right up doesn't it?
Hi
This is Jeff, by now im sure most of you know me, but if you dont, im only 15, so keep that in mind
Tomorrow Ive got a big heads up game. The other guy in the game always talks about how he could beat me, even though i know that i am much more skilled than him. Today, I told him to prove his skill at the table.
We've set up a 1/2 HE game, with a $50 buy in. I expect that i should be able to mop this game up. But I dont want to get caught in a trap where he will call anything, and make his hand on the turn or river.
Should I adjust my usually tight play? (Usually only playing AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited) If yes, how should I adjust it? Any other important strategy? Any responses would be appreciated.
Thanks
//
Should I adjust my usually tight play? (Usually only playing AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited) If yes, how should I adjust it?
if you play like this heads up im absolutely sure you'll lose.
imho your not ready to be playing for that kind of money at your age. read some more posts concerning short hand play and youll see what i mean.
brad
Jeff,
I agree absolutely with brad. I don't particulary worry about your age. If you have $50 to burn in an exciting, mano y mano heads up match, then burn it; but only if you have a reasonable chance of winning.
Given your question, "Should I adjust my usually tight play? (Usually only playing AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited) If yes, how should I adjust it? " You aren't even close to being ready for heads up play.
If you insist on playing, I strongly urge you to immediately buy HFAP (21st Century edition) and read the short handed section. It is excellent. I won't try to offer you advice until you are closer to being ready.
PRC
I was playing for these stakes in the 60's as a 16 year old. I just hope he doesn't let it get the best of him I didn't.
ja , but look at you. you still only play AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, al suited
brad - if I understand you, you don't understand my game. I am far from a rock - I just have different values on suited cards.
just a joke. i know your a good/ maybe great player. to be honest when i start to choke i think of people i should be modeling myself after and youre one of them.
brad
15 year-old Jeff,
You're too young to be gambling for those kinds of stakes. Why, back in MY day we played nickel/dime/quarter poker. Wait a minute. . . I still play those stakes and I'm 25. Don't rush it kid. $50 bucks is a lot of dough for a 15 year-old (or at least it should be).
A good rule of thumb: If you can't legally DRIVE to the game, play for nickels.
First off set a time limit and dollar limit. This kind of game 'can' go on for ever. Make sure the rules are crystal clear. If you start to get killed know when to say when and walk away with stlye.
Now for the poker part of it. Be aggressive if you catch any part of the flop. Pocket pairs go up in value. Suited mid connectors go down in value. Big cards are ..well Big cards Raise'em up !! Don't try to out play your opponemt with bad cards stay with groups 1-4 . And most of all since you are starting with better cards that he is (I would hope) be aggressive. Check raise the turn if you flop trips.
Best of it !!
MJ
Thanks for the help so far
but the reality is that i can and am willing to put $50 into play, im nearly 16, and hold a part time job.
Any help though is appreciated, and thanks for the advice thus far
Jeff,
As I mentioned before, I'm not worried about your age or the $50. I'm sure there are probably a thousand things teenagers can do today that will blow off $50 in a single night; and I would rank poker as one of the most educational and enjoyable. I'm not sure why these guys worry so much about young people playing poker.
However, given your first question, I'm not sure you realize how different short handed play is from a full game. When is this game? Do you have plenty of time to study up, maybe deal out some practice hands to practice? Better yet, get a friendly buddy to play you for even smaller stakes, maybe .25-.50. That will make the lessons and experience bite a little harder. You can discuss what you each were thinking while you were playing. Make sure your buddy tries being very aggressive. There is nothing more difficult than a tricky, aggressive short handed player.
Some things that are important to learn quickly in the match:
1) What does the guy lead bet the flop with: medium pair with good kicker; medium pair, bad kicker; any pair; only top pair; flush draws; etc. This information is critical. 2) How often does he check raise, and does he check raise weak hands or strong hands or both. 3) What will he check with. Will he check middle pair on the flop and turn?
In other words, the most important thing in short handed (even more important than hand selection in my view) is knowing your opponent. With all the dead money in the pot, you have to play many more hands, and if you fold all of these hands when you have less than a pair, a good, aggressive opponent will slaughter you.
Hope this is of help. You seem determined to play, and what the hell? I would have played as well if I had known about this site when I was younger.
PRC
MJ,
I don't understand when you say: "Don't try to out play your opponemt with bad cards stay with groups 1-4."
Do you mean a) only get aggressive when you have group 1-4 hands, or do you mean b) only play group 1-4 hands?
If the latter, I think it is poor advice. You are putting an average of .75 small bets into the pot each hand in dead money as will your opponent, you have to fight for that dead money. Given such a limited selection of starting hands in a heads up match, your opponent can raise your blind with any two cards and show a profit.
If the former (only get aggressive when you have group 1-4 hands), I think that might be still to restrictive. In a heads up match, with one player, especially if a freeze out, you have to mix it up more than that. I played heads up with a guy the other day. He stayed with quality hands, and only got aggressive when he made something nice. I killed him, and it wasn't difficult. My strategy: raise more than half the time and bet the flop almost every time. When raised, fold; when called, don't bet anymore unless you are strong; when you have the nuts punish the hell out of him because he has been waiting so long to be aggressive he isn't going to give it up.
I, again, mention HFAP21st's short handed section. It will pay for itself many times over.
PRC
PRC,
I just think that you should start with better cards (than your opponent) and if you catch a piece of the flop get aggressive. You will dominate the hand if you get a piece of the flop with better cards. If you miss then get out and go on to the next hand.
Best of it !!
MJ
MJ,
You wrote: "...and if you catch a piece of the flop get aggressive. You will dominate the hand if you get a piece of the flop with better cards. If you miss then get out and go on to the next hand."
I think that is still to tight. According to the 2+2 books, in a short handed game, if you are folding when you get no piece of the flop, you aren't calling yourself.
In actual play, I think this is true depending on the opponent. Against MOST opponents, there are far to many steal opportunities in short handed. You have to bet when you have nothing. Of course, if you are folding when you have no piece of the flop, then your opponent is probably stealing from you. You need to call/raise enough with nothing so that you aren't an easy mark.
PRC
Jeff no - heads up Axo goes way up in value. You will be playing a lot more hands than you are used to playing - if this guy is an experienced heads up player you may be in trouble.
You want to be very aggressive and don't be afraid to go bust - don't let the blinds kill you.
all these people have played a lot more poker than I have so you should take their advice: basically, play a lot more hands - high cards go way up in value.
What I've found somewhat entertaining (I can't vouch for helpful) is downloading Paradise Poker and playing in the heads-up Hold'em play money tables - people don't play as stupid as they do at the full tables because at the very least there's some ego at stake. Try it out, it will atleast give you a good feel for the heads-up game.
And all you old-timers should lay off the kid - let his parents tell him what he can and can't do - save this postings for actual poker advice
It takes a seedy, decadent, corrupting gambler's forum to raise a child.
i wouldn't want any other kind.
scott
what's the ante/blind structure?
assuming it's normal be loose aggressive. mid suited connectors are fine. you don't want to have to give up every rags flop. pairs are good too. and Axo. be willing to semibluff reraise. when there is any action, the typical headsup situation is both people have mediocre hands and draws to good hands. you have to be able to convince him that he is drawing when in fact you are drawing. understand psychological momentum and be willing to change gears.
scott
Alright, first off I'm only 16 myself. $50 is about the most I have ever played. I consider myself an agressive player, and basically have intimidated the people I play with enough to the point that I haven't been down after a night in over a year.
I'm sorry if my inexpierianced advice sucks...but I just want to say from expieriance in a duel type game, the more agreessive player will win. You can only rely on yourself to put this guy in his place. He will take blinds/antes from you all night long if you wait for the perfect cards. If he knows your tight style maybe this is the night to switch it up a bit. Play a few tight and then start some heavy bluffing and chances.
Good luck to you, go for it!
Scott,
Pairs are great so is Axo in a heads up situation. Playing for drawind hands is a mistake "here" and If you don't hit your hand on the flop you are out of the hand.
Rounder writes: "If you don't hit your hand on the flop you are out of the hand."
This is twice that I've seen this advice on this thread, i.e. fold if you have no part of the flop. Maybe I am missing something, but I think this is very poor advice for a short handed game, let alone a heads up match.
This is view is based on reading the 2+2 books, and my own experience. I often play late at night on the internet, and frequently find myself in short handed or heads up games. When I find someone who only plays quality hands, and will only call/bet when he has a piece of the flop; I am looking at very easy money.
I certainly respect Rounder's thoughts (don't always agree), and would enjoy seeing Rounder expand his views here. Same goes for MJ.
PRC
your out of the hand .. IF YOUR ON A DRAW.
flop 9 T A, you hold 78. youre on shaky ground here, as a 7 or 8 giving you a pair may only lose you a lot of money.
brad
PRC,
If I remember correctly, I think HFAP21st Century recommends betting out with any draw, including gut shots! I'll try to look it up tonight to double check.
I will frequently bet out on a good draw in short handed, and sometimes a not so good draw. The chance your opponent will fold combined with the chance you will improve to a very good hand (a str8 is a great hand in heads up), make the play a good one.
In your example, there are many opponents that I would bet out if I had that 78. In a heads up match what if: your opponent checks to you and you are holding that 78 given your board? you are in the blind, in an unraised pot? I would almost always bet in both of those situations. What if you check from the blind, and your opponent bets? Well, you know you have to call him every now and then to slow down his steals. What better time than when you have an open ended straight?
PRC
well, you know, i meant let it go to pressure. checked to you, bet, raise, you call. checked to you on turn( turn no help to you), you bet, raised to you , and here i would almost always fold.
brad.
Let's say you have a Q9 a good hand heads up.
Flop comes 8 - K - 6 and you are bet into. I don't know about you but I can't call a bet here.
Rounder,
Most times, I would not call a bet here. However, as I'm sure you are aware, it would depend greatly on the opponent. And, I am certain there are times I would call this bet.
Also, there is a technique that Sklansky recommends in HFAP21st century. In it, he essentially take the highest card off the board (make it into a 2 or something equally non-threatening) when deciding whether to call a bet. Would you call with your Q9 then?
Here is what I would do. Lets say, I'm in the BB, and raised pre-flop with this "good heads up hand", and the BB calls. If you folded this hand every time on the flop, I think you are giving to much up. Against an opponent who is capable of bluffing at a king high board and will often check raise a decent king in this spot, then I would call this bet, or even bluff re-raise on the turn. Lets look at the hand: any Q or 9 could give you the best hand as they are the 2nd and 3rd highest cards giving the flop (does your opponent bet middle or bottom pair?). Any J, T, or 5, gives you a gutshot, and any 7 gives you an open ender. If you have a three flush with any of your cards, any flush card of that suit gives you a draw to a flush, and may slow your opponent down.
Now, I'm not sure how positive E.V. this hand is, but if I accept Mr. Sklansky's advice that folding every time when you have less than a pair or a good draw on the flop is folding to much; then I don't think this is the worst hand to make a play.
Again, I wouldn't call here all the time, probably not most of the time. But, depending on my opponent, and how my opponent perceives me, I would call here more times than you think, and I am reasonably certain this is correct.
Thanks,
PRC
ive played a lot of (very small stakes) heads up, with the blinds being very small in no limit, and some limit, and in my experience this is always a fold *in the absence of any read* . of course , by fold in heads up this includes raising the flop to see where you are, and only folding (for real) if youre reraised on the flop or bet into on the turn (assuming the turn didnt help you.)
brad
p.s. the main problem here is that queen high (unlike ace high) is not good enough to win by itself.
I WANT TO START THE NEW YEAR OFF WITH A NEW CAREER MOVE.PLAYING PRO. I HAVE THE BANLROLL;AND ALOT OF PLAYING HOURS.I PLAY 15/30-20/40 TX-HOLDEM ON A REGULAR BASIS. I KEEP GOOD RECORDS AND STUDY ALL OF THE LITERTURE. I MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH MY WIFE THAT I WOULD GIVE HER 15 DOLLARS FOR EVER HOUR THAT I PLAY. IS TO MUCH COMING OUT OF MY BANKROLL? SHOULD I MODIFY THAT AMOUNT ON WHAT I EARNED THAT WEEK OR GIVE A SET AMONT LIKE 500 DOLLARS A WEEK. ANY SUGGESTIONS? rcb s-cal
Reducing your bankroll by $15 per hour is a big cut and you are in mortal danger of going broke. Instead, make her the following proposition. She agrees to let you play 1000 hours on a fixed bankroll. Over this 1000 hour period, winnings go into the bankroll and losses come out of the bankroll. Otherwise the bankroll is left untouched. If at the end of the 1000 hour period you double your bankroll you will give her 25% of your larger bankroll if she agrees to let you keep playing. If she agrees and you double your bankroll, you can make a decision about whether or not you want to continue at your same level or move to a higher level like $30-$60.
If you make $30/hr playing poker, and take $15 out of the bankroll, your risk of ruin will double.
We just had a long thread abou this on the general theory forum, but basically if you are paying bills out of you bankroll, your risk of ruin starts to climb dramatically. Make sure you are always reinvesting winnings into your bankroll. Even if you have a reasonably large bankroll (say, $20,000) and you plan on playing 15-30 and 20-40, but you spend all of your winnings on bills and the wife, you are carrying a significantly high risk of ruin over the next five years.
Ray,
As others have said, paying out of your winnings makes a big difference. I think it's important to know how big your bankroll is. If your wife doesn't have a job which gets you health insurance etc, I'd also advice picking up some kind of part-time job that will give you benefits, preferable AWAY from a casino.
If you are a winning player and you have a large bankroll, say the $20K Dan suggested, AND you ONLY extract $15/hr from the bankroll, AND you make about 1 big bet per hour, you *should* do ok. But be careful, make sure you *always* have something to fall back on.
- Andrew
It is a rough proposition. You are lucky as I am to have a wife that would even consider letting their husband use family assets for a poker bankroll. Take care of her you have a gem. My wife said I could enter the WSOP this year and use $10K but I figure if I couldn't win my way in it via satellites I didn't belong but I am blessed to have a women that understands a mans dreams and goals.
As far as the $15 per hour - if you need the money to live on maybe it is not time to turn pro. I'd take the bankroll and whatever it is and make a deal with her that in 6 mos we would reassess the situation. But alot depends on your personal finances - I just hate to see local "pros" going around hitting people for loans or asking people to sponser them in tournaments. I am sure you are more thoughtful than that but there are alot of broken down card players who once had dreams of being a top pro. The probably play to many suited cards :-)
Don't forget the $15 to get a keyboard CAPS lock fixed.:)
a fair thing to do is give her say one half of each 1000 dollars you make over 4000. this way you get to build your bankroll alittle and she gets to recieve big checks. why did you write in all caps as thats kind of a no no on the internet.i always wonder if someone can be successfull if they dont grasp the obvious. i hope it doesnt apply here. good luck.
i'm new a this.fist time i ever posted, my bankroll is 13000 dollars. thanks for all the replys
You don't use proper punctuation and yet you criticize someone else for doing the same? Do you realize how hard it is to read something that is written without proper capitalization.
hes a soft spoken guy ...
Some of these guys think it is cute to not capitalize and run all the paragraphs together - scott - they are hard to read and an old man like me doesn't have the concentration to wade through the poorley written posts so I usually just skip them.
you don't think i'm cute? so you're not going to leave your wife for me? i'd might as well stop posting.
scott
Why do you ALWAYS use "to" where you mean "too"? This also makes for a difficult read! It puts pain and stress on the brain to read-->think "to" and have to mentally make the correction each time!
Please stop that sir! Other than that you are succint and articulate ... it's a pleasure reading your posts!
Michael
Michael,
Has it ever occurred too you that many of the posters here are not two concerned about their use of proper spelling or syntax. They just want two say what they want too say and not have two answer too anyone about it.
:-)
No and Yes ...
What you said specifically may not have occured to me, but if I had to think about it, I would assume it to be true.
Did you read the thread? Rounder is acting hypocritical. That's why I said something to him.
Anyway, I'd prefer if people who think well would write well too. It just makes it an easier read and it fits! When someone has something to say and can write it articulately, but uses poor grammar, it fits like a bad glove. :(
I was just saying it is hard to read the long long paragraphs with no capitals - big difference from my little to too two huh!
No ... I guess different people have different pet-peaves. The "no capitals" thing does not bother me. But if there's not a space after the period (preferably two spaces), then it does.
Oh well ... I'm not trying to win here. I'm just trying to make it less painful for me to read.
btw - what the heck is "pedantic"?
-Michael
I just looked up pedantic. Hypocritical again, eh?
You've come to the wrong place. I am sick as a dog and not in the mood - don't see why agreeing with little miss is hypocritical. But it is OK if you think so I have been accused of a lot worse.
Then you can have the last word.
Why Hypocritical:
You do not use correct grammar (even when brought to your attention) and then complain that others do not use correct grammar.
Then you call me pedantic when you could be accused of the same for your cap/no cap comments.
It should be clear that people are different and different people have different pet-peaves. Mine is your annoying mis-usage of "to" and "too" and yours is not putting caps where caps are called for.
Why do you not just say "foot" when you mean "too"? What's the difference? "too" and "to" are just pronounced the same - they mean totally different things. I could care less about caps!
Pet peeves is not hyphenated and is spelled as you see I wrote it. I, however, reserve the right to commit errors in typing without opening myself up to accusations of hypocrisy. Now, isn't it annoying when people pick on every little thing? And even if they do, does pointing out their annoyances make this a better world?
Now, I am giving you the perfect example of a hypocrite. I criticise you for misspelling, then say how wrong it is to criticise others for mistakes. Rounder was not being hypocritical, he was just exercising his right to complain. The fact that he complained does not mean he should have to be perfect.
On page 103, 2nd paragraph(heads up on 5th street)it says, "When you are planning to raise, you usually need to be about a 2-to-1 favorite to have the best hand on the end...."
Question: Can you give me a simplified example of where you might be considered a 2 to 1 favorite against one other player by fifth street(or any street for that matter)?
Is there a section in the book H.P.F.A.P. where they teach you how to mathematically pit yourself against another? If not, is there another book you know of that would teach me how to do this for hold'em, specifically.
Thanks, M.C.
They mean you need to be at least a 2-1 favorite if you are going to call when you are reraised and if your opponent is going to reraise whenever he has the best hand. If you raise and are going to call whenever your opponent reraises you, your raise will cost you money whenever your chance of having the best hand is less than 2/3, which of course is the same as being a 2-1 favorite.
Look at the arithmetic. If you have a 2/3 chance of winning and a 1/3 chance of losing, and your opponent raises you the 1/3 of the time that he's ahead, and you call that reraise every time, you will win one extra bet 2/3's of the time (+.67 bets) and lose two bets 1/3 of the time (-.67 bets). Obviously, you'll break even. Under these assumptions, you must be better than a 2-1 favorite to have a positive expectation. This also assumes your opponent will call your raise whenever he's beaten.
So instead of looking for cases where you are exactly a 2-1 favorite, think of it as need to have a substantial advantage over your opponent(s) which, under fairly normal assumptions, arithmetically translates into needing to be at least a 2-1 favorite.
Bottom line: if you raise on the river every time you think you're ahead you are making a losing play. The threat of a reraise requires you to be way ahead. But you don't have to think of it in mathematical terms when you're playing.
You can afford to be less of a favorite if you can (rationally) fold to your opponent's reraise or if your opponent will not reraise even when he's ahead.
.
Typical 2-4 game played by a friend that has me thinking.
Hero has T9o UTG (#3 seat). Calls, #4 calls, and cutoff (CU) raises. Both blinds fold, and UTG and #4 call. $15 in the pot for a three player flop.
Flop is QJ5, rainbow.
UTG checks, #4 bets, and CU raises. There is $21 in the pot when our hero has to act, and he could be facing a raise behind him.
How close is the decision to fold or call here.
Hero is getting almost 6-1 to call if #3 just calls the raise, and roughly 4-1 if it is capped behind him. He is drawing to the ignorant end of the straight against a board that could easily contain trips or two pair. I think it is a relatively easy fold, but there was some debate on the matter with my friend.
I can post the results later if anyone is curious.
PRC
P.S. FYI, I don't like the pre-flop call either.
Let's say we KNOW that it won't be capped behind the hero. In that case, I'd say it's an easy call. It's 6:1, and you are better than 5:1 to make the straight on the turn. But there is the possibility that it will be capped, so that should be factored in. If it is capped by #4, I'd say the chances are about nil that CU will fold here. So there will be $31 in the pot when it gets back to our hero. So on the flop, the hero would be betting $8 to win $31, which is worse than 4:1. Not enough to call on it's own. But what about the implied odds? If the straight comes on the turn, a check-raise is in order, and I'd say there'd be enough money in the pot to keep the other two around. The hero would need to get $9 additional dollars in the pot to make the call on the flop correct, and I'd say with two betting rounds left, and two raisers, that wouldn't be too hard.
So let's say it's just a borderline call. I don't see how it can be an easy fold. Would someone call 4 bets on the flop with a gutshot to the nuts(AT)? As for the comment about the board that could contain trips or two pair, we don't need to worry about that, because we're drawing to a hand that beats both of them. Sure, if it's trips, he's getting about 4:1 to make a full house by the river, but I don't really feel like fudging the odds down right now.
Mike
Your friend flopped an open ended straight draw with a rainbow flop. Any Eight gives him the nuts. A King gives him the second nuts only losing to specifically Ace-Ten. It is unlikely that the cutoff or #4 has specifically Ace-Ten. I would view this as having 8 clean outs with any Eight or King.
8 outs from 47 unseen cards is 39:8 or about 5:1 against. His immediate pot odds are $21:$4 which is a little better then 5:1. If #4 calls the raise, then his pot odds become almost 6:1 While he may get raised again, I think when you consider how the large the pot could get (implied odds) a call is clearly correct.
All,
Thanks for the responses,
After thinking about the posts, I think you are right, and that the call is good. I think this is a case when the negative results colored my judgement.
The Turn was the 8, giving my friend the nut straight. He bet out, was raised, and only called as he was out of money at the time. River was a 5, pairing the board. #8 turned over pocket QQ's for a full house and the pot.
In rethinking the hand, I realize that you can't put #8 on Q's here. He could have easily raised the flop bettor with AQ or KQ, or maybe even AJ or AK, or even a draw, as mentioned in one of the posts. That probably makes a call here a good bet.
I wonder, if for some reason, you knew #8 was raising with trips, would a call still be correct, given the number of redraws against you?
thanks again,
PRC
If you make the straight the set has only once chance to catch one of 10 cards or a 3.4:1 dog against your straight. The other player does not have a better redraw unless he has specifically AT. Since the pot is giving twice the price you need to draw, you should draw even if you KNOW he has a set.
Assuming the draw has lots of chips... Even if they both have a set and will cap it on the turn (which is very bad for you) this fact means you can expect excessive action when you make the straight, which takes most of the bite out of it.
As Brunson once pointed out, you are better off with your 8 card straight draw against a set than a 9 card flush draw, since two of your flush cards also pair the board so you really only have 7 outs.
- Louie
At best its $4 now and $4 on the turn with a reward of $21 +$2 call + $8 on the turn; or $31:8 or almost 4:1 for his 2:1 draw. There will have to be multiple raises on the turn or he'll have to lose almost HALF the time he MAKES the straight for this to be a bad call.
Good call on the flop; bad 2 calls of course before the flop.
- Louie
Since he plays T9o UTG (and suffers the indignity of compounding it with a second bet) he probably should just look at his hand and the board and forget about odds, etc. as well as what the other players might have.
His punishment will be to have the K make his straight on the turn and a T hit the river to make any A beat him Love.
As this hand description is a bit long, I'll ask my question up front. When heads up against a strong hand that you are pretty sure you have beat, do you want to always put the last raise in on each round? Or is it better to let the presumed second best hand think he is best and keep raising you, keeping the action going and saving money when your hand isn't actually the best.
Loose 3-6 game. I have 77's UTG (#3) and call. #5 raises which I don't like as there go my implied odds. However, things look up when #8, SB, and BB all call. I call and we take the flop 5 handed with $30 in the pot.
Flop is K74 rainbow. Checked to me, and I check hoping the pre-flop raiser will bet, allowing me to check-raise the whole field for one more bet. This may have been a mistake for two reasons: 1) Do I want to play the flop fast with my medium set? In which case I should bet and hope the pre-flop raiser raises to thin the field. 2) After me there was only the pre-flop raiser and the late position player to bet. If they had both checked I would have lost the chance to put money into the pot with my set.
In any case, #5 (pre-flop raiser) does check (uh oh), but #8 obliges me with a bet. Both blinds fold, I raise, #5 folds, and #8 reraises. I just call at this point, intending to check raise or bet out on the turn. I don't figure #8 for a set of Kings because he didn't raise pre-flop so I figure I am still best at this point.
Turn is another K, still rainbow board. I bet out, because if #8 has trip K's I think he will raise. I don't credit him with K7 or K4 as he cold called the pre-flop raise; I figure I am winning. He does raise and I just call, hoping to bet out on the River and get raised again.
River is a T, I bet out, #8 raises, and I just call. I don't know why I didn't reraise, but I probably should have.
I like my call of his reraise on the flop. If I cap it here, I might choke off later action. However, I think I made a mistake on the turn and the river. If he did have trip K's, he wasn't going anywhere, and we might have capped it on the turn for two more big bets. Even if he just calls on the river, I get 5 bets on the turn and the river vs. the 4 that I actually got. On the other hand, if I had played the turn just as I did, and re-raised his raise on the river, I would have ended up with the same 5 bets, and 6 bets if he capped it.
Of course, he might have filled up on the River (KT being a much more likely hand than K7 or K4), and I would have lost all those bets. Which brings up my final point. If he did have a set of KK's, and then quads on the river, not reraising saves lots of money on the turn and river because he would have been more than happy to cap it each round.
So, how do you play presumed best hand vs. a very good 2nd best hand. Get all the money in that you can, or slow down because you don't want to kill the action and you might not be the best hand!!
If you have read this far, I thank you!
PRC
I don't like your check-raise having flopped a set against four opponents one of whom raised pre-flop and a King shows up on the flop. You should bet out and you may get raised by the pre-flop raiser or some other opponent with a King allowing you to make it 3 bets.
When you check-raise #8 and he re-raises, you can smooth call. However, because you are out of position being first to act I think you should make it 4 bets and plan on taking control of the hand and betting it all the way to the river in this heads-up situation. The problem with smooth calling is that if a scare card comes on the turn and you check he may not bet. I think you should get your licks in while you can and not worry about trying to finagle an extra bet later. If you had position over your opponent than the smooth call on the flop would look better.
On the turn, I like your bet and I think you should re-raise when he raises. He has trip Kings most likely and you have a full house. Now if he makes it four bets than I would just call and check it down. If he just calls your re-raise, then I would bet the river unless the river card is a King or a Four.
the time to get cute with a hand is when its not so good and you may be able to knock out a player thats getting good odds to beat you. plus other reasons. when you have a strong hand, thats the time to get money in the pot and the reasons for being tricky go away.
I agree with what you say, but being a relative novice, I'm not sure what the best way is to get money in the pot when heads up, especially when out of position. I guess that was the main point of my long winded post.
Do you want to bet/raise every chance you get?
Not cap it on the early rounds, hoping to cap it on the Turn?
I suppose it has a lot to do with your opponent, but I am learning, and the responses help me learn faster.
Thanks,
PRC
In general, with a good hand, the time to take your foot off the gas pedal on the cheap betting round is when you have position, rather than when you have to act first. That way, somebody cannot back you into a shell on the flop round when they have position on you, and get a free card. There ar quite a few players who when drawing, raise on the flop to get a free card, and if you reraise, they continue the charade by raising again.
It took me a few reads (and some thought) to understand what you are saying, but it makes great sense now.
Does the same principle hold on the later rounds. That is, when out of position against a good but second best hand, bet out and cap it every chance you get?
Thanks,
PRC
10-20: (first hand just to show im not a complete weakie) i post, fold, fold , raise, button calls, i see AsTc call. flop comes K T 2 all diamonds. i check , check , check. turn is 4c. i bet, fold , fold.
my big blind again. UTG limps, all fold to me, QQ, i raise, he reraises i call(?). flop is JJ2 rainbow. i check (my mind is already semi made up to check call allthe way) and i figure if he checks im dead meat. he bets i call. flop is 4, no flush no straight possible for this hand.i check he bets i call. river is A. i check he turns over 7c8c and i thought i might have to muck(board had 2 clubs and a spade.) for a split second.
my question is, is check calling right here. i figure im way ahead or way behind. i was criticized yesterday for being too passive (i wholly agree) and was wondering if in this situation check calling is indeed appropriate. thanks, brad
In the first problem, pre-flop you called a raise with Ace-Ten offsuit which is okay because you were already half-way in with your post. I like your check on the flop when you flop middle pair and they are all Diamonds with you not having a Diamond. When everyone checks and a blank hits on the turn, your bet is excellent. This situation comes up frequently, and like I stated on another post the first guy to bet the turn usually wins after it is checked around on the flop.
On the second hand, the under the gun limper who now re-raises you could have AA or KK although this is an unusual play and you really have to know your opponent here. He may be fooling around because it is a heads-up situation and he has position over you. I would just call after being re-raised pre-flop like you did. Once the flop comes, I would bet out and see how he handles it. He may be fearful that you have trip Jacks and not raise with a better hand like KK or AA. The problem is that you don't want to miss a lick when you have the best hand. Once you decide to let him have control, you have no choice but to play it like a little girl and check-call.
What an idiot 3-betting a tight blind raiser with 87s; and for FAILING to bluff when he catches the perfect Ace on the end. Go figure. Perhaps he believed you are an easy to push around passive player.
If you knew he was this aggressive check-calling, hehehe, is a real option since there is so little chance of him outdrawing you and such a good chance he's going to put the money in anyway.
If you thought he really has a premium hand then check-calling, a-oh a-oh, is a real option in the hopes he's betting AK or TT.
- Louie
Man, this Forum is getting too big for me...no time to read even a quarter of the stuff. However, I did get through the "Aces-thin the field" thread. The consensus seems to be that when you raise with AA, you want as many callers as possible. Fine, I can live with that conclusion. I understand that this does not mean that you ought to routinely limp with them. The argument here being that while you don't mind having 8 opponents for 1 bet each, you would rather have 4 oppponets for 2 bets each or even 8 opponents for 2 bets each.
Now, suppose you are on the button and the cut-off guy is the first in and he comes in with a raise. Should you routinely just smoothcall and allow the blinds a chance to get into the fray?
Arguments pro and con please.
skp,
Where have you been lately? We miss you.
You are right about the forum. Threads are going by so fast you feel like you can never keep up. But it is great to see the new faces. We will just be fish in a larger pond.
Anyway, you wrote: "Now, suppose you are on the button and the cut-off guy is the first in and he comes in with a raise. Should you routinely just smoothcall and allow the blinds a chance to get into the fray?"
I'm going to say that it depends. Ha Ha. No, it does depend. Will the blinds call anyway? Will you get action from worse hands? This is an area where you can mix it up but your real profit comes from knowing your players. Remember, there are many worse hands you will three bet with so you are not really giving your hand away.
Anyway, I'd thought I'd get first in with a few licks.
Regards and welcome back,
Rick
Hey Rick, thanks for the welcome back. I missed the place as well. I may have to tune off again for a few days so if I don't respond to your next post, it's because I am not logged on.
Now, on this issue, I would like you to assume that if you 3 bet, both blinds will fold virtually always. Also, further assume that if you just smoothcall, the bb will call 80% of the time and the sb will call 40% of the time (I play in a game where many players take it as a personal affront to give up their blinds without a little struggle).
Given these parameters, what say you - routinely 3 bet or routinely smoothcall?
skp,
With those parameters I think I would smooth call most of the time. I just think you would want the extra blind action enough so that you would be willing to risk a slightly higher chance of losing a small to middling pot to get this action. But I would not want to make it a pattern in a game where my opponents play against me a lot. That is more true for you then for me.
BTW, I find that the blinds will defend more around here, even against a double raise so long as it comes from late position. So I really don't play in too many games with the parameters you describe.
In a tournament I think I would three bet it most of the time.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Rick about the player/situational considerations. But consider just the simple scenario where if you just call the small blind will fold and the big blind will call, but if you 3-bet only the original raiser will call. Now, if you just call, you're up against two guys, with your opps having put 4.5 bets into the pot. On the other hand if you 3-bet, you're up against just one guy, with opps having put the same 4.5 bets in. (Of course you've invested more in the latter case. But the same is true of the other arguments about 4 opps for 2 bets each vs 8 for 1 bet...) I don't know that this really means the 3-bet is best here, but at least it's something to consider. Anyway, you also gain when the 3-bet with AA brings more respect to your other 3-bets with lesser hands.
John,
In your game I think you have to three bet for the reason you mention in your last sentence. You have to persue more of a "balanced strategy" since you are more often up against the same opponents. For a "rounder" like me, it is not so important.
Regards,
Rick
I say you re-raise routinely. Two good things come from this. You get heads up with the original raiser, in which case you're a big favorite over any typical person's late position raising hand (AX, Jxs, KT). Or you get 3 to 4 way action with a monster hand, in which case you're still winning way more than 1 in 3 or 1 in 4.
The only draw back to reraising with AA is if you only do it with AA (or KK). In most cases I would want to re-raise with as little as A9 or 77, esp. if one or both of the blinds are tight. If the blinds are esp. tough I still like a reraise with AJ or 99. You've got position and making it 2 1/2 bets to the small blind and 2 bets to the big is going to yield some information.
I think a better question is what's the weakest hand that warrants a re-raise in this situation? I think any big ace obviously and any pair 99 or higher, but other hands? You want to play tough not just play? Just because you know the original raiser has less than adequate hand value to raise doesn't mean you want to wade in there with anything. So how much do you loosen up? How often are you going to have to fold? Without articulating it fully, it will depend on the "looseness" of the raiser, the honor of the blinds and the vigor with which they defend that honor, your own table image, your hand, and (probably most important) your ability to play strong and read hands post flop. So I guess as in most aspects of poker the answers to these questions are subject to your own abilities and the particular situation that you find yourself in.
Chris,
I believe the kinds of things you mention would be very important in John Feeney's 40/80 game or in skp's 10/20 game in Vancouver. Actually, it is important in any game where your opponents may be observant. You need to keep a wide range of hands in your opponets minds while not giving up too much EV on the lessor hands in this range.,
Regards,
Rick
It depends completely on the players. A re-raise costs you not just in forcing players out of a pot where you have much the best of it, but also in deception, which may cost you bets on later rounds.
On the other hand, not re-raising hurts you if the blinds would have called anyway, and you lose the extra small bet from the original raiser before the flop.
In the end, you're just trying to make the biggest pot possible, because you're the favorite to win it. Against one good opponent, it might be worth forgoing a small bet before the flop if you think you can trap him for a couple of big bets later on.
I believe it is correct to smooth call if three factors are all present.
1. The blinds are loose enough before the flop to often call with weak hands for a single bet more.
2. The blinds are not so loose that they often call for a double bet extra.
3. The blinds are the kind of players who are apt to lose the max with one pair.
Another possible factor leading you to merely call is if the original raiser will play very cautiously if you reraise.
It is possible that even without these factors a smooth call would be correct but I doubt it. This is especially true in the big games where I virtually NEVER just call in this pre3cise situation but rather fold or raise. Thus calling would mark my hand.
DS:: "...in the big games where I virtually NEVER just call in this pre3cise situation but rather fold or raise.
BL: *fold*? Please explain what would make you fold AA on the button to one player who entered an empty pot for two bets? There are now 3.5 bets in the pot and the worst you have is a tie and you only have to risk 3 bets vs. the 3.5.
Love.
I believe David was referring to the situation not the actual holding. When sitting on the button and cutoff is first in with a raise David is going to fold or raise. If he just called it would be giving away too much information because he NEVER calls here.
I hope I got that right, David.
Thanks. You said what I was trying to say, only in a much more understandable way.
And people say you can't write. Sheesh.
I was going to say just what John Feeney said, that you may get the same size pot if the SB folds so the 3-bet is usually right.
Another advantage of the 3-bet is that many players will suspect you of not having the most premium hand for sure, thinking you are isolating an even weaker steal attempt by the original raiser.
I can imagine the Sklansky scenario in some really loose games but it must be hard to read the players this well unless you have seen them a lot and even then I suspect it is not that much of an error to 3-bet.
D.
I haven't seen anybody mention this specifically so far; wouldn't another significant factor in this decision be the number of callers prior to the cutoff's raise?
In other words, the more original callers, the greater the correctness of 3-betting? The fewer the number, the greater the correctness of smooth calling for deception?
Hi everybody,
I'm kind of new to this forum, but I've been lurking for a while.
A hand a week or so ago has been bugging me, and I thought I would get the opinions of some of you guys on it.
This was a 10-20, 9 handed game.
I hold AQs in middle posistion. The button is a player that I see in this game all the time--he's a bad player, and will call down with almost any pair.
Preflop, I raise, he re-raises (he will do this with almost any paint cards or pocket pair, down to about sixes), and I call (I think I probably should have re-raised him back, but that's another discussion).
Five players, including the two of us, see the flop of Q-Q-5. First player checks, I bet out, 3rd player folds, 4th player calls, Bad Player (BP) raises, first player folds, I call, next player folds.
Turn comes A. I'm almost absolutely confident that I have the best hand, especially heads-up against BP. I bet the turn, he raises. I re-raise, he calls.
River comes King. I bet, he raises. I ponder for a moment, trying to figure out what he has. I figure that the absolute best hand he could have would be KQ, and he was calling me down and caught a King. I re-raise. He raises me back. I re-raise. He raises me back. I finally just call.
He turns over KK.
Is there any way I could have put him on this hand, and lost less money with this hand? I think that if it happened again, I would play it the same way, against this player.
Comments appreciated.
Max
Max except for the river I like the way you played this hand. Pre-flop, you raised with your AQ offsuit which is good. When re-raised, a call is correct despite your suspicions that you may have the better hand. Keep in mind that a loose goose gets good cards like the rest of us and will re-raise with them as well. In addtion, you have three other opponents in the hand who may have better cards. Not all players raise or re-raise with big slick for example.
You caught a great flop. I like your bet into four opponents since you will probably get action from someone, like the pre-flop re-raiser. When raised, I love your smooth call since it looks like you will be heads-up.
Your play on the turn was fine. It is highly unlikely he has specifically AA.
On the river, you now have the third nuts. In addition, if he has AQ you split the pot. I like your bet. When raised I think I would now just call. It was very bad poker for you to keep raising. There is 1 way he can have AA, 3 ways he can have KK, 2 ways he can have AQ, and only 3 ways he can have KQ. He is actually more likely to have AA or KK then to have KQ given the board cards and your hand.
I think you got excited. The addrenalin was rushing through your head. It blocked you vision, your logic, your sense whatever you want to call it and you lost extra money because of it. When you get raised on the river the first time it might still be correct to raise back especially since you thought he had KQ but when you get raised the second time you should just call and pray he has KQ, AQ or maybe 55. I don't care how loose he plays and how bad deep inside you want to give him a taste of his own medicine all you have now is a crying call.
To answer your question/s. Yes you could have saved 1 big bet here. Failing to save a bet here is extremely bad.
I think after I bet the river and get raised I would just call. You show strength throughout the hand yet he pops you again.
It's such a lousy beat that I hate to say it but in retrospect I think you made a mistake here. Although you put him on KQ, remember that he stopped raising on the turn. The only reason he would stop raising on the turn was that he might be beaten. The only hands that can beat KQ on the turn are AA, AQ and two hands he can't put you on, 55 and Q5. When the king hits on the river, he still can't beat AQ if he's got KQ. Also, if he's got KQ the possibility that you have AQ can't be far from his mind. If he's got KK, however, the only thing he can't beat are AA or QQ and remember that you didn't put in that last raise before the flop. Therefore, after he raises you on the river, I don't think that you were better than a 2-1 favorite to have the best hand.
Assume you always raise with Aces. Assume further that:
- with 9 opponents, your Aces get cracked 7 out of 10 times. Each time you lose, you lose about 10sb. This yields a loss of 70sb. When you win, you gain about 35 sb each time. This yields a win of 105sb. Thus, your total gain over 10 trials is 35sb or 3.5 sb per trial.
- with 3 opponents, your Aces get cracked 3 out of 10 times (I don't know if I am right on this but it sounds reasonable to me). Each time you lose, you lose about 10sb for a loss of 30sb. When you win, you probably stand to gain an average of about 12sb for a gain of 84sb over your 7 wins. This yields a net gain of 54sb over 10 trials or 5.4 sb per trial.
Even if you brought the average trial win down to 10sb (which is very conservative), the math still yields a net win of 40sb over 10 trials or 4.0 sb per trial.
Thin the field! (or am I out to lunch with my assumptions, math or both?)
How do you figure to only win 35 small bets in a pot where you had to put in 10 small bets and nine opponents call you all the way to the river? It's gotta be at least 72. The assumption of winning only 3 in 10 requires that all opponents call all bets.
Winning 7 out of 10 with three opponents is close enough. But think about it logically - what would make you more money - winning 30% of the time when getting 9-1 odds, or winning 70% of the time when getting 3-1 odds?
Ya, but you are not getting 9-1 odds throughout the hand - just pre-flop. Surely, you can't expect all 9 of your opponents to call you all the way to the river.
I came up with my 35 sb estimate for an average win as follows:
You win 18 sb pre-flop. On the flop, let's say that there's a raise some of the time (in which case you will 3 bet). If that happens, you are probably looking at 2 or 3 oppponents sticking around for the turn. If there is no raise, you may have 5 or 6 opponents but all are in for just one bet.
On the turn (on hands that you win), you probably will not face a raise (in a big pot, no one is going to get very frisky on the tutn unless he can beat Aces). You will lose half of your opponents on the turn bet. On the river, you get 1 maybe 2 calls. I fudged a bit here and there and it seemed to me that 35sb was a correct estimate.
Now, you make a good point in that my 70% getting cracked estimate may be too high given that this assumes that everyone will call to the river (I hadn't thought of that). But it's probably not too much off. The flop is of course the defining moment in Hold 'em. In the sims results (of which I know nothing), I would guess that the vast majority of the 70% of the time that Aces loses, it would have lost to a hand that caught a little something on the flop which means that this hand would likley have stuck around even in the real world to ultimately put your Aces to shame:).
Anyway, gotta go to court this AM. You may well be right and I could be off my rocker on this one. I'll think about it some more later on. I should add that the discussion is somewhat academic though in that I can't remember the last time that I did not put in the maximum raises possible with AA or KK preflop.
No, the effect of having all nine players go to the river is significant, because of the possibility of Aces losing to a running two pair, running straight, running flush, or a running pair that makes someone trips.
Basically, your assumptions are using two different scenarios, and using the worst-case from each of them to make your point.
Well, I am not really trying to make MY point. I readily state that I could be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic with my ideas on this one. However, I do have a "gut" feeling that 9 opponents is not the optimal number for Aces. That feeling is necessarily based on anecdotal experience which once again I accept could be leading me to an incorrect conclusion.
I played for approximately a year in a club where it was a common sight to have everyone see the flop (even for a raise). In my experience, Aces seemed to get cracked 2 out of 3 times depite the fact that half the field bows out after the flop. Again, anecdotal evidence ...but that's all I can offer.
On my assumptions, I was very conservative on the number of wins in the scenario where you only have 3 opponents. You might say that I was conservative in the other scenario as well. You could be right but I was certainly less conservative in that scenario.
There is one thing which is going to influence anecdotal evidence greatly. People tend to remember whether or not they won pots, not the exact size of them. When you start to lose more pots than you win, people probably start looking at that as a bad thing. With aces, this is not true. You will win less pots, but you will win more money.
Peoples perceptions are very deceptive things.
- Andrew
skp:: "In my experience, Aces seemed to get cracked 2 out of 3 times" (in 9 way action.)
This means they win 33% of the time but only put up 11% of the money. What's wrong with that?
Nothing at all. Aces make good money no matter how many people call. The question is "what is the optimal number of opponents". On that score, I am not convinced that it is 9 (at least based on my own anecdotal experience).
skp,
I am a bit whipped right now but it seems some of your assumptions are wrong. I would estimate you win quite a few more bets when you win (in both scenarios). Think about it, unless heads up, you always win far more bets when you win a hand then the bets you lose when you do lose.
On the other hand, I would say you would only win about 50% of the time against three opponents.This is just a seat of the pants, I'm too lazy to sit up and do the math, type guess.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Take this question as completely tongue in cheek.
I'm sitting UTG with AA and I raise. I want all of them to call. I think and concentrate very, very hard on all of the players. I wish, hope and pray that all of them call the raise. 8 of them folded.
Several hours later at a different table I'm UTG with AA. I smooth call hoping everone else calls and the button raises so I can reraise. I hope, I dream, I meditate on this desire. All fold to the bb who checks. What did I do wrong?
Is there a particular method of hoping I'm not aware of that influences the opps?
SammyB,
Find a looser game or one where they don't read your mind :-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. You don't by any chance move your lips when you pray? This could be a tell of sorts.
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about reading at the table. They weren't referring to me reading the bible were they?
What you did wrong was to fail to understand the nature of your game. You should have a good idea of the rough probabilities of the pot being raised, of how many callers you're likely to get, etc. And sometimes you'll be wrong, because these are in fact just probabilities. But hey, that's poker.
Evaluate your situation, and take the best action your judgement and knowledge offers (and your knowledge now includes the fact that it's not desirable to limit the field with Aces). Then learn from the result so you can make better judgements next time. Repeat as necessary.
"I would estimate you win quite a few more bets when you win (in both scenarios)."
Rick, the 35sb estimate I explained above. I did take a very conservative estimate in the 3 opponents scenario.
skp,
As others have said, your assumptions are flawed. Your win rates are flawed, and the ammount won/lost are also inaccurate.
For example, in a live game, against 9 opponents, your aces should hold up at LEAST 35% of the time.
- Andrew
Hey you guys, Tom Weideman mentions in a post in his "Loosening/Tightening" thread on RGP that a few years ago he posted an analysis of a game called something like "Percentile Poker". He mentions that it may have served as part of the inspiration for Morton's Theorem, was similar to some work Sklansky had done on multiway pots, etc. He says it implied that there is a maximum number of players you want to play aces against. He mentions an observation that, "as the number of opponents increases, pot sizes grow linearly while probabilities of winning decline geometrically (assuming hand independence again)". I don't have time to look that up, but if someone could find it on deja.com and provide a link to it (if it's there), it looks like it could add something to this whole "aces" discussion. Maybe Tom could jump in. Given that analysis, I'd be interested in his opinion (well, even without it actually :).
independence is quite a strech here.
scott
You're probably right. I got the impression that in his current "guts" analysis there was assumed independence, and that he thought it wasn't too much of a problem, at least for drawing broad conclusions. But I may not fully appreciate what "independence" means.
I think in this case idependence would mean that every hand had the same chance of being dealt, or at least the same chance it would have without the prior removal of cards form the deck. Is that right? Anyway, it's unclear to me how big a factor that should be.
"... the same chance it would have without the prior removal of cards form the deck."
Heh, yeah, that part. One hand's being dealt would be assumed to have no effect on another's being dealt.
On the Cardplayer Magazine web site, there is an article by Mike Caro called "Preventing Errors in Poker Judgment That Can Destroy Your Bankroll". In it, he lists ten "errors" and explains each. The first error he discuses is "Raising players out in early rounds in a rake game"
I've posted an excerpt of this article. I just don't buy it. Granted, we once thought the world was flat, and we once thought JTs was the best starting hand out there. But now I know that I bet the early rounds to drive players out and protect my hand. Mike Caro disagrees, and I'd like to know what the resident experts here, and whomever else, has to say about it.
here goes:
1. Error: Raising players out on early rounds in a rake game. Oh, I know that this is controversial. There's a whole herd of people who strongly believe - deep, deep in their hearts - that it's better to raise in an effort to limit the field of competition. Well, let me assure you, those people's hearts are in the right place. It's their thinking that sucks. As I've said before, even in those instances when you have a significantly strong hand and you can prove that it would be better to play against fewer players, raising may not be the answer. Why? Because - if players remain to act after you - you often "succeed" in chasing away the weak hands that you wanted to call you, but not the strong hands that you were hoping to scare away. Many years ago, I began reporting to you that limit-the-field tactics often were less profitable when computer simulations were used than more-the-merrier tactics. Later, I was able to pinpoint the main factor contributing to this, and I've just told you what it is. In raising to limit the field of opponents to the right size, you're often eliminating the wrong hands. So, the limit-the-field strategy, in itself, often is an error in judgment - not always, though, and that's another story. In rake games, you usually should raise only to build pots, not to eliminate opponents. This advice takes into consideration both the loose nature of typical opponents in these games and the effect of the rake. As we just examined, even in nonrake games (for example, seat rental and button pays), the thin-the-field strategy often is wrong. But in a rake game, it tends to be wrong more frequently, because the rake is split among fewer opponents. This means that when the pot is raked, you often need a bigger edge than you might expect to justify betting. This is especially true before the rake is capped. Just to make this concept clear, let's suppose that you have a sure winning hand and only one opponent. The rake is 10 percent with no cap. You bet $10 and your opponent calls $10. That's a total of $20 wagered, and the house takes 10 percent (much higher than typical at most casinos, by the way). So, that's $2 in rake. This means that you have wagered $10 in an effort to gain $8. So, the "tax" on your winnings is 20 percent against a single opponent. But suppose that there are three of you. You bet $10, Player A calls $10, and Player B calls $10. The house takes $3 of the $30 total wager (still 10 percent), but the tax now is only 15 percent on your winnings ($3 out of $20 instead of $2 out of $10). So, the percentage of rake is reduced with every extra opponent you face. Even if the rake is capped, this concept is very important on the first round of betting, and often means that you should not raise in an effort to eliminate opponents. Violation of this concept is an error in judgment.
?!?!!??!?!???
Ryan wrote: "I just don't buy it"
What part of this do you find hard to believe? If you specifically state the part that bothers you most, and more importantly 'Why' you find it hard to buy, Mr. Caro himself might emerge from the shadows of lurkland and help you understand his point. It's worth a try.
-pdk
O.K. imho
I understand smooth calling with a monster hand, (nut flush, set with non-threatining board) since I'm better off with two or three overcalls, than just a call from the original bettor.
I understand smooth calling with a big draw. I want to draw as cheaply as possible. I don't want to drive anyone out, they'll pay me off when I hit.
But with a big hand (anything from top pair top kicker to a set when two big flush cards flop) I've got to try to narrow the field. When I have AA, and there's multiway action when the flop comes Jack high, I'm going to raise anyone who bets into me. Maybe that's raising to build the pot, like Caro says, but I'll still do it if the bettor is to my right. Anyone with a pair could trip up on the turn. If there aren't any draws out, someone could pick one up. If everyone folds, I'll take it. Unless I'm drawing, or I have a monster, I don't like a crowd.
I play in the low limit games Caro is talking about. With any vulnerable hand, I feel it is correct to drive players out when possible. We've all had our good hands beaten by flaky draws, but if we're not betting and raising to drive players out, we're just asking for it.
Now, having said that, I am a novice. He just seems to contradict too much of what I've believed to be "correct"
Ryan
You stated "I play in the low limit games Caro is talking about. With any vulnerable hand, I feel it is correct to drive players out when possible. We've all had our good hands beaten by flaky draws, but if we're not betting and raising to drive players out, we're just asking for it. " In the low limit games I play in no one with top pair,a 4 flush, or openended straights are going anywhere for any amount of raises after the flop. IMHO, Raising to thin the field is a useless tactic in these games.
Randy
"In the low limit games I play in no one with top pair,a 4 flush, or openended straights are going anywhere for any amount of raises after the flop."
I see these posts all the time on our forum and they are generally made by low limit players with little experience. If you flop a four flush or an open end straight draw, it is only rarely correct to ever fold even if it is several bets to you. The idea that if you make it three bets someone with a four flush will get out simply never happens. Furthermore, if you are rountinely making these folds you are probably giving up too much. (The exception would be if there is a pair on board and the cards are bunched together in the mid range.)
Similar advice applies to the fourth street bet. That is you may not like it, but you will sometimes have to put a lot of money in the pot to see if you card comes.
You wrote"I see these posts all the time on our forum and they are generally made by low limit players with little experience. If you flop a four flush or an open end straight draw, it is only rarely correct to ever fold even if it is several bets to you. "
I see this type of response all the time on your forum. It is generally made by high limit players with little concept of what goes on at a non-vegas 3-6 or 4-8 game. I didnt say that I folded to a raise with 4 flushes or open ended straights. I was commenting on Ryans mention that he raised with over pairs for the purpose of chasing these hands out. I still think that is futile. Here is Ryans quote again "I play in the low limit games Caro is talking about. With any vulnerable hand, I feel it is correct to drive players out when possible. We've all had our good hands beaten by flaky draws, but if we're not betting and raising to drive players out, we're just asking for it."
Thanks for your reply.
Randy
My point was that the type of hands that your raise will get out are hands like middle and bottom pair, and gut shots. When the pots are large it is important to try to get these hands to fold (or at least pay the wrong price for playing). However, as I stated, the better draws will virtually never fold and are almost always right to stay in there.
Post deleted at author's request.
If that was Randy's point, then he stated it very poorly. It seemed to me that Randy was puzzled by why the four-flushes, etc., stayed in for lots of bets. It seemed to me that he missed the point (originally) that raising to thin the field is meant to get out the longer shots, and make the legitimate draws pay a big price (though a fair price).
Eric
Post deleted at author's request.
There seems to be some confusion on my point. Maybe I havent expressed it clearly so here goes. In the low limit games I play in on the Gulf Coast(Houston,Lake Charles,Biloxi etc), raising to thin the field does not work. I acknowledge that it is the "correct" strategy to raise in an attempt to chase out the middle pair with overcards , the bottom pair with overcards, the gutshots straight draws and the runner runner flush chasers. All I am saying is that most low limit players here will chase to the river as long as the pot is big enough. I wonder if someone smarter then me could tie Mortons Theorem into this discussion. Finally Eric, I fully understand why 4 flushes and openended straights stay in all the way.
Randy
Randy,
Good to see you posting once in a while . You mean at Marks's place they don't fold those weak holdings either? Let's get that discussion group going if J.D. stays in town.
R
Don't spoil me incognito
Randy -- I don't doubt that there may be some games where players won't fold even for two bets cold with hands like gut shot draws, bottom pair, etc. I've certainly seen individual players who fit that description. And maybe low limit games have changed in just the last few years since I played in them. But when I used to play in them, two bets cold was -- at least much of the time -- enough to drive out many, though not all, of the weak draws. Also, I think Morton's theorem suggests that you need to raise to punish or drive out such draws in multiway pots. Even if they won't fold, as Mason said you still want to make them pay too much for their draws.
I dont know John whether the games I describe are unique to the Houston area or not. Razor up above works at some of the games I am talking about. I think he can back me up when I say that 2 bets is just a clarion call for the Majority of the players holding weak draws to call. They dont care how far behind they are or how thin they are drawing. All they can see is that if THEIR card falls they win a monster pot. Luckily for me my wife and I had a baby in November and I have cut back on my poker playing. Sanity is returning slowly but surely.
Randy Collack
Well, you can at least charge them to draw. Then you just live with the tradeoff of winning the pot less often, but its being bigger when you do win it. I'll let others debate whether or not this decreases or increases overall profit. Also HPFAP-21 has some plays for extreme circumstances involving waiting till the turn to raise in order to confront them with 2 *big* bets.
(btw, welcome to parenthood and having about 1/8 as much time for anything else as you had before. Hope you're getting some sleep.)
John said (to Randy):"btw, welcome to parenthood and having about 1/8 as much time for anything else as you had before. Hope you're getting some sleep."
As much as that; you lucky guy :)
Back to the thread:
My earlier post wasn't meant to knock Randy in any way, rather, I suppose, to state that my perception of what had been written seemed to differ from my perception of Gary's perception of what Randy wrote. As to what Mason wrote compared to what Randy wrote, it looks like Randy said "X is the case" and Mason said "often X is the right thing".
On to Randy's desire to merge Morton's Theorem with the discussion. In a nutshell, Morton's Theorem says that most of the money the longshots put in will go to the big draw(s), and only a little goes to the leader. Of course you should raise to knock them out, this helps you much more than the big draw. However, if your raises only succeed in building an even bigger pot, then it may be correct to forego the raise at that moment. It is situations like this where S&M's loose game idea of waiting until the turn to raise comes into play. To know for sure what to do, you would have to have a good estimate of the hands of the opps and the ability to estimate your pot equity quickly.
I'm sure there are others willing to expound on MT in detail.
Eric
Post deleted at author's request.
>Morton's Theorem says that most of the money the longshots put in will go to the big draw(s), and only a little goes to the leader.
No.
Morton's theorem says that for certain pot sizes longshot draws *take money* from the leader and hand it over to the best draw, while hurting themselves in the process.
Read the original Andy's post here.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Post deleted at author's request.
If I am not mistaken, Mike Caro's point was not that you should raise to get more money into the pot but rather that you should often not raise to entice worse hands to call you. This is a different kettle of fish. What say you to that Gary?
Caro's Tues. Night Session #28, titled "Avoiding Common Errors in Judgement". April 6, 1999
(1)Error: Raising players out in a rake game.
Usually raise ONLY to build pots, and not to eliminate opponents. Even in non-rake games(e.g., seat rentals and button pays), the thin-the-field strategy is often wrong. But in a rake game it tends to be wrong more frequently, because the rake is split among fewer opponents. This means you often need a bigger edge than you might expect to justify a bet against few opponents, if the pot is raked.
-Don
Post deleted at author's request.
Posting parts of articles now?
Post deleted at author's request.
I'd say that both reasons for raising preflop are valid, as long as you understand your motives and mechanics of the game. Raising to get more money in usually increases your EV, while thinning the field reduces variance (increases win rate), which is also good in some situations. Thinning the field can also increase EV, if a knocked-out player leaves dead money in the pot.
Also, thinning can be +EV in some situations (like very tight games), where your hand is weak (even if it is best preflop), you are opening the pot and are essentially fighting for the dead money (blinds) only. Naturally, you'd be happy to win the blinds, you'd be happy to reduce the field to zero. Note that opening with a raise is a completely different animal from raising limpers.
The important thing is knowing what you are doing, why are you doing it and what is happening while doing it.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Caro refers to "raising players out on early rounds"
I've been thinking more about on the flop than before.
At what point, on the flop, do you say "I've got a great hand, the more the merrier"? Say five players see the flop. I'm second to act with top pair, ace kicker. First guy bets, and I raise. Is this a bad raise? If three players call it cold, I'm going to be nervous. Even in loose low limit games, I expect people to fold. I'm making them call two bets cold because I don't want them to call. I think I have the best hand, but how much competition can I stand? I want to build the pot, I have the best of it, and I still want the players behind me to fold. Is my thinking flawed, or am I just misinterpreting M.C.?
Ryan
Ryan, Read T.J. Cloutier`s book, He states several times --- you have to know your apponets playing habits---and have that feeling, every hand is different.. After studing your opponets for a few rounds you should know what to do most of the time. I think that old feeling is way ahead of the math programs. But this takes years of playing to do this, and always go with your 1st decision.
Milt
Math programs are for every one to study, but mostly for beginers, be cause they have nothing else to go on.
Milt
Clearly the advice dealing with rake makes sense only before the rake is capped. In the games spoken of capping happens early.
It is extremely rare that in a no-fold-em game a raise *attracts* callers rather than "thins the field" and therefore Bro. Caro is only talking about a very limited situation when speaking of the effects of raising vs. the uncapped rake.
In the ususal low-limit game (in which there is no need to ask if people "chop" because the situation *never* arises that it gets checked to the blinds) the notion of not raising with AA UTG is clearly "mad" because if all ten call to the river the hand wins about 30% of the time for someone putting in 10% of the money and the other players see it as "those damn pocket-rockets lose 70% of the time!"
Love.
Caro is correct that you should tend to raise less in a raked game than a nonraked game. The pot is effectively smaller, and you're not getting as good odds for your raise. You would often prefer to gamble so that you do not get stuck paying the rake without much reward, similar to the concept of limp-reraising with pocket aces in a tight game. You should also call less often in a raked game. This is trivial, no?
It helps to think in terms of big rakes, and I think that's what Caro had in mind. For example, in a particular $4-$8 game with $1-$2 blinds, they drop $1 preflop and $1 on the flop (and a couple more after some action), and so you need about JJ or better to open on the button versus an already folded small blind and an all-in big blind. If the big blind were not all-in, you would still be less inclined to raise than normal, since there is effectively less than $1 in the pot.
Deciding when to narrow the field in a nonraked game is a different issue.
-Abdul
The general point Caro is making is correct, but I'm not sure how important it is. The decision to raise or just call depends on many things, and the EV difference from the rake is pretty small on that scale, IMO.
The more important point he makes is that you might not want to drive out players who are drawing very thin or dead, but this has to be balanced off by the error of not making the big draws pay for their draw. He says that a thin-the-field raise may force out the weak hands, but the big draws will call anyway. That's true, but now those big draws are paying two bets to draw.
There's an application here of Morton's law, too. The equity that the thin draws have goes partly to the big draws in the hand, which reduces the need to keep them in the pot from the made hand's standpoint.
I'm starting to understand where Caro is going with this, but I don't think it changes anything. Often, when I bet or raise on an early round to build the pot, I consider thinning the field as an added bonus. Like raising "to gain information". If that's my only reason to raise, I won't do it.
So maybe its not such a great bonus, but I still don't think I'll be putting many less bets in the pot now that I believe it.
Ryan
Post deleted at author's request.
At the Hold'em table last night where 2 players are betting on what will come on the flop...An older man is betting that either a 3, 7, or jack will hit and the younger guy is betting it won't. It seems to me that since there are only 12 cards(4 threes, 4 sevens, and 4 jacks) that can help the elderand 40 that can help the younger that this old man is a cook...Not so fast...The older gentleman was taking down the money and later stated that he is a heavy favorite in this scenario. Since there are three cards that can help him three times(The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd card on the flop) that he will win 9 out of every 13 tries which was about right. I still don't understand the math here since there are all those cards that he will lose this. Will somebody put in into words or a formula so that I will understand.
Thank you,
Matematically Challenged,
the chances of none of his 12 cards coming is 40/52*39/51*38/50 = 38/85 is about 45%. so the old man has a nice healthy edge.
scott
The old man has the best of it.
He has 12 outs and 3 cracks at it.
His odds of hitting are 1 minus the odds of missing.
The odds of missing work out to 40/52 x 39/51 x 38/50.
When you do the math, you will see that the old man has the best of it. It's an old sucker bet.
When you have AK, you stand to flop a pair approximately 32% of the time. Notice that you only have 6 outs. The old man has 12 outs. You can readily see how he has the best of it with this bet.
I can't get the other two responses to load, so sorry if this is a duplicate.
If the old man got paid for EVERY 3,7,J he'd win 9 times in 13 or be a 9:4= 2.25:1 favorite. As it is he doesn't get paid any more if two come in the same flop.
There are 52choose3 combinations of flops = (52*51*50)/(3*2) = 22,100 different flops. With 40 non 3/7/J cards there are 40choose3 flops that do NOT contain a 3/7/J = (40*39*38)/(3*2) = 9,880 bad flops; 22,100-9,880= 12,200 flops that DO contain at least one 3/7/J.
So the old man is a 12,200:9,880 = 1.24:1 favorite. He earns 24c for every dollar he bets.
- Louie
Stupid kid. No duh, never take the other guy's proposition. Don't believe me? I'll give you 5:1 that I can guess the color of over half the cards in a regular deck one at a time no tricks. Any takers?
Ha...you just pick "black" for every card. No thanks.
That would guarantee getting exactly half correct.
I would pick "red" until I was in the black then switch to "black" to stay out of the red. This makes me a winner (I would always get 2 more correct then incorrect) unless there are NEVER more red cards at the beginning of the deck than black.
If memory serves, and it probably doesn't, this would make me a [2^(n/2)]-1:1 favorite, where "n" is the size of a regular deck; commonly 52. If there are 2 cards in the deck [2^(2/2)]-1:1 is 1:1 even money (I win when the first card is red). If there are 4 cards [2^(4/2)]-1:1 is 3:1 favorite. I would lose when the first two cards are black (1/8) or when the first and 3 cards are black (1/8); or 2/8 or 1/4 or 3:1 favorite. With a regular 52 card deck [2^(52-1)]-1:1 is a very large number.
OK, I'll give you 10:1. Any takers?
- Louie
Greetings,
I remember a freind of mine told me a pair and on overcard is often an easy call on the flop. very often one can even riase, however in this hand I was wondering if I should have just folded...
In a loose game I call w/ K4s one off the button after about 5 callers come in. The SB raises and 7 see the flop of
Q J 4 2 suited (none of mine). all players check to the plyer to my right who bets. I called though as I thought (a) id like to see the next card as cheaply and i won't lose the many straight/flsuh draws). the sB check raises and 4 see the turn.
Its and off suit K. the player to my right bets again, and now i raised. only One player in Mid position calls as does the initial bettor.
The river is an offsuit K. Check bet and i called, seems the pot was so big the bettor could have been betting A x s or sometghing. W/the pot so large it seemed it might be a big mistak e to fold even though anyone w/ a T wins.
The other player folds and the intial bettor turns over K To.
Qs: 1) Should I fold on the flop? (Even if I hit 3 of my outs (the K's) Im in a very precarious situation (see next q).
2) Is the raise on the turn too aggressive? (I thought not as I was pretty sure i was a favorite on the turn (as I still do though KT has 11 outs which win the pot from me outright and 6 which split (the Q's and J's and i think it is same to assume no more than 7 others cards make a flush that don't make a baot for me).
3) Should I just fold on the river?
Thanks in advance!
Your pre-flop call with King-little suited from the cutoff is fine since no one raised and lots of players limped in. You need to realize that you are limping in with a weak hand and can be thrown into some tough decisions downstream when you catch a piece of the flop without a flush draw. The pot will be large but your outs will be few.
The flop gives you bottom pair, an over card, but a two flush is out there. A King or another Four in the wrong suit could give someone a flush while giving you a good second best hand. Even if one of your outs arrive in a non-threatening suit, someone on a flush draw still has re-draws to beat you. In addition, if a King turns that puts three cards in a straight zone plus opens up the possibility of someone having a better two pair if they started with King-Queen or King-Jack. Nevertheless, with this large a pot and one person betting into you after most of the field has checked makes a call mandatory. Right now the pot is too large and the cost to take off a card is too small to get out.
Your raise on the turn is right. You may well have the best hand although I would be concerned about being up against two higher pair however, you must make the rest of the field pay to pursue their draws.
1. No you should not fold on the flop. You have to call a single bet and take off a card.
2. Your raise on the turn is correct. You now have Kings over Fours which could be the best hand and you must put pressure on the draws.
3. Having filled up at the river with Kings full of Fours why on earth would you ever consider folding?
Jim,
I think suspicious meant an off suit ACE or Nine hits on the river. That's the only way this makes sense
"W/the pot so large it seemed it might be a big mistake to fold even though anyone w/ a T wins."
If as SammyB says you meant that the river card an offsuit Ace or Nine and not a King, then any Ten beats you as well as two higher pair. I think I would fold if that is the case.
If he's going to continue with the hand, then with the best coming immediately from his right, the correct thing to do would have been to raise, precisely to get hands like KT to fold. Raising also helps define your hand. Watching how the other players call will help tell you who has a draw, etc.
However, since the pot is smallish (6 or 7 small bets), I'm not sure I like either a call or a raise here. First, there are apparently check-raisers in this game, and it's a dangerous flop. Second, a King can make someone a straight. Third, with this flop a King could easily make someone a better two pair, which is what happened. Finally, a flush draw can beat you if you improve. I think folding here is the best play. But if you are going to call, it's better to raise.
I missed the fact that it was raised pre-flop and there were 14 small bets in the pot. In that case, you've got to take a card off. I think raising is still the best play here, though.
But Dan why do you want to raise with bottom pair here? If the bettor has a King or a better hand than you all you are doing is investing more money to ensure a second place finish. Suppose you get re-raised? Now you are obliged to call that too. Then it would be costing you 3 bets to take off a card instead of 1. With a weak hand and a lot of opponents I would think you would want to take off a card as cheaply as possible. Furthermore, your raise will not drive out players on good draws and it might not even drive out someone with a decent King. As I see it your raise is simply helping the guy with the best hand.
Change "if the bettor has a King or a better hand" to "if the bettor has a Queen or a better hand". Sorry.
You raise for several reasons: First, no one has bet until a late-position bettor, who could have a ten, a straight draw, a flush draw, or a pocket pair.
Second, this is one of those situations where it would be correct to raise even if you know you are beat. A raise might get a hand like KT, AK, AT, AJ, KJ, etc. to fold. This improves your chance of winning quite substantially.
And, there's a good chance that you might get a better hand to fold. Perhaps someone has 77, and was planning on a checkraise himself if the button bet. Now you raise, and he folds. If the original bettor was betting a weak hand or a draw, you've just set yourself up to win a very large pot, or at least have a good chance at it instead of a longshot. That's worth an extra small bet in itself.
Well Dan whatever works for you in these situations. Mason Malmuth wrote an article awhile back about playing King-little suited as opposed to Bob Ciaffone who recommends dumping it for a full bet unless it is King-Nine suited. But Mason cautions that to play a hand like this you have to play it well. He discusses what he means by "playing it well". In his discussion it is revealed that a player should be prepared to dump it fast when you fail to flop a flush draw but catch a piece of the flop. Flopping bottom pair and then raising with it against a lot of opponents I think results in you losing more money with this hand than you should. I would be interested in getting his opinion on this.
I think you missed my point. I'm only raising in this case because A) The pot is large, B) The player betting is immediately to my right, and bet in late position, and C) The flop is dangerous to my King should I hit it with lots of callers.
This is a pretty rare case. If the situation wasn't exactly right for it, I'd dump the hand. But in this situation I believe raising is superior to calling.
I agree that those are reasons for raising but are they compelling enough to overcome the fact that you don't have much of a hand, almost certainly not the best hand? You don't even have the best draw in all likelihood. Your raise will not allow you to win the pot outright and you could get re-raised. I don't see this as a raise or fold situation. However, this play might work out and it certainly would make you difficult to read in these situations.
Dan,
I'm kind of baffled by this approach. I realize I'm relatively new at this and I can certainly tell from your posts that you have an excellent grasp but this just doesn't seem to fit. The advice from S&M is to play Kxs if you are strong enough to get away from it when a king flops and there's action and no 2 of your suit. In this situation you pair on the weak kicker, the flop has 2 to a different flush and two to a straight, plus the fact that if you catch a king (only 2 available without the flush threat)you can't be sure if you even are third best. I would have thought before reading your post, which makes some excellent points, that it's a good fold. You cetainly don't have the best of it. Why bother?
The main consideration here is the size of the pot. There are already 15 small bets in this pot, which pretty much gives you a correct call just to hit a 4 alone.
Don't misunderstand me - if the pot were any smaller, I'd be out of there in a flash. And in fact, if you think there's even a reasonable chance that someone is slowplaying a big hand, I can't argue with a fold either.
But the worst option is to just call. If you've decided you should stay in then raising is a better play, in this specific circumstance.
Post deleted at author's request.
Five-outers are tricky because they're thin draws to begin with, the most likely hand you'll hit is only two pair, and the cards you need can often improve someone else's hand even more. Notice that in this case a king could have made someone else's straight and a king of the right suit could have made someone else's flush. Still, getting 15-1 from the pot (you're 8.4-1 to hit a king or four on the turn) without a lot of action and being in last position, I would always take a card off here and just be prepared to bail if the betting gets heavy.
On the turn, I'd also raise and figure my hand was probably good after my opponents just called. On the river, you should have raised because a better two pair probably wasn't out there on the turn and a player with only three kings would bet into your full house.
P.S. You write: "W/the pot so large it seemed it might be a big mistak e to fold [on the river] even though anyone w/ a T wins."
Huh?
Now I understand. The river was really an ace.
Should you have folded? No, but know your opponent and save a bet against the ones that won't ever bet without being able to beat you. Your 2 pair look pretty bad here but every now and then someone will think a pair of aces is good or will try a hail mary bluff. The pot is awfully large to let go.
I probably play too tight, but I would have folded on the flop. The SB raised pre-flop, and if he has any tendency to check raise, I would be considering that possibility, especially since the bet came from late position - SB would raise to limit the field. Just calling here is very, very thin, and the chance of a check raise would be my deciding factor.
Maybe that's why my win rate is so low :).
Thanks everyone for responding!
There was one or two typos. The river was an offsuit ace (not a K). Making the board A K Q J 4.
SOrry for the confusion.
I think the raise on the flop will not lose alot of people i want to lose (eg open ended straight draws/ flush draws, i doubt the KT wouldhave folded , even if I raised and the SB reraised. Some (Caro I believe) says to drop straight draws if a 2 flush is also present if you dont also have a pair , (but i think he was referring to gut shots (I'll look it up)) however most will stick to the board like glue if the flop any sort of draw to the nuts...
However the raise on the flop may get out small flushes and gut shots...
Post deleted at author's request.
KT is only 2nd pair with an overcard. There are a lot of players that will fold that if they have to cold-call 2 or 3 bets.
I'm a relative new player to T.Holdem. Played cards all my life and mostly a winner. Played at the Bike years ago mostly 7stud and Lowball, moved from 2-4, 3-6,5-10. Quit due to other interest. Getting back to playing. Moved to N.Calif., local card rooms mostly play T.H. I'm trying to learn this game and win on the lower limit tables. Playing mostly 3-6 & 4-8. Was about even after 20+ hours. Now after 30 hrs am down 360.
Ok boys will open up here to get the info to improve hopefully at a faster rate, before I lose to much money.
Oh my reading thus far include: 1. Super System, 2. Holdem Excellence (L.K.) 3. Winning Low Limit Holdem (L.J.)4. Texas Holdem (D.S) I am studying, not just reading! BTW, I was winning before doing all the reading! Go figure. I feel confident with the add knowledge, but need to get on the winners side.
Last Nights 3-6 session 4.5 hrs Table was very tight players. (Only 1 table to choose from, 4-8 list was very long). Intial buy-in $70 Started by waiting for good cards. Ended up in 3 showdowns within 1st 15 min. Won 1 small Lost 2 big. Down about $30 decide to be extra careful. One of the losing pots I should have got out on the turn. Had 2 big pair. Lost to straight. Didn't see it coming. Win and loose several more pots. But seem to be coming out on the short end. Was trying to figure out how to bust game open. Players were folding on any raise or if a bet came from early position, they seemed to expect a high pair, and would fold. The cards I was getting were mostly drawing type. I noticed that if I played these cards too often I wasn't getting decent odds to play them. So decided to wait for top pairs and big pairs. And wait, and wait. Was successful with 2 bluffs, but only getting blinds plus maybe 1 bet. 2.5 hrs gone buy have to re-buy $50 giving me a total of 60 Chips. Change seats. Finally start getting cards like KK,AK, AQ,KQ. Players are betting, but the flop brings junk. Or medium pairs on board. Fold some on flop, some on turn. Win a medium size pot, lose a pot. Get up to about $90. Thinking I would quit if I can break even. 2 hrs goes by, down to about $20, go all in on TT, beat 99. Next hand have KK in BB raise, 3 callers. Flop is 10d 7d 3h, check raise 2 callers. Turn is 6d. Bet, 1 caller. Worried about the flush or st8. River is a Q, check (he should know i have big pair or 2 pair), he bets, call he has 98. Down to about $8, Blinds coming next hand, get 7h6h, bet, call raise, flop is all diamonds with a 6. Put last chips in. Turn is nothing, river is no help. It go home time.
Questions: 1. Starting strategy Should I wait for only group 1&2 cards, for intial play. Especially in tight games. Hopefully win and be on plus side before playing more low odds drawing hands. Or should I play by the book, and let the odds work out over the long haul. It seems I could go home a loser very quickly if I don't catch the necessary cards to fill my hand. If all I am getting is drawing cards, in right situations.
2. I have a bad habit of not seeing the flop and all possiblities. The KK example is one, another is when I made a flush to beat trips, I at first was playing for two pair, and caught the flush on the river. I was actually the loser, bet 1st on the turn, and opened on river and called raise. Saw flush as I turned over my cards. The problem is occassional but still can be costly, especially in multiway action. Any thoughts or help is appreciated.
Just a working stiff dw
If you lost $120 in a few hours of 3/6 and think that's unusual you better get a new hobby. It's not unthinkable to get in a couple hundred at that level. You probably should be playing from a >$1500 BR and have $300 in pocket for a session. If you play 4/8 you should increase those amounts proportionately.
If you "didn't notice" a flush, you should concentrate more on what's the best hand possible with a given board. Then figure if the other players would be playing with the hands that make that possible.
Most important you said the game was tight and raises (even calls) from early positions caused folds. There is a simple solution for that: get out of that game. Games with few callers usually = small pots and that means the *only* winner is the drop (rake + tokes). Never play against the house; if the other seats aren't gambling, get out.
Love.
With regard to books, I would stay away from Lou Krieger but certainly the 2+2 books and Lee Jones should be helpful.
Spend a little time off by yourself dealing out boardcards until you can easily recognize the nuts, the 2nd nuts, etc. Take a two card holding and a three card flop and see if you can identify the various possibilities.
If possible, try to find an even smaller game than $3-$6 like $2-$4 until you are really comfortable with the mechanics of the game and have some wins under your belt. In addition, avoid games that have a lot of pre-flop raising.
Finally, start writing down hands and posting some of them on this forum for comment. In addition, try to find some experienced players to discuss hands with and get their comments.
$1-2 hold'em would be even better than 2-4 when learning the absolute basics(I played 1-2 for about a year off and on, usually while waiting for a Draw Poker seat at Commerce Casino). When you get to the point where you can make your 30 or 40 dollar buy-in last for 6 or more hours on a regular basis(let alone averaging some type of win rate), then I'd move up to 2-4. Once I was able to hold my own at 2-4(within 6 sessions), I basically skipped 3-6 & 4-8 to play 6-12.
IMO, 6-12 is the best next step in the process of getting your feet wet. In 6-12, people have a little better hand selection, especially when faced with cold calling a pre-flop raise or re-raise. Couple this with slightly fewer people chasing you to the end than in the lower limits, you end up suffering fewer bad beats. Granted, the difference is only slight, but noticeably enough to help a person stay optimistic during the learning process.
-pdk
I like your idea about playing $1-$2 rather than $2-$4 if they have such a small game. I think that jumping from $2-$4 directly to $6-$12 is risky because the bankroll needed starts to get substantial. At $2-$4 you might swing $100 in an 8-10 hour playing session. At $6-$12 you could drop $500 on a really bad day.
I can understand your point about the jump, but it worked for me, and I never looked back. Remember, this guy has been playing poker for years, before now learning hold'em(just like I did). So once he gets all the basics down cold for hold'em, everything he's learned from the other forms of poker should transfer over nicely to hold'em, giving him a big advantage in comprison to somebody who is an absolute beginner to poker.
Just a thought, pdk
Jim,
I'm curious why you would stay away from Krieger. I received his Hold 'Em Excellence for Christmas. While I haven't studied it extensively yet, I didn't find any obvious errors, and see how it could be of some value for a player who is absolutely new to poker.
My big problem with Krieger's book is it doesn't contain very much information and isn't very organized. There is little there for a player with some experience, and for the beginner, it would be a difficult book to use because he jumps around so much.
PRC
In Hold-em Excellence, Krieger recommends that with AA,KK,QQ, and AK you not raise out of your big blind after several players limp in. He gives a fallacious argument supporting this idiotic advice. I wrote him a detailed letter outlining why he was mistaken. I ended it by asking him the following question: "If it is not right to raise out of your big blind with these hands, what hands do you raise with or do you forsake raising althogether when you are in your big blind?" He never answered. His "start chart" is also problematic.
In More Hold-em Excellence, he has a ridiculous discussion about not betting top pair on the turn when you have position over a lone opponent who has been checking because, to quote Krieger, "A worse hand won't call and a better hand will". This concept was appropriated from David Sklansky and more importantly it applies when you are on the river not the turn when there are more cards to come. Again, I wrote him a letter discussing why I thought this was bad advice. He never answered. I posted this as a problem a few months ago and only a few regulars responded all of whom agreed with me but then they asked why I was even posing this as a problem since it was a "no-brainer". I dropped my set of "Krieger Problems".
All that being said I think Krieger is a nice guy who has done a lot for the image of poker and I am sure he is an excellent player. I occasionally read his columns in Cardplayer but most of them are so rudimentary that they are not very informative.
I used to like reading Krieger before he released his first book, then he just ran out of things to talk about. His first book was such a disapointment to me, I couldn't even imagine glancing at his second book for free at a Library.
Randy E
Well, I don't want to be too hard on Krieger. Reading his books are better than not reading anything at all.
"Reading his books are better than not reading anything at all."
That bottom of the barrel comment would be better suited toward somebody like John Patrick.
-Ralph
I have never read John Patrick. However, to me the real pits is "Foolproof" in terms of truly horrid advice. Krieger is much better than "Foolproof".
You attitude really bites. So does mine ...
You figure the books are doing you wrong since you've lost over the last 10 hours after reading them? 10 hours, whoopie do.
You figured (after the hand) that you should have folded your top two pair on the turn because it turns out someone made a straight? This sort of hindsight results analysis is very detrimental over all.
You want to "bust the game open"? This means you think you can put these tight players on tilt and get them to ram and jam when you have the nuts? Good luck.
If the opponents are respecting early bets and you seem to get draws early, then you should be betting them liberally. You may not be getting the right odds to call but I assure you you are getting the right odds to steal with them.
Buy into 3/6 with $50 and leave after losing $100? Sounds like the stakes are too high for you due to your psycological association with your bankroll.
You changed seats to change your luck. Good luck; so to speak.
Want to quit if you break even? Yuuuuuuck.
You are at least considering changing your strategy based on how the last hand went for you.
2+2 essay books and Winning Poker will do a lot to improve your attitude and profesional approach to the game as will Brunson's Super System. It seems to me this is more important to you right now than detailed technique adjustments.
You've got "losing" on the mind. Stop playing, read at least one of these books, build up $1000 bankroll from your job, then go back and play.
"Play well, let success take care of itself." <== Plagerized from I-don't-recall.
- Louie
I'm very hesitant to recommend Texas Turbo Holdem, because if you use it wrong, it can hurt your game. However, it will help you to overcome your problem of reading the flop.
I would also recommend IRC poker. Playing the 10/20 there is very similar to playing in wild, low-limit games, and the 20/40 is very similar to typical 10/20 real casino games. IRC helped my game and highlighted some leaks. It is very good practice, and you can chat with the players during the game.
Good luck.
Carl- you said "I'm very hesitant to recommend TTH, because if you use it wrong, it can hurt your game"
Can you elaborate? I use TTH, usually to play against computer opponents in a game that resembles the one I'll be playing in later. Sort of like a warm up. I also have been using it to practice playing short handed.
Sometimes I feel sure that this helps my game, and other times I find myself making a move against a real player that would've worked against Lollie La Rue, but didn't have a prayer in real life. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Ryan
TTH is VERY easy to beat. Even if you know this, when you run strategies that work against those lames, there can be a subtle change in the way you approach the real game.
Example: Regular Rube is a very tight, passive player. You can always fold when he bets if you don't have a strong hand, and you always know what he's got. However, if he's in last position and everyone checks to him on the river, he will bluff. Now raise, and everyone folds. Clockwork.
Try playing like this in a real game, sayronaya(sp?).
I NEVER took TTH seriously as to win rate, but pure agression and other strategies work so well there it can spill over to your real game with disastrous results. I still play TTH, but I try to play the same as I would in a real game against strangers, for instance, I just fold in the above situation instead of raising. My win rate has dropped significantly in TTH, but is going up in the real game.
I'm not sure if this is a pure theory question, or if it is more a matter of personal taste. The scenario is the following: You are under the gun with a pair and you have raised pre-flop. It is safe to say that if your pair was Aces, you would prefer one caller to none. This is probably true for Kings as well. My question is "How low would your pair have to be before you are happier (or ambivalent) picking up the blinds rather than playing against a single opponent?"
Try to avoid discussing factors like the texture of the game, the wisdom of raising in the first place, etc. If it makes it easier, imagine that this is the very first hand of a no-rebuy, no-addon, Limit Holdem tournament and you do not know anything about your opponents, and vice versa.
or: how bad would your opponent have to be for you to be happy when he (and only he) calls when you have any pair.
brad
I believe that your question (although interesting) does not ask quite the same thing as my original question. Recall that in my scenario, you have no prior knowledge regarding your opponents.
Scroll down, you'll find tons of stuff on AA UTG preflop.
It depends entirely on who the callers are, and what hands they would call with. Unimproved small pairs are difficult to play heads-up, especially when you are out of position.
Of course, I agree. But, assume that you don't have that information. I personally would be happy picking up the blinds with pocket deuces (not that I would actually raise UTG with pocket deuces, but it's part of the scenario), but with pocket kings (or even queens), I'd prefer to play against a single "mystery" opponent rather than pick up the blinds. The question is would you or I feel the same way about pocket jacks, 10s, 9s ... ?
Okay, now the difference is how well YOU play.
If the question you're asking is whether the EV of a small pocket pair against a random opponent in showdown poker (both players go to the river) is higher than the EV of winning the blinds, I'll have to get back to you with the exact numbers, since I'm posting from work today and don't have time.
But this is one of those situations where showdown sims are just about useless, because neither you nor your opponent is going to play that way. For one thing, you have position, which is worth a LOT. But it all comes down to the players, which is why it's so important to pay attention at the table and try to get at least a rough handle on the nature of your opponents.
If your opponent is the type that will simply check to you if he misses the flop and fold to a bet, then you want him calling no matter what two cards you hold. On the other hand, if your opponent is agressive and might check-raise you with nothing in his hand if he think the flop missed YOU, then you'd rather just take his blind and move on if you have a small pocket pair.
"Okay, now the difference is how well YOU play. "
This indeed tells us when a person SHOULD be happy with a blind pickup vs. play single opponent. However, the key to how a person actually answers the question is:
"Okay, now the difference is how well you THINK you play. "
In other words, the better a player believes he/she is, the lower the rank of pair where the player is ambivalent to blind pickup vs. play single opponent.
Interestingly enough, when I presented this question to a friend whom I consider a good player, he answered that he wouldn't cry (ambivalence) if his pocket Jacks picked up the blinds. In retrospect, I believe that his answer was based on the additional assumption that everybody at the table (including oneself) is of approximately equal ability. If we add that assuption to the scenario, then I believe the question enters the realm of pure theory.
My guess, based on nothing in particular, 88.
- Andrew
x
While JJ and TT are on average more valuable than the blinds, their value in a specific case will depend greatly on the situation. They are much stronger in position against one predictable player, or else when facing a large field. They are vulnerable to (semi-)bluffs when a(n) overcard(s) hits, and so it is often difficult to know where you stand with them. It is impossible to play them accurately without sometimes folding the best hand. I would rather just get the blind money with them than face action after the flop from a reasonable calling hand with position. With TT, do you really want to face AJs or KQs or AQo with position on you?
That's what your sims say, but those sims are against tight/strong opponents. What about for more "average" opponents?
- Andrew
x
XXX
AA KK QQ are the only big pairs I know of - UTG I need QQ at the table you describe here.
Here's an interesting question that hasn't received a lot of discussion in the past.
Let's say you have to post a live blind in late position. What hands should you raise with, if no one has raised before you? And why?
Same hands I'd raise with if I didn't have the blind in.
If the remaining players are at all tight, any 2 cards without looking ( look though so they get worried ). It is a raise or fold situation and you can't fold. I would also raise with AA etc because it will look suspicious to try and limp late.
If the blinds are going to call 80% of the time or more then I think normal raising standards that take into account the loose blinds is the way to decide.
D.
If your in late posisition with no one in then you should raise it quite frequently since your getting ove 2-1 with the extra money in the pot.
I'm one off the button with in 6-12HE (single BB) and hold 45s. 5 callers to me - I call. BB raises and 6 see a flop of A27 rainbow (no spades). BB bets, 3 others call and so do I. Turn is a 3. Checked to me and I bet. BB and I get into small raising war - 4 bets each and then I stop. River is A which makes me cringe. He bets, I call, he shows pocket 3's for the full-house.
This was a night, last Saturday, which cost me $580 and then on Sunday I managed to drop anonther $310 :(
Any advice would be GREAT!
Thanks,
Michael
You only made two questionable plays here. Pre-flop, limping in with Five-Four suited even from the cutoff despite having five other limpers ahead of you might be debateable. I would not say it was wrong but this is a very weak hand.
On the turn you had the nuts and no free roll was involved. I would keep raising and not stop until my opponent did or I ran out of chips.
On the river, what can be said? Of course you call. You must not be living right.
how about in 1-4-8-8 where BB is only 2 dollars? do you think that a preflop call would then be OK? I was in a similar situation and was wondering if I could avoided it by just not playing this hand, bet felt that for only half a bet I sorta have to play 54s, as long as I don't think it'll get raised behind me.
It is probably pretty close. What you have to realize about these weak hands is that unless you get two pair or trips or a straight or a flush you cannot win usually and these hands are hard to make. In addition, occasionally you get your flush only to lose to a bigger flush especially when you have a lot of opponents. Ironically these hand supposedly "play well" against a lot of opponents but more opponents make it more likely you hit your hand and still lose. Frankly, if you simply never bothered playing these little suited connectors unless you were in your blinds it would probably not make a discernable difference in the long run one way or another.
If it doesn't make a difference from a chips standpoint, I would still suggest playing them as it will make you harder to read and THAT will make a difference in the long run.
Yes, skp if you are in games where the players are observant and astute and base their decisions not just on their cards and the board then this would be a definite benefit of playing these hands.
In addition, it is fun to play a hand once in awhile to keep from getting too bored.
"I'm one off the button with in 6-12HE (single BB) and hold 45s. 5 callers to me - I call"
Why call on such a low holding. Yes there are people limping in but this is not a good enough excuse to play this hand (45s). The flop was a rainbow with and A in it and the BB bet it and you called. Save your money for when you have the best of it. This is not one of thoese times.
Best of it !!
MJ
But MJChicago, on the flop there are 16 bets in the pot (12 bets pre-flop and 4 bets to him on the flop) and it only costs Michael 1 bet to call. I think he made a correct call with his gutshot especially with a rainbow flop. In addition, his outs are to the nuts on the turn. How could he not call at this point?
Jim, What's the minimu suited connectors you would play in the given situation? Minimum to raise?
I would limp in with Seven-Six suited behind several other limpers in middle/late position. I would play Six-Five suited and under from the small blind. I don't like raising with suited connectors after several players limp in even when I am in the cutoff seat or on the button. Specifically, I don't like raising with King-Queen suited when others limp in ahead of me and yet I will cold-call a raise with King-Queen suited. I know this sounds contradictory but I view King-Queen suited as a good but strange hand. I like raising with Ace-Jack suited. Of course I always raise with AQ suited and AK suited (Super Chick and Super Slick).
Even disregarding the poorer back-door potential of flopping two pair, etc., isn't there an important difference between these two types of suited connectors, in that 4/5 can require an Ace to be complete, while 5/6 cannot. In other words, at least some of the time that the A helps make your straight it can also help make a high straight -- i.e. a board of A 3 4 J K.
Is this circustmance significant enough to warrant playing one and not the other? [Conversely, the ace that helps make your 4/5 a nut can also convince a two overcards player to contribute an extra bet, where as a duece is unlikely to do so.]
nfm
Mickey you may be right and Six-Five suited probably should be played for a full bet in late position when other limp in. Perhaps I should revise my strategy a little.
Jim ,
I guess I just don't like the chances of 45s. With all these limpers. Most of the time I find that someone is going to have a few of my outs (A K Q J same suit) and this then just gives me a poor starting hand with a few missing outs. I know I may be giving a bit of +ev up but I can live with that. Would you play 34s in this position?
Best of it !!
MJ
If I made the dubious play of taking the flop, then once the flop came I would play any gutshot when I am getting 16:1 on my money and my outs are to the nuts.
I am not contesting the 16:1 call I was saying that I would not enter the pot with 45s from this position for 1 bet then get raised then it's 2 bets and like you if i was ..let's say in the BB and got a free shot then SURE I would be crazy not to try for the gut shot at 16:1 That has a great positive expectation for the 1 small bet.
MJ
Correction: I did not take the gutshot draw into account. I missed it when reading the flop.. my bad.
(I hate when that happens...LOL)
But I still would not Limp with 45s
MJ
Mike,
I have never regretted dumping a gut shot straight. I am sure I am tons of money ahead because I just don't draw to it if I have nothing else going for me.
Free money for someone else.
It is a clear call on the flop. You are definitely not ahead because of giving up those plays.( unless you are living Really right ).
David - it is the reason I am a winning player there are some things I don't do in a poker game and gut shots are one I don't draw to.
They still don't get it, do they?
Sammy,
This guy thinks I am leaving money on the table looking for a miracle card. I save so many bets not chasing gut shots and 3 flushes - it has made me a winning player and I suggest it for anyone who wants to turn their game around
we all can agree that it will lower your variance, to not draw to 3 or 4 outers. (even if we cant all agree it will lower your ev.) and high variance has been shown to be highly correlated with tilting, which in turn ...
brad
I still do not get it, that is correct.
D.
David,
This is not a criticism of the standard pos ev school of thought or a jab at its advocates. Rounder has stated his philosophy in such a clear concise way he is almost a caricature of himself. His advice is low, low variance. He is, unlike many people on this forum, not criticising his detractors. He's just saying, this is what I do, it works for me, take it or leave it. My post was in reference to the effort that many posters make to try and convince Rounder he's making mistakes. There is no doubt he KNOWS what he should do according to 2+2 he simply chooses not to. As he has said, in one of his funniest posts, the only one who posts here that he doesn't want at his table is Jim Brier. He'll send a cab for the rest of you. (I hope when he wins the WSOP he hires me as his press agent!!! :-))
Sammy I forgot about the cab comment - I can be a real a-hole sometimes huh! :-)
But in a good way. :-)
The problem is that it is not some fashion that we can each have some opinion about. There is one correct way to play in most of these situations.
I understand the variance argument. First of all, low variance doesn not help you "do well" as rounder as attributted to his succes. I have some more to say about the variance reasoning on this and will make a new post later.
D.
I suspect Rounders low variance plays might be due to too much tournament poker, were of course it makes sense.
David,
I read your posts, I respect your knowledge and advice, sincerely.
My only, singular, solitary point in all this is that if you spend 2 seconds coming up with an incredible argument for calling when the pot odds favor you, and you expect Rounder to change the way he plays then you've wasted 2 seconds. He knows the math, he knows the odds, he knows that what the "math guys" profess works for them. It's not that he's not believing it, he's just not going to do it. So save yourself some carpal tunnel and invest your time helping us other poor unfortunates that can't win enough to get out of 5-10.
Sammy - it is like I'm saying the earth is flat or something - I still have not had it proven to me that drawing to longshots pays off in the short, long or medium run.
Rounder,
If you understand expectation - you have all the proof you need that longshot draws when expectation is positive (pot odds > odds your hand holds up given that you make your hand) are profitable in the long run.
It's really quite simple - and it's the same EXACT reason all those tall hotels exist in vegas.
But, given that, your variance will definitely be much greater. So, as long as you play a limit which will not bankrupt your bankroll in the short run, it is correct to draw to longshots when the EV is +.
You must play with real lives ones. Please tell us your secret in game selection.
It's up to you to decide if you want to play a speculative hand like 4s5s. It's a low budget hand and you had a high volume pot - which is what you're looking for - or so all the experts say.
I used to play this hand in late position but I got tired of someone else showing me a higher flush the few times I made one. The next time you do play this hand, I hope you're in a luckier seat.
Tough shit. You got drawn out on. Big deal. I think congratulations are in order you got most of the money in on the turn when you were ahead. Same thing happens tonight I bet you'd want even more action on the turn. If the guy with trips never won hands like that he wouldn't put so much money in on the turn. Was there a question in your post?
Last June I was playing in a $30-$60 game at the Bellagio in Vegas and Cissy Bottoms was at the table. For those of you unfamiliar with her, she is regarded as one of the best middle limit hold-em players in the country. I was sitting in Seat #3 as the big blind holding the Eight of Spades and the Five of Diamonds. Cissy was in the small blind. #5, #6, #8, #9, and Cissy all limp in with no one raising. I get a free play in my big blind. There is $180 in the pot and six players in the hand.
The flop is: Queen of Diamonds, Nine of Diamonds, Five of Hearts
Cissy checks. I check my bottom pair. #5 and #6 both check. #8 bets $30 and #9 calls. Cissy now raises to $60. I fold. #5 folds. The other three players call. There is $420 in the pot and four players.
The turn is: Seven of Clubs
Cissy now checks. The other three players all check.
The river is: Ten of Clubs
Cissy bets $60. Only #8 and #9 call. Cissy wins a $600 pot holding the Ten of Spades and the Ten of Hearts for a set of Tens at the river.
I am totally baffled by her play here. With a Queen on the flop why would anyone check-raise on the flop with a pocket pair of Tens against 5 opponents? I would have folded her hand on the flop after being bet into against this large a field. It is almost certain someone has a Queen and that she is playing a two outer. In fact, the Ten of Diamonds may not be an out for her hand since it could give someone a Diamond flush. Furthermore, she is out of position for the rest of hand and should not expect to get any free cards so her raise shouldn't buy her anything. Obviously, someone blundered by not betting the turn.
I am seriously stumped here. What I am missing?
Jim,
No one wants to be made a fool of and get check raised twice. It would seem the check raise on the flop did indeed get her a free card on the turn. Knowing your opponents is very important and knowing what your opponents know about you is equally important, especially if you can use it to your advantage.
It sounds like Cissy put the bettor on a semibluff and the caller after him on a draw, and so she check-raised with a reasonable probability of having the best hand. However, a third player cold called and so with the heightened chance that somebody had a queen she pretty much gave up the pot at that point.
On the turn, I suspect she was in check-fold mode, but it's possible that she feared being semi-bluff raised out of the pot if she bet and so risked giving a free card instead. TT does not really want a free card here itself, except as an alternative to check-folding.
Finally, remember that given your incomplete information you cannot always logically analyze the play of an experienced veteran like Cissy. She may have been acting on some subtle tells, for example. If you think this hand was wacky, you have not seen anything yet.
-Abdul
I 'd guess that this was her thinking on the flop:
#8 would bet lots of hands other than top pair, #9 would raise with top pair or better. So she has a good chance of having the best hand of the three, and can probably drive out the rest of the players by confronting them with two bets cold.
It's sort of marginal given the second player having called, but that would be my guess as to her thinking.
Jim, one quibble with your posting style. For me it's much quicker to read cards written as, say, Qd9d5h, rather than "Queen of diamonds..." Maybe that's just me.
Post deleted at author's request.
Hmmm, that's what I was afraid of. I'm just weird... Still I do have an easier time with that strange little poker code. :-/
Count me strange as well...but to me QdJs8h is a lot easier to follow than Queen of Diamonds, Jack of Spades and eight of Hearts...of course, it might just be because I am lazy and don't like to type.
nah, you are not weird and skp is not strange (at least not for this reason). Anyone who thinks QdJs8h is harder to read is just plain wrong. I'll let David explain why. :)
Qd9d5h is much easier for me to read and quickly comprehend than reading the full descriptions....and this makes sense:
The cards on the table are displayed like this.
Mark
Maybe she knew the person who bet out would bet out with almost anything. If she is a regular at the bellagio there is a good chance she has played with these players more than you have. That being said, check raising on the flop isn't a totally horrible play. If a Q ISN'T out there she is ahead. She knocked out weak hands like your bottom pair. Maybe she had an inkling of what people held. It would have been interesting what she would have done if people bet out on the turn.
She was representing Q's I guess or with the weak betting on the flop she figured her TT were good.
Hey I played a very tough hombre at Binions last year named bottoms. Any relation. This guy was tough as nails.
Hey I played a very tough hombre at Binions last year named bottoms. Any relation. This guy was tough as nails.
Yes. That is her grandfather.
Rounder,
He's about 55 and not a lot of hair and they all call him "Bottoms". That's her husband and he's also a hell of a player.
R
This guy was really big - 6'4" or taller mean looking and never missed a bet raised every hand if he was in the pot he was raising. Sound like this guy.
My read on this hand is similar to some of the other posts. She check raised a weak field with what could have been the best hand but, more importantly, she also intimidated the field into checking the turn. A strong player would have bet a queen after she checked on the turn. This field didn't. Her play was perfect.
In my humble opinion, Cissy Bottoms is one of the toughest players in Vegas. So is her husband who goes by the name of Bottoms.
This is an outstanding play. Her intention is to put in two small bets, and probably no more after that. She wins on the flop or stops a weak Q from betting through the showdown. The Ten on the River is just a bonus. I doubt she was going to put any more in the pot without improvement. BTW did any of the callers show?
Check out a Cooke article a few months ago where he had a confrontation with Cissy. He won, but was outplayed all the way till he got lucky on the river.
I hope to someday be at the same table with her and/or Cooke - just hope I have the nuts if we're in the same hand.
No, Carl neither of the other two players showed their hands. What amazed me was that no one seemed surprised. Of course, yours truly just about fell out of his chair but I did retain my composure.
I believe the article you mentioned should have been entitled "Sucking Out on Cissy" and I was surprised that Roy Cooke wrote it up. It must be nice to hit runner-runner and run down a set.
That's the one. He had a legitimate call on the flop, then picked up the flush draw. She was going to lose, no matter what, I just think she set him up for 2 extra bets on the flop and turn, beautifully done, then, as Cooke himself admits, got sucked out on.
I LOVE this game!
i have been hearing about sissy from ex vegas-ites here in ca, for quite sometime. Why does she have the reputation for being so good? Most great players have trademark skills. What are hers?
I have only played against her a few times. She played $20-$40 at the Mirage and then when the Bellagio opened she switched to $30-$60 there. She seems to be a very tight, aggressive player. Also a very nice lady. She also knows the locals and many of the tourists in terms of how they play. She has been playing $20-$40 and now $30-$60 for over 20 years. This means that she was playing hold-em long before it really caught on with the rest of the public poker playing community. Every pro and Vegas local I have talked to has observed that over time she just seems to win. Lots of players come and go in Vegas many just burning out or going broke but she is always in the chips.
What I cannot figure out about her is why she doesn't play higher like $40-$80 or now $60-$120.
Jim,.
You asked: "What I cannot figure out about her is why she doesn't play higher like $40-$80 or now $60-$120?"
You wrote: "Every pro and Vegas local I have talked to has observed that over time she just seems to win. Lots of players come and go in Vegas many just burning out or going broke but she is always in the chips."
Isn't that the answer?
Regards,
Rick
Rick hit the nail on the perverbial head. She has an extremely high success rate. Her husband is also a great player and he sometimes plays 15-30. A lot of players want to keep escalating in limits and that's fine but what is also fine is to keep winning. I played 3 nights of 15-30 at the Bellagio about 2 months ago and won 2100 one session, 900 the next and 580 the last. I was so itching to play 30-60 so I did and sat next to Cissy. I did not have a good session. I don't know if it was the better players or the limits were playing with my mind or what but I know I shouldn't have left that 15-30. Good Luck,
RAZOR
You are probably right Rick. It is just that it seems to me as natural as breathing to move up when you have a long established winning record and therefore the bankroll to play higher.
Jim,
My guess is that she does move up a notch now and then but decides that the risk versus reward isn't worth it. Now she may be at the point where she has enough money to play in that very tough Bellagio 30/60 (for the challenge) rather than softer games above and below that limit. But she is probably killing them there also.
In Los Angeles you do make one big sacrifice once you play bigger than 20/40 holdem - that is game selection. If you stay on the board and/or change list and play both the 15/30 and 20/40, you should always be able to stay in a good game. At 40/80 and above there is either only one game or you are in a "forced move" situation.
Regards,
Rick
If I had to pick Cissy's greatest skill, it would be that when Cissy is second to act before the flop at a full table holding 55 just after the under-the-gun raiser, she 3-bets and sucks out by turning a set with 55 versus QQ.
-Abdul
Top Set at that... He writes himself into being a poor player in my opinion. He always writes articles where he wins the pot after a terrible play and I talked to Cissy about the article he wrote on her because he asked her if she minded if he wrote it and she didn't although she told me she didn't know why he wanted to write about a play that was so poor.
R
I am going to answer this post and then read the other threads. This play may have baffled you but it doesn't make it a bad play. Mrs. Bottoms is great at reading hands, one of her best strengths. If she thought that no one had a queen she could have been check-raising for value. I'm sure she had a good table image which is usual for her and she check-raised to get the last two cards for free and willing to fold if someone made it $90. Some plays that aren't textbook work! Last year's World Series of Poker when Huck Seed comes over the top of Noel Furlong with $500,000. He didn't exactly hold a premium hand(j8d), and that play would also baffle. If Furlong hadn't called with A3h who knows how that one turns out. What was worse(The all-in bet or the call with A3?
What was worse...Cissy's check-raise without top pair or the person who was to scared to make it $90 or misread the check-raiser and allowed free cards? Whatever you decide or how you perceive her play, she is an outstanding limit player and if there is a table without her in it, that's the one I'm looking for! Good luck, Razor
Thoug betting out on the flop is a reasonable alternative, once she doesn't, her play is definitely correct. Since there is almost no chance the caller has her beat the only one she really needs to worry about is the bettor. And she doesn't has to feel that she is favored to have him beat to make this play. Anything above something like 30% means she cannot fold. And if she cannot fold she is usually better off raising for a few diffeerewnt reasons.
Let us temporarily set aside the specific player or players for a moment and simply look at what the theoretically and technically correct play is. Make this a game of strangers who have never seen each other before. Given that flop which contains a Queen and 5 opponents, my evaluation of my pocket pair of Tens drops dramatically when someone else bets and two other players call. It is highly unlikely that all 3 opponents are on a flush draw. I have to feel that someone has a Queen and that I am playing a two outer at best in a small, unraised pot. The fact that I don't even have a Ten in the right suit further depreciates my hand. If for some reason I had to decided to play this hand, then I would much rather lead as opposed to check-raising.
Is this right?
The difference between winners and losers here is drastic.
When you make plays like this, you're actually betting a parlay. For you to win money, the algorithm looks like this (I'll try an explanation this way to see if it's clear. Let me know what you think):
We win the pot -
IF Tens don't improve (91% of the time)
the bettor must be on a draw,
AND caller must be on a draw,
AND no one else with a better hand will call,
AND the draws cannot come in
ELSE IF Tens Improve (9% of the time)
the bettor or caller do not have QQ
AND their draws don't come in
Now, let's take the first case. Let's say that there's a 50% chance for each player that they are on a draw. And let's assume that we are 100% sure that no one else will call our 3-bet. Finally let's assume that both players have different draws, for a total of 17 cards, so one of those draws will come in 60% of the time.
The percentage of times the first IF will be true is .91 X 1 X .5 X .5 * .4, or around 9%.
In the second case, where you are beaten but hit a ten to win (forget the QQ for this discussion), the second IF will be true .09 X .67 (only one 9-out draw), or about 6% of the time
So our chance of winning the pot in this scenario is around 15% or so.
Now, let's say a better player can narrow the possibility that the two other players are both on draws down to 75% for the bettor and 90% for the caller. In this case, the chance of winning the pot climbs to about 31%.
But now let's say you don't read players very well, and the chance that the original bettor doesn't have a Queen is 25%, and the raiser's chance of not having a queen is 25%, and there's a 50% chance that someone who checked has one. In this case, the chance of winning is about 7%. The first IF term in our algorithm resolves to almost zero (1.1%), and you're essentially putting in three bets just to hit a ten and not have the draws come in.
Looking back at this, I think I made a few errors (I'm rushing this message because I'm on a lunch break), and I left out a lot of details (Both players could fold to the double raise, one could be betting an underpair and will fold on the turn, etc) but the point is the same: When you are making judgement calls about multiple events, ALL of which have to be correct, then small differences in judgement wind up being major differences in profitability.
One other comment about the 3-bet - If Cissy thought the last player was on a draw but the first might have a queen but would lay it down facing two cold bets, then a re-raise is DRASTICALLY superior to a call. If she's certain the last player is on a draw, but she thinks there's a 50% chance that the bettor has a queen, but also a 50% chance that he'll lay it down to a double-raise, then just calling means she'll win the pot 21% of the time, but if she raises she'll win 29% of the time.
Dan, good analysis but I have a few things. In the second case, the probability of the draws not coming in should be 40% not 67%. If it is agreed that 60% of the time one of the draws will come (based on the first case) then there is a 40% chance neither will come in. Therefore, for the second case, I think the computation is 0.09 x 0.40 or about 3.6% of the time versus your 6%. Am I right here??
There is no "3" bet involved. This is a check-raise situation on the flop so only one of the three players had to call a double bet and the other two only had to call a single bet once they came in initially.
The other problem is that when Cissy check-raised she had 5 opponents not 3. I think the parlay is much greater than what you have outlined since you have to factor in the potential actions of 5 other players.
But I still feel that if I am going to play this hand, I think it is better to bet out because at the time I bet there is a much greater possibility of me having the best hand then when I check and it is bet and called to me.
The probability of the draws not coming in in the second case is 67% because only one player has that draw. Remember, in the second case, the assumption is that the Tens are no good, so it means one of the two players has a made hand. I'm assuming the other one has a flush draw.
Jim,
Given that 2+2 common wisdom is:
1) Bet if you are going to call
and
2) Raise with top pair
Why *wouldn't* you raise with TT and Q-hi flop, if someone bet and one person called, in a game populated by *exactly* the kind of players who are likly to understand most of the tactics in 2+2 books?
- Andrew
I posted this far below, but I think interest in that thread had already passed and my post didn't receive any attention. As I am enthused with the thought, I wanted to post it again.
The original poster wanted to know if he "sucks" at poker. Many respondents mentioned that a first cluse was playing to many hands. I then posted ...
After playing to many hands, the second biggest leak is calling to much, mostly on the flop, but also all the way to the river.
I wonder if the number of showdowns on the river you win would be a good indicator of whether you are taking your hands to far.
In other words, when a hand reaches a river showdown, what percentage of hands do the good players out there win.
I have no idea what a reasonable percentage would be. Can the better players out there help?
I'm excited about the concept, but need more information before deciding if it is useful.
Jim, Rounder, Rick, Louie, SKP, John, David, Mason, Abdul, Dan, Andrew, and another dozen good names I missed: is this a useful concept, and what would the percentage be?
PRC
PRC,
This probably has nothing to do with very much, but I did some work with archived data awhile ago from IRC 10/20 games. I compiled a chart showing how often each final hand won when there was a showdown. I came up with two interesting results. First, that when you have a game where an average of 3.17 players see the flop 2.1 players see the showdown. If exactly 5 players see the flop, then an average of 2.41 players see the river. The fall off by the river is much steeper when there are more players in the pot.
The second set of results list how often a particular hand wins, and which hands it is beating. For example, high card won about 8% of the showdowns. A pair won about 30% of the showdowns. One might expect these numbers. Unfortunatly, I didn't break down the results into sub-categories like top-pair, or A-hi.
One interesting thing is that straights hold up more often than flushes at showdown. This is probably because straights are more disguised than flushes so they get more river calls.
Anyways, if you want to see the summary it is here.
I've got other moldy data laying around there as well.
- Andrew
BTW, the tabular results I posted are for ALL players. If you are a better player you should have better results for each, assuming the game conditions are similar. In tighter games, the results will of course be different.
- Andrew
Another follow up.
The moldy data link was wrong.
- Andrew
Lots of rich data there. I won't have time to really study it until this weekend, but I will thank you now. I'm sure it will generate lots of good thinking about the game.
PRC,
I'd say I win 80 to 90 % of the hands I take to the river. There have been sessions where I won every hand I took that far. This is a guessas I don't keep stats on this part of the game but I win the vast majority of the hands I take that far.
This is another amazing stat. Consider this. You have AhAs and the board is QdJd9c7c and you have 3 players who call you on the turn. You are not going to win 80 to 90% of the time. Even one opponent holding 2 diamonds is going to beat you 20% of the time.
I realize that you are guessing here but I have to think that your guess is off...way off.
I really can't answer PRC's question any better than Hanson did.
skp - I win a vast majority of hands I take to the river - now you have me wondering I think I'll keep score for a while and report back.
I guarantee that if you reach close to 100% you will be a losing player in typical club games.
It's the old adage: " if you don't fail once in a while, then you aren't trying enough..."
That's why games have an ante, so that you can't just play the nuts.
Some reasons that lower percentages may be better:
You actually want certain hands to try to suck out on you on the river. Somebody drawing to a two card out is usually a good thing.
You are bluffing on all + ev chances. This may mean you succeed much less than half the time. Obtaining a high % showdown forgoes bluffing opportunities
Playing too tight will raise your showdown percentage but lower your win rate. It will also reduce action that you receive.
80-90% seems a little too high for a typical game. Of course pot size, number of players, etc will alter your thinking on % showdowns.
Unfortunately it's not that easy to determine a good index for a good player.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
This is an interesting subject to me and one that i haven't seen much discussion about on this forum. I do think if you are winning 80-90% of your showdowns you aren't calling or bluffing enough. There are times when you should call with hands that can only beat bluffs. Say you know your opponent might try to bluff 1 in 10 times, if the pot is over 60 in a 3-6 game you should call with a hand that can beat a bluff. This call will be a loser most of the time but should show a long run profit. Personally, i know i win far fewer showdowns than i used to. I went from somewhere around 80-90% to around 60%. These numbers are just guesses but i think it would be very useful to keep records of this. The funny thing is my profits have gone up and i have been much more consistant while winning fewer showdowns. Anyone who wins 90-100% should carry a sign saying "just bet I'll fold."
That's going to depend completely on the type of game you are playing. In very loose games, you are going to be getting odds for some thin draws, so the percentage of hands that you take to the river and lose with will be much higher.
In a tight, tough game, if you're at the river it's usually because you had a big draw like an open-ended straight or a flush, or because you think you have the best hand. Your draws will come in roughly a third of the time, and your judgement about having the best hand should be correct most of the time. So I'd guess that in a game like this you should be raking the pot around half the time that you see the turn card. But that's really just a wild-assed guess.
If you find yourself calling river bets and losing too much, you need to re-evaluate your play on the turn and flop.
Dan,
Two things,
First, the original poster was talking about showdown hands. In a tough game the only way you're going to showdown a busted straight or flush draw is if the opponent is when you call a river bet when you think the opponent is bluffing. You are right in that you will go to the river with more draws in a loose game, but you are still going to showdown very few of the busted draws.
As far as calling with weak hands that are likely beat on the river, you are again going to be doing this more often in loose games than in tight games because you will be getting better pot odds. On the other hand, IN BOTH CASES, you should probably be losing with hand which you call on the river quite a bit. Folding any pair on the river is probably a mistake in almost all loose games - going to the river with any pair is a different matter entirly. The same holds for all but the tightest of tight games as well. Folding anything but weak pairs on the river is going to probably cost you in the long run. Again, going to to the river with marginal pairs is probably a mistake, but if you river a marginal pair, you are probably going to have to call most of the time, unless you have a good read on your opponent.
In the long run, you should lose most of your river CALLS. On the other hand, you should win most of the hands which you BET or RAISE on the river.
- Andrew
Sorry, I thought he meant the number of times that you were in the hand at the river but didn't win the pot.
Dan writes: "If you find yourself calling river bets and losing too much, you need to re-evaluate your play on the turn and flop."
Precisely. The question is how do you know when you are calling river bets and losing to much? If Rounder's case, that could be if you are winning showdowns at a pace of 60-70%. For SKP, it is going to be somewhat less.
An analogy to this question is what should your standard deviation be. Of course, this number will vary depending on loose games or tight games, passive games or maniacal games. However, there is a commonly accepted range for standard deviation that professionals use to guage their play. I think that the number of showdown hands you win could be another useful number. It isn't perfect, but any diagnostic tool you have to objectively measure your game should be a good thing. You could even break it down into rivers you just call, rivers you bet, and rivers you raise.
I think I will keep tracking of these numbers, and asking some of my buddies to do the same. Maybe it will provide useful.
Thanks,
PRC
8-16 somewhat loose-passive at Bellagio.
A: a 'seemingly' tight player
I am OTG with QQ. I raise and get 3 callers. Flop is J 6 3 off. I bet and A calls from middle position, others fold. Turn is a 3. I bet the turn, A calls. I bet the river (a blank) and A raises. He has A3 off to beat me with trips.
I almost scream "how could you have called the bet with bottom pair?" Comments?
If I see you raising all your hands and then show dow hands like Q4 suited. I would be calling your bet also. In fact, most times I would raise you on the flop to isolate.
That would account for me raising with bottom pair. It still may be correct if you have a hand like QQ to isolate and possibly buy a free card.
Why I would call with A3o for two bets cold is another story...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Now I would look at this as a positive sign - make lemonade out of lemons - if this guy is drawing with bittom pair with that size pot you should beat him in the long run.
Those things happen. Sometimes the "mathematically incorrect" player wins the pot. Did you go on "tilt"? Maybe that was what he was trying to do to you! Good Luck! Black Jack
1. If A seems to be a tight player may be he read your previous plays and did no believe you have any premium hand. He is a big underdog if you play normanlly at otg. 2. Any time when someone call in that situation they are most likely have the middle or bottom pair.
Your play is correct. The best you can hope for is save one bet.
Well, Nigel let us try to look at this objectively. You raised pre-flop with pocket Queens and got three callers. There is now 8 small bets in the pot, ignoring the blinds. On the flop you bet your big over pair. The pot now has 9 small bets and it costs the guy with bottom pair and an over card 1 bet to take off a card. If you have just over cards like big slick, he actually has the best hand. If you have an over pair then he has 5 outs (2 Threes plus 3 Aces) from 47 unseen cards which is 42:5 against which is about 8:1. Based strictly on pot odds he has a clear call.
The rest of the play is fairly standard.
The real question is how could this guy cold-call an early position pre-flop raiser with A-3 offsuit? Well, apparently he is not so tight and your read on him was inaccurate.
This happens all the time.
Well, isn't it rather this:
He has 5 outs out of 47 unseen cards, so his odds of drawing out are 5/47, which is less than 1/9. So he really doesn't quite have the odds to take off a card (tho' implied odds might swing it?). On the other hand, there is a positive probability that I am holding an ace or two, or a set of jacks.
Perhaps I am not doing the odds right...
Oh yeah, he seemed tight, the only player except me that seemed to be very selective preflop. Oh well.
No, the odds are 42:5 against him and he is getting 9:1 on his money. Look at this way. Suppose the game ends on the turn card and there is no river card nor any betting allowed on the turn. Now if he catches an Ace or a Three he wins otherwise he loses. Let us do this 47 times. In 42 of those times he loses his 1 bet for a total loss of 42 bets. However, the 5 times he wins, he will win 9 bets for a total gain of 45 bets (5x9). Net result is that he makes 3 bets each 47 times he plays under our hypothetical situation so he has a positive expectation.
Now we can actually refine this a little bit. We assumed that there were 47 unseen cards. But suppose he knows that you don't have a Three because you would not raise pre-flop with a Three in your hand. Further suppose he assumes that you don't have an Ace either because he has one. He could assume that there are really 45 unseen cards and that he has 5 outs so the odds are 40:5 against him which is 8:1 rather than 42:5 which is worse than 8:1. This makes his call even better.
Now going back to reality, if he hits his hand on the turn he will collect two double bets on the turn and one on the river or vice versa which is 6 more small bets. This means he is actually getting 15:1 on his money assuming he hits his card on the turn and you don't redraw against him at the river.
Could it possibly be that the "loose" caller with A3o knew exactly where you were? A big pair, probably not aces because he's holding one, TT,JJ,QQ,or KK. If he knows that you'll pay off an ace all the way to the river wheras he doesn't have to unless he hits his hand, I can see calling preflop to catch an ace that I know is good and dumping otherwise. As it was, he caught a piece of the flop and ran by you on the turn. Maybe you were playing too tight UTG? Only raising big pairs? Question? If you only raise big pairs under the gun (TT and up) what are the odds of you having AA? On the other hand if you raise with big pairs, AKs and AKo, and AQs what are the odds of you having at least one ace? For A3o the former is a reasonable call in hopes of catching an ace on the flop in the later the A3o can't even consider calling because he doesn't know nor will he until the showdown when he's ahead or behind.
Suppose the pre-flop raiser only raises in early position with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK,AQ,AJ suited, and KQ suited. With one Ace accounted for there are 28 ways he has a hand without an Ace and 30 ways he can have a hand that contains an Ace.
The other problem with this idea Chris is that he is not in a heads-up situation with just the pre-flop raiser. There are two other players in the hand. If an Ace flops, which statistically is a good flop for him, where is he going with his top pair/no kicker hand when someone else bets? I would not even limp in with this piece of cheese unless it was suited and I definitely think calling two bets cold is bad poker.
Suppose the pre-flop raiser only raises in early position with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK,AQ,AJ suited, and KQ suited. With one Ace accounted for there are 28 ways he has a hand without an Ace and 30 ways he can have a hand that contains an Ace
While I'm not defending a cold call, I believe the correct numbers are 39 hands with an A and 40 hands without an A.
Fat-Charlie
By my count when you have an Ace in your hand there are 3 ways for someone to have AA, 12 ways to have AK, 12 ways to have AQ, and 3 ways to have AJ suited. This adds up to 30 ways.
There are 6 ways for KK, 6 ways for QQ, 6 ways for JJ, 6 ways for TT, and 4 ways for KQ suited. This adds up to 28 ways.
Not to mention the fact that he could have easily read you for AK or AQ. If you raised under the gun with that, he still has the best hand, plus he gets paid off when the ace hits. Also, as previously pointed out, he IS getting the right odds to draw another card. I would have raised the flop with the A3 to see where you stood.
Mike
s
Jim,
I am reading your analysis and it almost seems like you think the guy with the A3 played OK on the flop and beyond or his play was at least close. I think he played terribly.
The original hand again was: "I am OTG with QQ. I raise and get 3 callers. Flop is J 6 3 off. I bet and A calls from middle position, others fold. Turn is a 3. I bet the turn, A calls. I bet the river (a blank) and A raises. He has A3 off to beat me with trips."
Obviously, the pre flop call was not made by a tight or even a decent player. After the flop he has bottom pair with an overcard and is faced by a lead bet from the pre flop raiser. He had an easy fold IMHO.
First, he has to worry about someone raising behind him. Taking a card off with his thin hand would only begin to make sense if his call closed the betting.
Next, there is a good chance that hitting his ace (remember he didn't have a view of his opponents cards at the time) would just get him in trouble. In other words, he could be up against an AJ held by any player or even A6 by one of the other callers (especially at this level).
That being said, I would easily pay $50 for a book of problems you write. I just don't think you should team up with Rounder. His book should easily fetch $100 once he wins a big one and will be in a class of its own.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Regarding John Feeney's nit (I forgot where it is). A good compromise for posting a flop would be Qh Td 7s. This is faster then your way and a little less cluttered then Feeney's.
I tend to agree.
The preflop call is obviously awful.
On the flop, I am much more likely to call when the betting has been closed. If I were to play (which is unlikely), I would raise.
I do have one nit. I wouldn't worry too much about drawing dead to an Ace on the turn in this situation. In fact, it is more likely that the players behind you have A,10 or A,Q or even AK instead of A,6. Those players have to worry about hitting an Ace because they could run into a guy with a pair and an Ace kicker on the flop. Having said that, in the face of a pre-flop raise and three callers, it is less likely that an Ace will come off on the turn because of the propensity of the Ace to be in the hands of the players who paid to see the flop. Thus, it is unlikely that A3 has 5 cards to hit on the turn (i.e. his hand after the flop would be better if it was K3). In any event, I agree that folding is the best play on the flop and it is without question the best play preflop.
From the narrative it is not exactly clear where the folders were in relation to the bettor and "A". The bettor was under the gun and "A" called from middle position. Any any rate, clearly it is more dangerous to call when you are being bet into than when you are the last to act. But all that notwithstanding, this flop is pretty innocuous (J-rag-rag). I don't see any straight or flush threats. It is unlikely that someone will raise an under the gun raiser when the raiser bets this flop and you call unless he has a very good Jack like Ace-Jack or King-Jack.
There is a risk that when an Ace comes off on the turn someone else may have a better Ace but it would have to be specifically Ace-Jack or Ace-Six. Possible but not likely in my opinion with 3 opponents. If an Ace comes off, he may get a good clue if the pre-flop raiser checks rather than bets.
I think that when the pot gets raised pre-flop, it is large enough, especially when you consider implied odds, that it becomes worthwhile to venture a call here. If it were an unraised pot then I would probably fold if bet into.
As an aside, if you have an Ace and someone else has an Ace it is less likely than usual for an Ace to show up on the turn. For an Ace not to be viewed as an out requires a very unlikely parlay, specifically:
A. An Ace shows up on the turn B. Someone else still in the hand has an Ace C. That someone has specifically a Jack or a Six as well.
The probability of all three of these things happening (A x B x C) is very, very small.
Jim,
I see your points. I also had problems decoding the lead post but it seemed pretty clear that player "A" had players left to act. I do need to think through taking one off when the betting is closed. I may be too tight here.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. To Nigel: What does OTG mean? We know UTG means under the gun but I think this is the second time you have used this.
I'd pay $50.00+ for a book by you two.
Derek,
I have said in the past that Jim is the one I DON'T want at my table - then jokingly said I will send a cab for the rest of you.
Jim is sure a good analyst and much more articulate than me. I have a book written and will self publish just as soon as I win my 1st major tournement. Who want's to buy a book from some slug who never won anything.
:-)
As Jim has accurately pointed out, A's call on the flop was correct; it was his cold-call of your pre-flop raise that stunk.
In order to help you read players like this in the future:
The play of Ax suited or unsuited is the biggest single pre-flop error I see players make at the lower limits (3-6 and 4-8). Even players who seem to be selective (like your Mr. "A") often overrate the Ax hands - they think A3 is almost as good as AK, and A3 suited is a power raising hand.
Watch for this pattern and you will see for yourself.
Dick
As has been stated the pre flop call was incorrect and I'm betting that player A made the correct call on the flop for the wrong reasons. I'm sure he wasn't figuring odds, since if he was intelligent enough to do that, he wouldn't have called the pre-flop betting. This happens all the time in lower limit loose games.
You are going to be sucked out on, by good and bad plays. This is the part of the game that can make or brake you. When you see the ridiculous play turn into gold for the fish making it, you have to be able to put it in the proper perspective. Read John's essay in the essay sectionof this site,it might help.seeya
TOO MAKE IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE
What I said about A3o calling an UTG preflop raise: If A3o know that UTG raises with only, repeat only, big pairs and not big aces and if A3o furthermore knows that UTG will pay off a hand that has him beat then calling the raise in hopes of catching an ace on the flop isn't that bad. Knowing exactly where your opponent is carries a lot of equity. Call it implied odds - the preflop call gives up some positive EV for the sake of later earning power.
So, again, if UTG only raises with big pairs and A3 knows this then the liklihood that UTG has AA is what? The liklihood that UTG has JJ,TT,QQ or KK is what? And if A3 catches his ace is UTG going to pay off all the way? That would have to be considered. Is it possible that A3o thought it would be a heads up play? You say A3o could have 3-bet before the flop but A3o knows that UTG big pair would 4-bet and he doesn't want to pay 4-bets to see a flop. Could be that A3 is willing to take the worse of it for two bets but not four. And A3 is willing to take the worse of it before the flop because he knows that, strategically and informationally, he'll have the best of it after the flop.
Do you think it is ever correct to raise preflop with nothing in order to trick your opponents? I was playing last week and I had nothing 3-5 offsuit, I decided to cap the pot because everyone was raising each other. The flop came 5,5,3 I checked and caught action from almost everyone increasing the pot. Everyone put me on pocket aces or A-K suited, they had no idea. Why would he raise with 3-5 offsuit everyone thought, it cost them tremendously!!!. I dont normally play this way, but I gave it a try and it worked.
You have to vary your play and you did and were lucky eneough to have to show a winner. I do it - rarely - but I do - amazing how often it workes out. Had the same thing happen with 85 the other day - flopped 885 and suprised the table.
I actually think your cap was a strong move, especially if you were on or obtained the button position for several reasons. First, as Rounder posted - you varied your play. Second, assuming everyone calls the capped bet, there would be at least 8 big bets in the pot pre-flop and lots of implied odds to come with your opponents holding strong hands probably and you holding the low hoping for rags to flop, which fortunatley they did. Lastly, depending on the turn and the river, you could hold the nuts actually or effectively. The difficulty with this hand though is to not get to cocky if you make only two pair since they are as weak a two pair as you can get almost. The turn and the river cards are very important, especially if an A and/or K comes. Starting with 53, you really need to flop the world in my opinion. Many good players will 3 or 4 bet the low on occasion when they put their opponents on big cards for the above mentioned reasons. Personally, I'd rather the low was suited and/or connected to add that slight edge to such a weak hand.
You should play this way frequently.After hitting your flop, the only thing you have to fear is an over pair hits it's set card. -Andrew
I agree with Rounder that varying your play is an important thing to do. However, I think it can be done more cheaply and in better situations.
Cold-calling a raise with a less than marginal hand, raising or limping in early position with a less than premium hand, etc. are good ways of varying your play, and its done at a relatively low price. Capping the pre-flop betting is a very expensive proposition.
Moreover, the vast majority of the time you are not going to hit the flop the way you did here. Unless you want to put more money down for advertising value you will have to fold you 53 (or similar hand) a vast majority of the time on the flop. Remember you get no advertising value if you cap then fold the flop. You raked a good pot in here, but I doubt it was big enough to equalize out the negative expectation of such a play over the long-run. I think times to vary your play must be chosen carefully as well.
It was a terrible play. Putting 4 bets into a pot with 53o is just a big-time losing move. You should never even put one bet in with this hand. The only time in my life I played 53o was either in the blinds or after posting a late-position live blind.
It's important to add deception to your game, but use some good judgement and do it with hands that actually show a profit. If you had held 55, then with 8 callers in the pot go ahead and cap it occasionally if you're already trapped for a bet or two. Another good candidate would be a hand like 89s.
When you are looking for deceptive hands, there is never an excuse to play them off-suit. 53s is just as deceptive as 53o, but it's worth a whole lot more. In a large field of weak players, 53s might turn a profit, but 53o will cost you money. Try to make a profit and be deceptive at the same time, and you give up nothing.
One last comment: If your game had 8-way capped pots, I doubt that your deception had any value at all. Players in games like that tend not to notice these things.
I have to agree with Dan on this point, capping it was really a poor play for 3 major reasons:
First of all as he said deception is not worth a whole lot in wild games where most people simply aren't being observant.
Secondly 53o is a terrible hand in a multiway pot, even 53s is garbage because if you make your flush you could easily be beat.
Also because there are so many players in the pot and it was already 3 bet you don't have any chance of bluffing out the better hands, they are going to call you down the whole way.
If you want to be deceptive there are much better much more profitable ways to go about it. Three-bet a tight raiser (the kind who can release AQ on the flop if he doesn't have anything) with a hand like 67s. Or try raising someone on the turn with a flush draw. These types of play will not only make you money through advertising but they might even prove profitable in isolation. Just keep in mind that your image is very important if they are always going to call you down because you play pretty aggressive then don't make these semi-bluffs.
Good Luck,
Shawn Keller
Shawn
This type of play looks brilliant when you hit. But what of the 80% (or higher) times when you either flop a draw or nothing? You got lucky here but be careful that this hand does not become your "lucky hand" and reinforces any bad habits of capping the betting with sh*&^.
Hi everyone, A few days ago i posted about how I have to play in the super nuts, maniac filled, short handed game every night becuase I am a prop for this place. I thank you all for your replys of help but Ive run into a few probs since then.here goes...
1) Its impossible to thin the field at this table with any strong hand. Twice last night I was dealt KK and Raised pre-flop only to have all 6 others call me, 5 of them both times called with rags all the way to the river. The first time, a guy Pulled out trip 9s after the Turn and river brought a 9 and another 9. He held 93o and called all the way. The second time, a guy raised me on the turn, only to find out he was raising on a gutshot draw.. he of course got it on the river. Now I know everyone says that-that kind of play evens itself out, But Ive been playing in this game for over a year now and it simply hasnt. I get outdrawn every single night, and nearly every single hand. Its tough to hold KK and have 6 callers who are willing to call any amount of money with any 2 cards to the river. And I know the game isnt rigged because Im very good friends with the owner of the place.
2) Ok, so I get a good draw starting hand of 10Js. Perfect for a game like this right? nope. The thing about these people is they are all habitual bluffers. There hasnt been a Flop,turn,or river thats been checked all the way through since I can remember. Maybe 6 months ago. So say I hold J10s and the flop is 7-9-2 rainbow and im on the button. Its capped by the time it gets to me already, which forces me into an incorrect call. I have to lay this hand down. More times then not, no one has a thing.. maybe a pair of 7's or 2's or they caught an A on the river or something.
In all honesty.. is there any way to compete in games like this?!?!? Its still driving me nuts. Not to mention all the money I lose just from having to muck blinds all night. Anyone?? Even David or Mason?
Thanks!!!, K-man
muck until AA or KK (despite bad beat you got)or QQ. weird advice but explained in 20th HFAP.
brad
I have said this time and again and get bashed for it but IMHO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSISTANTLY BEAT THE GAME YOU DESCRIBE. This is no way to play poker.
You may beat these guys once in a while but that is not good eneough for me - find a new game - why beat your head against the wall.
Find a new game or just don't play in this one. You will never beat the game you discribe over any length of time it a crap shoot.
Best of it !!
MJ
You have two options. The first, as recommended by the previous posts, is to find a more sane game where skill would play a bigger role in the outcome.
The second option is to sit down and beat the game. To do this, you must play tight - ultra tight - tighter than white on rice. However, when you do get a hand, you must play very aggressively. Shovel in the chips until it's over or it is obvious that you have been beaten.
This type of game can be beaten but you must have a lot of discipline and a very thick skin to absorb all of the off the wall beats associated with type of game.
All the best.
Some games just should be avoided like some players should be avoided. This is definately a game that should be avoided - IMHO it is not beatable.
Rounder, I hear what you are saying.
Unfortunately, I have to play in games like this every night.
The games are beatable. I have played in these type of games for 20 years and have beaten them.
All that aside, I would rather play in a loose passive game. There is more skill involved and they are much more fun.
The problem with playing in such maniac games is that your skills become rusty because you have to disregard any sophisticated plays. Consequently, when I venture to California or Las Vegas, it is always a culture shock to encounter good players who play back at you.
K-Man,
I know how you feel. I consider myself a decent, tight, aggressive player. I used to play a lot of Hold'em at the 3-6 limit, but realized that many of the 3-6 games in my area were the capped, no fold'em hold'em type games. Although I could beat these crazy games occasionally (and sometimes I can actually find a good game with good players), I felt that no matter how tight I played, I ultimately ended up losing. The worst part is that I would sometimes go on tilt and begin to play marginal and weak hands. I would even turn into a passive calling station. As a result, I moved up to the next limit (6-12) and discovered that the players play much tighter and will generally not come in on garbage. Since moving up to 6-12 (or maybe it's just that I found the right game for me), I've been winning (and actually quite big) on a much more consistent basis.
P.S. I completely agree with you on your problems with pocket kings and aces in these crazy games. I really believe that KK and AA lose much of their advantage against 6 or 7 players who will call you to the river with any 2 cards.
Good luck!
I agree with your statements regarding the value of big pairs in games where you have guaranteed multiple callers. You wait forever to get them, and when you do you get drawn out on too often. Tightening up hasn't been the answer for me.
Jace:: "I really believe that KK and AA lose much of their advantage against 6 or 7 players who will call you to the river with any 2 cards."
BL: This is superstition based on the fact that the definition of "advantage" you are using is that against many players you will lose more hands, but since there are more players you will make more money, it just takes longer. At the extreme if all ten players play to the river your win rate is *only* 30% but you've only put in 10% of the money. I will gladly trade you any hand I have for your pocket AA at any level with any lineup. Even if you don't "believe" in simulations, you should keep better records and it is absolutely for sure that you will discover that over a year the greatest yield-per-hand of any pre-flop holding will be from AA. Period!
Love.
Nobody always lose with KK. Play better than opponents, money will come to you.
Everyone is telling you to tighten up, but if you're only playing group 1 hands in a short handed game, you're in trouble. You should loosen up against anyone who's playing too tight OR too loose.
I don't have the experience or simulations to back it up, but it seems to me that if you're playing 6 handed showdown poker, you should play hands that have a positive ev in 6 handed showdown poker.
One pair won't win many pots, but your big draws should be worth a fortune.
I don't think I'd want to play in this game, but if you're a prop, you don't have much of a choice. Its a hard game to beat, but somebody has to win the money.
Hi
Im Jeff, the 15 yr old. All of my previous posts have been answered pretty quickly, and helpfully, thanks. Heres a new one.
In my regular 1-2 game, there is one player, lets call him Sean. He is the most inconsistent player I have ever seen.
Sean constantly bluffs again and again for advertising purposes, and will draw with almost anything. He will often bet with a hand like 29 rainbow, when i have something like QQ, and I place the big bet.
Anyways, I believe that because 90% of the time he calls the very first bet, which is usually $2 by the time it gets to me (if i am holding something decent) that it is important to eliminate him by possibly the flop.
The thing about Sean is, that he almost always tells me when he has a pocket pair. But only about 70% of the time he tells me this is it the truth. I have been able to deduce a reliable tell on him, but it only works for me about 60% of the time, which is almost un-reliable half the time (not quite good enough, but better than nothing.)
This might seem confusing, but does anyone have any particular strategies for players like this? Sean is very difficult to play against, even if I am sitting to his immediate left, but this type of position hardly gives away anything about his play, because he bluffs so frequently.
Any help would be much appreciated.
,Jeff
put in a lot of money against him if you can isolate. the thing is , youll look stupid sometimes when he really does have a hand, but over time (if he keeps playing the same) youll get his money.
brad
p.s. if an either or proposition is "unreliable half the time", how is that better than guessing (50/50).
Sounds like a piece of cake - ignore what he is saying.
Play solid poker and you will beat him if he is playing as loose as you say. If you have a tell on him use it if it is only good 60% of the time maybe it isn't a tell after all -
He sounds very consistent to me; consistently bad. If you are playing solid hands I seem to have a minority opinion that you WANT him in your pots.
If he bluffs so much you would be hard pressed to EVER fold any reasonable pair; meaning you will be showing down against him a lot. That's good since you start with hands that will win a lot of showdowns against his random hands.
Routinely raise once or twice more than you would against a more sane player.
Do NOT make the common mistake of trying to put him on particular hands by evaluating his bets and raises based on what YOU need to bet or raise on. When he raises is it because he has top pair, flush draw, gut shot, bottom pair? Who cares? You don't need to know what he's got in order to know that you probably have him beat.
As for your tells... It sounds like your tells are reliable enough that when he "tells" you he has a strong hand you should not raise but just call him down; thus usually saving a couple bets. But these tells aren't reliable enough (and he bluffs so much) that you should rarely lay down a decent hand when he "tells" you he has you beat. Usually pay it off.
When he "tells" you he's weak you should raise a couple more times.
When other players are in the pot focus your neurons on them; keeping in mind that raising your buddy with a weak pair can get the other's to fold their weak-but-stronger pairs.
- Louie
Why is a 15 year old posting on a poker board instead of being in school? I hate to bust balls because I' only 22.....at least you're learning a trade ;)
Mike
I'm going to have to agree with the rest of these guys, I want this guy in my game. He may draw and take down a few big hands but in the long run he's going to be broke. Keep playing the premium hands and you're going to eventually take everything he has.
Popular opinion would indicate that sitting immediately to the left of a Maniac is optimal. Some of the reasons are: 1) You act after him and can better evaluate your situation. 2) you can piggy back his raises to isolate him by forcing others to fold to a double raise. 3) If the players behind you call the double raise it's likely they're not getting the right price for their call.
I'm sure there are others. However, since the maniac is *so* predictable wouldn't it better to sit immediately on his right, or across from him to better assess his effect on the opps between you?
The maniac is a given. It's the rest of the table I'd like a read on. By seeing how they react to his raises gives me a better read on them.
I agree Sammy. But I'd rather not have a maniac in my game. Mason makes several arguments in POKER ESSAYS to this effect. Maniacs are unpredictable (other than they lean towards betting) - you can't put them on a hand. Also, maniacs have the effect of making mediocre to bad players play better.
I like your stance of wanting to sit opposite the maniac. That way you get to see him/her react to the action up to and see the action after.
Michael
If there is only one maniac and you have the choice sit on his left. I think it is always best to act last. But if you find your self on his right then use his propensity to raise to your agvantage.
I just love the thought of me and a maniac and a bunch of tight players at the same table.
SammyB,
I see your point. However, the biggest problem that maniacs play (that I can see -- correct me if I am wrong) is that they will consistently draw out on you when you have the best hand (and a hand that plays better against fewer players). By being to his left you can reraise him and increase the chances that you will be heads up with him by yourself.
Example: I hold QQ in late position. Maniac raises in early position, and 2 solid players between us call. My raise is now unlikely to make anyone fold, as they are already in for a single bet, but I want it heads up, not against 3 other players. Moreover, the Maniac is probably getting the odds to stay in to outdraw me (and he will stay in because he's a maniac). However, if I am right to his left with QQ my reraise will force the others to call a double raise. My hand is more likely to stand up, and he won't be getting the proper odds to try to draw out on me. You would also be able to get a good enough read on the other players when you sit out hands that the maniac is in (which would still be often).
Just my ramblings. Comments.
Overall, I think that the "popular opinion" of sitting immediately to the maniacs left in order to isolate him with reraises is the way to go. If after you reraise, a tight player calls , you at least know where you're at. If no one calls, even better.
I feel the common strategy of sitting to the left and trying for some isolation is ok if it works but other players may interfere with this.
It is also quite good to sit to the right and use him as a betting machine. Use him to trap everyone when you need it and then check raise or bet into him and have him isolate you.
The idea of sitting far away doesn't seem so good as you will be giving up some of the ability to take advantage of his bad plays. It is better to sit far away from some really good player however.
D.
The problem a maniac immediately left of your position is the degradation of your ability to isolate. For an aggressive player this takes away your most valuable tool. I like to be opposite maniacs. That way I'm not betting the pot for him and his bets aren't slimeing me. Next best is a seat or two on his left. That actually helps an agressive player's ability to isolate as when you raise the player's trapped between have to call multiple bets cold with the knowledge that Mr. Maniac is like to raise again behind them. Tighten up in this situation and you should have the best of him. If stuck on the right of a maniac, I'd tend to limp and check raise more and let the maniac do the heavy lifting of isolation.
Sitting opposite, unless the game is really loose, there will not be as many players in the middle to pressure. To the right, you can trap any of the players who are playing the hand.
"and his bets aren't slimeing me." I am not to worried if the maniac raises me, hey he's a maniac and I have a hand that can stand a raise if I called or I get reraised.
This is a stripped down version of a long ago post from one of the forum’s best minds. It may have gotten lost in the shuffle and some of the responses may have been “contaminated” by too much information.
”The following hand was played in a loose, passive, ten handed 4/8 holdem game.
Before the flop UTG folds, the next three limp, our hero calls with Qd 9d, the next player folds, and the cutoff, button, and both blinds call. There is $32 in the pot and eight players.
The flop comes 9h 7h 4d. The first five players check and our hero bets with top pair/decent kicker and a backdoor diamond flush draw. The cutoff calls and the button raises to $8. The SB folds and the BB re-raises to $12. Two of the early pre flop limpers call the reraise cold. What should our hero do?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I'm home fighting off the early stages of the flu right now so I should be around to reply to any responses unless I go to bed. Everyone I know seems to be feeling run down. It may be the real Y2K bug as in Stephen King's "The Stand". So in a few days we may be bleeding out of our eyes. My guess is Gary Carson will be immune and the only poster left alive to fight the dark forces. Rounder is already sick from what I read.
That's pretty unfair to Rounder, Rick.
Just because he doesn't draw to gutshots doesn't make him sick!!! :-)
(yeah, I know that's not what you meant)
Feel Better
Sure, I'll take a shot. I don't remember this one from before.
You did say a "passive" game? I fold. Someone out there has a set, and I don't want to put in any more money without a set of my own. I'm afraid that my only real shot at winning this pot is two runner-runner diamonds.
Although this is only the flop, this is a derivative of "GD's Rule", and top pair is beaten for sure.
I'm not a wimp, honest. With the size of this pot, I would definitely pay one SB to see the next card, but not 2 to 4 SBs.
Dick
"BB re-raises to $12. TWO of the early pre flop limpers call the re-raise *cold*."
This would have me a bit concerned. This is a lot of action from the players in the early positions. I would think that they would be holding some better cards (over cards ,big flush draws or big pairs) than our hero. (or they are a bit on the loose side) In any event I would fold in this situation.
Best of it !!
MJ
From my perspective it's clearly a fold. Set of sevens or set of fours is what I would put someone on. You only paid 2 small bets in the hand so there is little invested. Get out while the gettings good.
unless they are complete maniacs id fold.
maybe if you rub some bear grease on your feet and eat some deer hair your flu will get better in a week. it works for me and when i dont do that it takes a full seven days to get better. i suppose John Feeney is also sick as a junkyard dog since all he eats is that organic vegetables crap found in california. the poor guy is probably out of action six months a year with little bugs.
ray zzzzzz,
I would fold even if they were maniacs. There are just too many of them in there and I would rather wait for a better spot especially since this was a loose passive game (original poster's description). My guess is they probably were either leading or drawing to such strong hands that getting out just had to be right. Drawing to the back door diamonds seems way too expensive.
I slept off most of my pre flu symptoms and hope to see John Feeney and small caps scott at the Commerce tomorrow night. Hopefully I won't be unlucky for John two times in a row.
Regards,
Rick
...I'd be too weak from eating them to throw in two more bets. (True, you're more likely to find a little live caterpillar on organic broccoli.) To insure against becoming a maniac, just go organic.
As I mentioned to you Rick, I would fold, though if anyone made a good case for calling last time it was Chris Alger.
John,
Yes, Chris did. But being lazy (well, more like short on time) and having the call seeming so wrong based on my math impaired instinct (by this I mean math impaired relative to the better 2+2 forum type - not compaired to the average cashier at MacDonalds), I was hoping for some fresh opinion. Plus I'm too weak for a difficult thread (two three hour naps in one day!).
The original post was the titled "4/8 Holdem Hand" and was posted by Jim Brier. It was from early last week and is already in the archives - damn this forum is growing too fast!. In the post Jim of course folded and he revealed he would have won with the unimproved queens. He had some doubts that he made the right play. I and most others thought it was a clear fold and a freak that his hand would hold up. But Chris Alger thought it was an OK call. My still too loose, too aggressive student (sorry Table Guy) wanted to call too and I was hoping for a mass of opinion to side with me. We both like Chris's stuff but I don't need her to gather any ammo to justify her still too loose play.
I still think it is an obvious fold and will have to put disecting Chris's logic aside for now (actually forever, unless someone else I trust steps up to the plate with a case for the call).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Big John may show up tomorrow night at the Commerce. BTW, he sounds like he has a touch of flu too - maybe my Stephen King scenario may come true. Is anyone bleeding through the eyes yet? Anyway, I told him where we should be. Believe me, he won't be hard to spot :-).
P.P.S. If it is true you and Big John are vegatarians, I will try to avoid eating raw meat that night out of respect. But scott may go for the Chinese dumplings or some meaty Thai food from what I hear on the Exchange.
A discussion arose around the table about the proper buy-in amounts for different stakes hold'em ring games. I have seen numerous posts on what are proper bankroll amounts (usually expressed as x times so many big bets), but I do not recall seeing anything about sitting down and buying-in. Is the amount of the buy-in significant? Does it possibly hurt or help to "over" buy? Are you sending a message one way or the other? Haven't we all watched someone buy-in for way more than what seems "reasonable" and immediately label him a weak player? You can't go in your pocket in the middle of a hand, so at what point should you rebuy (if you're going to)? The table discussion was interesting, but I would appreciate the opinions of the forum posters. Thank you.
I don't believe the opponent's reaction is particularly relevant. The (false) confidence they will get by your too large or too small buy-in will cause them to play better and you may have some difficulty overcoming it by taking advantage of their error.
Buy in for less than what would be a "disastrous" loss to you; unless you can easily leave long before you lose it all. If you "play scared" with a short stack then its too short. If rebuying will trigger useful introspective analysis of your play then buy in for a relatively small amount. If rebuying will trigger some sort of "I'm a loser" reaction then buy in for a larger amount.
Buy in for what's comfortable and not-distracting to YOU.
- Louie
Or you can mindlessly buy in for what comfortable to ME, which is about 40 times the minimum bet; and prepared to make another such buy-in.
This is an interesting discussion--I have had conversations about this with a few players before.
One skilled player that I know likes to buy in very large--about 3 racks in a three chip game. He's pretty much assured of not running out of chips if he catches a big hand, and there's the intimidation factor of having a real big stack--people often don't remember how much players have bought in for, and new players are sometimes intimidated by a huge stack of chips in front of a player.
Another good player almost always buys in for the minimum buy-in in a given game (usually 10 small bets.) He figures that it gives him a chance to draw at hands that could be monsters cheaply, and to hit hands he would normally fold.
I haven't been playing for all that long, so I'm still figuring out what I like at this point. Right now, I generally buy in for about a rack of chips in a 3 chip game, and sometimes less.
If anyone else has given this a lot of thought, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say.
Max
I may be wrong but I look at an over buy in as a sign of weakness. Most of the guys who start with 2 racks when one will do are on the weak side.
Rounder,
How can two racks be bad for let's say a 6/12 holdem game. That is only $400. If you don't like the chips in front of you you can always but one rack and two large chips (assuming money does not play).
The thing I want to avoid is ever coming close to going all in or having so few chips in front of me that I have to play behind while the runner gets chips. This leads to mistakes during the transaction distraction of playing on the piece or bill if money does play. Plus it slows the game down which I never want to do.
One other factor favoring large stacks. Let's say a live one has got lucky and has a lot of chips in front of him. If he looks around and sees few chips on the table left to win, he is more likely to leave. This I don't want.
Regards,
Rick
Rick no arguements here. I was talking in generalities and it is of little import how many chips one comes to the table with.
I buy-in for 20 times the Big Bet. I like to start out with a fair stack and will rebuy at 4 times the big bet.
Best of it
MJ
You'll see all sorts of buy-in amounts and watching good players will give you know better understanding of it. I know very good players who buy in for as little as 10-15 big bets. Personaly, I like to always have chips in front of me for a couple of reasons:
1). Anyone can run bad or get a couple of heavy beats. If you are reaching in your pockets again and again, you WILL take on an image of someone who is down on his luck. I don't care what they say, this DOES have an effect on the way people will play you.
2). I don't EVER want to be all in when I have a monster. It's true that there are times when playing a short stack can be a good strategy, but I admit I am not good enough yet to understand this.
3). I think it's a good thing that people always see that you have chips in front of you. This promotes a lucky or winning image and you are less likely to get bumped around or run into fancy plays as when you appear to be unlucky. Also, players who don't know you are apt to think that a player with chips is a loose or action player. Of course this increases the likelihood of you getting action. If you see someone who buys in for the minimum, that player is usually a rock. Would you want to give that player action?
I'm at the Taj last night playing in a $5-$10 game and this hand is bugging me. Table is full of the usual suspects. Mostly loose, a few agressive. I'm sitting in the cutoff with As9c.
Loose UTG calls, middle calls, I limp, button raises, blinds fold, 4 see the flop.
I usually don't play A9o, but several of the players at the table play A7 and lower like it was AK.
Flop is Ah 9s 8d.
I figured the button for a big pocket pair or AK, AQ. So, with my apparent monster, no flush draw, and knowing with an ace on the flop the button will bet it's checked around to the button who bets, both limpers call and I raise. The button reraises, UTG calls, other folds and I cap it.
3 see the turn of 3d.
Check to me I bet, both call.
River is 7d. UTG bets, I gasp, we all call.
Comments, flaming criticism, expulsion, donations
If you know button'll bet then by all means check raise. But lots of players correctly raise more liberally on the button and many will check if they don't have Aces. I raise shamelessly when the callers are tenacious "check-to-the-raiser" types.
Anyway, well played. Had UTG just made a straight he would likely go for the check-raise, hehehe. He bet out since he didn't have enough to raise. Since its obvious UTG just make AcesUpSevens you should still go for the overcall rather than raise on the river. Well, except if he's aggressive enough to have check-raised the flop with A7; in which case you should still pay it off.
What's bugging you about this routine hand?
- Louie
I don't like coming in with Ace-Nine offsuit but Izmet Fekali has assured me that it is better than Ace-x offsuit so I guess it is okay to limp in with this.
I like your capping the flop with the top two pair and the rest of your play was fine. If you lose to a runner-runner Diamond flush well that is why they call this gambling.
Dumping A9o in any game is not a mistake, but to exploit loose opponents to the fullest, you simply have to go a bit looser yourself. While still playing considerably tighter than the field, you also want to have loose image (you don't want them start folding on you and shift closer to the correct calling frequency). You have to show some weaker hands. It depends on the game, of course, in my game I can safely play A9o after limpers, as the players are trigger happy enough to raise with any better hand (AT/99 or better).
Yes, A9o is better than Axo ;)
Lots of players make a terrible mistake of playing Ax (suited or unsuited, for that matter) in late position for the implied odds. Actually, this is not a mistake. The mistake is playing for implied odds but not folding if the flop doesn't make you happy. Does an ace on the flop make you happy? Nope, it doesn't. Oh, no. Not me. Makes me cringe. I panic. I don't know what to do. I'm terrified of folding the best hand when that dumbsucker could be betting into me with some kind of a gut draw. I *hate* to fold against him. He's got that dumb expression on his face that makes me want to stick my A5 into his body cavity where the sun don't shine. I'd like to shove it down his throat while humming Madonna's Express Yourself for psychological preeminence. Look at him, I'll wipe that stupid grin off his face and shove it up his nose. I raise! Don't mess with me buddy, I've got the guts even when I don't have the goods, but my A5 is plenty good for you, you moronic cockroach (I actually used the word "cocksucker" here, but the deleted it for 2+2 Acceptable Use Policy).
Huh? Reraise? Whadayamean "reraise"? You kiddin...?
The thing is, the whole concept of the implied odds goes thru the window if you don't fold most of the time on the flop.
Ax turns into a reverse-implied odds when an ace flops. Meaning, you limped in cheap, counting on a big payoff if the flop hits good (two pair, straight draw, flush draw, trips), but wound up losing big calling down a fish with a better kicker.
AS hold 'em is a game of domination, there is actually an even more important reason to dump Axo than worrying about somebody with a bigger ace. If you hold A4, a hand as weak as 55 (I'm aware of risking the rgp jihad here for badmouthing presto) dominates your hand. If you don't flop, almost any hand that flopped something now dominates you. You are probably in bad shape even heads-up.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Here is something to ponder when you think of calling with A,9offsuit in bad position.If you are a semi serious/regular player ie playing >500hours/year, you will be dealt around 15000 hands per year,why screw around with mediocre/marginal/problematic starting hands. Be your own best friend and muckem.
Cheers Pete
A9o is a strong and necessary play against "any ace" opponents with whom you are likely to dominate the action when an ace flops.
For your hand to be good on the river, UTG must be (at least more than 7% of the time)
(1) so weak as to call two cold with an underpair/7 kicker and to believe that hitting his kicker gave him the best hand; or
(2) so weak that he thinks he can bluff out two big pairs with a busted draw on the end because a scare card hit; or
(3) so good that he somehow knows that both of you can throw your big pairs away (this is just laughable).
Note that from the bettor's standpoint the pot appears to be protected. The bets you save by folding here add up to a lot over time and vastly exceed what you'll lose when someone tries a suicide bluff or misreads their hand.
I just read Landale's post and realized that I was so drawn into your suggestion that the button had an ace that I overlooked the possibility of UTG having A7 (but it's hardly obvious that he doesn't have a straight or flush -- UTG's play looks like a draw and the 7d looks like a hit and even weak players hate to lose 2 bets on the end). Good call.
Louie asked what was so irksome about this hand for me, well, My top two pair was third best.
UTG held something like the 8d5d, and button had JTo.
I would have lost to the straight regardless, but would it have been a wiser play to bet into the button and hope he raises to force UTG to call 2 bets?
I don't think check-raising was a bad play. You sounded pretty sure that the button would bet, so you were check-raising for value. Plus, since we're using hindsight here, I'm not sure UTG would fold to two bets cold since he had to call bets 2 and 3 cold on the flop.
Mike
I agree with this, and also note that UTG, facing a double bet, will tend to fold the drawing dead hands you'd want to trap him with. So you'd lose just as much money to UTG when his draw hits but he won't lose as much money to you when he's playing junk.
Bottom two is a different matter, but you needed to play this hand like you did.
I'm going to guess UTG had A-10 both diamonds, it would explain his limping along until the end.
Without knowing the players, I find it hard to put them on any specific hand. Ie. Is the button one to raise on the come with a drawing hand? Or what will he raise with in late position. Your top two pair is strong on the flop for sure, but a hand that is hard to improve. I would proably bet out on the turn, if I felt that the button would make it two bets to everyone else. To check-raise with the bet to my left, I would prefer a draw to the nuts on the come.
I'm not sure I understand the post. Someone went runner-runner on ya. It happens. If you're looking for comments and flaming criticism on playing A9o, I'm sure someone will oblige.
I think it is a mistake to play A9o in a loose game. What happened to you is not a surprise. You hit one of 3 flops that will really get you involved - the other being trip aces or nines. Then you got drawn out on.
This is not a new story.
I stand behind my position that you must play very tight in loose low limit games. The experts have volumes of information on this subject.
I've found myself playing quite a bit of short handed holdem lately. I seem to win more in a short handed game. Since I could probobly find a short game to play in most of the time, it occurs to me that it might be profitable to become something of a "low limit, short handed specialist"
Any suggestions?
Keep playing short handed. If you much better than others you win more faster. Play when games are short, very early in morning mostly.
I don't know where you play, but the low limit games where I play are rarely shorthanded except from about 3am-5am.
If you can find shorthanded low limit games most of the time, more power to you.
However, keep in mind that this may limit your play in the future, as well as your likelihood that you will be able to find profitable games most places you go, both because in a lot of places shorthanded low limit games are hard to find, as well as because short handed play is so different from full game play. I find that after playing shorthanded for even a little while, I need to consiously "re-engineer" my game when the game gets full again. (However, also keep in mind that I haven't been playing for all that long--I assume that as one gets more and experienced, it becomes more like second nature.)
Good luck!
Max
You may be playing correctly for short handed tables and not know it. You are probably a bit looser than average so it works out in a shorthanded situation.
I definately adjust my play based on the number of players. When I'm in a short handed pot, against inferior players, I can get their money faster. Also, I get to play more hands, and spend less time watching than in a full game.
I never played casino poker until last fall, and all my experience before then was in short handed home games. But most of the theory I've digested refers to a full table. Considering what a help that has been, I'm looking to be pointed to some expert discussions of short handed play. I'm sure I'm missing lots of bets
Ryan
I think 6 players or less getting hole cards qualifies a table as short handed - I know some consider 7 in this category but 6 is a more comfortable number for me.
six sounds about right.
Limit Hold-em tournament today, 20 players left, limits are $600-$1200. I have $8000 in chips, about middle for our table.
Player UTG, who has proven to be neither real tight or loose, raises pre-flop. Next player folds, then it's my turn. I have pocket 8's. What's my best move?
Thanks, Mark
I think you have to fold the 88 - this guy UTG probably has a real hand.
On the surface, it's usually not a good idea to call an UTG raise with 88. This is obvious. But there are many variables in tournament play. If this player was short stacked, meaning he's in jeapardy of getting blinded out, he may be raising with any number of hands. In this case, you'd be anywhere from a small to large favorite to win heads up over anything but a higher pocket pair. Also, at this late stage in a tournament, many good players will gang up on an 'all in' player, then check the hand down just to increase the chances of knocking him out. With only 20 players left, eliminating a player is often more important than winning chips. But if the other players at your table don't know this, then it is much riskier as you may now be re-raised by a legitimate hand. You can also re-raise and try to get heads up with the 'all in' player where you very well may be a favorite. Unfortunately, there is no absolute right or wrong thing to do. Experience and good judgement are your best resources in this situation.
Thanks for the help.
I wound up folding that hand, hung around and finished 7th.
Since I started playing, I've always been pretty decent at low-limit hold-em. Now if I could only figure out 7CS...
Mark
I've been involved in some hands lately that I'm not 100% sure I am playing correctly. I posted a hand recently that seems similar, but was very different.
It's a 10-20 game and there's a straddle to my immediate left. Everyone folds to a strong player (SP) in middle position who makes it $30. It's folded to me in the BB and I call with AA. Straddle calls. Flop came Q84 off. I bet, straddle calls, SP raises, I call, straddle calls. Turn is a 6. I check, straddle checks, SP bets, I raise, straddle folds, SP calls. River is a 7. I bet, (no way SP has a 5) SP calls. My AA wins.
At first I felt almost smug with the way I played the hand, but after thinking about it, I realized I may have made many mistakes....
1). I smooth called pre-flop not wanting to give away the full strength of my hand to SP. I also reasoned that the straddle will have a random 2 card holding. But what if the straddle catches
For some reason this post got cut off. Sorry......
I've been involved in some hands lately that I'm not 100% sure I am playing correctly. I posted a hand recently that seems similar, but was very different.
It's a 10-20 game and there's a straddle to my immediate left. Everyone folds to a strong player (SP) in middle position who makes it $30. It's folded to me in the BB and I call with AA. Straddle calls. Flop came Q84 off. I bet, straddle calls, SP raises, I call, straddle calls. Turn is a 6. I check, straddle checks, SP bets, I raise, straddle folds, SP calls. River is a 7. I bet, (no way SP has a 5) SP calls. My AA wins.
At first I felt almost smug with the way I played the hand, but after thinking about it, I realized I may have made many mistakes....
1). I smooth called pre-flop not wanting to give away the full strength of my hand to SP. I also reasoned that the straddle will have a random 2 card holding. But what if the straddle catches a miracle flop? Comments?
2). I could've check/raised the flop but if SP didn't hit, he slows way down or mucks. He commented pre-flop that my calling $20 cold from the BB was scary.
3). After he raised me on the flop I could've made it 3 bets hoping he had AQ or KK. If so, he probably caps and I can still check/raise the turn. So I may have lost $20. What does everyone else think?
4). On the turn, I may have been trapping myself if he has QQ. And if it's incorrect to fear this, then why not bet out? If he has KK or AQ there's a good chance he'll raise allowing me to make it 3 bets. I probably don't have to mention that the straddler is a very loose player and I thought it was important to make him pay $40 if he did have a gutshot which was another reason I wanted to set up a check/raise on the turn. Comments, advice, critisism, appreciated. Thanks.
1) You gave one reason for not raising preflop as:
"I also reasoned that the straddle will have a random 2 card holding"
Random hands are good for your AA, you want to be playing against random hands for as much money as possible.
2) I like betting out on the flop.
3) but I like 3-betting when it comes back and then betting the turn.
4) since you chose to call on the end of the flop, it is reasonable to go for the check raise here. With no obvious draws it is less likley the raiser will check and take a free card. Your comment about the loose player makes some sense but with the pot size he will be incorrect to call 2-bets on the flop if you had reraised so I doubt it is worth waiting to make the big 2-bets on the turn. If the pot was bigger that might have been a great play.
I don't care what a few authors say the straddle is the worst bet in poker and one of the worst in gambling. I like to see them because it tells me I am playing with subpar players.
That said:
I have never seen a straddler fold to a raise - unless you are a rock who would only raise with AA you can raise here with out giving up to much. Maybe your smooth call made you more money anyway - so it is a marginal play whether you raised or not. I would have raised here.
I like your turn play and you had to bet the river.
Pre-flop with a third player in the pot, especially a straddler, my feeling is to make it four bets pre-flop. I have the best hand and I want to make everyone pay more if they choose to play especially the straddler. In addition, because there is a straddler a strong player frequently will re-raise with a hand that he normally would just limp in with in an attempt to isolate the straddler. For example, if I have 88 or 99 I will usually re-raise a straddler to knock everyone else out of the hand and get it heads-up with me having the better position. However, I read in an article Mason Malmuth wrote for Poker Digest magazine where he had pocket Kings in the big blind and did not re-raise pre-flop against a middle position raiser and caller. He wanted to camouflage the strength of his hand especially because of his poor position. As the hand played out, he ended up winning a $700 pot because a small pair showed up and the guy with pocket Aces folded when it was bet and raised (by Malmuth) to him. Mason won a big pot as a result.
I like your bet on the flop because you actually have a much stronger hand than you are representing (e.g.-a top pair of Queens in this case). You will get raised and can 3 bet.
I would not be too worried about QQ given the Queen on the board. He is far more likely to have KK or AQ. I don't like your check on the turn because the straddler is still in the hand and the last thing you want is for him to get a free card. I would bet the turn.
My style is to 4 bet pre-flop and bet the flop and simply take control of the hand when there is a third player involved. I don't mind being deceptive in a heads-up situation especially when I have position but I would have played very differently than the way you did.
I just posted on the "Other Topics" board under this title, by mistake. Wrong Forum Man, I repent.
Rather than retype it, I invite you to read it over there and comment.
thanks, shooter
I've got a game similar to Jeff's "Heads up game."
I'm 16. 4 player game. $200 buy-in. blind open = $8 blind raise =$15
I need some advice. I consider myself a sound player, but the dollar amount alone makes this a little more of a critical game than i'm used to.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. My main area of need is advice on playing blinds.
Thanks a lot!
Play in a game you can afford.
Guys I'm asking for help with the game, not parental guidance. If I couldn't afford it I wouldn't be playing. Thank you rounder and keep it coming please, I appreciate any responses.
If you notice most of the hands analyzed here are eigther blind or button hands. We sometimes feel obliged to put money in a pot when we have have a stake in it already. I guess it is best to call raises in the blind with hands you would call otherwise keeping in mind that when the action starts you are in the worst position playing a hand with little strength.
recently had a rush of AKs in a 3-6 game in california. loose 5-6 in most hands and raised each time(too predictable?) and never floped a hand or draw. Q. is AKs a raising or reraising hand most of the time? In this series a problem was that these were about my only playing hands for hours.
It depends. Are you up front, or close to the button ? Surely raising every time is incorrect. As you're always getting multi-way action one might limp more often as this decreaes the rank value of your cards and ups the flush potential, see HPFAP. Also, as Brunson reminds us (p 364) this is a drawing hand, so if you're truely missing every flop, it should be easy for you to get away from.
AK is, to me, a raising hand not a reraising hand and hand one can call a raise with.
Rounder,
Since suits do not matter to you much what do you in the following situations:
1: You are on the button with AK (unsuited since I know you like that better :-) ). Mason Malmuth raises from late middle. I reraise from the cutoff seat. Your action?
2. A weak tight player raises from the middle and is reraised by a maniac. Again you are on the button with AK. Your action?
3. A loose player raises UTG and you are next to act. The rest of the field is fairly tight (or at least respects your raises). You have AK suited or not if you prefer. Your action?
If you get back to me in a half-hour or so I may reply tonight. Otherwise, I look forward to your reply over my morning coffee.
Regards,
Rick
1: You are on the button with AK (unsuited since I know you like that better :-) ). Mason Malmuth raises from late middle. I reraise from the cutoff seat. Your action? I probably fold. But since I have no experience playing eigther one of you I might just reraise but a call here is out of the question.
2. A weak tight player raises from the middle and is reraised by a maniac. Again you are on the button with AK. Your action? I probably call
3. A loose player raises UTG and you are next to act. The rest of the field is fairly tight (or at least respects your raises). You have AK suited or not if you prefer. Your action? I probably reraise to isolate the loose player.
Rick I don't dislike having suited big cards I just don't overvalue them - as I have been saying I look at them as a bonus.
I agree with Answers #1 and #3 but don't get not reraising the maniac to drive the weak tight player out or cause him to basically turn his hand over (if he reraises, he has Aces and maybe kings, if he just calls, he probably has Qs or AK) but otherwise he might just fold a better hand [i.e. js or if he's really weak tight, Qs, AKs,] etc.
In situation number 2, you have the chance to get a very predictable player to make a mistake or basically turn his hand over.
I think in that situation, stronger argument could be made for folding than for calling, but reraising seems like the best play to me.
Weak tight player probably has the hand here and I want to see the flop before I committ any more money to this pot.
I guess it depends on how weak tight. If he won't raise with less than Qs, you should fold, as it is 2 to one that you are a big dog, and one time out of three you are a small dog.
But I have seen so few players like this it would be hard to believe your luck.
Most weak tight players will raise with Qs, Ks, As, and usually AK, JJs, and AQ. This significantly increases your chances of having either a tie or a very small dog that can be played in such a way as to convince the weak tight player that you have him beat. I think the reraise will make him represent in such a way that you will now know where you are at.
Good point but I'd rather find out after the flop cuz if I don't flop to it I'm out of there.
padric,
AKs is almost always a raising hand except when:
1. You are first to act in early postion and your raise will kill a lot of your action but not to the extent where you will be able to take the pot when you miss. In other words, raise in the real tight games and in the real loose games but not in the medium tight games.
2. I had a number two but now I can't think of it. Oh yeah, I may just call a raise and reraise in front of me or out of the blinds but capping (three raise cap) isn't that bad.
Anyway, you don't need to disguise raising with AKs. Almost any place you would raise with it you would also raise with many other hands so you don't give away much.
AKs is only going to hit a pair or a draw about 40% of the time. Missing six times in a row is nothing. Holding your disipline for four hours is something to be proud of but must be automatic if you want to move on and up.
Regards,
Rick
padric:: "In this series a problem was that these were about my only playing hands for hours."
BL: "Hours" ain't where it's at. You must always keep in mind that you are playing by the year, not by the session. Remember that if AA gets beat much that it's mostly when lots of folks shoot at it. Where I play my raises are often rightly read to be AA but instead of that being a signal to fold it is a signal to get in there because: 1) "he's got big cards so it's best to play with small cards, which is mostly what's been running"; 2) the pot is going to get so big that I can play with anything and I've seen this hand (92o) win several times; 3) "the sixes are running and I've got Q6s which gives me lots of outs."
Whether you raise much in what positions, etc. with AKs largely depends on whether you want to maximize winnings or minimize variance - if the latter then best re-examine your BR size.
Love.
Padric, I am going to give you some advice on big slick that most players will not agree with. I know the words "always" and "never" are bad words in the world of poker but:
1. I always raise with big slick in any position regardless of how many limpers come in. I have the best hand for playing purposes and I will improve to top pair/top kicker about a third of the time plus another 5% of the time I will catch some kind of legitimate draw. This is almost 40% of the time. In addition, there will be other cases where the flop is all small cards and my two big overcards allow me to bet aggressively and muscle people out while having 6 outs to top pair/top kicker.
2. Lately I have been experimenting with re-raising with big slick in games where I feel players are raising pre-flop on shaded values. I have had great success with this move.
Bottom line is that big slick is a great hand in a full tabled structured limit hold-em game. Lou Krieger and other "experts" shy away from raising with it out of their blinds but they are all nuts.
As aside, although technically big slick could be considered "a drawing hand" it is really much more than this because of the way you can play it. I have won a lot of pots in my $20-$40 game by driving out small and medium pocket pairs when these guys don't flop a set. Once you learn how to play overcards, you really see the awesome power of slick.
RAISE WITH BIG SLICK. RAISE WITH IT UNTIL THE DAY YOU DIE!
Advice would be appreciated on these two hands: 1. Reasonably tight good player raises pre-flop UTG. One caller and then I call with AQ off on the button. Big blind calls for a total of 4 players 2 bets each. The flop comes A84 rainbow. Preflop raiser bets, fold, raise by me, fold, call. Turn card is K of clubs making 2 clubs on the board. Check to me, I bet, raise, I fold. Is my fold correct? I put the player on either AK or KK (the later seemed more likely considering the betting).
2. I'm in the big blind with 76 off. There are three callers I check. The flop comes 5s6s8c. I check, check, check, bet, I call, fold, call. Turn card is 5c. I check, bet, call, I call. River is Ah. I check bet, fold, I fold. I must point out that the bettor on the turn and river is a fairly wild player but I didn't put her on anything less than a 6 with probably a better kicker. If the 5 hadn't paired I suppose I would have called. Anyways, she had pocket 3's so I would have won had I called. Was my fold correct? How about my play in general? I think I should have bet the flop but I was tired.
Thanks in advance for any help.
1. I wouldn't call an early raise from such a player with AQ. He is supposed to have a group 1 hand and you don't. Having called, when the K hits on the turn. You could have checked and called on the river.
2. I would have checked raised the flop and bet the turn. If you don't like that play, you could have bet the flop and bet the turn. If the woman is a wild player, I pay her off if she bets on the river.
This is very easy for me to say, I know what she has.
Moron,
BTW, in college there was a guy in our dorm called Moron. He had an IQ of about 150 and I think is a rich guy now. You didn't go to URI in the seventies did you?
Anyway, I normally try to mention to the original poster when I don't peek before answering. I didn't peek at your answer until now. Now Robin can see we are pretty much on the same page and got there independently.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I did not have the good fortune to go to URI. I am a west coast native. You can forget the IQ deal and the rich part as well.
Robin,
Question 1: First, if the UTG raiser is more than just reasonably tight and somewhat tough to boot, think about throwing away AQ offsuit, even on the button. Such a player is usually raising with unpaired AJ offsuit or better and with paired cards that figure to be ten or higher. You tend to either be a favorite in a situation where he won't give much action (if he has AJ and you both flop an ace), a big dog (dominated) where you may give action, or a medium dog (to a hand like JJ). At the same time, you would three bet a late position raise from that same player.
Unless the player is extremely tricky, I like the fold on the turn. But next time think ahead and maybe avoid that spot in the first place.
Question 2: You wrote: "I'm in the big blind with 76 off. There are three callers I check. The flop comes 5s6s8c. I check, check, check, bet, I call, fold, call."
I would bet here. You have a pair with a draw and are in the blind so you can't be put on a hand. But once you checked and the bet came from the last player I would check raise. Your pair is worth protecting and you still have outs if beat.
"Turn card is 5c. I check, bet, call, I call."
Since my flop play would be different it is hard to say what I would do here. Betting out may have been correct. They have to worry that you made the flush and if you are popped (unless by a maniac) you can lay it down. [I just noticed the betting seemed to come from a different player unless you made a typo. I'll assume that the last player was the bettor as on the flop.]
" River is Ah. I check bet, fold, I fold. I must point out that the bettor on the turn and river is a fairly wild player but I didn't put her on anything less than a 6 with probably a better kicker. If the 5 hadn't paired I suppose I would have called."
[Once again, I'm a little confused about the betting but I almost finished the post.] How can you put a "fairly wild" player on anything. I can't. Since it is only one bet to call and you close the action with your call I would call.
Anyway, I hope this helps. I can't follow up since I will be going to bed soon and am busy all day tomorrow.
Regards,
Rick
The bettor on the turn and river was the fairly wild woman, but she checked and called on the flop. BTW there was never a 3 flush on the board.
I find it hard to fold AQ (I think I probably would have called with AJ off as well but nothing weaker), especially since my prior reading (HEAP, etc.) recommend calling. I figure the player would raise with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK,AQ,AJs,KQs and maybe a little more (he seemed fairly solid but I've seen him play some weaker stuff in the past). With a likely weaker caller inbetween but not many other players it didn't seem unreasonable to call. Rick, your explanation seems to make good sense so I'll consider throwing this hand away in the future (with solid raisers that is). What other hands should I be throwing away that I would normally call with (all group 1,2, and 3 hands plus AJo) in this situation (on the button after an early position raiser)?
why not checkraise the flop and lead out on the turn for #2?
brad.
Brad you can't really checkraise the flop unless you are confident that someone is going to bet because a freecard really hurts your hand. But I do agree that a check raise is correct if the button is an aggressive player who will bet most hands in that spot. Then you can scare out hands like QJ that could easily call you just came out betting.
Shawn Keller
well, hes got 10 outs(maybe, at least 6.) i dont think its a major catastrophe if its checked around.
brad
On the first problem, I believe your call of the raise having AQ offsuit is marginal assuming you are up against a solid player. Against a typical player in many games, a call is mandatory. You are badly dominated by AA,KK,QQ, and AK but you have a legitimate play against JJ,TT, AQ, AJ suited, and KQ suited. But when you have an Ace and a Queen that dramatically cuts down on the number of ways the pre-flop raiser could have you dominated. Plus having position is worth something. Make it AJ offsuit or KQ offsuit and you have a clear fold when faced with a solid under the gun pre-flop raiser. I like your raise on the flop having top pair and excellent kicker. You need to find out where your opponent is at. On the turn when the King shows up and you get checked-raised your fold is correct.
On the second hand, you should bet the flop with an open-ended straight draw, a pair, only three opponents, and no one raising pre-flop. Checking was bad poker. On the turn given your passive play on the flop, it is hard to know what to do. I think I would still bet the turn representing trip Fives and having outs if I am called. Your dilemma is fairly typical when you play this game in a passive, check-call mode.
First time posting here after a lot of lurking..great site here, great people and posts.
This may seem like a simple thing, but I was playing 3/6 HE at The Mirage tonight, my first hand I picked up pocket aces under the gun. I called in order to send it around to see the texture and possibly get in a reraise, and the small blind did raise. The BB called and I reraised, both callled. Flop comes A-6-2 rainbow. I led out and after a hesitation the SB called and the BB folded. The turn was an offsuit 9. I bet out and was raised, I reraised and was called. The river was a 6 (A-6-2-9-6). I led out with my Aces full, and was raised. The important thing here is that the SB is a dealer and a tight player who I know well, and he knows me well enough to know I dont usually raise without aces, kings, Queens, or AK, espically UTG, and so he had to put me on the aces. I reraised, he reraised, I played back, he raised back and finally this all came together in my mind and knew he would not reraise me so many times without quads, which is what he had. Of Course, no bad beat jackpot at the Mirage. Sorry so long, but my reason for writing is to hear your comments on when to stop raising an opponent you know well, who knows you well when you are holding a monster but not quite the nuts. Feel free to tear me apart..cant be any worse than that beat. Thanks in advance
Without the absolute nuts and respect for the other player I think a call after the reraise is in order.
Sorry..SB was actually the button...small blind had folded.
This makes quite a bit of difference to me. It was hard to imagine his raise with pocket 6's in the original post. Now the hand seems quite possible.
I think a reraise and then a call is about right.
since you admit you play like an open book you should just call his raise. its obvious you have aces full and he must have four of a kind to raise. if what you represent is accurate you should have bet and folded to his raise. or checked and called on the end.
i didnt want to say this in the first post but if you really play well, the play on the end is to check and fold.
I would have raised under the gun pre-flop with pocket Aces. If no one raises, you are just giving the blinds free plays to beat you as well as allowing others to limp in on garbage without paying for the privilege. Forget deception when you are upfront in a full tabled limit hold-em game pre-flop unless you are absolutely certain someone else will bet your hand for you. As far as when to back off with Aces full. Who knows? This situation with the board you have described doesn't come up once a month for those who play daily. I would bet and when raised I would re-raise. If raised again I would call and not keep raising. I am not a good enough player to fold Aces-full in a heads-up situation.
On rgp HaroldSixPack wrote:
> Here are some draws I've recently encountered. Please analyze them.
First example: I am in the big blind with KTs and I flop a straight draw and a flush draw. There are about 6 callers. Do I check and call, or bet the strong draw on the flop? When do I I want to semi-bluff with this hand and in what situations? Do you usually want to call most of these?
You have 15 outs to a (very probable) win. You are a 60% favorite on the flop against single opponent with a pair and should bet/raise for value. Against multiple opponents, you should bet/raise/reraise like a maniac, as you are having way best of it.
>Second example: I am in the small blind with QJs and I flop a flush draw. I check and there is a bet, a raise, and about 5 callers. I know that I probably have the right pot odds, but I have to take into account that with so many callers, the Ace and King flush draws might be out there. What do I do in this situation and what pot odds do I need to call this? Would position make a difference here?
With five callers in a donating mood, you should ram & jam as per previous example. You are only 2 to 1 dog on the flop to make your hand and only a little worse than that to win the hand. With that many callers you are profiting from the money going into the pot. See
http://izmet.desetka.si/jampreflop.html
for more info on this.
Yes, higher flushes could be out there. However, life is wasted if lived in fear. Shit happens. You should've learned that while in diapers.
Position is always goot, but does not make much difference here.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
As applied to a typical semi-loose $3-6 or $5-10 game:
Assuming that pre flop was played correctly, what kind of flop do you want to see with these hands? Obviously a straight flush draw or made straight flush is the best. But what about the other playable flops? I would be pretty happy with top two pair or a draw to the nut straight. My problem is the flush.
It is said that the fact that you are suited increases the value of your hand, and the lower your 2 connectors are, the more they increase in value because they are suited. But what happens when 2 or 3 of your flush flop? I almost hate it because I am fearful of some one playing a suited Ace, King or Queen. I will just call to the river. If a fourth card of the suit falls I will usually release the hand if there is any action.
Are you supposed to jam the pot with a small flush (whether already made or on a draw)? Will the times you win more money playing this way make up for the times you lose to a bigger flush?
If I were a low limit player playing in those "no foldem holdem" games, I would rather have offsuit 65 than suited 65. In those games, a lot of people see the flop. Therefore, if there's a three flush on the board,there's a very big chance that you are beat by a bigger flush. When it comes to straights, suited connectors and offsuit connectors obviously have the same upside. But suited connectors have a much bigger downside due to the fact that they can easily be beat by a bigger flush. Listen to your fears. Your fears are well founded.
>Therefore, if there's a three flush on the board,there's a very big chance that you are beat by a bigger flush.
Nonsense. You most probably have the best hand and should ram & jam it as such. You should not fear the fourth flush card hitting the board and losing to a lone high card, as that will only happen about 28% of the time. You should make good money all those times your hand is good.
You will sometimes have a second best hand from the flop on, but this will *not* happen often enough to worry about.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
So ram-n-jam with 2 or 3 of your flush on board but just call if the fourth one falls? All this is assuming the board hasn't paired, right?
I have nothing against folding if the fourth suit hits, but you gotta call down some people who get too creative in situations like this.
If the board has paired, you have to be a bit more careful. Flush (and straight) draws are still playable, you just need to be aware of the red ALERT light blinking.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet
As you know i'm a big fan,however(here it comes) when you have a suited connector and you make the flush be careful. I've lost a lot of hands when i have made the flush with my suited connectors only to find a higher flush. I wish i could say this has not happened much but it has happened with 56,9T,89,AND 78 as a matter of fact it has happened 4 times in 6 months. Now maybe this is an aberration but i have heard other players complain of the same thing. I have no sims to back me up but you are much better off with the straight because so many players play Axs,Kxs,Qxsand even Jxs. I'll be interested in hearing your comments. Ice
i must really play a lot, ive had more than 4 set over sets in the past six months. i think anytime it is probably right or you think it could be right to ramjam, go ahead and do it. agression pays off.
brad.
It usually pays to be careful in lots of hold 'em situations, but worrying too much is not my style. 4 times in 6 months is an insignificant sample. How many times did your flopped small flush hold up? It's in a hold 'em players' nature to remember the beats and view the wins as something natural (and forgettable). I'm fairly certain you dragged a very fair share of (big) pots in similar situations.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
So I am I playing them correctly post flop with regards to a 3 flush on the board (just calling)? $ flush on board (mucking in the face of a raise)?
Or should I be raising hoping to make more money in the long run despite the occasional larger flush?
Or to heck with the flush altogether unless it's a straight flush?
KOJEE, David Sklansky once wrote an article about players who felt that they would rather have an unsuited connector like 65 offsuit as opposed to a suited connector like 65 suited. David says to just pretend that it is unsuited and play accordingly!
This is a good reason not to play small or mid cards because their suited - it just doesn't add that much to a hand and will usually end up costing you money.
Actually I prefer these not suited - they are easy to get away from and the flushes don't hold up eneough for me.
I totally agree,
When I get suited cards in the big blind, I just fold them.
- Andrew
My advice: If you have suited cards in the BB and there hasn't been a raise, see the flop. It's free you know. . .
You mean, I can assume that I saw the flop by playing the hand correctly, like the original poster stated? Nah, I've got to take Rounder's advice. It's better to not be in the pot at all so I won't be tempted to play poorly from the flop on.
;)
- Andrew
This seems foolish given your already invested the forced blind.
Henry, Andy is in his teasing, sarcastic, can't-stand-the-idiots-no-more mode. AS far as I know him, he would sooner raise with suited connectors than fold them in the BB (even for one bet). And so would I.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I dealt out a 40-hand simulation on holding 6-7 suited, since I forgot some of what I learned in my college probability class.
11 times out of 40 someone had higher suited holdings, of the same suit, than 6-7 suited, assuming a 10-player table. This means if you flop your flush holding 6-7, you only have about a 27 1/2 percent chance (give or take a couple of percentage points, I'm sure) of already being beaten by a higher flush.
For the actual math, there is a 78.3 percent chance someone will be dealt a higher-ranked card than yours of the same suit. Of course, whether they stay in with this is another matter.
Mark
You seem to have forgotten quite a bit of your college math, since a 40-hand simulation is almost completely irrelevant. Try doing another one, and I wouldn't be surprised if your results were off by 30%.
Even when running simulations on a computer of 100,000 hands, variance can still play a factor in results, especially when trying to determine the EV of rare events, which may actually occur in only a few hundred of those hands.
Dan,
Based on the fact that if you hold 6-7 suited and there is a 78.3 chance of someone else holding a card of the same suit but higher ranked (the math on this stat is accurate), then the 27.5 percent chance of someone else holding two suits of which one is a higher rank is probably in the ballpark.
I know a 40-deal trial is not definitive. And since I have a B.A. in computer science (obsolete though - I never worked in the field), I know how to program something like this, except my computer is not set up to do that right now, unless someone with more up-to-date knowledge can show me otherwise.
But hey, I tried.
Mark
Post deleted at author's request.
I researched this once, and found that when you have two of a suit, and two come on the flop, it is not until you reach about 9 opponents, that it is even money that someone also has two of the suit. With one opponent, it is 20 to one against.
your sample size is far to low to make this assumption.
According to Abdul: “It’s a myth that you should raise with baby pairs like 33 after six (or fewer) limpers, even if you know the blinds will call” my question is why not raise? It’s not a hand that you will get easily trapped with, you’re getting good odds; you might even get a free card. When you flop a set you will usually win a big pot. Have I been misplaying this hand or overplaying it?
22 and 33 are the ultimate implied odds hands. You will only very rarely win with 33 - much less than 1/7 of the time and a bit less than 1/9 of the time. You basically have to win 1/N of the time, where N is the number of players, to break even on the raise, but you will win less often than that. So, ignoring the pot, you are losing money on every extra chip you pay, unless you get a free card (or semibluff victory) often enough to make up for the loss caused by raising. Against several limpers plus the blinds, a free card is unlikely (as is a semibluff victory.) Whatever benefit you get from raising could be more than negated by the fact that your raise is likely to trigger additional raises in loose games, and suddenly you're going to be seeing the flop for 4 bets instead of 1.
Higher pairs like 66 win considerably more often, due to enhanced straight possibilities, better full house possibilities, and the occasional one pair win. There it often makes sense to raise.
See also the thread above this one, where the poster argues that it's a marginal/crying call with a smallish pair in a capped near family pot. He assumes a fair amount of implied odds, and this makes the call barely worthwhile. This implies a small pair should not be jamming it up preflop.
-Abdul
You also have a chance at flopping the middle set, instead of bottom set, with 66.
Since set over set is so rare, what is the value of flopping middle set instead of bottom set, other than that middle set makes for stronger full houses?
-Abdul
actually bottom set allows for alot more possible bigger pairs and two pairs to give you better action. against a large field the bigger set will do better.
Actually, the biggest advantage of having middle set over bottom set is that 50% of those times when it is set over set, you will have the higher set. Contrast this with the 0% chance of this occurring with bottom set.
Ray, feel free to use this in your next book. ; < )
Dreamer, I believe that Abdul is correct. You are running the risk of a re-raise and you are hurting your implied odds. Incidentally, flopping a set against a large field does not equate to always winning the pot. Straights and flushes become a real possibility the more opponents you have.
Another lurker posts...
With small pocket pairs and Ax(s), we want to see the flop cheaply, and preferably with a good number of players, right? How should we handle them in loose/agressive games, where the pre-flop betting is frequently capped, but the hands could be almost anything?
i.e. If you're sitting in late position, or the blinds, and the betting is capped by the time it gets to you, how many callers do you need to make a call profitable with
a. small pocket pairs (66 or less)?
I believe you're about a 7.5/1 dog to make a set on the flop. I'd guess you'd win maybe 75% of the hands that you hit (?), and, more often than not, see a fair amount of action in a capped pre-flop pot. It would seem to me, then, that you'd need somewhere around 5 or more others in to make this a +EV call. This assumes you'd win, on average, approx. 40+ small bets when you do win, which, from what I've seen in this type of game, doesn't seem unreasonable, given there are 20+ at the flop, not counting your 4. Reasonable?
Math is:
Lose 31/34 @ 4 small bets = 124 ... Win 3/34 @ 40+ small bets = 120+
b. Ax suited?
Bit dicier to figure. Same 7.5/1 to flop 4-flush, but still 1.9/1 dog to make the flush. Probably less action when 3rd card of flush hits. Unplayable?
All comments welcome.
Post deleted at author's request.
The Ax rough calculation looks OK, but for the small pocket pairs you have to factor in the possibility of flopping your trip threes or whatever...and them being no good right then (set over set). This is admittedly rare but is a huge cost in negative implied odds as the occurence is minus 3 or 4 big bets when it DOES happen. The Ax is improved by the opposite side of the coin, i.e., implied odds garnered from others also making your prospective flush...and paying you off. Actually, a lot of the worth (or non-worth) of this hand goes to how you behave when you flop an Ace but don't hit your kicker. In a loosie game this could be anything from a great flop to a total miss.
I recommend you read the "Wild Games" chapter in HPFAP to see what kinds of hands you should be playing in capped pots with. The recommendation is to play AA,KK, and QQ. If you get bored waiting for these hands, I recommend finding another game.
10-20, mostly loose passive game. Weak player calls from mid-position, I'm one off button and raise with A8o. Normally, I would never raise, however I was trying to isolate weak player. SB and BB call.
T-9-7 Checked to me, I bet, SB (solid player) check-raises, BB folds, weak player calls, I call. K on turn, checked to me, I bet, SB calls. 3 on river, SB checks...what should I do?
Look's to me like the pot is laying you about 8-1 on a bluff although I'd put the small blind on a hand like 98 or 87 here. I'd say bet if you think that there's more than a 1 in 9 chance that the SB will lay it down.
Well, it's kind of hard to imagine any hand your solid citizen would check-raise with on the flop and then throw away on the river...possibly a really big draw, but given that YOU have an 8, and that the action of a solid player would tend to be check-and-call until he makes his hand, this is unlikely. I don't think you can buy this pot. I'd like twenty big bets out there before even thinking about bluffing...and of course, with that much $$$ in the pot, I would expect to get called with ANY pair. I would show down my Ace in the faint hope that everyone was drawing.
I would assume sb has put you on overcards, AK. KQ, KJs, AQ, AJ. I think for his checkraise you'll probably find him with JT, QT. He checked when the king fell but will probably call you to the river. Save the tenspot, he's not leaving. If raising with A8o is part of your repertoire, he's got you isolated.
You have to bet - you have no hand your only chance is to bet and hope for a fold by the sb and weak player is he is still there ( got confused about this guy).
I am assuming you have a good table image here and the solid player is the sort to check raise on a draw.
i think if the sb would fold a hand like a pair and a straight draw i might bluff. he obviously has less than kings so go from there. in a loose passive game isolating with ace eight with three behind you seems questionable to me. after getting checkraised on the flop you then bet the turn. the reason to do this is because you think you can bluff it there or on the river and this doesnt seem to be the case.
ray, it would seem a reraise on the flop would have been essential to pull off the bluff. do you agree?
Sammy,
a reraise might help convince him you had a good hand. i like to reraise in these spots as i figure i have the eigtht straight outs and three aces to catch. im not too big a dog to another hand and it serves to slow everyone else down. plus when i have a real hand they cant put me on it. against most players when they reraise you can get sick with all but your best draws. any player that you can narrow down to a small range of hands is easy to beat or not lose to. good luck.
I agree with Ray and Rick. You didn't present any strength during the hand, and you sort of knew you would get called down. Rounder's post bothers me a bit. When he says "the only chance you have is to bet", this indicates to me poor thinking (strategy) on his part. Most players that I've seen with this mindset inevitably leak so many chips that their long run chances of winning are very diminished. I think you win at hold 'em by not playing when you shouldn't. In long sessions, small mistakes can add up very fast to the point where you can't understand how or why you are losing. I'm not saying "don't bluff" but pick your spots and plan your bluff right from the flop (maybe a semi-bluff played through or presenting something to a strong player). Weak players and fish are difficult to bluff. Do you agree?
Withheld,
I'll give my answer without peeking for what it's worth. My mind is a little mixed up after meeting small caps scott and his friends last night at the Commerce (Bio Suits? Goats? Number Sets?).
First, don't make this pre flop play often unless you are sure you are against a very weak opponent and tight blinds.
Now that you did, the SB's hand is consistant with a mediocre made hand rather than a blank or a draw (he could have a combo hand also). He will probably call any bet head up with a hand that beats yours. Unless you have a tell or think he is very tight (maybe he had a T 8 and will fold for one more bet), I think you should check the river.
But then again, hanging around college kids messes up your mind.
Regards,
Rick
I did bet and lost to QQ. In retrospect, much of the hand I was unhappy with. I should not have raised pre-flop with such a weak holding, and should have either re-raised on flop, or called and then checked the turn when a free card was given to me. I was thinking he may have raised on the flop with the draw, but as was stated I had one eight, did he have the other? Once the K came on the turn and he checked I should have immediately thought a pair lower than Ks (as the card obviously scared him).
Thanks for all commments.
Recently I was playing 10-20 and I realized, that I really didn't know how to handle blinds!? I consider myself a sound player, and up until that night I thought I had the basics of the game figured out, but I found myself twisting my usual play if I was in one of the blinds...or even playing next to one.
What is the proper play out of the blinds, and against them?
in hfap 21th century edition it covers alot of the blind play and shorthanded play. i suggest you read it as it will really help. if you dont think it helped i believe David will mail you a check for at least $400. the problem would be if you are in the %50 tax rate the 400 would become worth only 200 and since some say David is a pauper since he has a new Jaguar there must be a 90% chance the check would bounce and the cost to you of $25 for a bounced check make it a negative EV situation.
The bounced check charge of twenty five dollars would be David's liablity, since he issued the check. No matter how you look at it, the whole situation is a lose-lose for David.
Thanks for the chat...but it was a serious question, if anyone has some real advice on blinds it would be greatly appreciated. thanks
The blinds must be one of the most complicated and important aspects of hold'em. It is not easy to define anything exactly in poker. That is ,perhaps, what Ray Zee meant when he refered you to the books. Two plus two could add a new subject to the forum: The Blinds.
When the big blind gets to you it means you have paid for the right to be the very last one to act. Everyone thinks it is the button that has the edge, that is because the button can still escape for free. The big blind is blessed and cursed. You are in the game like it or not.
Mason Malmuth pointed out to me that the blinds are money that stay in the game. I saw them as an expense, but he sees them as assets. Or at least that is how I think he sees the blinds.
One thing I am sure of is that as players fold around toward the blinds, what ever the players in the blinds are holding gets better and better. Finally, even the button has folded and then the blinds decide to chop. What a couple of morons. Their cards are as good as they will get and these two decide not to play poker.
Dan I appreciate your response...I've had a hard time getting a valid comment on several posts. I will look into that book and keep take your advice.
I believe that there is enough information in the archives of this site as well as the archives of Recreation Gambling Poker newsgroup, which can be accessed through Deja.com, that it is unnecessary to put up with the typical male push and shove. Some of the know- it- alls on both sites play mostly on computers.
The search engine for RPG will save a lot of time. I have not accessed the archives on this site for some time and am not sure if a search engine exists.
In both cases, the game was moderately tight, passive.
Scenario One: An early-middle position player limped in. I considered him a good player for the limit. I raised with AQo two seats from the button. The big blind and the limper both called. The flop was T77 rainbow. The BB checked. The limper bet. I believed he was perfectly capable of bluffing in this spot. Should I have raised, mucked, or called?
Scenario Two: A middle position player limped in. I raised one off the button with AQs . The BB and the limper called. The flop was AQQ three different suits. It was checked to me. Would anyone have gotten cute here and checked to set up a slow play?
first case raise if he really can likely be on a bluff 2nd case check and hope someone makes a straight or bluffs. this is a time to slowplay. you are not afraid of any cards coming to beat you, you want someone to catch up, and with the flop its very unlikely anybody has anything to contest you so you are not losing any bets.
If your assessment of the limper was correct that he was a "good" player, then he wouldn't have come in in early position with a 7 (unless he had a pair of them). If he did have a pair, and made quads after the flop, he would not have bet out. The same is true if he limped in with a pair of tens, and made a full house after the flop. Therefore, I would put him on a small pair at best, and I would have reraised him. If he raises you back, I would fold. By the way, I believe that raising with AQo in this situation before the flop was a marginal play.
In situation #2, you don't say what the limits are. If it were low limit, I would bet out because slow-playing here is counterproductive since no one at these limits is paying attention anyway. At medium to high limits, I would slow play this hand. Good Luck! Black Jack
In scenario #1 we know one thing for sure. The bettor does not have a Seven because he probably would not lead with trip Sevens but would check-raise or slow play since he knows you don't have a Seven for your pre-flop raise. He is probably betting having a Ten in his hand or perhaps a pocket pair. I would at least call with my big over cards since I am on a draw at this point. I might raise if I thought I can win the pot outright, which is unlikely, or I could get free cards to the river. My raise would probably drive out the big blind who otherwise could hang around and catch something to beat me.
In the second scenario I don't have enough experience with these situations but I would welcome the practice. I think I would slow play because anything that comes off can get my opponents in trouble.
I am the proud new owner of TTH and I'm trying to figure out how to work it into my poker studies. I could use any advice people have to give, as well as profile or lineup files.
I have just played about 20 hands using the "lowlimit" profile and it doesn't seem right at all to me. I don't doubt the players are poor, but I didn't see the 5-7 handed play I'm used to, and it looks to me like the players make much better use of position than most people I play against. Is there a better preset lineup for low-limit no fold'em? My games are loose, passive, but not Izmet passive.
Thanks...
Oh, if people have TTH files they'd like to send, feel free to e-mail them to me...
Seamus
Reduce the raising frequency/aggressiveness (there is a flag for this.) I don't think the "low limit" players are realistic (they fold much too easily), but you can use loose players like G.I. Joe. Finally, you may have to turn off the intelligent check-raise defense.
Don't spend too much time figuring out how to beat the computer. Spar against the program only long enough to remove the bugs in your hand/board-reading skills. Then progress to using simulations to deepen your intuitions about the game.
-Abdul
I've had TTH for a while and I can't figure out how to get a reasonable lineup. All the players seem to really suck. It takes forever to custom make a decent player and it doesn't seem worth it. Any ideas or lineups I should try?
I have the same problem as Robin. I play the tough lineup and still kick their asses with almost no effort. Is there any way to make the game truly tough to beat? I am not even that good of a poker player yet, so a computer on tough should at least me able to break even with me.
Building profiles is tedious. But...
When you perform the exercise it is embedding concepts of what hands' and plays' possibilities are to be considered.
If the time spent doing it compares favorably with the time spent in "real" play it may be worth it. Once you have developed several profiles you can "tweak" them and see in sims what effect the modification has and perhaps draw a conclusion or two.
One of the most important things to remember about long runs of simulations is that unless the results are overwhelming they are questionable because when you run a million hands you're dealing with well over a year's play. An interesting exercise is to use 10 identical profiles and note that starting with a different random seed will change the results, which of course are still in the noise. It's a good way to note how profound the rake is since, of course everybody loses to the drop.
After fooling with it for several months the most important thing I learned is that game selection overrides *everything*. If there aren't "NE2do" players in the lineup it's tedious to win - but it may be fun anyway!
It might be interesting to have a "tournament" in which the entrants each play against the same lineup with the same (say 1000) hands and see who can win the most? Sort of like a duplicate bridge contest.
Love.
Yesterday I went to another casino for my monthly visit of my holdem coach who is at his mid 60. He was in his 15-30 game when I arrived and I sat behind him to enjoy the excitement. During first lap after I just sat down, he was next to the botton with 99 and raised after the player on his immediate right limped. BB and the limper called.
Flop: 9 10 J with one diamond Both checked and called his bet.
Turn: 5 of diamond Both checked and called his bet.
River: K of diamond BB checked, limper bet and my coach mucked without hesitation, so did the BB.
Before his blind, we went out to have a talk and I told him that he might muck his hand too quickly (I never argue with him about his play anymore since he believes his play is always right.). He said "he has a flash for sure and I don't think he has a Q. He is a reasonable player and he would have bet the flop if he has a Q."
I would have called the bet. Comments are wellcome.
regards,
jikun
With $265 in the pot, I think your coach needs to find a $30 call having a set otherwise he needs to be right almost 90% of the time just to break even. His set can beat Kings-up or some other hand the bettor could have plus the bettor could be bluffing. Isn't this a marvelous bluffing opportunity? A flush card hits as well as a straight card and one of your two opponents has checked to you with the other opponent representing a made hand. A call is routine.
1) player who bet won't go to river without a draw.
2) board also scary to the player who bet out.
3) player who bet doesn't know that K did not help other players.
4) player who bet put guy with 99 on good hand and expects call.
5. player who bet has seen him fold alot when scare card comes so figures whats one lousy bet lets see if the guy will call.
6. Player who bet is weak player, seldom bluff.
Agree with Ray, any chance of bluff should call. Sometimes can figure that opponent is not bluffing or 1000-to-1 against.
the sky is falling
....how's that for the oxymoron of the week.
I'm the BB with K4o.
5 limpers plus the sb and I get a free ride.
Flop is K22.
Sb bets I fold. Right or Wrong
Your fold is correct. Unless the small blind has specifically K3, if he has any piece of the flop at all he has you badly beaten. It is highly unlikely that the small blind would lead into five other players without a King or a Deuce. Furthermore, you have 4 players behind you and you are being bet into. Finally, this is an unraised pot and which means that it is small and not worth running the risk of calling now and having to call a raise later.
Its also a great Bluff opportunity for the SB. Not much Todd could have done about it except Raise to stop a Bluff and limit the Field, which I think would only have been correct if the Pot had less players. Around 4 or less Typical players.
Comments?
CV
I think a raise bluff in this situation would not only need 1-2 fewer players, but I think it might be a better play if the pot had been raised preflop.
Comments?
No Todd, actually the bluff is better with an unraised pot because if the small blind had to call a raise that lowers the likelihood of him having a Deuce in his hand. It is easier for the small blind to represent trip Deuces this way.
Point taken, Jim. Thanks
If you know that the small blind is the type of player would try to run a bluff by leading into multiple opponents when a pair flops, then raising might be right. Since the pot was unraised pre-flop, the small blind might run a bluff with an open pair of Dueces on the board representing trip Deuces. But normally unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I assume that the small blind has a piece of this flop when he leads into 5 opponents.
I too would generally fold here.
One thing to note though is that if sb is betting a King, there are several cards that could come off that might get you a split pot i.e. the sb may have no great kicker either. Let's say he has an 8. Obviously, any card higher than an 8 on the turn or river can get you half the pot. But the pot is so small that the risks just aren't worth the bother. Pass.
If you do play, raise! If you get it heads-up with the sb, I suggest checking the turn - see my post under Chris V.'s post and let me have your comments when you get a second.
skp, I think your advice is sound. This may well be a raise or fold situation. I would normally fold. If I raised then based on your analysis a turn bet may not be right if you know your opponent won't fold a bad King. I think it is highly player dependent. The other thing is that since you got a free play in your big blind, you could easily have a Deuce. A flop raise followed by a turn bet could be highly effective in getting some opponents to fold.
I would agree with Jim that folding as opposed to calling is the correct decision most of the time. I also think that you must occasionally consider raising in this situation. Depending on the flavour of the game that you are playing the fact that there was no pre-flop raise suggest that no one has a "strong" king. The small blind may well have a middle pair and has bet out because of the texture of the flop. Your raise may very well isolate the hand to heads up. If their are callers or another raise behind you can then fold or check the turn. If it is heads up your raise may at the very least earn you a "free" card on the turn. If the sb bets out again I think you can safely fold knowing you are beat.
Given K,2,2 Rainbow Flop.
Lets say this situation comes up with less players in the Pot, and say you do raise on the Flop and knock out the other players, the SB calls. The Turn comes somthing other than a 2 or K, and the SB Checks. Now should you ever bet again on the Turn?
Against a Typical player I don't think the Turn bet is as profitable as Checking then either calling the River, or Betting the River after its checked to you.
If the Flop had a Two Flush then things would be different.
Comments?
CV
If you are going to make the power play of a raise on the flop thereby getting everyone to fold except the small blind who calls, then I think you should follow it up with a bet on the turn. You are trying to get him to fold his King and if not make him pay for playing a two outer if he was betting a pocket pair. If you check back to him on the turn, you will get called or bet into on the river in many cases.
Lets say that this player can't Fold a Pair of Kings in this situation, but can Fold a Low Pocket pair on the Turn. Of course Trip 2's will most likely Check-Raise. Thats the type of player I've been dealing with. Now if this player can Fold a weak King, but one that beats Todd's then Betting the turn maybe right. (I didn't do the math here). One thing that makes this problem complicated is that a card may come of the deck that lets Todd win Half the Pot.
CV
If he won't fold a King, then you are right and betting the turn loses a lot of its value. Another case of knowing your opponent.
Check on the turn against guys:
- who will not fold a better King
- who might checkraise with any King
- who bluffs with the correct frequency and may blow you off the pot by checkraising with a hand like 88
- who will fold a hand like 88 if you bet on the turn but will call with it on the river if you check the turn
- who will bluff on the river if you show weakness on the turn
Bet against the one fella in the poker playing world who does not fit into any of these categories:)
In other words, I agree - against the typical player, a check on the turn is the better play.
If the flop had a 2 flush, I would still check against most players. Yes, by checking, you fail to charge him for the draw but think about it for a sec...once you check, the other guy has to think that maybe you are on a draw. If he misses, he may very well bluff with a busted draw. You call and make the same amount of money that you would have had you bet the turn and charged him to draw.
Of course, if he goes on to make his flush, you save a bet.
And if he's not on a draw, the river hits with the third flush card and he bets? At this point I would have wished I had folded on the flop. It's quite amazing how first to act is sometimes a powerful position in which to be.
If the River brings the Flush card, and your opponent bets you can fold knowing you're beat. Because of your Raise on the Flop then Check on the Turn (if a Flush card didn't come), warning bells are going to be ringing in you opponent's head if he doesn't have a Flush himself. So if he bets into you on the end he's probably got you beat with the Flush.
Most comments welcome.
Later, CV
Okay, one more time:
We've raised on the flop saying I might have a deuce, I might have a king (and if there was indeed a two flush onboard) I might have a flush draw. We then proceed to check the turn because we fear a checkraise from the deuce. We have just denied having a deuce when we check the turn for we would bet the turn if we wanted to make the flush draw pay. However, if the sb can put us on a weak king, and let's say he was committed to running his bluff to the end with a middle pair it would seem a bet on the river when the flush card hits is mandatory. If we raise, he folds. I think it's worth a bet by the sb in this scenario.
If you think your opponent is Tough enough to Bluff into a 3 Flush if he has a Small pocket pair, Bet the Flush, and check and call his better hands, then you just call if he bets because its slightly more likely he has a pocket pair under kings than he has 2 Flush cards in the Hole. Even if it was slightly less likely you could still make a profitable call because the pot is probably offering around 5 to 1.
I just think that Flush card plus the way the hand was played will stop most players from making any moves on the end. Then again, I might be wrong here because if you truely had a Flush draw you wouldn't want to Limit the Field givin your position on the Flop.
Gack!
CV
"Then again, I might be wrong here because if you truely had a Flush draw you wouldn't want to Limit the Field given your position on the Flop."
While it is generally true that you do not want to raise with a flush draw here on the flop when the sb bets, there are exceptions to this. I have done an essay on this topic (look for it to appear in Poker Digest soon). This situation might be an exception where you might indeed want to raise with a flush draw even though you will be limiting the field.
c
I see that you have plenty of responses already from the likes of Jim Brier and skp, but I will put in my comments before looking at theirs'.
With five people left to act behind me, I would dump this baby like a hot potato. Unless the SB is an idiot, he should have at minimum a K with a good kicker and he's testing the waters, or he has a deuce and he's waiting to 3-bet someone. If he's making some sort of bluff and my K is boss, well them's the breaks. Wait for a better opportunity with those unraised BB's, IMO.
A couple of weeks ago, Dan Sprung posted a problem where he had Kd9d and got a free play in his big blind with five other players. The flop came: AdJd7o. He bet out, the next player raised, and two other players called for 2 bets. He wanted to know if he should re-raise. Supporting the idea of re-raising were some of the best poker minds who post on this forum. Specifically, Gary Carson, Izmet Fekali, and Andrew Prock to name only a few. Gary Carson summed it up quite nicely when he stated "If you have 3 already committed to the pot, a re-raise is right. You are a 2:1 dog and getting 3:1 on your money."
I went off and looked at three test cases where I assigned a hand to the flop raiser, the first flop caller, and the second flop caller. I based these hand assignments on possible holdings players would have given the action up to that point and the particular flop. Once the hands were assigned, this left 41 possible turn cards followed by 40 possible river cards or a total of 1640 turn card-river card combinations. I then tallied up how often the Kd9d would win the pot. Here are the results:
1st Test Case: Flop Raiser has AcTh, 1st Flop Caller has KcTc, and the 2nd Flop Caller has 8d7d. I made the offsuit 7 on the flop the 7c.
Results: 528 wins, 8 ties, and 1104 losses. (Wins: 32%)
2nd Test Case: Flop Raiser has AcJh, 1st Flop Caller has KcTc, 2nd Flop Caller has 8d7d.
Results: 483 wins, 14 ties, and 1143 losses. (Wins: 29%)
3rd Test Case: Flop Raiser has AcJh, 1st Flop Caller has QdTd, and 2nd Flop Caller has 8d7d.
Results: 361 wins, 0 ties, and 1279 losses (Wins: 22%)
I felt that these test cases were representative of the kinds of hands I would expect a flop raiser and most importantly two flop callers who called a bet and a raise cold given that flop could be expected to have. Note I did not consider a set based on Sean Duffy's excellent observation that with no one raising pre-flop, a set was unlikely unless it was specifically Sevens.
My test cases indicate that at BEST you are close to a 2:1 dog and there are cases were you are a 3:1 dog and sometimes almost a 4:1 dog. Bottom line is that if a full spectrum of reasonable hand holdings were run, I believe that the player with Kd9d will not average winning 1 out of 3 times. Now factor in the fact that there will be scenarios where you never get to see the river because you get raised out on the turn and there will be scenarios where you hit your flush but lose to a full house and I still think the re-raise is a bad play.
What we are dealing with here is not random probability but rather conditional probability. Given the condition of a two flush on board and three other players in the hand, two of whom are willing to call two bets cold to see the turn, I don't think the random probability computations that were done, for example, by Andrew Prock apply.
Scott Horton believed that this re-raise would be correct if you had one or two more opponents. However, adding more opponents means you have to assign cards to these opponents that fit that flop. Adding another opponent who is also on a diamond flush draw further cripples your chance of improvement making the re-raise even worse.
For those of you who still think re-raising is right than I invite you to 1) Double check my test cases to see if you get the same results, and 2) Make your own hand assignments and run them through the 1640 possibilities to see how often you win. Just make sure that the hand assignments fit the constraints of the problem.
Didn't you already factor in losing with a flush in your initial calculations?
Yes I did for my three test cases. I guess what I meant to imply is the additional money you lose when you hit your flush and someone makes a full house. But this is not an EV calculation. In retrospect, I should have deleted the phrase "cases where you hit your flush and still lose". Good catch.
If I remember correctly, the whole basis for raising was that you knew that you would stay to see the river card, and you were getting proper odds for a raise (3:1 with a 1.86:1 chance of making the flush).
After the thread fizzled I gave it some more thought. If both callers call, and the raiser re-raises, you have to give one or more of them credit for two-pair or a set (what are they raising or calling with?). And if two or more are on draws, then the chances of improving have dropped (there are no open-enders with this flop, so many drawing hands will be flush draws, guts with back door flush draws, or AoQd). Of course AK, AQ and guts could be in there too.
Given this, if the ace or jack pairs (6 cards) there is a good chance you may be drawing dead (Possibly even if the seven pairs.). Can you call a bet here, let alone bet out? Remember you will have to put another bet or two in on the river if you make your flush and are beaten.
I think if a bet is correct, it's a very close decision. My gut feeling is that it's probably wrong.
I think Jim's thinking is along the proper lines, although there are more legit hands than he mentioned. It comes down to a Bayes' theorem problem. Remembering that everyone must call to make a bet correct, simply (not so simply ;-) ) assign each player a possible hand in the subset they would be calling or raising with. Many of these hands reduces the likelihood of improving. Some of these hands can improve to beat a flush. Do the math and this problem is solved one way or the other.
It's time for bed, so I let someone do the work. ;-)
But I will say that if no-one has a diamond, then the odds of improving are 1.53:1; The odds of improving with exactly one diamond in the three other hands is 1.81:1; With exactly two diamonds out is 2.17:1; Three diamonds out is 2.64:1; Four diamonds out is 3.32:1.
Post deleted at author's request.
I went back and re-read the original post. It's the first limper who raised and the other two called the double bet. For some reason I thought it was the last to act who raised. All the better, as it makes the analysis simpler--although still complex.
First, the raiser isn't on just a draw if he knows what he's doing. So he has something like a big ace, two-pair, set or a pair with a draw.
Second, the callers shouldn't be calling with gut-shots, unless they have at least a back door flush to go with them.
Third, the callers probably don't have two-pair, as this situation calls out for re-raise. They might be waiting for the turn to re-raise with a set.
Fourth, the callers can be expected to call your raise, and possible a re-raise by the first raiser, since they already called a double bet, and the pot is larger now.
Using these assumptions reduces the possible scenarios considerably. But it's still a lot of work to do by hand. I don't know TTH that well. Can you give each player a list of possible hands and let it go from there?
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, tight after the flop maybe. But even looser players aren't likely to call two bets for a gut shot, are they? I take that back. ;-)
What about TTH? Can you specify a list of possible hands for each player and then run a sim?
While I applaud your effort to examine this interesting issue a little deeper I must say it is of dubious worth to calculate win percentage and then draw conclusions. This game is about money won and lost, not pots won and lost therefore without an EV per play calculation there is little here.
It's a very complex calculation, no surprise. I doubt anyone can reasonably model it with a pad and paper and don't bother to post computer modeling here, it is assumed worthless on it's face.
I'll check with my Coach later today but I already know what he'll tell me.
Don't you need to "put" the 2 folders on hands also?
The chances that they threw away 2 diamonds is not very high, and that would then increase the chances of hitting the diamond flush.
Danny S
But the folders would throw away one Diamond. I think you have to look at their 4 cards (two players each with 2 cards) as almost random with respect to having Diamonds.
It seems to me these test cases aren't representive of the full spectrum of hands that would be out there in typical games. I would expect to see more hands with another ace and perhaps bottom two pair. In the really bad case (#3) there are two other pairs of diamonds out , rather rare I would think. Are you putting the other players on too much rationality?
Two cold callers do scare me a little while having the non-nut draw. Perhaps the re-raise is not very +EV unless more players were trapped instead of coldcalling or if we have the nut draw. Still it can't be very wrong.
D. D.
But David having two bottom pair means that someone started with Jack-Seven. In addition, if one of the two flop callers had two pair I would think they would re-raise to put pressure on the draws plus most players play a flopped two pair fast anyway. Isn't this the way you would play two pair on the flop if it is bet and raised to you given that board and other players yet to act?
With regard to Aces, one Ace is on the flop and every test case I gave the flop raiser an Ace. So I have accounted for half the Aces in the deck. Again, if you were one of the flop callers would you cold-call a bet and raise with a weak Ace facing that board? Keep in mind that no one raised pre-flop so we rule out AK and AQ.
Post deleted at author's request.
I was playing last night at a casino in L.A., I won't mention any names but it is close to Santa Ana. Anyways I was on the button with two other players in the pot, the big blind and one other player. I had K-6o and waited to see the flop. The flop came K-9-6, and the blind checked, seat three bet and I raised, they both called. The turn card produced a 10, and everyone checked. The river card came another K, giving me k-k-6-6-6, a beautiful full house on the river. The blind bet, and seat three raised, I immediatley re-raised. Then all of the sudden they both start yelling at the dealer saying that they never had a chance to bet on the turn.The dealer did deal the river card quite quickly but still they had checked. The floorman came over and listened to the story these two guys made up.The dealer agreed with them, and the floorman took the king out of the DAMN river, completely ruining my hand and any hope I had in winning. To make a long story short, I lost with a winning hand. I couldn't believe that the floorman allowed this to happen. What happened here? Bad dealer? or cheating players?I will never go to this casino ever again, its the second time I have been cheated here!! The two players did have decent hands three sixes and a straight, but they did indeed check on the turn!!
action (and a lot of action) behind. you were definitely cheated. in the old west people would have died.
brad
Why didn't YOU bet the turn?
I would have bet the turn but the straight draw was present, and I figured the big blind might already have it. I think the reason everyone checked, was because they were trying to get a check raise. After all I was the one who bet the flop.
Although it does seems like total nonsense that they say the wanted to bet the turn after they see the river and make no comment while the dealer knocks on the table and burns and ... seems they waited until they saw the river...
Sorry !
Name names please. What Casino is close to Santa Ana? The closest one I know of is Hawaiian Gardens.
I don't understand the floor mans actions. Did you object? That pot was yours ... I just would have objected, turned my cards up and said, "you guys already saved the bets I would have got from you on the river, there's no way you're gonna get this pot! And then glared at the floorman."
That whole scenario is stupid!
name floorman.
I didn't get the floormans name, and I don't ever want to go back to this casino again, it was a young floorman he looked like he just turned 21.If for some reason I ever do go back I will make sure to get his name. For now the only casino I can make it to thats close by is Hollywood Park, and I don't enjoy playing there as much. No jackpots etc.
I tried, I even opened my cards and said send it. I still cant believe this happened. And no it wasn,t Hawaiian gardens, it is directly off interstate 5 near an outlet center.
Nona Morelli's II?
Where is this casino that's in my backyard?
You should have made a huge scene demanding to have a more senior floorman make the call. This is nothing but foul play. That sucks, they are pieces of ****!
This is the most absurd story I've ever read.
Three separate players checked on the turn, waited to see the river card, then one of them, apparently content to have not bet on the turn, bet on the river, and the other one, also content to have not bet on the turn, raised. Then when you reraise they both complain for the first time that they were not allowed to put in more bets on the turn? And the dealer coincidentally verifies their wholly fabricated account of events and the floorman coincidentally makes the wrong call (the right call is that they waived their right to have the river card come back by betting on the river). Who are these guys, Russian mafia?
You should taken your complaint to more senior management and demand compensation.
the sky is falling
I am "KBG", give that man his money...he beat me -Andrew
It is ok Andrew I was still up money from last time I stick it in them.
10-20 game, on button, fairly tight blinds. super(super) tight weak player limps from seat after utg, all fold to me and i raise with garbage(78 i think) hoping to isolate tighty. both blinds fold(they both looked they were not too happy with hands, so i figured theyd fold.) flop Q 6 2, checked to me i bet, call. turn K. checked to me i bet, fold.
i felt weak tight player would fold unless he hit flop hard, and i had a great (tight aggressive) image.
comments? brad.
Nothing succeeds like success but this is not a play I would make. You are investing a lot of money here in a shorthanded situation. Furthermore, tight players frequently hang on when they catch something since when they catch it is a good catch. The turn brought both a Queen and a King on the board. It is quite likely that the tight player has something but is afraid to bet because you have showed such strength. But this does not mean he will fold when you bet. In addition, you have no real outs to speak off so you are committed to betting your away out of trouble here.
yes, but i had a good read on him, he was real weak tight, and he played 1 or 2 hands an hour and folded 80% on the flop. (really). having said that i realize i was way out of line here. just wondering if anyone else has ever done similarly. (btw, if bet into on flop i fold)
brad
I've reraised a bad player with 56s after he raised from a middle position. I flopped a straight draw, an ace hit on the turn, and after the hand I realized how lucky I was that I tried this at a 1-4-8-8 while waiting to leave the Flamingo instead of at the Bellagio 8-16.
Looking back, I viewed it as a relatively cheap poker lesson.
There are lots of problems - 1) It is quite likely we were against overpairs 2) If not 1, and the flop hits them, we (essentially) need to make a pat hand to win. 3) If we do pair ( and they don't), our raise makes them more likely to hang on, as the pot is bigger and they are less likely to think small cards help you. 4)And, of course, our pairs are so weak as they can get counterfeited and any paint cards will have to look scary, and (worse) our opponents may hit a pair and just call all the way, not letting us know we are soundly beaten. If we wish to avoid this by sometimes giving free cards, we are ruining the whole point of the play...
I am not saying one can never make such a play, but I think it works best if you are the initial raiser, esp. if the weak tight are the blinds or the button.
To steal (pardon the pun) from Mason's stud mistakes essay - It is generally wrong to try to steal once someone has voluntarily entered the pot. The exception is if they entered the pot on a potential steal.
Hold 'em is a different game, but how many players will limp and fold pre-flop to a single raise?
Like I said, I am glad I did it in a cheap game killing time before my flight. Good luck.
well, i was the initial raiser, and got it heads up with someone who would fold unless he hit the flop. it was relatively easy to see where he was. having said that , it may have been a -ev play. im trying to be a scary player
brad
What will he limp with? Would he not limp with medium pocket pairs? If he only plays 1 out of 20 hands, the hands he limps with up front are probably quite good. Or does he not think about this at all?
He might also limp with aces or kings, or is he so straightforward that this is impossible?
When you say miss, does this mean he'll fold 2 overcards?
I thought the situations were similar because the limper in your case and the raiser in my case were porbably playing similar distributions of hands, and were likely to play meekly if they did hit which is very expensive for someone who wants to bluff.
Remember if the *tighy* is in the hand he must have something good {AA KK AQ AK JJ QQ} if he is really as tight as you read him. If he has one of the these hands then they(tight/weak) usually hold them and call all the way down. The problem with this type of bluff is that tight players have waited soooo long for the good hand they *WILL* not give it up. In this case not even bet it.
Best of it !!
MJ
the thing is , he always raised with this (AA, KK like you said) good of a hand. he limped in and i put him on definitely not a great hand. also he was folding a very very high % of time on the flop. definitely a weird situation, but i figured with the dead blind money (and they were ready to muck, you know what i mean), it was profitable since i figured i could bluff a high % of time.
brad
You got lucky. For your play to work, both blinds had to fold, AND tight player couldn't have a big pair, AND he had to miss the flop completely, AND he had to decide to fold his big overcards. OR, you have to hit the flop hard. Not likely with a hand as weak as 78o. You're looking at a very small percentage of wins here.
It's good that you're thinking about situations like this and are ready to exploit them, but I'd pick and choose a bit more carefully. If you had had a pocket pair, it would have been much better. If you're going to try this play with 78, at least make it 78s, so you have a better chance of hitting a flush draw and being able to semi-bluff instead of outright bluff.
But mostly, choose to attack the blinds when you're the first one in with big cards. If someone else has called, no matter how tight, it's a little much to expect to make money by both knocking out the blinds and then overpowering the other player with nothing in your hand.
In this situation, I'd guess the limper had something like JJ, which shows how lucky you were. The King was the worst card in the deck for him, because it put another overcard on the board, and he probably called you on the flop hoping you had AK. Had it been another small card, you might have been called. Now you have to invest ANOTHER big bet, because you can't win a showdown. If you're wrong, you have just paid 7 small bets. If you get what you hoped for with the raise before the flop, you win 3.5. A small percentage of the time you'll hit the flop hard and run down AA or KK or something, and win maybe 8.5 sb. That's not 'getting the best of it'.
no way he had JJ. hed definitely would raise with that. i was way lucky, as im pretty sure he had QJ, and that K saved me. (the blinds were ready to throw hands away, know what i mean, so i was 90-85% sure i could get it heads up.) but mathematically, (assuming i 'knew' blinds would fold), he would flop something about 1/3 of the time. (he would raise on big pocket, and fold if didnt hit set with small.) so with dead blind money, i was getting really good odds. plus i try to make one 'scary' play a session, just to be scary.
brad
He would flop something 1/3 of the time, but what if he doesn't need to flop something? You described him as a tight player. He could easily have TT, JJ, 99, etc. and call you down all the way.
What if one of the blinds call? Do you just give up? Or are you going to try to power your way through TWO people?
And 1/3 of the time will miss your opponent, but how will you know which time that is? If he would call with AQ, AJ, ATs, KQ, KJ, or any pocket pair, then you are in trouble if any card above a ten lands. And that describes most flops. If he's passive, he might just flop top pair and check-and-call you to death. Bad news.
If you want to make 'scary' plays, do it with decent hands. Axs, for example. You might flop a flush draw, top pair with a good kicker, or if you DO try to power your way through you actually have outs against a pocket pair and you can save a bet on the river by checking your Ace and hoping it's the best.
But the most important thing to remember is that winning poker players aren't the guys who can make 'scary' plays and trick their opponents all the time. The most important characteristic of a winning poker player is that he plays good hands, and plays them well. That usually means straightforward play. Bet it if you have it, check-raise if you know why you are doing it and know you'll succeed, bet for value when you think you have the best hand. Know when to release your hand and fight another day.
Concentrate on learning that stuff.
thanks. i am learning. ive been grinding, grinding , grinding, and every once in a while i just go crazy i guess. yesterday i lost almost 500 in an hour, left, came back an hour later to a new game, and (incredibly) won 800 in 35-45 minutes.(10-20 with a kill). back to grinding for the month of january.
brad
Your play ok but don't over do. Players adjust. Last thing you want is weak-tight to become tricky.
Last night I was playing $4-8 HE at a online poker room (the name starts with DeltaPoker) when the following hand came up:
I'm on the button, KTo, No raise to me, so I raise and get two callers. Flop is: K37 rainbow, check, bet, I raise and both players call. The turn and river produce a possible flush draw, it's checked to me and I bet (silly? I just couldn't put the callers on anything other than overcards, small pairs or King/rag). Both players CALL??? One with a pair of 7's/Ace kicker, the other with K9o. I'm thinking Yippie! and punch the button to show my cards (I think!) only it's the FOLD BUTTON! It's easy to do, they are right next to eachother. Mr. K9o takes down my pot!
ARRRGGG!
I immediately quit the game in disgust and cashed out!
I know I would have not done this in a "live" game. I would have just turned over my cards on the end. I don't automatically chunk hands into the muck!
Add this to the list of things that make online poker a "bad bet", including getting put "all-in" when you get disconnected, people going "all-in" by pretending to be "offline" to avoid having to call your raise with marginal hands, collusion, hacking site servers and getting advance card info (this could happen), etc. etc.
Comments?
comments restricted to poker. flop k high and you put opponents on overcards? ? brad
My only comment is that raising with King-Ten offsuit even on the button when other players have limped in is bad poker. Don't raise with this piece of cheese unless everyone has folded to you and you are on the cutoff or on the button. In this case you are trying to steal the blinds and have some high card strength to fall back on when you get called or re-raised.
Many of the better poker books give some great advice on reading hands, unfortunately none are of any help in reading english.
On planet poker the distributions are not random. Seat after seat has similar cards(=the same) repeated in about 30 minute cycles. The flops are not random either. The flops overly represent 4 flush cards on the board as the most glaring example, but other patterns exist. K-10o from the seat he was in may well have been his nut hand for the session. For instance, I counted Q-2o (which was dealt to me 4 times in 2 hours and I folded everytime, WINNING handily evertime).Similar winning hands repeatedly coming from other seats confirmed my suspicion. Others who had isolated their winning selections 9for one seat it was ANY 7) took down pot after pot whenplaying their winning hand(including such marvelous winners as 2-9o)This has not been a one time occurence. It happens EVERYDAY. Finally, I asked in the chat whether it was me, or do others notice this pattern. Forn those who responded, the phenomena was universal. Therefore, I conclude that the distribution is not random, and cannot be played the same manner as solid poker. Matter of factly, I've decided that given that the distribution is not random, then a programmer designed it that way. In other words there are people who exist that designed the programs that know what the distribution patterns will be. This is like shooting craps against loaded dice. Online poker falls into1 of 2 categorys, either "4 card on board" flushing your money down the toilet, or implicit collusion. This "Sucker" will never play online again.
If these hackers can get in Gov. computers this online poker must be ducksoup for them. They can probably know every players hole cards instantly. Even if the owners of the online casino`s are honest, they probably can`t stop this.
Milt.
The owners can't stop it? How long would it take someone with a record of every hand to spot the guy with x-ray vision? Note that the owners typically have credit card info, email addresses, etc. and control the hacker's access to the game and his winnings.
More to the point, why would someone who can hack through encrypted files screw around with $10-20 and lower poker games? I would think more attractive targets abound.
the FBI
... has so effectively shutdown sophisticated hacking and prevented hackers from working over the border that they're relegated to taking down the $5-10 games on Planet Poker. They're everywhere. I see them too.
I assume from your scarcasm that that you feel it would be more profitable to hack domestically.Ask the organized crime families in New York, and the dispenser of the Melissa Virus, the former Governor of Lousianna,Mr. Debartolo, the Russian Money Laundering going through New York Banks, and your local FBI officers how efficient they have become at prosecuting local racketeers. The Costa Rican government is not going to prosecute a US citizen in America. The FBI will. The majority of sports betters I know in Colorado no longer deal with local bookies, but with offshore gaming houses many of which(if Resorts International is any example) have been financed by US wiseguys trying to beat the heat of the G. Furthermore, you seem to indicate that there is no illicit money to be made in 10-20 poker. An apartment game with a fairly standard rake in Denver (excluding cheating) hauls in $60.00 per hour ,including tokes. Look, wherever there is money involved there are people who do not play by the rules. Some have wisened up and do business"out of jurisdiction." Two prominent US businessmen in the past to do a large amount of business in Costa Rica include Robert Vesco, and Sam Giancana. Think about it.
... or they will get me.
YOU SAW WHAT THEY DID TO TED!!!
fraidy cat
This response makes no sense and unintelligible. I think I will quit participating here over this issue. Too many posters obviously have an interest in participating. The fact remains, however, that if a player chooses to play he should be aware that the software does not run a legitimate poker game.
THE SKY IS FALLING
chicken little
The same goes for credit card bureaus, better go hide under a rock till the ludites conquer the world.
fraidy cat
Fraidy cat, You are a fool. If you think neither the FBI, nor your local wiseguys do not enjoy skinning you then go ahead and hack. Go ahead and play with cold decks, and go ahead and inform. You deserve what you get. Have fun being eaten by the dogs.
reference the previous post idiot.
The previous subject should read that I am a computer engineer.As I posted further above,it is clear that some posters here have an economic interest in failing to address the non-random status of Planet Poker's hand distribution. I won't speculate any further on the motivations for such foolishness, such as scairdy cat's inane responses.
Computer engineer or not, anyone who does not have the sense and psychological strength to refrain from needling the live players for playing and sucking out with junk hands -- and I've seen you do it rayfish, online at Paradise Poker -- is hardly a credible source for accusing online providers of stacking the deck against him. Haven't you considered alternative explanations for the "patterns" you've detected? Perhaps, for example, you dropped your lucky rabbits foot in a parking lot ...
The connection at paradise poker is so poor that I do not play there currently. I make comments occasionally which are less scarcastic than the one's you have posted here. Such as typing "nice suck out" instead of nice hand. Nevertheless, that is part of a style of play that is common in casinos.Nevertheless, you still find yourself falling back on arguments that have no merit technologically. I stated previously in notes that I thought Paradise Poker was likely an honest organization, and I have found their distribution more random than planet poker's. I suppose your upset that I would suspect that collusion, or bad programming take place online and the games evenat Paradise Poker , are not true poker games. As mentioned before, I will refrain from publishing any more messages here as individuals such as yourself take offense to a logical assesment of the dangers involved with your favorite addiction: online gambling. You have convinced me in your postings that you niether have the computer knowledge to make valid statements about programming irregularities, nor the life experience to make astute statements about the off shore gaming industry in Costa Rica. I wish you luck.
You're a computer engineer huh?
Are you a statistician too? Exactly HOW did you come by your results? By using a small sample and anecdotal evidence? Boy you sure used your COMPUTER skills there big boy.
Sounds to me like you are a computer engineer who loses at poker.
- Andrew
You're a computer engineer huh?
Are you a statistician too? Exactly HOW did you come by your results? By using a small sample and anecdotal evidence? Boy you sure used your COMPUTER skills there big boy.
Sounds to me like you are a computer engineer who loses at poker.
- Andrew
I have completed graduate studies in behavioral science statistcal analysis(multivariate statistical analysis, factor analysis, cluster analysis, etc.)It appears from your last post that you have been the emotional adolescent publishing these inane comments. Your obviously emotionally upset that your haven of non-poker cheats. I'm sorry to anounce that your emperor wears no clothes. Grow up .
Really?
Then what are you doing as a computer engineer? Weren't good enough at behavioral studies or statistics?
Come on now. Just admit that you can't win.
- Andrew
wow
Post deleted at author's request.
The killer--What about the fellow who has 3 diferent computers in his house, he gets in the same on line poker game in 3 different seats.It loosks like he could be in collusion with his self to a very big advantage. IS this CHEATING? Milt.
Yes, it is.
To avoid being immediately noticed by the owners he would have to have two identities with different social security numbers, background/credit check information, names on his credit cards or checks and different addresses and phone numbers and would have to patch his phone lines through a different localities. That's a lot of work to sit in a middle limit game and impersonate two colluders raising and reraising each other, especially when the owners, holding a record of every card in every hand played, could detect the collusion and shut him down after three or four key hands. Of course, he could be clever and simply try to squeeze out an extra bet every now and then, but why wouldn't he just use his phony personalities to commit real fraud (credit cards, bank loans) and obtain immediately what he presumably wants to get by cheating at poker?
the owners can cheat.They are off shore, and not prone to US regulation. But this was not the point. The point is quite simply that the programs do not produce random distributions. Therefore, they are not a legitmate poker game. How would you like to play being cold decked in a Casino? I don't think you would.
I'm afraid I don't find your allegations about the lack of random cards credible at all. You write as if you're not sure whether Planet Poker is deliberately stacking the deck while implying that it is.
Deliberate deck stacking is almost absurdly unlikely. An online operator dealing honest poker should be able to make a ton of money with a 5% rake structure and no human overhead or U.S. taxes. As a result, honest operators would have the same competitive advantage that an honest casino would compared to one that cold decks its customers. Planet Poker would have disappeared, or will shortly. In any event, your indictment is not one against online poker generally.
Second, honest competitors could easily discern the deck-stacking and prove it based on recorded results. They would publish their proof and annihilate their competition.
Third, if a crooked operator chose to supplement its take by stacking the deck in favor of certain (presumably fictional) players, they wouldn't do it by dealing a lot of paired or suited boards or with garbage cards that turn into winners. It would be a simple matter to expertly camouflage it, at least to the naked eye.
Fourth, your lack of hard numbers leaves your argument extremely unconvincing. You say that Planet Poker deals too many 4-flush boards. Only 4% of the nearly 2.6 million 5-card boards consist of four flushes. Planet Poker deals about 35-40 boards an hour. I suspect that one would have to watch thousands and thousands of hours of Planet Poker before any sheer observation could pick up on a pattern of modestly disproportionate 4-flush boards. If the number of such boards was grossly disproportionate, the results of the games would be so skewed (open sets would be unheard of, anyone playing a single high card would take down the money), that the games would soon break down. But they continue to thrive.
Fifth, for what conceivable reason would Planet Poker want to deal a disproportionately large number of 4-flush boards? How would they benefit? If there are too many 4-flush boards, isn't it more likely to be an accident? But if it's an accident, isn't it then incredible that Planet Poker deliberately stacks the deck as well? Why would they carefully deal out the right cards to their favored players but not be able to get the number of 4-flush boards right?
Finally, if the lack of random numbers is just an accident, in that the random number generator doesn't work, I can't see this as much of a problem. In the first place, all players would suffer equally. Second, I would think it would be only a matter of time before someone would fix it. I don't know that much about computers, but why can't Planet Poker use the same random number generators that state lotteries use? Or are all those non-random as well?
I don't know, Chris, those ping pong balls come out awfully slow. :-)
I do not find your uneducated, computer illiterate response credible at all. You sound as though you have an interest in the company. Anyone that has either palyed poker for any significant time, or who knows anything at all about programming knows that their hand distribtion is not random.
For the record, I have no interest at all in any online poker operator, poker software maker or related company, at least not that I know of (god knows what's in those mutual fund portfolios). And while I'm not entirely uneducated, I am pretty much computer illiteraet.
I was playing 5/10 the other day online and was cheated out of $200 by someone whose nick had "fish" in it. I think it might have been rayfish. Has anyone else been cheated by this "fish" (rayfish?) character.
Ima
I have for foolishly playing on-line poker
As a post mortem to this acrimonious exchange with the puerile Andrew Prock, I have closed my account with Planet Poker and will never do business with them (nor Mr.Caro for that fact) again. My dsl dervice is installed and I have accessed Paradise Poker. The conmnection now works well. The card distribution represents a much more random sample than Planet Poker. I believe that they run a straight game.
.
I bet you make that mistake only once.
life in the big city........... a week a go the exact same thing happened to me for $500 playing 20-40 at planet poker. as far as the other gripes i have seen no evidence of cheating except one time and those 2 guys cost theirselves money. i'm winning too much money to worry about the other stuff and its just to damn convenient to just flip on the ole computer when u have an hour or so to kill plus no second hand smoke.
My feelings exactly. 1) No smoke 2) Less wait for a seat 3) More chumps 4) Higher limits than the casinos near me 5) Smaller rake than the casinos near me
I haven't seen their user interface, but if they have the 'fold' button anywhere NEAR the 'call' button, it's a horrible design flaw.
I have yet to see a computer poker game with a reasonable user interface. Even the otherwise excellent Turbo programs have godawful user interfaces.
Haven't any of these supposed professional programmers ever read anything about human factors and user interface design? Turbo Hold'em, the best of the lot, violates about a half dozen elementary UI guidelines.
how else to simulate the smoke filled rooms?
brad
I guess we all should remember the quote below before considering online poker (or any other online casino cash game for that matter).
"A computer lets you make make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila" - Mitch Ratliffe
Just thought I'd post this, as my original post generated quite a "storm of posts" and I thought a "lighter" mood was in order. ;=}
Thanks for all your comments!
Best regards and I hope to see you all at SARGE in Feb.
Mike R. TheKiller
I have no doubt that I missed a bet and/or raise in this hand and I’d like someone to tell me where. I’d also like this post to serve as a lesson to those who play in a game that is too big for them. This is what I did, and it proved to be a disaster. I’m normally a very solid/winning 10-20 player who occasionally plays 20-40. This 30-60 game looked good to me and I thought I had an edge. This may have been true, but unfortunately I got big hands cracked early and as a result, found myself stuck an uncomfortable amount. This caused me to become unable (or at least less willing) to pull the trigger in certain situations. Now, I was compounding a poor run of cards with playing poorly as well!
3 limpers to me and I limp w/ Qc,Jc. 1 caller behind me and the button raises. BB calls and 7 of us see a flop of Jh,Tc,9h. 2 checks, a bet, folded to me and I raise. It’s folded to BB who calls $60 cold, bettor raises, I call, BB calls. (3-way). Turn is a 3d. check, bet, I call, BB folds. River is an Ad. Check, I check???. He has QJ and we chop. I considered raising the turn and if I did, I certainly would have bet the end. If not, I still think I should have bet the end when the A hit. If nothing else, it puts him to a tougher call. There should’ve been a way to use my position and take this pot myself. What does everyone else think? Thanks in advance….
No AKs you played correctly and I believe you are chastising yourself unnecessarily. You raised on the flop with your top pair/decent kicker and got re-raised. You then got bet into on the turn. That board is far too dangerous for you to be going overboard here. A flop of: Jh,Tc,9h is highly coordinated and incredibly dangerous for your fragile holding. As a minimum you could be up against top pair with a better kicker and you could easily up against two pair. You should breathe a sight of relief that you got to split the pot!
I agree. It was a very scary board and much could beat me. However, isn't it worth 1 bet on the end with 14.5 BB in the pot? There is only one hand he could raise me with, and it's unlikely he would have checked that hand. Of course he may call with several different hands that beat me, (2 pair, set, dummy straight, etc.) but it's highly unlikely I get raised. And there's probably over a 1 in 14 chance he folds several hands that do beat me. In this case he certainly folds QJ. What do you think? I appreciate your input Jim.
Aks, we need to realize a few things here. In retrospect your opponent grossly over played his hand by re-raising on the flop with that board. Putting it another way he had a much weaker hand than he was representing given all the betting and raising he was doing, the texture of the flop, and the number of opponents he had. When he bet into you on the turn there was $770 in the pot ($440 pre-flop + $270 on the flop + $60 bet). What you are considering is investing $120 on the turn plus another $60 on the river for a total of $180 versus the $60 you put in when you called. This extra $120 you are risking is to go after an $830 pot ($770 plus extra $60 if your opponent calls). But you have to catch your opponent way out of line for this ploy to work and it may not work even then. A guy crazy enough to re-raise you on the flop and lead into you on the turn may not fold on the end regardless of what you do.
What made your hand worth staying around with and taking all that heat was not your top pair/fair kicker but rather your open ended straight draw. When you got re-raised on the flop you should have figured you were beat and were playing a draw. You should be grateful it worked out the way it did.
thats good analysis, Jim.
Here's a hand from an early AM 15-30 game at Bay101. The action seems quite lively but I've been at the table only a couple hands.
A presumed loose fish limps in early. An identified, huge, on tilt fish (TF) raises. A sound player in the cut-off seat cold calls. I 3-bet from the button with red kings. Big blind calls two cold, presumed fish (PF) caps and all others call. Five way flop = Js 5c 2h. I love it. I want people out right now.
BB check, PF bets, TF raises and sound player cold calls. His call is the only action I have any real worry about. I 3-bet and this causes the BB to fold, one down! All others call. 4 way turn brings the 10s. It check around to me and I bet. PF raises, TF 3-bets and we lose the sound player, two down! I think it over for maybe 15 seconds and rule out a fold and then rule out raising. PF also calls, a minor relief. Now I'm rooting for the board to pair, I think.
Three way river comes a red 10. I get my wish. Both check to me and in a couple of seconds thought I simply table the Cowboys. They're good. I'm curious if many of you would bet the river. I did get the perfect card and perfect action with it. Even though the pot was huge a bet missed is still a mistake. This is a commom reaction from a lot of players but often incorrect.
Ya, I would generally bet again on the river. It's a rare animal who in a 3 way pot will check at the end with a hand better than your Kings and look for a checkraise. Heads-up, some tricky players might do this but even there I will take my chances and just fire away.
A comment which may not necessarily apply to your thinking:
Many players check down at the end with KK reasoning that "ah well, the pot is big enough already. Why risk being checkraised. I'll just check down and if I win, I will be happy even though I may have missed a bet". To me, this is a huge mistake. When the pot is that big, guys are going to look you up with just about anything. Mnay fellas don't need much to even overcall. Thus, missing out on a big bet or perhaps two in these instances can amount to a significant error.
I agree completely with skp's excellent analysis. When players check to you on the end a bet is clear. The pots I win are NEVER big enough!
Last Sunday Paradise Planet 10/20, full table I pick up [Ks] [Kh] on the button. Third player limps, sixth player raises, I reraise. Someone calling himself Scott folds in the small blind as does the big blind.
Three see the flop of [2h] [7h] [4c]. All check to me, I bet all call. Turn is [9d]. All check to me I bet all call. River is [8d]. All check to me I bet, third player raises sixth player folds (while saying "nice", b******) I call, maybe I should fold. Get shown [8s] [9s].
Sorry needed to get that off my chest. I am still going to bet the river next time, unless someone can convince me its wrong.
Piers
I would also bet the river for value, as it seems unlikely that anyone would try for a check-raise in this situation. Also, you want these guys to know that you will bet on the river with this type of hand; you don't want to establish a pattern where you would only bet the river when you are bluffing a hand like AKs where you missed your flush, for example.
I am also a bit curious about your comment that the Ten pairing was a "perfect card" for you. It didn't really change a thing from the turn unless one of these guys was playing J-5, J-2, or 5-2; not likely holdings. Not only did you miss the river bet; you missed capping it on the turn when you were obviously in the lead as well.
Dunc,
You mention that our hero was *obviously* in the lead after a TEN fell on the turn. I'm curious as to how you can rule out someone playing JTs at this point in the hand.
Well, given that J,10 is a possible hand for either the raiser or the 3 bettor, I can't find much fault with failing to cap on the turn. I do agree with your comment that the 10 pairing on the River shouldn't be any cause for joy for Scott. When both his opponents check the River, Scott's hand is probably good and he can bet his Kings. But before they both check, the 10 should have caused Scott some concern.
Scott is correct in thinking that he wants the board to pair on the River but he wants it to pair with a 5 or a deuce - not a Jack or 10.
Wow. You must have gotten a lot more agressive since the last time I played with you. Cap it on the turn in a 15-30 game with two Kings? Sure they are fish, but in all honesty I can't remember the last time I voluntarily put four bets in on the turn with one pair in a multi-way field in holdem. Or if I did, it would be to attempt to slow the maniacs down on the river so I wouldn't be facing two more bets at the end.
What I was trying to say, Dan, was that Scott's comments about the Ten pairing being the "perfect" card had some flaws in the logic. Certainly, J-T is a very likely hand for someone to 3-bet the turn, and I would have just called as well with KK to see the river. But the fact of the matter is that unless someone had specifically J-T, then nothing has changed at the river. My point was only that in retrospect, he did miss an additional bet (in theory) on the turn as well. Whether one can make that bet in the real world is another story; probably not, but he should still bet the river, IMO.
While your call is good you are unlikely to have the better hand on the turn. If the T on the end actually improved you then you just outdrew J5, J2, or 52; which even for fish is unlikely. Your primary conserns are AA and JT; both of which still have you beat. No one will lay down a better hand than yours.
Even against these fish, I would be happy to check this hand down.
Now had the board paired 5 or 2 I may be tempted to bet for value.
- Louie
PS; you are correct to resist the custom of routinely checking one big pair on the river.
Here is where "feel" comes in - it is something you can't teach and is learned by some, not many. I would most likley bet the river here unless my "feel" told me to just pass.
In a similar thread not too long ago, one of our most respected posters (but I forget which one) made the following point, which I'll repeat here.
The river bet is far less important than the flop and turn bets, because not betting or raising on the flop and turn can allow someone to stay in, beat you, and cost you the whole pot (the mathematical catastrophe). In this hand, it is entirely possible someone could have stayed for the pre-flop action with AT suited, then gotten out with the heavy action on the flop. If true, your raise on the flop might have saved you the whole pot, since he probably would pay one SB to see the turn card with one overcard Ace.
A river bet by you here is somewhat borderline, and I suggest that you not worry much about missing it. In the loose 4-8 games I play in, a lot of players like to think they are tricky and/or great, and they would check-raise every time if that river T gave them trips or a full house.
Dick
While betting on the flop and turn is generally more important than betting the river, this last aspect is also important and should not be overlooked. Scott here probably lost 1 and maybe 2 big bets. That's a couple of hours of work.
I've passed this question on to two players I respect, one a well known expert. Neither was aware of the ending and neither was willing to bet the river. My mistake was not witholding the way the hand played out. I'll make sure i do that in the future.
Thanks for all the advice.
Yes, you are correct in that you may have received more diverse responses had you not revealed your opponents' hands. My response would have been the same though...I would bet.
A reasonably tight player raises. He's 2nd to act in a 6 or 7 handed game. All fold to me.
I call (and strongly consider folding). Which is better?
Flop looks good. QTT with a 2 flush. I check, planning to call, but he checks also.
I bet the turn, a small flush card. He raises. I consider folding (very quickly), but call. I have K or Q of the flush suit.
River very bad - an offsuit ace. I check and fold.
Any comments or suggestions welcome. Thanks to all in advance.
Because you are in the big blind and already half-way in, I think a call is okay but you have to be ready to dump this fast unless you get a good flop.
You should bet the flop with the top two pair and an excellent kicker. You beat big slick, AJ suited, and pocket Jacks which are all hands he would raise with pre-flop. You need to see how he handles your flop bet. If you get raised, I would call and take off card planning to fold if I don't get help and get any further heat. When you put yourself in a check-call mode you are frequently at a loss as to how to proceed. Sometimes you will win without a fight and other times he just calls and then you can decide what to do when the turn comes. I normally don't overly concern myself with two flushes in a heads-up situation.
When it is checked through on the flop, your turn bet is correct because you still have a good hand and you now have a big flush draw. When raised, you have to call with your flush draw. On the river a fold is clear when you check and he bets. All you can beat is pocket Jacks and he would not bet this way with that particular holding. He might have KQ suited but that is very unlikely.
If I were the raiser and had AK and you bet into me with a flop of QTT, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get raised. If you will go into check-and-fold mode with your top pair just because I raised, you're going to get bluffed out of the pot.
Two overcards and a gutshot is a pretty good hand. Sure, you *might be betting a ten, but I'd bet against it. First, the odds of you having a ten is lower than any other hand, and second, you'd probably check it and let me step out and bet for you.
This pretty much illustrates how tough it is to play a hand like KQo heads-up against a tight early-position raiser.
Dan I think you are right and a lot of it is player dependent. Against a tough player like yourself there is a lot to be said for just folding rather than calling the raise. But against most players I come across, I think I have a positive expectation here by calling at this point. Most of my opponents don't play over cards very well and when someone bets into them when the board flops a pair, they are quite likely to either just call or to fold. Opponents that are tight but weak I think you can play this hand against them. It is the tight-aggressive types that you have to avoid a hand like this when you are out of position.
If the player is tough, I'd fold before the flop. Yes, you're getting in for half price, but IMO it's still not worth it. Unless he's raising with a medium pocket pair like JJ, you're in big trouble no matter what you hit.
Consider: If he has AK, you're drawing to a queen. And if you hit a queen on the flop, he may put a fancy raise on you with his two overcards. Of course, he'd raise you if he had AA or KK too, so what are you going to do?
If he's got KK or AA, you are badly dominated and the only way you can win the hand is to hit two queens or make a straight.
If the best case scenario happens and he raised with a pair under your queen, then if you hit the flop and bet you get no action.
Bottom line: If you flop the best hand you win 3.5 small bets. If you flop the second-best hand, you lose probably six. If both of you miss the flop, you're out of position and in trouble, and will probably lose the money.
If there had been even one caller between you, or the player is weak enough to check an unimproved AK behind you if you check (but will always bet a big pair), then calling for half a bet makes more sense.
Before I read further responses: Does everyone believe he has three tens at a minimum, and more likely pocket qqs?
I was playing 3-6 at Hollywood Park. UTG with K-T offsuit, the flop comes down 8-9-T rainbow. Checked around, the button bets and I raise to isolate him. Now its heads up and the flop is a 9, I bet, he raises, I call. River is 3, I check and call, and lose to full house 8-9. I think I should either raise or fold after the turn card. I have a hard time putting people on hands, I always lock into my hand and its potential improvement, and forget what the opposing players may have, is there a way of practicing putting people on hands or do I just need more experience? I know that K-T is not a good starting hand. Thanks in advance.
KT UTG easy fold. Good raise against any aggressive player. The notion of must raise or fold is valid when the pot is small such as on the first betting round or two. But the turn the pot is often big enough to justify trying to outdraw the opponent or to catch a possible bluff.
In this situation if you are beat you are drawing particularly slim and so calling on the turn is mostly a function of how often the player MAY be raising with a hand worse than yours like JT.
"Practice" reading hands? Well first off, do it every hand even when not involved. Generally focus on the aggressor of the hand and often those in early position. If you figure what the player has and are right you can confirm it; if wrong you can review the hand and figure out why you were wrong.
Eventually you will see general betting patterns and specific patterns in specific players; such as some players routinely raise with draws and other never. Some players respect raises and other's do not.
- Louie
First of all, coming in under the gun in full table limit game with a piece of junk like King-Ten offsuit is bad poker. This hand should only be played in late position. Open with a steal-raise if everyone folds to you and you are in the cutoff or button. If others limp in ahead of you then you should limp along in late position.
From your narrative it is not clear how many opponents took the flop with you. I assume a few players along with the button and perhaps the blinds. Though rainbow, the flop is highly coordinated and therefore dangerous. I would bet top pair/excellent kicker rather than trying for a check-raise which may not work. You cannot afford to be giving out free cards here. Nevertheless, you checked and only the button bet. You raised which is okay. You aggressively bet the turn and got raised. I think you should fold. It is too easy for you to be up against a straight or trips or at least a top pair/top kicker hand. You don't have enough outs to continue.
Putting people accurately on hands requires a lot of experience, and with that said, there are some people you just can't put very accurately on hands. This is because their play is fairly irrational. With that being said, and getting to your hand in question, You need to decide how rational your opponent is and how much that board should scare him if he doesn't have it. If the answer is yes to these questions you should have folded.
For instance, there are some players who would have raised if they held JT in this spot (top pair and a straight draw) providing the board does not pair. But that paired board will slow them down. Against this player you should fold.
So how do you know whether the player you are against fits this mold. This is where experience, knowledge of your opponent (including your current observation of how he is playing exactly at that time), and board strength all come into play. Our books have some discussion on this very important topic.
The pre-flop bluff thread below prompts me to make this post.
Let's say that a loose player limps in early position and you raise on the button with QcJc.
Flop: 10s5d3h
The flop betting is as expected. He checks. You bet. He calls.
Turn is another rag, let's call it the 2s.
Many players bluff again here. If the loose goose calls, you are committed to fire again on the river even if you miss and you have just blown away an additional 4 small bets if you are called.
A seldom used play in these situations is to check on the turn (note that we are playing a loose goose - against a player who doesn't mind being bluffed out, you can easily make a case for firing again). Once you check, the natural tendency for your opponent is to put you on Big Slick. Now, if the river brings a Jack or Queen, you bet for value. If the River brings an Ace or King, you can make a much more believable bluff...and that's really the point of my post...if you bet the turn and are called and the river brings an Ace or King, your bet on the river will still likely be called because you have now made the pot too big for the fella to fold. Also, there's something to be said about a calling station gaining "calling momentum". He calls the flop and turn and figures what the hell "I'll call the river as well". On the other hand, if you were to take your foot off the gas momentarily, you can make better use of a scare card on the river.
Comments?
Your play is an interesting one in that you have perhaps created a few "psuedo outs" when an Ace or a King shows up on the river. However, you are pretty much stuck if any card other than an Ace, King, Queen, or Jack shows up since your check on the turn tells him you had nothing. In addition, there is an off chance that if an Ace or a King shows up on the river this will give him a second pair.
Bottom line is that I believe you are better off betting the turn in this situation since I think your chances of winning the pot are greater although you may have to invest another double bet on the end to follow-through.
I know this is not central to the point you are making but I believe this problem was created by raising with Queen-Jack suited which is a good drawing hand but has no immediate value especially when the flop misses your hand. I would much rather make a loose raise like this against an early position limper with a medium pocket pair like Sevens or Eights. Even a hand like Ace-Ten or Ace-Jack or Ace-Nine gives me the chance of winning a showdown with Ace-high. I can never win a showdown with Queen-high so I end up frequently have to bet my way out of trouble when the flop misses me. At least then I have some hand to fall back on when the flop misses me. Note how much easier it is if I don't raise pre-flop. I can get away from the hand and have less of a committment since the pot is smaller.
I'm sure many people find themselves in this situation often. They raised the pot with a decent stealing hand against the blinds who call, or against a weak limper, to isolate and flop nothing. You say it is difficult to get away from it and it makes me wonder why.
So skp raised with QJs. Flop gave him no pair, no straight draw, no flush draw, in other words a clean miss.
Why invest more? Take a free card on the flop and if it misses as well, you've invested less. Most of the time the flop has hit somebody for a pair or draw, so betting on the flop is betting the hand for them.
Let us say this is a $10-$20 game. By not raising pre-flop given the blinds and one limper there is only $35 in the pot. Venturing a $10 flop bet to win $35 against two opponents (the big blind plus the limper) is fundamentally different than the case where you raise pre-flop. When you raise pre-flop there is now $55 in the pot and only one opponent. Now venturing a $10 flop bet to win $55 against a solitary opponent is much more attractive.
It is one thing to try and steal the blinds when the blinds could have anything. It is quite another matter to steal from an early position limper. For one thing you cannot win the pot outright pre-flop with your raise since the limper will almost always call. Secondly, players don't voluntarily limp in with random cards. They limp in with an Ace or a King in their hands or a small or medium pocket pair depending upon how loose they are. The point is that QJ suited does not rate to be the best hand in a heads-up situation against an early position limper.
I am not saying that it is wrong to raise an early position limper with Queen-Jack suited but I don't like making this play because the more money dough you sink into the pot pre-flop, the more of a committment you have post flop. I don't want to be committed with a drawing hand which is designed to be played against a lot of opponents at a small cost.
The thing is you are heads up, so the flop probably missed him too. Taking a free card on the flop is possible but then when you both miss on the turn he can bluff you out since you showed weakness.
I think either the bluff or Skp's play are best.
Of course in many other situations with more players in the hand you can simply let it go.
D.
But David when he calls your flop bet after you raised pre-flop, the flop probably didn't miss him or at least he has a better than you for sure otherwise why wouldn't he fold when you bet the flop?
An awful lot of players will call a bet on the flop with two overcards and then routinely fold them on the turn if they miss.
But Dan if he has two over cards to that flop they would have to be specifically QJ, KJ, KQ, or AJ other wise he would have raised pre-flop. With you having a Queen and a Jack that makes these holdings quite unlikely.
I was answering Sammy's idea of just taking a free card on the flop, you don't make a flop bet there.
D.
Wish all opponents would surrender to me when I have best hand but it might be weak due to flop. They know it, I know it. There be players who bluff you when they think you are weak. Is this true?
Your argument regarding not raising before the flop applies well to QJo, but QJs is just a little too strong to let a loose limper get a cheap look at the flop.
Why do you have to 'bet your way out of trouble' when the flop misses you? Folding is a option...
I think this all ties in to HEFAP's advice of occasionally checking the turn when you actually have something like KK and there are rags on the board. At least, if the opponents are somewhat observant and see that you are capable of making this play. That way, on the times that you have the QJ hand, when you miss the turn, you can check and still maybe have a chance of bluffing at the river if another total blank hits. You would have to be careful about the player and the game in which to try this, though, as most of the low limit types would automatically assume you have nothing when you check the turn, and call you down with virtually anything on the river. I made this play the other night in 3-6, checked the turn heads-up with AA, and when I bet the river, the guy called me with A-high, figuring I was on a complete steal. If I had continued to plow away, I have no doubt he would have folded on the turn.
I make plays like this quite regularly. It has an even more important benefit than the one you mentioned - in the games I play in, if I'm known as someone who will always bet the turn if it's checked to me, I'll get check-raised all the time, including check-raise bluffs. One of my strengths as I see it is being unpredictable. If I raise before the flop and a player checks to me on the flop, he can't be guaranteed that I'll bet. And if I do bet and then check the turn when he checks, I may still call with an unimproved ace if he tries to bluff the river.
I made an interesting play the other night against a player who I perceived as having a fairly good 'handle' on me, and who had been pushing me around a little bit as of late. I had AJs, and raised in late position. He called heads-up. The flop was low, like 48T. He checked, and I checked behind him. The turn was a Jack, and he bet. I just called. He bet again on the river (a blank), and I made it $60. He thought about it and called, and I knocked off T9s.
This was a play that made my week. Not only did I win the pot, but I've somewhat neutralized a dangerous opponent in my game. He was looking for a checkraise on the flop and missed it, giving me a free card. He bet the turn, expecting that the jack missed me. I called, but now I could easily have KQ or AK and call again to hit a straight or my overcards. So he bets the river for value, gets raised, and realized that I was willing to raise him for value with one pair. It's going to be much easier for him to make a mistake against me in the future after that one.
If I just want to put one big bet for a pure bluff in this situation, I would put it in on the turn almost everytime. There are many factors that influence the play, but one thing I keep in my mind in this situation is that I don't have to win the pot just because I raise pre-flop and bet on the flop.
regards,
jikun
$3-6 game in Mohegan Sun. 4 loose callers limp in, including the SB. I didn't raise; these 4 people would not fold for another bet. The 2 players that would fold were already out. Was this correct? I would have raised with Aces or Kings. Flop comes Ac 10s 8c. I check (correct?) next player bets, the next one raises, one more caller and the button folds. I fold as well (correct?). The turn brings an 8 and the river is 5 of clubs. The original postflop bettor had J8 of spades and the raiser had Ax. It turned out well, but did I play it correctly?
Yes, yes, yes and yes. Good Luck! Black Jack
Even if they won't fold for one more bet, I would still raise befroe the flop. Loose callers can have almost anything, and you have one of the best hands. Why not raise now?
Of all the decisions in this hand, not raising preflop was the one I thought about the most. If I did raise preflop would the play post flop still be correct as is? Otherwise I would probably bet out on the flop if I raised preflop, and then stay with the hand till the river. I dont think either of the other two players would fold no matter how aggressive I was.
You should raise with pocket Queens pre-flop. You have the best hand and should charge people extra money to play and take a flop. Whether or not they would fold is irrelevant.
On the flop with four opponents, an Ace over card, and a two flush you should check. Was one of your Queens a Club? When it is bet and raised to you your fold is correct. You simply don't have enough outs to call. You are playing a two outer and perhaps some remote runner-runner possibilities.
Your play was correct except for failing to raise pre-flop.
Jim, the queens were red. I read this answer after posting the question back to Dan above. Thanx
While I understand what you are saying and don't really quibble with it much, my practice in general is to not raise from the bb with QQ in what is surely to be a pot contested 5 ways. If I were to have only 2 opponents, I would almost always raise. 3 opponents is borderline and I raise or call depending-frankly- on my mood.
Just calling aaginst 4 opponents makes it easier to win the pot if you flop favourably as you can possibly checkraise to limit the field (or you can bet and have someone hopefully close to your left raise you and help limit the field - it depends on the texture of the flop). Plus, if I get an unfavourable flop (like this one), I have a much easier decision to release my hand.
I like the raise most of the time. As you get up to 5 opponents, you almost have enough odds for the set you might need. And you have the reasons for raising with less. Maybe with 4 it is a close call.
D.
"As you get up to 5 opponents, you almost have enough odds for the set you might need."
I use this logic to raise with something like 88 but not QQ or JJ.
With QQ most of the time I don't need a set to flop the best hand. An Ace or a King only shows up about a third of the time. Furthermore, my little raise pulls into the pot 5 extra bets with me having the best hand.
I realize that you don't need the set, my point was that you have enough odds to raise purely on the value of the set, you still may win with an overpair.
D.
I do exactly like what you said. By not raising, you keep the pot small and the check-raising on the flop can more effectively knock out those over cards, and those pair-hand(s) will pay you off or even reraise you in those loose games. I like the part-depending-on my mood-. Poker, I believe, is not all about scientific thing.
regards,
jikun
I think you played it great except for one thing, you should stay to see the turn, your opponents obviously had an ace but you could have made trips on the turn or river to steal the pot. Regardless you still made the correct move.
No, the fold on the flop was correct. Don't call raises in small pots to try and hit 2 outs. And it could easily be re-raised behind him.
If you're in the habit of peeling a card off with pocket pairs in cases like this, you have a major leak in your game.
You played the hand exact. Don't listen to the majority of posts above, they are giving you wrong information. Don't even look at the post regarding calling the raise on the flop.
The main reason for not raising, which everyone failed to mention, is your position.
Failing to raise (or reraise) with QQ/KK/AA in a multiway pot while in the BB or SB is a serious mistake that only a very weak player would make. You are giving up hours of income by slowplaying here. The position is all the more reason to raise preflop, since if you slow play preflop you still have to bet out on the flop or else risk giving a free card; you have little choice but to decloak preflop and plan to fire again on the flop barring an icky flop like this one. You should balance/disguise your play by also raising with hands that figure to have just barely the best of it in a multiway field, such as T9s.
-Abdul
I truly value your posts, but in this situation described I do not agree with you. Look at the game, and look at the hand, and look at your response. Reraise with QQ? Come on now. I could maybe see raising, I'll give you that. But reraising?
Your position is terrible in this hand, making this less of a raising hand, not more. This would be an easy three bet on the button, but in the big blind, no way. I do not understand how you state that your position makes it more of a raising hand.
The original post specified that no one raised preflop, so the issue is only whether QQ should raise or check in the big blind after 4 loose $3-$6 limpers. This is an issue?!
To see why you should raise or reraise preflop with a big hand when out of position, consider the following hand: an aggressive player raises late, a loose player calls in small blind, and now very weak player just calls with KK in the big blind. Flop comes whatever, the loose player checks, and now the very weak player with KK checks, lest he reveal much of the information he was going out of his way to hide. Now Mr. KK has given up about 70% of a big bet preflop and almost that much again on the flop. (To make matters worse, Mr. KK will then just call the bet on the flop and check again on the turn, but never mind about that.) Even if Mr. KK bets out on the flop, a likely scenario is that everyone folds, and he still is out that big bet that he gave up preflop when his opponents would have been willing to put one more small bet each into the pot.
On the other hand, if KK has position, then it makes sense to sometimes just flat call preflop, because KK can often recoup the lost bet with a raise on the flop.
-Abdul
I'm gonna echo Dan here. When you have a pocket pair and are quite sure that someone has an overpair on you (which is the case here), you have only 2 outs out of the 47 unseen cards which will catch you up, except for the rare 4-straight or 4-flush. This is twice as bad as trying for an inside straight!
I keep reminding myself not to try for these, and I call this "the worst draw in hold'em." Don't pay for a turn card; the pot odds are just never there.
[ Lest I get picked on, the real worst draw is if you have an under-set, giving you only one out. But that is very rare. ]
Dick
>the real worst draw is if you have an under-set, giving you only one out
No. The worst suckout is (and I have witnessed it about two months ago in a $15-30 game in Nova Gorica, Slovenia) a small pair against big trips.
My dear friend Enrico (I hope he'll get a kick out of seeing his name here) held JJ and flopped J92. He bet out and got called by 44. When another 4 turned, he bet out, got raised and he reraised.
The case 4 came on the river. Hell broke loose.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Ya. Good point.
A hand I saw recently illustrates your point:
A fellow raised with QQ and gets 2 fish to call.
Flop is A98.
QQ bets. Fish No. 1 calls. Fish No.2 raises. QQ calls as does Fish No. 1.
Turn is a 4 and river is a 3 (no flush possible).
Showdown: Fish No. 1 wins the pot with 9c3c. Fish No. 2 throws up his A6 off in disgust. QQ shakes his head and says to fish No.1 "nice hand...93...geez...did you think [Fish No. 2} did not have an Ace?"
Of course, I am sitting there thinking to myself that the biggest fish after the flop was the guy holding QQ. He only had 2 outs while Fish No. 1 had 5 outs.
As most have mentioned, your fold was correct. What they haven't mentioned is that a raise may have also been correct. See the Cissy Bottoms thread from a few days ago. It's a similar situation, but not identical.
I'm not saying that you should have raised, but if you *did* have a club Queen, and the opponents might fold a weak ace, then raising might be ok. If the opponents are the "stick with top pair to the river no matter how weak" then folding was surely correct.
Raising would also have been more correct if you had raised preflop. But then, they might not bet into a suspected check-raise.
- Andrew
I believe I was in the game. The only thing I feel you did wrong was not to raise pre-flop. Post-flop, I believe you correctly folded your hand.
Weak Analysis by a weak player. -Chris
Really Chris?
Based on what?
Or was that a strong analysis by a strong player?
- Andrew
CF Sklansky, 21st, P. 43 on playing the blinds.
Paraphrasing, he says usually reraise with AA and KK, but not automatically with AK or QQ.
This is in the context of an early position raiser, one caller, and you have 33 - which he says gives you the pot odds to flop a set(just call, of course).
Your situation is different, 4 loose callers, but the reasoning is the same - QQ alone probably won't survive.
You might tie this to his discussion of JJ in general, where you need a set if 3 or more people are in (usually).
At some point, maybe 5 or 6 opponents, even AA is a dog.
But Carl being an underdog against a collective does not mean that you should not raise with your good hands. You will win more than your fair share because of your excellent starting hand. In addition, QQ will be an over pair to most flops because an Ace or a King will only flop about a third of the time. Now JJ is considerably weaker than QQ since an over card will flop most of the time.
I agree that being an underdog to win the hand doesn't mean you shouldn't bet and raise - the question is final pot odds versus your odds of winning, as well as strategic considerations such as semi-bluffing, thinning the field, building the pot,getting or preventing a free card.
HPFAP has a good discussion about AK in the BB and similar arguments apply to QQ. One reason to raise any hand is to take control of the pot, but this is much harder to do in first position.
HPFAP recommends, sometimes but not always, just calling with AK(in BB) and wait to see what flops, then play accordingly.
I view the situation of QQ as very similar. Because of the relative weakness of the hand and the extreme weakness of my position, I would like to see the flop before getting excited. However, if there are 2 or 3 late limpers, perhaps even a button raiser, depending on many variables (including knowing the players), I might raise here.
Though I consider AA and KK to be auto-raising hands (except a very few slow play situations), AK and QQ are not, and are more difficult to play, pre-flop through river.
Loose,aggressive,4-8'blinds1/2.Never played against any of these players,play quality very eratic.I'm in the BB with 66,early pos.starts by raising,3 callers,I call.Flop 10d 6d 4c.Sb cks,I bet,preflop raiser raises,next re-raises,SB calls,I call.Right now I'm thinking I'm against over pair,Flush draw,and possible set(the re-raise makes me wonder. Turn 9c.Sb cks so do I,next bets,we all call.River 4s.If my early read of a set was correct,I'm dead,decide to play it conservative and ck,SB did also,next bets,I'm the only caller.She had AA,re-raiser was on flush draw,fortunately I was wrong abouy another set.I have a leak in my game when it comes to betting the end,not sure if this was an example of it.
The leak might be in taking an approach which says "the glass is half empty" rather than "half full". It is difficult to flop a set. It is even more difficult to flop set over set. It is further difficult to find players who can resist the temptation to slowplay top set on the flop particularly when someone else has already put in a raise. With your hand, I would assume that I have the best hand on the flop and cap it. At the very least, I would have come out swinging again on the turn.
reraise. bet. reraise. bet. now wasn't that fun?
scott
skp, your critique is surprisingly mild. When I read the check on the turn, I held my nose and said to myself, "Peee - Yooo!" (or however you spell that) You just can't offer a free card to all the potential drawing hands out there.
skp has said before, "If I lose with a set and don't lose a LOT of chips, then I did something wrong." I can't say it better than that.
Dick
You should have capped the betting on the flop with your set of Sixes. You almost certainly have the best hand and you want the flush draws as well as everyone else to pay through the nose. On the turn, you should bet and raise at every single opportunity. Same thing when you fill at the river when the board pairs under your set.
It is not worthwhile to try a put someone on a set since there are so many other potential holdings that players will jam the pot with like two pair, an over pair, or even a draw. We saw a great example of jamming the pot with a draw in the post "Building A Pot" by Dan Sprung. With many good players advocating this jamming approach on draws because there are lots of opponents you can believe there are a lot of other players who will cheerfully be doing this. You must penalize them to the fullest for their folly.
It may be redundant but you should have capped it on the flop. It is true that once in a while you will flop a set and someone else will flop a bigger set, but rest assured that this will NOT happen very often. You must ram and jam to the fullest and make the flush and straight draws pay out the ASS on the flop since they are drawing and you almost certainly have the best hand.
Trust me, you will not flop set over set very often. I think it has happened to me once in the last 6 months. When this happens you will just have to lose some $$ and there is nothing you can do about it. The times you win with your set will more than make up for the rare times you lose to set over set!
Again, it may be redundant, but make it EXPENSIVE again on the turn for the flush and straight draws to get there. If someone has a straight already then you still have 10 outs to beat them so don't worry about that....
Dave in Cali
While set over set is rare, it's not correct to just say, "Well, it's rare so I'm going to ignore the possibility". You need to do a Bayesian analysis. If it's rare that you lose with set over set, but it's also just about as rare that a certain player would put 3 bets into the pot on the turn without a set, then the chance of set-over-set in that case is pretty high.
In this case, I agree with your advice, and I would have been more agressive with the set. But I just wanted to point this out, because people have been saying it a lot lately.
Here's an example: You have AKd. The flop is 7d8d9d. You bet, it's raised. You call. On the turn you are heads-up with a tight player. You check, he bets, you raise, he re-raises you. You cap it. On the river you bet, and he raises. At this point, do you say, "Hey, a straight flush is very rare! I'll raise again.", or do you make a crying call, fully expecting to be shown a straight flush?
If it were me with the AKd, there are some players I play against that would slow me down to check-call mode after the 3rd raise on the turn. I have the Ace and the King, and I KNOW they won't 3-bet the turn without the nuts or close to it.
you cost your self some money not betting your full house - realy tough to put anyone on a set here - caucious is good but you have to be aggressive too.
As I have been saying good things happen when you bet.
I agree with what everyone else has said. It may be useful to look at it this way: There's not too many better flops for this hand. Sure, there could be flush draws out there, and you may be putting the early raiser on an overpair, but this is basically what you are waiting for when you call a raise with 6s in the BB. If you aren't willing to raise and reraise when you flop a set, it may not be worth it to call that preflop raise.
And as many have said before (and many will again), if you end up losing with a set and you didn't lose a fair amount of money, you probably played it wrong. It's a simplistic way of looking at it, but the message is clear.
Mike
i played my first game of pot limit holdem sunday. the game was short handed 6-8 players. with an average of three aggressive players and three tight agressive players. the game was loose with at least three players calling a bb raise to see the flop. the blinds were 1-2-4. three players [the agressive ones]put a live straddle on for 8.00 when it was their turn.the maximun first raise was 5xbb = 20.00 with alive straddle the first raise was 5xstdd.=40.00 . the agressive players were on my right. was this straddle bet A. good play B. bad play. WHY? and should i have done it also. my usual game is 10-20-40 holdem . i had a real problem with starting hands other than groups 1-2. suggestions!
Normally in PL games one can play alot more small pairs and connected med. cards as it is designed to be cheaper to see the flops. Seems like your opponents want to sky rocket the pots pre flop. Seems like you are stuck in a tough game to win. Maybe it would have been better to find another game.
You may want to straddle once in a while to keep the other's doing it all the time.
A reasonable strategy for us less-experienced big bet poker players is to buy in for close to the minimum and play premium hands and good flops. This way most of your money goes in on early rounds while you have a decided advantage, and little or no money goes in on later rounds where the experienced (even though bad) players have the advanatage.
- Louie
$5-$10 w/kill. SB (maniac) posts the $10 kill. BB (weak player) posts $5. I am on the button w/ Ad Ah. UTG (good player) comes in for $10, I raise to $20, SB reraises to $30, BB calls $30, UTG calls, I cap at $40, all call. The flop brings 8h 3s 10d, all check to me, I bet $10, SB check-raises to $20, BB calls, UTG calls, I raise to $30, SB caps to $40, all call. The turn brings the 5c. All check to me, I bet $20, SB check raised to $40. I reraise, and the SB caps at $80. All call again. The river brings the 2s. All check to me, I bet $20, SB calls, the other two fold. SB wins w/ 8/2 suited. Should I have not bet the river?
Sounds to me like you were overplaying your big pair here. 3-betting the turn might be the place where you stepped over the line.
D.
sb is truely a maniac. reraised with 82 - then put in 2 ck raises with 2nd pair - I don't understand when he hit 2 pair he just calls - oh well these maniacs are hard to figure. With a guy like this in the game how do you know when to call it quits. Your bet on the river was probably wrong at this point you had to be guessing wht the heck is this guy holding with this board.
The board is T8532 rainbow. Because the pot is so big, at least one of the two opponents that have been calling all the way will be forced to call with any little something. The only guy playing back at you can have anything and might just pay you off with big overcards (given his goal of retaining the lead in future hands, he probably should). Bet AA here every time.
CT AL,
The verdict is in: You are a recovering maniac playing with maniacs.
Ha, ha!
Whew. What a rush.
My gut instinct given the action on all rounds is that the only hand you really had to fear was a flopped set. How could you know the maniac would have 82s? I don't think you played badly but you should have possibly feared trip tens from the SB (at least if it was a NORMAL player!). Any reasonable player who capped it twice in a row complete with check-raises would probably have a set of tens. Given this likelyhood I could see checking the river and making a crying call. Why SB didn't check-raise on the river again when his hand improved is beyond me....
Dave in Cali
i agree with dave only i would have stopped pressing after the action on the flop. just because hes a nut doesnt mean he doesnt have the set.
OK, in all honesty, this probably wasn't too costly of a hand...but I really want to know if I played it correctly. Were there any bets that I shouldn't have made or do I just accept that these things happen and continue to do what I did. Here's the situation:
I'm one off the button in a 3-6 game with a hand of 10-10. I put in my 3 with 6 other people to see the flop. Flop comes 10-9-8 mixed. At this point it's a given that I have the best hand at the table...but that's a really scary looking flop. 3 is bet around to me and I raise. 4 people stay for the turn. The turn is a 3 and it's checked around to me, which I bet. One folds, two call. At this point I'm sure half the table put me on trips while the other half thought I either had the straight or was still drawing and wanted them out. I really didn't care as long as I kept getting callers. River comes and it's the queen. Now I'm a little concerned but it's still checked around to me. Well I put in my 6 and it's called by one and raised by another! Now I've got this sinking feeling. I put in my 6 to call. The guy who raised shows not just the jack, but the king for the nut straight. Even if he thought I had the jack, it just didn't matter to him anymore. I was outplayed and I knew it.
So in future situations, what should I do? I had the best hand until the river. Should I even have called that raise despite the odds the pot was giving me? I was almost 100% certain this guy wasn't bluffing me. Also, should I even have bet on the river in the first place when it was checked to me? How many people should I assume are trying to draw in the begining in that situation and what's the best way to shake them loose? Thanks all who respond.
Dan
Your play was fine. One of the things you have to ask yourself on the river is whether or not a worse hand will call given the board. Someone with two pair or top pair/top kicker would probably call but not bet out. At the river you were the last to act and everyone checked to you. I think this tends to deny anyone having a Jack for a straight otherwise I would think they would bet the river out of fear that it would otherwise be checked down.
When called and then raised back to you, I believe there is too much money in the pot at this point to fold. I would make a crying call.
The guy with King-Jack made a risky check on the river and it happened to pay off for him this time. Had he bet the river, I suspect he would have been called by yourself and perhaps the other player. So his little ruse cost you an extra $6. No big deal. YOU PLAYED CORRECTLY.
It doesn't seem absolutely clear from the narrative that our hero bought the button. But, for argument's sake let's suppose he did. Lately, I've noticed an interesting trend at the 3-6 and 5-10 tables. People would rather checkraise than win money on the river. Perhaps they feel when they get in a checkraise they're really good poker players and sandbagging and deception is what poker is all about.
It has to make you wonder what hands were staying in and calling all the way.
An AQ or KQ would probably have raised preflop at this level. A 7x is looking at the ignorant end of a straight (not unheard of) A pair of sevens is certainly more likely.
QJ, KJ, AJ, JT, J9 all beat you. AT, KT probably would have bet somewhere.
Of course there's always A9, A8, K9, K8.
But with a caller and a raiser on the river who had yet to voluntarily add money to the pot, I think a fold is understandable.
Jim:
I usually agree with your posts but in this case we disagree on the river bet. I posted mine before reading anyone else's. I think he played fine except for the river bet. I think the guy with KJ did make a risky play but Dan set himself up by betting the river. Given the chance to check it down, I think I would just check on the river due to the high probability that someone else has a straight. I think the river bet cost him 12$ where he should have shown it down for free. I just don't see where there is any chance to make a real value bet on the river given this board.
Dave in Cali
I think you made a terrible bet on the river.
"Flop comes 10-9-8 mixed. At this point it's a given that I have the best hand at the table."
A flop like that should never assure you that you have the best hand. No one at your table would see the flop with JQ??
By betting on the river and then calling the raise, it cost you 2 big bets. Should have check-folded on the river all the way. It hurts, but throwing away a monster is one of those things you have to learn to do.
shooter
I like Jim and Sammy's responses so much I think I'll plagerize them.
Some reason's to check are: ==1== For whatever reason you believe the opponents believe you have a set (such as they notice you are so conservative you won't raise with TT), a straight, or a straight draw which just got there. The likelyhood of getting paid off is much lower than if you were a maniac (Jim). ==2== Since the opponents put you on a strong hand they can expect you to bet, and since there are many "tricky" players in these games (Sammy) the likelyhood of getting check-raised is pretty good.
==3== As a general rule of thumb, I usually put the opponents on a most likely hand, second most likely hand etc; the number of hands being the same as the number of active opponents. While "top pair" is usually most likely, since you have top set, "stiff Jack" should be the most likely hand out against you (followed by "7" then "Q"); and there are 3 opponents.
While the worst card in the deck (in this case a Q) will not make you automatically check heads-up, checking should be routine against 3 opponents.
After blenching at the Q, show this hand down.
Pay it off? You have to call some of the time and you have to fold some of the time. If I could judge this better I'd be a better player...
- Louie
With a Board of 8,9,T in a muliway pot, I don't think your hand was worth a raise on the Flop. There are just too many cards that can come off the deck to beat you, and you may aready be beat.
The Turn bet is correct of course.
Your River Bet is Not Good. Then calling the River Checkraise is Even Worse. What could your opponent have that he could raise you with, especially with a Third player in the Pot? He's got to think that you at least have a Straight with that Four Straight on the Board.
CV
When playing against the same opponents night in/night out, you sometimes have to pay off even though you are 99.9% certain that you are beat.
Our Hero bet here and got checkraised. The raiser almost certainly has a Jack and our hero can save a big bet by folding. However, if he continues to keep saving a big bet here and there in these situations, what is going to happen is that at some point, an astute player is going to rob him blind on a big pot by putting in a raise when a scare card lands.
There is one player in my guy who likes to make these "obviously correct" laydowns. He is almost always correct with these laydowns. However, I (and a good friend of mine) have stolen a lot of pots from this chap at the end in these types of situations because we know that he likes to save that last bet.
I am not saying that one should just blindly call every time here. I am just saying that there are some things to consider (at a macro level) in addition to saving the last bet.
Yes you need to make a loose call now and then in a tough game, but in 3-6? Especially with a cold caller in the pot. Remember, that he did bet on the end when he shouldn't have.
When a scare card does land shouldn't our hero induce a bluff and call rather than, Bluff than call when raised?
Later, Chris
Good point re: this being a 3-6 game.
I don't think our hero was bluffing - he made a bet for value (ill-conceived? - perhaps - but not always).
My preference would be to bet on the end and fold if raised. Of course, if I could put my opponents on straight draws with a high degree of confidence I wouldn't bet at all.
Unless you were extremely confident of not being check-raised, or could have folded to a check-raise, your bet on the river was a mistake.
When you bet on the river and intend to make a crying call if check-raised, you have to have something more than just the likely best hand. On the occasional times when you'll have to throw in that second bet, you won't think at that point that you're likely or even 50-50 to win the hand. You'll be a big underdog and you'll know it and will be calling not with a positive expectation of winning your opponent's second bet, but only because the pot is too large to give up.
Therefore, on the occasions when you'll be check-raised, you'll be risking 2 bets to win less than 2 bets, and therefore need a much better than 50 or 55% chance of having the best hand.
Of course, the above assumes you were head-up when in fact you were three handed. But while the presence of a third player (assuming he'll call with anything) increases your payoff when you're ahead, it also increases your chances of having a second best hand and of being check-raised.
Accordingly, if I knew I couldn't release if I was check-raised, and if my opponents might well go for a check-raise with a nut hand, I wouldn't bet unless I was about 75% certain of having the best hand (I'm just making up that number, BTW). Under the circumstances, you can't be that certain.
Upon being check-raised, this is what I would consider: how likely is my opponent, preflop, to play hands like QT, Q9 or Q8 in his position compared to AJ, KJ, or JT? If he had two pair, is he likely to think his hand strong enough to check-raise given what the board shows? How likely are my opponents to be playing a straight draw (specifically, how fast did they call my bets on prior rounds)? If I throw my hand away, are these opponents and others watching likely to make a play against me in future situations when I actually have the best hand? I'd also consider my gut reaction to the situation, while second guessing myself.
Then I'd take into account a couple of things I've observed: (1) nut hands tend to make average players greedy and go for check raises and slow plays where logic suggests that they shouldn't, and (2) when the pot is fairly large or the hand was stressfully played, average players will often refrain from raising or check-raising with the second and third nuts even when they're chance of having the best hand, viewed objectively, is pretty high. (I think this is because of some combination of thinking: "hey, the pot is big enough for me already," together with the fear of being embarrassed and possibly put on tilt by aggressively taking the lead only to lose.)
In most cases these considerations would dictate a fold.
I would say betting the river is a big time costly mistake here. Perhaps make a crying call for one bet if everyone folds, but you are not going to get any value on your river bet. You will probably only be called if you are beat and most likely will get raised. Other than that charge them the max to get to the river: you played the rest of the hand fine.
Dave in Cali
first of all what made you sure you had the best hand after the flop? with 8 9 10 flop its VERY possible someone has a straight and its almost for sure at least one of your opponents now has an open ended straight. i think you should have slow played your hand until you improved and saved a few bets. if the board pairs and there are straights you would have made a lot of $$$$ and if not you would have saved a lot.
It is evident that few of the respondents (except ks) play in the type game I do 3/6 vs. maniacs and NE2do folks. J2o is popular at my casino for some reason. *ANY* board four straight (especially when it starts as 89T) is a huge favorite to yield a str8.
To bet on the end in this situation is just short of commitable. That's just in the game in rural WA, I have no idea of what happens in L.A. or LA.
In our game it is absolutely futile to consider all the "possible" holdings because hands with local names (Montana banana is 92o, Filipino Big Slick is 57, etc.). It is popular to raise UTG with 64s because it pisses off the losers.
Although in the games usually discussed on this forum these considerations are rarely noted, it is also clear that at least a few people play this way. They will go broke but sometimes they'll take you down the tubes with them. The cliche is "you've gotta love it, but you don't gotta like it." And despite all protestations to the contrary, it is quite possible to beat these games. The money isn't much (I consider it recreation) but it's the only game within a hundred miles and the company is nice.
Incidentally there is a lovely Spanish expression we give in response to bad beat stories: pobrecito which means poor little baby (pobrecita if it's a woman).
Love.
Three 5-10 hands for eval
I was playing at the Taj last night and wondered about a few hands I was in..
First hand
I have J-9 in the big blind. 2 callers to me and I get a "free" look at the flop.
The flop comes Q,7,8 rainbow and I bet hoping to buy the hand with a flop that I think might have hit nobody ( I had a VERY tight table image at this point mostly because I was getting the worst run of cards I have ever seen. In six hours my best starting cards were jacks).
I get raised by a highly erratic woman who has slowplayed big pairs preflop all night, and I put her on either an overpair or a pair of queens (if she has a set she slowplays for sure). I call the raise... I think about just folding here, but I call. This is something I am really bad at laying down to a re-raise. In retrospect this seems like a clear fold. I have three outs and the money in the pot is thin.
In this case luck prevails and I get the 10 on the turn. I come out raising, and quite frankly I am hoping to get her off of the pot as I would rather not show this hand. She raises me and I come over the top.
The River is another Q (no flush) and I check (fearing a possible boat) and call. She shows down AQ and I drag a pot... but that does not mean I played it well.
-------------------------------------------------------
Several hands later I get in another pot with the same woman.
I am dealt 9,9 utg
I raise, I know this is thin, but the table is really passive, 6 or 7 will see the flop unraised, but raises are thinning the field... and they also seem to induce another raise. The same woman re-raises button calls and I call.
Flop is As,9s,4c I check, she raises, button calls, I re-raise, she re-raises again, button folds and I cap. Again I think my mistake was here, I should have respected the possibility that she had aces, but she is erratic to begin with and has clearly been looking for a chance to play back at me.
Turn is 5c I bet she just calls. I thought about a check call here, but I wanted to see if she would come over me again or not. When she did not I felt pretty strong.
River is an offsuit jack. I bet she just calls and mucks when I turn over my 9's.
------------------------------------------------------
Last hand
I get A-J offsuit in early position (3rd to act). I raise... I often muck this hand in early position, but at this point I have not played a non blind hand in at least two orbits, I am bored and I figure it is a good hand to advertise with as it has a pretty good chance of winning. It is re-raised one off the button. Both players to my left who were in for one bet call and I call. This guy would reraise with anything down to 8-8 I believe especially to get rid of the blinds and buy the button, so yes I am probably dominated, but I could also have the best of it here.
Flop comes J,9,7 The jack and 7 are suited. It is checked to me and I raise, last to act calls and and so does everyone else...
Turn is an ace suited to the nine (sorry my notes are poor at this point so I don't have the suit). Checked to me I raise, last to act re-raises, folded to me and I three bet and he caps. When he capped it I "know" I am beat but I figured that there is enough money in the pot that I have to call.
River is a blank, I check call and he shows down AK... Guy goes ballistic on me telling me what a horrible player I am I should never have called his raise yada yada yada. Half an hour later I beat him with A,J again when he has J,J and I flop an A. He really gets pissy this time and is yelling at me calling me names etc. Telling me only terrible players would play A,J etc. I try to keep calm at the table but I can't help myself and tell him he was just a jack off.
I also don't know that I believe that A,J is that big of a dog to J,J. I have three outs and he is highly unlikely to catch a set (given my holding of one of his jacks). I also have the added chance to catch a str8. I am not saying I would not prefer the Jacks in this confrontation, but I just don't think it is as big a dog as it might seem.
Sean
1. Fold to a raise on the flop. I would prefer to bet the river
2. "I raise, I know this is thin, but the table is really passive, 6 or 7 will see the flop unraised, but raises are thinning the field... " Thinning the field to what 3 or 4. Bad play. You should have called.
3. OK
P.S When first to act it is not a raise it is a bet.
On the first hand I like your bet on the flop with only two opponents neither of whom raised pre-flop. You might win the pot without a fight and you have 4 outs with any Ten if you get called. When you get raised there are 6 bets in the pot (I am assuming the other player folded for the raise). It costs you 1 bet to take off a card but if you hit you rate to get paid off so I think your implied odds merit a call here. The rest of the play is routine. Your opponent made a mistake by not raising pre-flop with Ace-Queen. Her failure to raise allowed you to get a free play. She got to lose a big pot instead of winning a small one. A few small corrections to your post here. You had 4 outs not 3. You did not come out raising on the turn, rather you came out betting the turn.
On the second hand, your raise under the gun with pocket Nines is a little dicey for my tastes but you explained why you did it. On the flop I would rather bet out having a set with an Ace on the board and a two flush since you may get raised allowing you to re-raise and you don't want to miss a betting round by having it checked around.
On the third hand, again your raise in early position with Ace-Jack offsuit is not recommended but you realized this and decided to jump the fence anyway which is fine. Of course you called the re-raise and take a flop. On the flop, I like your betting top pair/top kicker (you bet when it was checked to you and did not raise as stated in your post). When no one raises your bet I would assume the pre-flop re-raiser did not have AA,KK,QQ but rather had just over cards like AK or AQ suited perhaps. On the turn, again I assume you bet when it was checked to you and did not raise as stated in your post. You should play aggressively on the turn when you have the top two pair although I would be mildly concerned about a set when he caps it. On the river you check it down which is fine. Your opponent was a moron. He grossly over played his hand on the turn. He needs some instruction on the proper play of over cards in hold-em.
Overall, I think you play well.
Jim,
I have a question regarding the first hand. You write: "The rest of the play is routine," this being after our hero hits his straight on the turn. What about the river? Hero checks the river when the Q hits, giving the board Q78TQ, with no flush draw present.
I like to bet out here, not relying on the lady to bet my hand for me. According to the hero, lady would slow play a set on the flop, so that eliminated quad q's or a full house with pocket 7's or 8's. Plus, the hero put in the last bet on the turn, making it less likely that she holds these hands. That leaves the lady holding Q7, Q8, or QT for the full house. While QT is plausible, I'm more inclined to put the lady on AQ, KQ, or QJ, or you could even give her 78. Either way, I'm not sure that checking the river is the best play.
I realize you may have not specifically been commenting on the river, but your rest of the play is routine comment leads me to think that checking the river is easily the correct play. If that is what you meant, what am I missing?
Thanks,
PRC
You may be right PRC it is just that Sean pretty much announced his hand on the turn by "coming over the top" like he did. Betting on the end maybe right here but if he gets raised he loses and has risked two big bets to win one. The other thing is that if the Queen did not help his opponent, will a worse hand call a bet? If the Queen did help his opponent but he still has the best hand than by checking he will probably induce a bet on the end.
As far as the third hand goes, let him yell all he wants. He'll go on tilt and continue to pay your rent. Way to keep your cool. And if he told you what a bad player you are, you should have pointed out what a bad play it was to cap the turn with top pair only. That's just a bad play. Especially with two different flush draws on the board and the possibility of 4 sets against him. Not to mention top 2 pair, middle 2 pair, etc.
shooter
First hand
You have 4 outs and since the lady cannot redraw against your straight and will give you lots of action drawing dead if you make it, marginal call of the raise. Normally fold.
-------------------------------------------------------
Several hands later (99)
On the first hand she would slow play a set for sure; on this hand you fear she has top set. There is a mis-match in assumptions here.
Fear of set-under-set is usually irrational, always against an "eratic" player who want to play back at you. You probably should have called the flop raise and then check-raised the turn.
------------------------------------------------------
Last hand (AJ early raise).
What an idiot for reraising with AK against a tight early raiser who "cannot" have AJ. He knows he's beat for sure. What an idiot for telling someone they should have laid down top-two pair.
You had an easy check-raise on the flop against this aggressive opponent who is sure to bet.
Instead of what you did say which is a psycological victory for HIM, consider telling him to wipe the frothing spittle off the end of his nose, or prettend to wipe it out of your eyes, or tell him you KNEW he was bluffing before the flop.
---------------------------
General critism: raising with medium position cards when in early position should be done when you can control or accurately predict the likely callers.
Weakish cards in weak position against fearfully aggressive opponents is bad implied odds.
- Louie
First hand: you seem to have said enough yourself so I won't add to your shame!
Second hand: I would just limp with the 99 UTG in a loose passive game where 6-7 people see the flop. You will probably get the right odds just to try and flop a set, and if you do you will probably win a bigger pot than you did. By raising you were trying to limit the field in a situation where you would have probably been better off not doing so. In a tight game perhaps raise but in typical AC low limit games I would just call in this situation.
The other point is that you should not give her credit for AA just because you have seen her slow play big pairs before. You got just about the most perfect flop ever for your hand so go with it! Bet, raise, jam the pot as much as possible, you have flopped a set! If you lose to AA then oh well....
Third hand: If two people had already limped in and you had AJo then I would not raise. See if anyone else raises so you know if you should perhaps be afraid of being dominated. Your raise will not narrow the field, and in a multiway pot you have unsuited high cards, which means you are laying the implied odds not getting them.
As for the moron who likes to mouth off, I would just ignore him or tell him something like "I can't help it, I'm just a loose player". The Taj has no shortage of morons or obnoxious players so don't encourage them....
One other thing, AJo is a bigger dog to JJ than you think, you have three overcard outs and the chance of making a straight is pretty slim, all other cases he wins. Perhaps someone can tell us the exact figures on that situation....
Dave in Cali
AJ has 3 outs to win, JJ has one redraw to improve, while being the current leader. I believe the jacks are a 2.5 - 1 favorite. PLease let me know if I am mistaken.
ZAch
A couple comments/questions about the non-strategic aspects of your post:
Concerning the first hand (J/9o), you write:
"quite frankly I am hoping to get her off of the pot as I would rather not show this hand." Why not? One of the reasons one can occasionally justify playing off-beat hands is the very hope that they can be shown down and that observant players will notice. Actually, the best thing that can happen is to have a "table cop" call attention to your play to everybody, as it sounds like was happening.
Especially in a game this loose, having your image "loosened" has to be good. The odds that your ultratight image will help buy a pot outright is way reduced in the game you describe anyway.
Coupled with your concern about the criticisms from the other player on the 2nd and 3rd hands, I recognize something that used to bother me in my own play, but which I have tried to change. The first few times I played public poker, the "experts" were there, as they always are. In my zeal to "prove" that I knew how to play, I was somewhat embarrassed to draw out or show down bizarre hands. I have tried in recent years to overcome this and be grateful when others think my play is weak. I'm glad when they send the message to non-observant players that I am a "bad" player. I know it's tough to do, but I think the best bet is to grin sheepishly or to "admit" that you got lucky.
I really disagree with the comment above suggesting that you could retort by explaining the flaw in the other player's bet. Why educate him and anybody else who's listening?
"It is checked to me and I raise"
How can you raise if it's checked to you?
"In this case luck prevails, and I get the ten on the turn. I come out raising,..."
How can you come out raising?
Please phrase what happens more accurately in the future. Thanks
I agree, it's confusing. I find myself having to re-read paragraphs when the phrasing is wrong, because I think I must have missed something.
-Martin D
4 handed. I'm under gun. KdQd. I just call. no raises.
flop comes 3c3d4d. I check. conservative player bets pot. aggressive player to his right raises pot. blind folds. I agonize and fold. I decided just calling was wrong. I couldn't make myself raise, so I folded. I had done some some agressive raising before but it just didn't feel right here. I figure if anybody has a 3 my draw equity isn't nearly what it seems, and neither is my bluff equity. Plus very small shot somebody has suited Ad and I lose whole stack.
Conservative player calls. Turn comes 9d. Checked to Agressive player who bets again, and he takes it. So I may have folded winning hand on a pretty big pot, but got out with bad position for just one blind call.
comments?
an ordinary hand in pot limit. without the raise if a conservative player bets the pot its a tough call.
We all know that some starting hands play well against many opponents while other starting hands do well if played against only one or a few opponents. But all major holdem books seem to just lump the oranges and the apples together under a single Starting Hand Rankings list. Wouldn't it make more sense if these two sets of starting hands were listed separately? Afterall, they each require you to take entirely different actions. Specifically, with heads up/shorthanded type hands, you want to drive players out("thin the field") with protection raises, reraises, and limp reraises in order to hopefully isolate one caller whom you hope to have "dominated". In contrast, when you have a multiway type hand, you want to just call in early or middle position in order to let more people into the pot, or better yet to loosen up with these hands when you're in late position AFTER enough callers are ALREADY in - "implied odds". How would a starting hand rankings list look like if the distinctions between multiway hands and heads up/shorthanded hands were taken into consideration? And would it also make sense to have a separate starting hands rankings list for those few hands that tend to play well in both tactical terrains?
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, I respect (though not nescessarily agree with)all of the opinions that you have expressed in all of your posts. They are all very well thought out and show that the person who makes them is not only very knowledgable, but extremely experienced as well. In your opinion, does my act of making the above post show symptons of naivette and gaps in my own thinking about starting hands and poker decision making in general? And what specifically are they?
Post deleted at author's request.
Hi everyone, I'm new to this board and have a theory question I hope can be answered.
If a world class player sat down at a 2-4 hold'em table, what would be his EV and SD?
Let me list my assumptions below, so I minimize the risk of getting the usually correct answer "it depends" :)
1) This is a typical hold'em game. You can give me ranges for tight to loose if you'd like.
2) The world class player is world class at the smaller limits. That is, he is someone who is world class not only at the bigger games, but knows how to make the correct adjustments for the smaller games. Maybe a better term to use would be 'the optimal low limit player'.
3) The rake is a standard 10% up to $4 of the pot.
4) The toking is reasonable, say 50 cents for every pot you win.
How would an optimal player do in this game in terms of EV and SD? People have told me that you can make a living at 5-10, and even 3-6 and 2-4, that the games are so easy that you can make proportionally more (in terms of bets/hr) than at the higher limits. Is this true?
Thanks very much.
An optimal player can earn more than minimum wage at the $5-10 level, but at $4.50 a pot in rakes and tokes he'll barely break even at $3-6 and lower. If there's any basis to the stories you've heard about making a living a low limit hold 'em (at least any kind of living that doesn't involve a cardboard box and a park), I suspect the games had relatively tiny fee structures.
I've played a ton of 3-6 with a $3 live button charge and $1 tokes. I'm sure that the optimal low-limit player could beat that game for $10 to $12 per hour.
That's not a great living, but I think someone could get by on that.
I play in the 2-4 game once in a while when I bring a friend to Bay 101 or want to help out a new player by watching his play.
The play at the 2-4 tables is much worse than at 3-6. You will sometimes see players call on the river with a busted draw or overcall with 4th pair or draw to a flush with trips on the board. I think a top player could make $8 an hour at 2-4.
With the $3-6 structure you describe, being dealt 35 hands per hour and winning an average of two pots per hour, a player would have to gross four big bets every hour to net $12. I can't say that I haven't heard of it being done (indeed, I hear of it being done all the time), but I have to doubt it.
I'm not close to being an optimum player, but I've been keeping records and beating low limit games (10% up to 3 with $1 jackpot) for about 3 1/2 years now and never been able to net 2 big bets an hour for a sustained period (most of my play has been at $2-5). And I had a noticeable drop when I had to start paying an additional $1 jackpot rake.
Think about how well a top $20-40 player would perform even against the weakest crew if he had to pay $60 an hour (75% of a big bet per hour twice an hour, comparable to the structure described in the original post). He might squeak by with a a few bucks, but forget about netting a big bet an hour. I doubt that it's physically possible. I suspect that Turbo sims will bear me out.
Even for someone who's game selective, the level of play in the average $3-6 game he'll encounter with the structure described simply will not let him win $10-12 over a sustained period, IMO.
(Note: you low limit guys that are facing certain death in your 10% rake/jackpot drop/toke death games might want to rethink any fear you have of online poker [collusion at $3-6; yeah, right], where there's no toke and the rake maxes at $3 for every $60. Watch your results. And no I don't work for them).
They are the type of fish that this barracuda loves to eat. Encourage the fish into the net! -Andrew
At 2-4 and 3-6 your overhead is a critical factor. You have to play in a game with a rake with a small cap ($2-3) or a low time charge, or a VERY low button "collection" (the latter being the worst of all table fee methods). You also need to cut down your tokes; at this limit anything more than .50/pot is too much. You absolutely, positively cannot win in the Southern California version of these games; the house grab is about equal to a good player's earnings on an hourly basis. (And before somebody says he plays $3-6 at the Commerce 20 hours a week and last month he made enough to buy his girlfriend breast implants, I say, hooray for you--you've been lucky.) In general you cannot count on a hourly earnings rate of much more than two big bets/hour, LESS house fees and tokes. In most venues this reduces the game to minimum wage employment without benefits. In some greedy, sucky venues, such as So Cal, it reduces your earnings below zero (i.e., even an expert will break even, barely; everyone else will lose).
Thanks for all your responses.
It seems that the consensus is that a definite upper bound on the Expected Value of the 2-4 and 3-6 games is 3 big bets an hour.
Does anyone have an idea of the standard deviation that would go along with that? Is is noticeably smaller than that of a sub-optimal player? Thanks again.
Buy Turbo Texas Hold 'em, plug in your rake and toke structure and run a series of 1000-hand sims pitting various "good" players against the typical loose/passive and occasional loose/aggressive lineups you see in $2-4 and $3-6. It will calculate hourly rate and you can use the data to calculate standard deviation. My prediction is that it will be very high because the rake suppresses the good player's edge and the multiway action increases the luck factor. An observant player should be able to do better in real life. (But also remember that you'll get fewer hands per hour in most low limit games).
(3 bets? I doubt it but good luck.)
I doubt that 2 people in the country make $18.00 an hour at 3-6. If it was that easy, the 5-10 and 1o-20 players that averaged 1 to 1.5 BB per hour (ie strong players) would play down. I think you correct in predicting a high SD.
I doubt that anyone could sustain $18 per hour in a 3-6 game.
I do think that a top player (say Roy Cooke) could win $12 per hour for 2000 hours in typical 3-6 games.
To the people that say the rake can't be overcome in 2-4 or 3-6, I believe that you are wrong. If you ever find yourself in a tight 2-4 game or in a 3-6 game full of tough players, you might as well flush your money down the toilet. But a tight low-limit game is pretty hard to find (in California at least). In a typical 2-4 or 3-6, the average pot will have at least $3 or $4 of nearly dead money in it. In the 2-4 I play in, half the players will call a bet on the flop or turn with pocket Q's with an A on the board. I doubt you'll see than much in a 20-40 game
$5-10 at Paradise Poker. Fairly tight game. I am in Seat 4 with AT offsuit. UTG folds so I raise (this is what I usually do with hands like AT offsuit, KJ offsuit, or better when I am first in, is this correct?). Seat 6 calls, everyone else folds.
Flop is 5 A 9 rainbow. I bet, seat 6 calls.
Turn is Q. I bet and get called.
River is 3. I bet and get called again. Seat 6 shows me AJ offsuit.
$#@!%@$#%
I know I screwed up somewhere but I'm not sure exactly where. All advice and comments are welcome. Thanks for helping me improve my game.
Ace-Ten offsuit is not a raising hand in early position in a full tabled limit hold-em game. It is okay to raise with it from middle position after the first three or four players have folded to you but not from early position unless the game is shorthanded (i.e.-7 or fewer players). Same thing applies to King-Jack offsuit.
The rest of your play was fine. When faced with an opponent who does nothing but call it is okay to keep firing when faced with an innocuous board like this one. He was probably afraid that you had a better Ace for your raise like Ace-King or Ace-Queen so he was in a calling mode but he cannot fold in case you were trying to push him out with you holding a pocket pair like Kings or Jacks or Tens.
what would you consider to be the (unpaired) minimum raising hand in my situation? Do you personally even ever raise with hands like AT in middle position?
thanks again, sucker
One of the big reasons you don't want to raise with AT when in early position is you pretty much assure yourself that any Ace that calls you will be a better ace. Other hands that will call you are JJ, QQ, and KK's. By raising with AT, you set up a situation where you either win a small pot or just the blinds vs. a situation where you lose more money to a bigger ace or bigger pair than you have.
In this case, AJ played it weakly, and it didn't cost you that much.
PRC
The problem with this hand is only your preflop play. When you raise with A10 in EARLY position the problem you face is that you will often only be called by a better hand, such as AJ or AQ. When this happens and an ace flops you are screwed, as you found out....
As Jim pointed out, raise with A10 or AJ when several have folded and you are in middle or late position. In early position, such as UTG, just fold A10o and save yourself some aggravation. With AJ I might just call, but folding is probably a good idea in a tight game. The thing you must consider with these vulnerable hands in early position is the fact that there are a bunch of people left to act who very well may have a better hand than yours. And if you flop an ace, it will be hard to get away from your hand....
Dave in Cali
then would have the raise preflop been correct? or would limping be the better play?
sucker
I think that limping is still the best play. If you raise, you still have the problem of being called by better hands. And, with ATs, you don't mind extra callers as much because it increases your win if you hit the flush.
In some of the lower and mid-limit games, you will find a table where many players will play Ax, where x is a little card. I think these tables highlight why you don't want to raise with the AT. The Ax players will generally fold to a raise, but will call an unraised pot. The AK, AQ, AJ, and big pairs, will of course call the raise. By raising with AT you have driven out the people you want to call, and helped the players who prefer fewer opponents.
PRC
I hold KJc two off the button in 6-12HE and call a single raise pre-flop. BB raises and original raiser caps. I call and 6 see the flop which is A97 with 79c. Original raiser bets, I call, BB raises and all call except one. Turn is Q offsuit. Original raiser bets and everyone calls. River is 3 offsuit. Original raiser bets again and everyone folds (I didn't get my flush). Original raiser throws his cards down and announces "Nothing"! He had TJd.
Did I play this hand correctly? Should I have put him on a bluff? He capped pre-flop and then bet out and called a raise from BB on flop.
Should I have folded on his pre-flop cap? At that point I had to call a double bet before the flop so I'm not sure if the call was correct. I was suited and had good position but my implied odds are going down and I'm feeling a little bitter about calling at that point.
Thanks,
-Michael
Pre-flop, I don't cold call raises with King-Jack suited even with a lot of players because this is a drawing hand and I don't want to invest multiple bets to take a flop. Furthermore, there is the risk of it getting raised again costing me even more money to take the flop. I would have folded when faced with a bet and a raise to me. When it is raised and re-raised back to me I would have folded. You ended up spending 4 bets to take a flop with this hand. It simply is not worth it regardless of what the rest of the field is flying around with.
Once you flop a flush draw you have to stay with the hand. The Q on the turn gave you some more outs to a straight in addition to your flush draw so of course you have to stay and see the river. Of course you fold when you bust out on the river. The fact that the looney tune was able to bet his way out of trouble to win the hand should not concern you. He will be back to $3-$6 soon or taking up another pastime.
Many of your posts of late have indicated a tighter than recommended style on your part, especially when it comes to suited connectors and other drawing hands. Would you please give me some guidelines as to what kind of hands other than AA,KK,QQ,AK,AKs would you call cold raises with preflop, especially if you thought it might get raised again behind you. To narrow this down let's assume a solid citizen limps UTG and a loose agressive type raises and there's a call to you.
Thanks for your help,
SammyB
Perhaps it's a leak in my game but if UTG raises and there are 2 or 3 callers (or even 1 depending on what I think of UTG and the caller), I would be hard pressed to fold KJ suited in late position.
The thing is that the majority of the pots are raised. One would have to pass almost constantly in order to adhere to these guidelines. Having said that, KJ is a dangerous hand. Ya, it's suited but it could get you in trouble if you flop just a King and no flush help. But that's where playing well after the flop comes into play. As for pre-flop, I am probably there with KsJs.
My skill level doesn't justify getting into the argument on the merits of the original call, but folding to a raise and re-raise seems wrong. You're getting about 8 to 1 money odds to see the flop. Paying 4 bets with K-Js isn't fun, but you're already in for 2 bets. Also: this pot is getting big; you'll probably get paid off big time if you hit your hand. This increases the implied odds.
Fat-Charlie
Thanks FC. But I wonder how often when you hit your hand on this, your hand is second best or you split the pot. After all, whose to say with all that action pre-flop that AK, AJ, KK, and KQ are not out there and I think all of these hands are just as strong if not stronger than KJs. So, for your hand to hit, it would seem you need a straight with no K or J on board or a full house or a flush, but the flush may be a problem because when you hit you may be beat by a higher flush or a boat. I would give the higher flush probably 3 big bets worth of action and the boat at least on big bet.
There are lots of ways to not have the best hand with KJs, but it's very difficult not to call in late position with this hand.
I think dwelling over it is good for future instances. Thanks again.
Many gamblers at this table. The original bettor, appears to be the type of player who says: "If you want to gamble, let's gamble and will re-raise with most anything. His failure to raise the BB on the flop tells me that he was not on a big hand at that point. Since you were sucked in on the turn, an interesting play would have been to raise, with your added 4 outs when the Q turned. In any event, the bettor bet of course with a hopeless hand, his only hope was to bet. Were there players to act after you on the river?
Pot limit game. 7 players. I am dealt a pair of black 6's. I am sitting fith. Three callers in front of me. I call. The 6th folds. The 7th player raises the pot. Blinds fold. Only one calller in front of me. I call. The flop comes 6 10 J, 2 diamonds. First player checks. I check. 7th seat raises the pot. First player folds. I reraise the pot $60 dollars. 7th seat calls. The fourth card is 2 of diamonds. I figure I am dead if he has the flush, but I can't give him a free card tryig to catch it. I go all in for $110. He calls. Turns over Ad9d. River is a blank. I lose a painful hand. So what do you guys think of my play? And yes, I realize I am not the best story teller. Thanks. -Dan
What was the size of the original bet?
The original bet was 1 dollar. I may have been a couple of dollars off on the bets and raises, but the numbers aree close. Another thing. I am a bit tired. I meant bet when I said raise and meant raise when I said reraise in the original message.
Going all-in on the turn is the right play. You have no way of knowing if he was drawing to the flush, and if he was, you have outs.
I must add that I liked the check-raise on the flop as the flush draws were charged the maximum possible to get there.
Dave in Cali
I posted something similar to your hand a while back except it was not quite as straightforward as yours. Think of it this way...you got him to put in a huge chunk of his stack with a flush draw against a set. One could argue for betting the flop because of the 2 flush but I think in a lot of ways your play is good because it seems almost automatic the guy bets after raising the pot pre-flop with all those limpers and a fairly timid looking board. On the turn I think you made the right, aggressive play. You probably bump off a pocket pair smaller than K's with that bet who might have outdrawn you for free if the last card was a diamond or hit their set. Of course if you're a great person reader you might check and fold on the turn if you think he would have reraised on the flop with an over pair or better. His call looks like it could be on a draw. If you could put him on his hand you would have saved yourself $110 which is big considering the blinds you were playing. That's the difference between a good player and someone like Stu Ungar who seemed to have an uncanny sense for these things.
I have AKd in middle position. All folded to me. I raise, cutoff and big blind call. Flop comes Ac 6h Ah. Blind checks, I bet, and cutoff folds, blind calls. Turn comes 6s. Blind bets, I call, thinking I have the monster and will raise on the river, also thinking he will not call a raise on the turn. River comes 3s. Blind bets, I raise, he reraises, and I cap. I show my boat, he shows his quad sixes.
In afterthought, I think the call on the turn was the correct, and the raises on the river incorrect. My reasoning is as follows. When he bets on the turn, I should have had him for the case A, or even the pocket 6's. Making the call correct, since I lose in one, and split in the other, therefore, the raise can only cost me money. The only other possibility is that he is bluffing or only has one 6, in which case I have him beat, and my betting was correct. I had the player, as somewhat loose and a calling station, which reinforced my betting that I did on the hand, but possibly warrented raising on the turn as well.
Any good insight here would help.
LDC
Not too much to say except sorry for the bad beat. Neither him nor you can get away from the hand. Unfortunately you have to pay him off, I would, and he would probably pay you off too if the roles were reversed. You both flopped monster hands and that just happens sometimes, most of the time you will be the winner with super slick against pocket sixes.
Better luck next time.
that's why it's gambling. better luck and see you later
Obvious call (not raise) on the river. The only way you can raise is if you figure that the fella was betting less than an Ace AND would call you after you raise.
If the river card was higher than a 6, you have even more reason to just call.
Note: If the board read AAQQ (i.e. instead of AA66) on the turn in a similar situation where you have Slick, you might want to get a raise in on the turn as only you can have a free-roll.
Sitting UTG in a 5-10 game with JhTh. I limp, 4 others limp. Flop As Qs Kd. I bet out 3 call. Turn is Jd.
I know I have the nut straight but there are 2, count 'em, 2 flush draws plus I split the pot with any ten.
I checked.
Should I remove my shirt before the flogging?
Make those flush draws pay to draw against you. Don't let them draw for free.
I have not read the replies, but I would bet every time because (1) the flush draws will call and you have to make them pay; (2) someone could very easily have two pair or a set and will likely call to try and fill; and (3) you can't assume that someone picked up the back door draw as well -- you are playing too scared if you assume both flush draws are out there. Also, if someone else does have a ten, you want to get as much of the non-tenholders money in as possible to make the split pot more profitable.
You still have the nuts. There is not a possible flush yet. No one may even have a flush draw. Now if you bet, and are raised you might consider just calling, as someone could be "free rolling" you, that is having Td with another d, or Ts with another s. But for all we know, no one may even have a ten. Let's not assume anything, let's not guess. Let's bet. Let's find out where we're at. If anyone has a flush draw in this case, look at the fact that I doubt he will do much raising. Why? He is also looking at a different possible flush draw. Take off your shirt.
you mean "skirt", not shirt.
By the tone of your post, someone hit the flush on the river. I'm even guessing that they got you to pitch in another bet or two before showing. So, on the river did you call a bet or get raised after (wrongly) betting out and make a crying call?
I hope you prove me wrong.
shooter
What were you thinking?
There was so much wrong with not betting that it's crazy.
As this is a 2+2 forum, I should say that you really need to read Theory of Poker or reread it or whatever, cause you have missed the point.
james H.
Todd - get out of the habit of checking - it should be your last choice in most cases. As a general rule make drawing hands pay to draw to your made hand - EVERY TIME. Disapoint you opponents make 'em pay.
Okay, okay. I'll always, always bet the next time, but I went out for a nice steak dinner (okay it was MacDonalds) with the money I saved by checking on this hand. Not that I think I was right, no, I was confused, I was scared, I was a wooss. Loved the skirt comment by Scott Wyler, btw. When I checked the turn it got checked around. River was the diamond 7. I check again, next bets out, fold, raise, I fold, reraise. As it happened there were 2 diamond flushes and a spade flush draw with the ten.
2-4 HE at HP. I am in seat #5. I limp in utg w/ KJs. 2 people fold.
Flop comes 9-J-Q. The Q is my suit. I decide to semi-bluff my mid-pair/overcard/3-flush/inside-straight draw so I bet. #6 folds. #7 raises and #8 re-raises. 2 callers. I fold. Is this the correct play here?
I have to pay $4 and the pot now is now $38. I am afraid of a re-raise from #7 and more raises on later streets when I'm probably beat by Q's somewhere already.
I'm obviously asking this because the 10 came out on the river. I'll probably post what the raiser and re-raiser had later.
What was the turn card? To me, I think you did the right thing by folding. I would've stayed in for one raise, but a reraise means someone has trips. Probably not QQ because they only called preflop, but trip 9's maybe. My feeling is someone already has the straight already on the flop. You can stay in since your K is superior, but that's an expensive card to see with two raises. Best bet is to fold.
I've been reading posts for about a week and am learning the game. We play at college no limit (but no bets higher than $5 usually, we're college guys). Thanks in advance for any feedback.
"College Poker Player"?! I don't even know who this guy is - and I don't know what his name implies, but he certainly doesn't speak for all of us.
Anyhow, the turn card was an 8o. The raiser had 9-10 and the re-raiser had 10-Q. They both had 4-straights and I would have been losing all the way to the river until I made the nut straight.
DjTj,
With the pot relatively small (for 2/4) I would fold against all this action now that the field has been "narrowed" to about four players. BTW, I do not like your flop semi-bluff here. The flop is in the range that probably hit at least half the field. So you are long on the semi and short on the bluff J.
If the pot had been raised pre flop, you would probably take one off if someone bet. But a lot depends on the position of the bettor. This advice is very general and written in a total state of exhaustion that will not be remidied by sleeping till mid afternoon.
Regards,
Rick
This game seems very loose pasive before the flop, how does the flop play usualy go?
The pot odds apear to be 9.5 to 1 or 8 to 1 if capped. AK or QQ would probably have raised pre flop, hence you should have six outs (JJTTTT) plus the flush possabilities. I think it is worth taking one card off, it is not clear what to do on the turn yet.
Piers
You can't be drawing to a hand not the nuts against made hands for that sized pot. Your fold was ok at the time and that is what counts - what fell after the fold is not important so far as your decision.
With that flop you picked a bad time to semi-bluff - that flop had to hit some of the table and odds are it hit someone hard.
No way...it is too much to call with middle pair and some lousy backdoor draws. Put your money in on a better spot. A 10 gives you a straight...but not the nut straight and it will put a speed bump in the action even at a low-limit game. You won't have people aggressively playing their holdings if you make your straight on the turn. With that kind of board you are most likely behind and have very bad implied odds. On the other hand if they are maniacs you may play but you should be re-raising if you think they are both full of sh*t. But I would wait until I have top pair at least even against maniacs.
I don't really consider your bet as a semi-bluff.
Against fewer opponents I bet second pair routinely(3 or fewer opponents, and without backdoor draws). Against 3 or more opponents I bet second pair(without backdoor draws)about 1 out of four flops so not to give free cards to overcards, and to be less predictable. If I have as many backdoor draws as you did, plus having an above mid-size pair w/an overcard to the flop, I'd bet that routinely and just deal with what comes like you did(meaning I think you did the right thing by dropping against a re-raise).
Don't 'semi-bluff' a weak hand into 8 players. BTW, you aren't really semi-bluffing if your hand is so weak that you'll fold to a raise.
This is a hand that has lots of secondary potential, but is almost certainly beat. You would really, really, like to see a cheap or free turn card. By betting out, you minimize the chance that you'll see a cheap turn card, with zero chance of winning the pot outright.
If you check, you gain lots more information before you have to commit more money. Perhaps it'll come back to you with 6 more bets in the pot, with you last to act. Go ahead and call and take a card off. But then, maybe it'll come back 3 bets to you, and you'll be really glad you didn't step out and can fold. Or perhaps it'll get checked all around to a late position habitual bluffer who bets. Then you can raise, and greatly improve your chances of winning the pot.
Given the double raise back to you, you had no choice but to fold. You may be facing a made straight already, which means your total outs are a running flush, running kings, and maybe a gutshot for half the pot. Time to bail. But you could have bailed 1 sb richer.
if i read this right, there are 8 players in. with that flop isn't it likely 1 or more already has you beat? i think i would just check here hoping for a free card and fold if anybody bets. comments?
...did you ever have one of those days where you kept on getting the same hand over and over again and it kept losing...
Okay, same 2-4 game at HP except I'm in mid position now with the same KJs.
Preflop I limp in - maybe 1 person folds. The flop comes Qs8s4d. It is checked to me so I bet - 4 callers.
The turn is 5h. It is checked to me again so I bet again - 2 callers behind me.
The river is 2d. I am first to act now and decide to check. Should I bet here and take one more shot at this pot? I have K high and I'm sure one of the callers (both loose-passive players) would call with the low pair they assuredly made by now.
P.S. the third time I got KJs the flop was 3 hearts so I happily folded. Another question: Should I always play KJs if there is no raise preflop? Should I ever raise preflop with KJs?
DjTj,
In your first example betting the flop wasn't so bad but when the blank came on the turn you might as well check. These 2/4 games are very loose and quite passive so you will be called but if you check you might see the river free.
But you bet the turn and you did have only two callers. They may have been on draws. On the river when the blank came I agree you will get called with any pair or ace high. Since you beat any worse hand you should check with the intention of calling down a possible bluff. Fold against predictable non-bluffers only.
At the 2/4 level a KJ suited is usually playable for one bet but a would not call three bets cold against semi-sane players. Two bets cold against a probable field is OK. The value of the hand comes from hitting a flush against a field as opposed to hitting a pair kicker due to the number of opponents.
I would raise a field in late position with this hand or early occasionally to throw them off a bit since they call anyway. If you are raising to steal the blinds or to isolate a single player find another game since the collection will eat you up.
Regards,
Rick
Hmmm...Rick, I don't know that I would check on the river with the intention of calling. King high is not good enough to make this play. If I had Ace high, I might consider it.
Rather than checking and calling, I think I would rather just bet. My bet may cause someone to fold Ace high (and maybe even a 1 pair hand although the latter is unlikely).
skp,
You haven't seen Los Angeles 2/4 holdem games. Unless DjTj had a read that these guys were unusually tight for that limit, ace high would call him down 99% of the time.
At 6/12 and above, the bet is probably right.
Regards,
Rick
I'm starting to think now that it may be more profitable to resist the urge to semi-bluff, since the possibility of a fold is nil - thus making it an unprofitable play.
I think I'll try checking and calling in this situation from now on. I should be able to make a profit by simply playing tighter than the rest of the table and winning hands at showdown.
Hopefully I'll get back to the casino soon to see how this works out at the 2-4 table.
You should bet the river here - it is your only chance to win the pot and since you have been betting all the way and it looks like your opponents didn't make anything with that turn and river I think you have a fair chance of getting 2 more folds.
KJ is a real trap hand. In tournaments I hardley play it except in unraised pots. It turns out to be 2nd best a lot. Be real careful when playing it.
I'm with you on this one. With two opponents left, a bet is probably correct. Expect to get called and lose, and don't feel bad about it. Because you only need to win that bluff one time in 7 or so to show a profit.
I think some players fail to bluff as much as they should on the river because it's just so emotionally painful to get called and have to show your bluff. If it happens to them twice in a row, they are done bluffing for the night. But in these loose games, a river bluff is a longshot bet, but profitable. You'll usually get called. Grin and bear it.
I don't really like Rick's idea of checking and calling with King high. The higher percentage play here is to just bet. If you don't think the odds are good enough to get away with a bluff, check and hope for a free showdown.
If there IS a bet, you certainly have to consider the possibility of calling, but I don't think you should check with the specific intention of calling a bet on the river. I'd usually fold to a bet.
The only exception I'd make to your 'trap' hand comment is that KJs is a much better hand. (-:
Just keep throwing gasoline on the fire, Dan.
what ever happened to the old fashioned idea of not chasing a loser on the flop? often in a small limit game if you are agressive timid players with a hand will just call you down to the river.
I agree.
Here's a hand from Paradise Poker the other night.
Two guys limp from early position and button limps. Sb folds.
Flop is J63 with 2 hearts.
Button bets. BB folds and other 2 limpers call.
Turn: 10 (off suit)
2nd limper suddenly comes out betting. Button calls. Ist limper folds.
River: a rag (let's call it an offsuit deuce).
Turn bettor now checks. Button checks.
Turn limper had KQ. Button had Ah9h and takes the pot.
I think that the 2nd limper made an ok play on the turn but a horrible one on the river. IMO, he has to follow through with a bluff. Certainly, by the button's mere call on the turn, limper ought to think that button may be on hearts and likely cannot call a bluff at the end. It may be that the 2nd limper checked with the intention of calling but I doubt it. If he did, I think it is a suspect play (I will defer to Rick and acccept his advice that in a LA 2-4 game, Ace high may call a bluff but this was 10-20 on-line).
Playing the hand the way you did, you should bet and don't be surprised that you get called - it is your only chance to win at that point.
You could have played the hand differently: 1. You could bet the flop and check the turn and river. 2. You could check-raise on the flop (if there is a bet behind you) with your flush draw and an over card and then bet the turn and river. 3. You could check the flop and check-raise on the turn (if there is a bet behind you) representing a slow play and bet the river.
Having said all of the above. Pulling off a river bluff in a 2-4 game is a risky proposition.
Good luck.
I think your option #1: You could bet the flop and check the turn and river. would probably have been the best play here.
Rick suggested that too, and looking back I think that there were several occasions that night when I didn't take the free cards that I deserved.
Thanks for the insight.
10- 20 im in big blind 6(!) limpers and sb calls. i see 88 and check(?). flop comes 862 (about like it), and i wish i would have raised. is a raise almost mandatory here? and if i dont flop a set , do i take one off if i have odds(20-1 ish), (and dont fear a raise), i would guess so. game was tight (present preflop excepted) and i won only 6 small bets post flop.(flop checked around, i checkraised turn and bet river vs. 1 .)
brad.
No. A raise is not mandatory here. You will have terrible position for the rest of the betting rounds. That is not to say, that you can't raise. It really depends on how confident you are that you play better than your opponents. I see no problem taking one off for just one bet on the turn if you don't flop a set and the pot is laying you around 20-1. Don't always slowplay a set. This is a very predictable play. When someone checks on the flop and then comes out betting, raising or reraising on the turn, they were often slowplaying trips. The problem is that they would have come out betting a flush draw, straight draw or top pair with top kicker. Don't be predictable, you'll lose tons of bets.
Brad,
I'll answer this without looking at the other post.
Is the raise mandatory? Probably not since there is still some debate among the top minds.
Is it plus EV? I believe so but not by much.
Do I raise with this hand in this situation? Most of the time I do unless I am playing a little big for my bankroll.
Does it matter much? Probably not at the middle limits since you will rarely have seven limpers in a game. It should be in your arsenal at the lower limits.
BTW, Mason covers this pretty well in HPFAP. One caveat. You are hoping to flop a set or better here (7.5 to 1 against). If you don't you will rarely come out betting.
Regards,
Rick
Maybe you guys can help me out. Last night was the most frustrating night of cards I have had. Here's an example of one of the hands. 2-5 game. I'm blind with pocket 9's, next player raises to 5, 1 caller, I call. Flop comes 972 rainbow. I bet, next player raises, all call. Turn comes 3. Again I bet, get raised, all call. River is J. Again I bet, raised, all call. Guy to my left turns over set of 7's, I turn set 9's, and other player turns over set of J's. Where is my mistake here?
Thanks guys
jas
You should have reraised the flop and turn. You had the nuts all the way to the river and should have taken control. Maybe the JJ would have mucked it some heat was applied.
You should have reraised the flop and turn. You had the nuts all the way to the river and should have taken control. Maybe the JJ would have mucked if some heat was applied.
Your mistake is in thinking that such an unusual situation might have some easily communicated solution. If you play another 50 years this may not come up again. Worry about stuff that happens every night and just think of this as an unsuccessful candidate for the Guinness Book. As far as sympathy, the Spanish word is "pobrecito".
Love.
"Flop comes 972 rainbow. I bet, next player raises, all call(u should have re-raised here) . Turn comes 3. Again I bet, get raised, all call(and u should have re-raised here also)."
You played this had very weakly for flopping top set. If you hit trips ("972 rainbow") the board is a rainbow your only thoughts should be to RAISE/RE-RAISE or CAP-IT. This is where you can take control and 'drive' the betting.
Best of it !!
MJ
If you're going to beat these guys you're going to have to be as aggressive as possible when you have a tangible advantage -- and that means capping it in a three-handed pot when you have Ah5h and the board shows 5h3s2h and you are positive the guy reraising you has a big pocket pair. Going into the last card, you were better than a 13-1 favorite over both opponents, and the board was telling you that neither of them had hands that could or were likely to beat yours.
In fact, you're going to be on the favorable end of a set over set confrontation a couple of times a year. In this case, you had a third opponent with an overpair to boot -- pure heaven. Given the outcome, you were extremely lucky to have misplayed it as badly as you did.
.
How's that for a confusing subject?
OK, let's look at the stat questions first.
1) If you've got an AKs and flop a four flush, and you know that someone else flopped a set, what odds do you need to continue on the turn and then on the river?
My own calculations give me approximately 1:4.5 on the turn (you know 7 cards, 8 cards will help you and so 37 won't). On the river I get 7:36. In other words, there needs to be 5 small bets for a call or 9 to call a raise for the turn, and 5-6 big bets for the river or 10-11 to call the raise. How close is this?
2) In the semi-rare instances where the person to your right leaves the game and it screws up the blind structure, how much lower can you, or should you, put your calling hand standards at? What I mean is that you're on the button and must post a small blind, and there are two big blinds for that hand. Assuming everything else is normal, you have three things working for you:
a) You're in the best position on the board
b) There's an extra bet in the pot
c) You've already posted 1/3 to 1/2 of the bet by acting as the small blind in that hand anyway.
So how much would you lower your standards of an opening two cards to put in that extra half bet?
Now, as to my question of statistics...where can I find them? Is there a good book to pick up which would answer these questions and any other random ones I think up for given poker situations? Thanks in advance.
Dan
I'll just address the set question.
The specific answer to your question depends on which set he has and how many of your outs are actually his. As a general rule, heads up a set increases the odds against your winning from about 2-1 to 3-1. But it's not just the chance of losing that goes up, its how much you'll lose when you do.
In reality, when your opponent makes a set with a pocket pair you won't realize it, or more accurately won't place much stock in the probability that your opponent has a set (and you shouldn't). The more likely scenario is when there's a pair on board, and here you not only have to be worried about your opponent making a full, but whether he's already got one. It's the latter probability that will usually determine whether and how far you'll go with your draw. And it's not a question of statistics but how well you know your opponent's patterns (some arithmetic required). (BTW, Mike Petriv's Hold 'em Odds Book is good on most stats).
Don't forget his re-draw against your hand if you make it. In this case, you win IF (you hit your non-pairing flush on the turn AND the board doesn't pair on the river), OR (the board doesn't pair on the turn AND you hit your non-pairing flush on the river).
Exactly what odds you need depends on whether you'll dump the hand if the board pairs on the turn, whether you'll have to pay a raise on the river if the board pairs, etc.
Actually, I've already taken this into account in my calculations...at least I think I have. Normally on a 4 flush you have 9 ways to make the nuts holding the AKs when a flop comes XY(s) and Z(o). I said that in this case you have 8 ways because when the Z(s) comes, you still lose despite making the flush. On the river, you have 7 ways because not only can't Z(s) show up, but you also can't pair the turn card as well, giving you one less out. That's how I got the figures 8:37 and 7:36. But are they correct?
No, you're missing it. You are accounting for the flush card that would pair the board when it lands, but you are forgetting that even if you make your flush with a non-pairing card, your opponent now has 10 cards to redraw to pair the board on the river.
Here are some "statistics". Let's calculate some probabilities:
first lets calcuate the probability you make the nut flush and still win given you have a 4 flush and you opponent has flopped trips.
(lets assume the opponent doesn't have any of your suit).
this is =(probabilty of making the flush and the turn and the board doesnt pair on the turn)(probability the board doesn't pair on the river)+ (probability the board doesn't pari ont the turn and isn't a flush card)(proability the board doesn't pari on the river and is a flush card)
= (8/45)(34/44)+(38/45)(7/44) which is about 27%.
If the board is paired this I think i much less. Ill do this calcalion if you request.
hope this helps.
There is a post on the "Other Poker" forum that asks re cutoff seat. Not wanting to appear as unknowing as I am (new to the game), I awaited an answer. None came.
Okay, in HE where is the cutoff seat?
Thanks
I believe it refers to the seat to the immediate right of the button.
Thanks
Pyramid,
AX is right. The cutoff seat is one seat to the right of the button.
While I sit here and drink my "Theraflu", I had a thought. So many opponents give away the fact that they are going to fold before the action gets to them that sometimes you have a button or cutoff seat call a couple seats to the right of the actual seat.
What do you 2+2 posters think of the name "virtual button" or "virtual cutoff seat" for having this tremendous advantage. Having these types on your left is the nuts IMHO.
Anyway, I'm open to other suggestions :-).
Regards,
Rick
"Cutoff seat" seams to be a new term and is about as useful as "American Airlines" is for AA or "Maddock" is for 85. But perhaps there are some useful strategies that apply to this particular position, such as raising more often than ON the button in order to GET the button.
Getting weak-tight players who telegraph whether they are in behind you sure IS the nuts. Nothing quite like getting last action 2-3 hands per orbit.
"Virtual"; I don't know. If you know they are folding than you ARE on the button.
- Louie
Here's another one of my great hands from last night. As I said earlier, I played very few hands but the ones I did play I thought I had the nuts. Holding AKs late position 5 limpers(2-5 game)I raise to $7. 3 callers. Flop AK4 rainbow. I bet, 1 fold, 1 calls-heads up. Turn is blank. Checked to me, I bet, he calls. River is also blank I bet, he raises, I come over the top and reraise. He calls and turns over a set of 4's. Come to find out I'm dead the whole way. Where is my mistake here? I keep running last night through my head trying to come up with answers to what I did wrong.
thanks
jas
Nothing you can do about that one. Sets are hard to read on the flop. He slowplayed it and that is that..
Best of it !!
MJ
Your only mistake is assuming that top two pair is the nuts. It's not, by a longshot.
Slowplaying is fun isn't it? Getting slowplayed sucks, doesn't it?
shooter
"I thought I had the nuts"
Shows how wrong one can be.
"He calls and turns over a set of 4's"
He recognized that he could have been facing AA or KK so he just called. Perhaps you should have checked the flop to slow play your 2pr and figure out why he might have called your preflop raise. Perhaps it would come out different but we'll never know. I don't think your final reraise was well-advised since you only had two pair.
Love.
People play perfectly and lose. People play poorly and win. You can't let bad beats bother you. Take a blackjack situation for example. You have 6-3 against a dealer's 5. You double down and catch an ace. Dealer turns over a six and gets a ten. Did you do anything wrong?
jas,
Its hard to tell the betting order from your post. Seems like you are first to act on the flop, second on the turn, and first again on the river. Is the set in front of you, checkraising the river?
Anyway, one thing I notice people (myself too) in the Low Limit games doing is assuming others aren't putting them on hands. You raise pre-flop with AK, AKx comes and someone calls you. You thought you had the best hand--nuts even--when this flop hit. A call should tell you "maybe not." I am not advocating slowing down too much in these situations, your hand is very good. But, don't dwell on how good. Think about what else is out there, and think about whether someone is putting you on AKs, AQs, AJs, (all legit pre-flop raising from late position) and still calling and raising on the end.
Shooter's right; getting slowplayed sucks. Realizing what the real nuts is and putting your opponent on that hand might help you get out earlier when it happens.
KJS
You have to differenciate between interesting hands that need analysis and bad beat stories. There is a difference.
This isn't a bad beat story. This is a story about reading heads up play in Theory of Poker.
You'd call a raise w/ pocket 4's?
That's what I said. But I guess low limit some people will call anything.
Thanks for the responses.
In your first post of slapped! it was your fault to not re-raise and you allowed a pair of jacks to suck out on you. In this example you got a flop anyone with AKs would want, unfortunately your opponent flopped better. Nothing to do but play it the way you did and see a better hand. Happens all the time.
Better luck next time
Low limit holdem... I call from button with Ad6d, after several limpers. BB raises. We all call.
Flop comes 45Q with one diamond. Bet & several callers to me.
How big does the pot have to be to take a card off here?
Unraised pot preflop (probably no AQ out there?)? If you are absolutely last to act, you don't really need much to peel a card off. Fold against any raise or if there's a player yet to act behind.
You have about 4% chance to hit the backdoor flush, about the same for the backdoor straight (although there is a small chance to split it with another six), the ace may also be good, you could be already in the lead against one opponent. It's a combination of the possibilities that make taking a card an option.
It depends on your players, of course, but I'm not gonna blame you for tossing a small bet in out of curiosity. If it's a mistake for your particular situation, it's not a big one. If you never call here, fine with me, doesn't really matter. Money is not going to be made here, there are far more important decisions around to be careful about. This is marginal.
Boy, am I gonna get crucified for this.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet- intuitively, I agree with you... but I'm not very confident about it. I'm interested to see if we "get crucified".
Thanks, Ryan
Personally, I really like to fold in this situation and wait until a flop actually hits me. The problem for many players is they think that by figuring the possibilities of this hand and trying to contrive a situation where a bet is correct that this makes them a poker player. It doesn't, it just makes them a gambler.
Sammy- I definately see your point... I do fold this hand, but with some of the huge low limit pots, I think I might be giving up too much here and with other hands like it. What thin draws would you play in a pot that's grown pretty big by the flop? any?
Ryan
If I had Ad7d and the flop was Kd9c7h I'd peel one off to see if I can catch a diamond, ace or seven.
But the big problem in the hand you mention is you have no confidence your ace would hold up if you pair it with such a poor kicker.
I don't fill plenty of flush draws when I flop two of my suit, I'm not thrilled about going for it with only one. Dump it and move on.
And just because there's a lot of money in the pot don't try and invent scenarios where if you catch you win. Make sure your outs are super clean before going for longshots.
Post deleted at author's request.
btw... in my post the BB raised pre-flop, since that's what happenened in the hand that started me thinking.
So maybe he has AQ, but I'm looking at maybe 15 bets in the pot before I have to call on the flop.
I'm not so much concerned with this specific hand, but when it is, and isn't correct to take a card off with cards like these.
15 bets is enough to peel off a card and expect to end up ahead. You only need 11 small bets after the turn betting is done to justify paying 2 bets to draw to a flush on the river. 20% of everything above 11 bets is yours. This is obviously a position with a positive expectation.
The issue is how much more money do you need to be able to win in order to pay 1 small bet to take a 20% chance of ending up in that position? It should be about 6 or 7 small bets. To hedge everything, let's say you need a total of 20-25 small bets strange. When you're looking at 15 bets already, the pot is almost certain to be large enough to call.
In low limit poker , A-Q will not be the only A out. A-j, on down to A-8 are comon. 6-7 is certainly possible too, giving someone an open ended staright.This takes away another of the outs. Ryan indicated that many players called. I agree that pulling another card for a draw is marginal. Usually in lowlimit your going to get buried making these calls regularly.
Call on the button is somewhat ok. I don't think it's correct to call a bet on the flop, drawing to a flush here is over 20/1 (I think) and you would want over 20 small bets to make it worth your while. If you had a two-flush on the flop then you should probably stay to the river. I think folding is obvious here.
Good Luck
OK... assume 20/1 for the flush... but with the straight, and the ace, wouldn't 10 or 15 bets be enough?
Maybe, but still it's runner-runner and you are drawing thin and probably way behind to a pre-flop raise. If the Q was an A and one other card was a diamond peeling would be ok imo. Otherwise, chasing with what you had is most likely giving away money to a better hand.
I presume that in this hand that the straight or flush got there and preflop raiser showed something like AQs, do not let that affect your play, better opportunities will be there. I can't say that I play the odds in the game all that well, but I do know that what you were drawing to is slim. I once saw a guy in a wild 10-20 game draw out a backdoor flush and pulled in an $800+ pot, but he had to invest a lot of chips before getting there, and it feels really bad when it does not get there (I know this from experience).
Best of luck
Joe,
If you are afraid that your ace isn't good, then why having flopped it be better? I agree that this is a better hand, but not because you've got a pair of aces, but because you have a pair. With a pair of aces/weak kicker, you want to hit the kicker not the ace.
- Andrew
My feeling is if you are going to be drawing to a hand, atleast have a piece of the flop for an out against anyone else also drawing. Of course the A here is weak with a six kicker, but anyone raising pre-flop with KK's, QQ's or any big pair is now is serious trouble while you have lots of redraws against a better A and you have position (I believe the position pointed out was on the button). As was pointed out in the example, he had nothing and was drawing to runner-runner possibilities with it. Not a good proposition imo.
Imo, with the betting closed, you have the green light to peel one off given the size of the pot.
You don't say who bet the flop. I would venture a guess that if the preflop raiser bet the flop, your Ace may have a better chance at being an out for you on the turn. Maybe it's more effective to say that hitting an Ace is less likely to put you in the lead if the flop bettor was someone other than the preflop raiser. I say this because there are a lot of players out here who will not raise preflop with a big Ace from the blinds in a multiway pot. Thus, I would think that the preflop raiser is more likely to have a pocket pair than AK or AQ.
This is not to say that you are out of the woods if you do hit an Ace on the turn as you might very well run into A4 or A5. Also, the preflop raiser may have QQ or AA.
Sorry, I got off track there with a relatively useless observation...anyway, my point is that I would probably peel one off with the backdoor straight and nut flush draw.
Somehow, I got the flop wrong in my head when I was posting this. Disregard it.
xx
let's see...
3 outs for the backdoor flush AND straight. 1 out for a 6, and 2 outs for the Ace. that's 6 outs, so bets in the pot is probably worth a call. Implied odds might make it better, but tend "use" them to fill in any short outs I assume.
So I would call with eight bets in the pot if my call would end the action or if I *knew* those behind me would call.
- Andrew
The Ace is not an out with that kicker unless you play any Ace.The pot odds are very low here unless you play VERY loosely.
charles,
Of course I realize what you are saying, but I think you missed some of what I was trying to say.
First, with respect to the Ace, I realize that it might not be good, for that reason I considered the ace as being good only 2/3 of the time. Likewise I labeled the 6 as being good 1/3 of the time. Also I realized that this discount on the Ace and the 6 probably wasn't large enough, so I neglected to include any implied odds in the calculation.
I *do* honestly think that 8:1 is pretty much even money. If you really want an overlay, then take Gary's advice and hold out for 10:1.
- Andrew
Ryan,
I'm going to take a stab at this without peeking at the others (I sure will later). Be warned that I believe I have been too tight on this in the past and I need to work on this some more.
A few thoughts. First, it is important that you are closing the betting with your call. You also have other outs and draws. The ace may be good and a seven or three gives you a running one card straight. Don't forget that the turn may get checked through. And in low limit you will get paid off big if you hit. So in my flu weakened state I would say about fifteen bets is about right.
Now it's time for me to peek at what Izmet, skp, and Andrew Prock among others have to say.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. This is the kind of question we all need to work at away from the table. In other words, no way can you or even a genius can make the calculations while you are playing. You need rules of thumb and the ability to adjust to the situation using the rule of thumb for the most basic situation. For example, let's say the running flush is the only way you will win. How do you adjust if you do not quite close the betting?
Post deleted at author's request.
Can you please explain how you can value the Ace as three outs with a preflop raiser, someone betting out on the flop and an indetermined number of callers?
Post deleted at author's request.
This approximation was published a while back in Card Player - I think by Lou Kreiger.
You can approximate the value of a backdoor flush or straight draw by calling it one more "out."
For this hand, you have 3 outs with your Ace and 2 more outs for your two backdoor draws, for a total of five outs. So you would draw to this if you had implied odds of 8:1 or better.
I don't actually like this one very much, because if you hit your Ace, anyone else's Ace is probably better.
Dick
This is sort of correct. It's one more out in the sense that the chances of hitting hover around 4% with two cards to come.
But it's not the same as any other "one out" hand with two cards to come from the perspective of how much one must risk. With two chances to hit one out with a combined chance of hitting at 4% and it requiring (let's assume) 3 small bets on average to take that chance, you'd have to be capable of winning more than 75 small bets to break even.
With a backdoor flush draw (and only a backdoor flush draw), 81% of the time you'll expend only 1 small bet, and 19% of the time (assuming multiway action), you'll have a big overlay and be very happy that you did. As a result, you only need to win somewhere between 30 and 40 small bets (if I recall correctly) to justify the play, which makes the backdoor flush draw roughly half as expensive and therefore twice as good as a one out draw.
Anybody Out There,
I'm the first to admit I need a poker tune up but I have a distant memory of an old Sklansky article (which may be reprinted in one of his books) indicating (if my memory serves me) that you need about 27 small bets if you are fairly certain this is the only way you figure to win the pot.
Does anyone know where this is or was he talking about another type of back door draw? BTW, I have almost every old Card Player, Poker Digest and Poker World if somebody can point me to the issue.
Regards,
Rick
Rick -- That's in _Poker, Gaming, and Life_, I think. It's called, "Odds of r a Backdoor Flush". But it's about having *nothing* going for you but a backdoor flush draw. Note that here you have the ace and a backdoor straight draw too.
There was a good thread on outs for a bdf and pot odds needed a few months ago, initiated by "The Analogue Kid". I'm too dang lazy to go looking for it right now.
... to suggest you didn't notice the other outs here, just that the essay covered only the backdoor draw alone. In this instance, all things considered, I think I'd look at the hand as having about 4 outs.
...on page 103 of "Poker Gaming and Life". In this example you have a Ts 9s and the flop was As 5c 2c so a medium running flush is your only out. I've got to run now but maybe someone else can elaborate or modify David's calculations for the fact you have a nut flush, an overcard which may be helpful and a running one card straight.
Anyway John, thanks for pointing me in the right direction as the thought of going through old magazines makes me weary. And maybe I'm not in as forgetful as I thiought as that 27 to 1 figure seems to stick in my head. Of course the last time I was offered these odds was in 1996 so what does it matter :-).
Regards,
Rick
.
It's 23:1 to make a back door flush. But even if it's the nut flush draw, you can still lose to a boat. I think you would want a few more bets of implied odds to make drawing to it correct. And perhaps a few more than that if it's not the nut draw.
The 23-1 is the odds of making it, but the 27-1 is the pot odds you need on the flop to make the call, given the additional investmet you make those times you pick up your draw on 4 but miss on 5. Then, when you then factor in the possibility of having to call a raise somewhere, D.S. recommends about 30-1 pot odds for calling with *just* a BDF draw on the flop.
(BTW, my estimate of "4 outs" for the hand in this thread was the result of reducing outs given the action and consequent likelihood of some outs not being good when they hit.)
Thanks for all your responses. The hand is hypothetical, so I can't say if the flush came through or not. Just found myself in several situations like this recently, and I always fold, but have doubts about it. Looking for +ev situations, where my play won't be as predictable as I'm afraid it is now.
There are times when you pick up your draw on the turn and you may not be the last to act, and the action can be raised to you or check-raised behind you (it is harder to take control of the hand in the latter street). It can be frustrated at times when you miss on the river, when you play them more often. Be prepared not to go on tilt ('/').
regards,
jikun
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, I like your thinking. My intuition here says pay to see the turn, but I've been folding since it seems like too much of a longshot. If I raise, hopefully get checked around to me on the turn (probobly, in the games I play).
Plenty of posters disagree with you on this one, but I suppose when advice is split, I can just listen to the guy who tells me what I wanted to hear...
Ryan
Post deleted at author's request.
Getting checked around to the end here is dreaming. In low limit, you'd be lucky to not have it capped back to you.
It gives me real insight into the mental gymnastics players go through when they go for these types of hands. I have a little better Idea of their thought processes when they come down to the river with only their dicks in their hand and a stunned look on their face when they say I didn't hit it. I sure like being on the other end of the hand when this happens.
Back door - runner runner - just not in my vocabulary.
A solid response! Its refreshing to see that someone here shows a little sanity. I'm shocked at how many supposedly strong players claim they would chase this cheese (Gary Carson, Andrew Prock..etc.)These other replies remind me of play demonstrated by losing 3-6 players in California.
Mike I have been successful all my life emulating traits of successful people and not doing what unsuccessful people do. Drawing to backdoor straights and fulshes is what every lined up at the ATM, pawning the watch, missing child support, wreck driving, on tilt gambling addicted looser does - and I try to avoid this guys habbits.
I agree with you Rounder 110%.
Rounder,
I think you've got your correlation confused. Drawing to runner-runner might be what people at the ATM do. But drawing to runner-runner doesn't send you to the ATM.
How about answering the question yourself? How big would the pot have to be for YOU to take one off?
- Andrew
Now this guy tries to justify drawing to the cheese! I cannot believe that Jim Brier stated that Andrew is one of the best poker minds here. The point is your money is better invested when you have "The Best of It", not some runner ,runner wish and a prayer.
I said I don't draw in these situations it is policy and I don't break policy.
I don't get blinded by pot sizes and find I am better off not chasing cards.
Now please don't give me some hypathetical, like if there was 1 million in the pot and I only had to put $1 to see the next card thing. Usually in a situation like this there are from 4 to 12 bets in the pot and that isn't close eneough to big eneough for me to see the turn here.
Rounder,
I guess I see that this is your policy. But there is a wide range between 12 bets and 1 million. What about for 25 bets? This isn't unreasonable if you are on the button in a raised family pot.
So, is this still an un callable situation?
- Andrew
I was wondering where you were Rounder, I knew where you would stand on this issue. I agree with both you and mike d. on this one (see my response above). What I find somewhat shocking is that Izmet rates this hand as a call. Calling a bet to an early position raiser in a hand where you have nothing is just bad poker imo. Essentially, with the flop indicated, you are drawing to a draw and there are 13 cards that give you a DRAW on the turn, 34 cards end your drawing instantly. Sounds weak to me.
I have listened to your posts Rounder and I feel my game has improved because of it. Thanks.
I'm NOT advocating calling here, I'm advocating *considering* a call. It's a marginal call at best, but if you don't at least consider every marginal move, you are not playing good poker. How about a raise?
If you see this as an automatic fold, your game can be improved. If you see it as an intriguing situation worth thinking about, you are my kind of guy.
Sounds weak to you? Lemme tell you something.
I know of a guy who is folding most of his draws (and is thusly throwing EV into the gutter to be picked up by passersby), is scared to play suited connectors because he *might* lose to a higher flush, is elated with his low variance play, folds by default, talks sometimes such poker nonsense that even S&M refuse to touch this can of worms, avoids backing up his views with logic, mathemathics or statistics when challenged, refuses to accept ANY reasoning that might ever so slightly make him at least consider thinking about bettering his game (I'm still waiting for him to utter something like "I'll think about it" at least once in the face of the flood of solid arguments), advocates an extremely exploitable strategy, and is trying to convince the world of his astronomic win rate (which would have no reasonable logical explanation if true, as he is foregoing A LOT of EV with that kind of play).
THAT is weak.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
"Let me think about it" - Nope still not gonna take a card off here unless I look areound the table and see a lot of blank faces staring at the board then I'll fire one off to see if I can get them folding. I thank you for your concern about me bettering my game I truly want to do that.
I am always amused at the emotional responses threads like this get as usual they end with some guy calling me names and dispariging my IQ, parantage and sanity.
Frankley I am glad to be in a minority here on hands like this it tells me as long as there are guys out there willing to take one off I'm gonna have my share of callers when I need them.
>...I'm gonna have my share of callers when I need them.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but I gotta tell you this:
You're gonna have your share of raisers when you don't need them.
--
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I'd probably reraise and give them a "Rounder chip enema" - :-)
There you go! That's my man!
--
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet, I have re-thought my position on the hand in question and I may have taken your post out of context. In 1999 I feel I had a pretty bad run of cards, and a hand like the one mentioned reminds me of ones that has gotten me in trouble. With that in mind, I would call a bet with the hand only if I have been running good and I'm playing in a loose-passive game where many players are in and I am SURE that no one is going to raise behind me. Obviously, if the betting gets raised and then re-raised one has to have the discipline to dump this hand.
I did not mean to say that I thought your play is weak, just that this hand is. I have a lot of respect for the posts you have made in the past and was surprised when it seemed that you advocated playing a hand that has little potential in the wrong game (tight or loose aggresive).
It is a weak hand. Dump it now so we can discuss women and sheep while waiting for a new hand. If you feel like playing it, that's ok too. If you happen to win with it in a showdown, you'll make the pros salivate or tilt. Works for me.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
In this case, when one sb is all it can cost me to see the turn card, I'm *ALWAYS* going to call. Of the 10 diamonds left to come, two of them pair the board, but two give me both straight and flush draws. If the board does pair with a diamond, I can probably still see the river. Any non-diamond 3 or 7, and I'll probably see the river. Any A, and I'll probably see the river. Thats 19 cards that allow me to see the river. Anything else and I fold unless it is checked around. The main advantage as I see it is being able to close the flop betting for a single sb. It is all about risk/reward ratios. In the original post, there have to be about 14 sb's in the pot already. I would be amazed if Mason, David, Ray Zee, Bob Ciaffone, Mike Caro and Abdul weren't unanimous in putting in their sb in also.
Big John guess that is why you are all better players than I am.
Mason no, David yes, Ray dunno, Bob no, Abdul yes, Mike raise.
--
Izmet Fekali (yes)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I have never had so much fun reading these posts!! Rounder,your play can save you a lot of money and I commend your tight aggressive play. Izmet, I love your post and think you probably play extremely well also.That's enough compliments, you simply cannot say you will "never" or "always" call in this situation.Evaluate the game and go with your gut instinct once in a while! This is obviously a play in which you fold most of the time and go for it when you feel it is right. Maybe 1 out of 10 as an example. thanks for the good reading.
Scenario: Loose passive low limit HOLDEM game. myself, 2 good players, 3 super loose passive fishy players, 4 average/unkowns.
The hand (also posted on RGP): I have AsJs UTG and limp, very suprisingly it's folded round to the sb who calls, bb checks (both sb and bb are in the unkown/average category) 3 of us see the flop of:
9d 8s 8d
sb and bb both check, I decide not to make a play at it and take the free card - check.
turn 2s
sb bets out, bb calls, I call with my flush draw.
river the lovely Qs giving me the nut flush. sb bets, bb folds, I raise and the sb calls, I showdown my flush and take the pot. The sb then flashes the trips (8c6c), which I take has him saying "look what you just cracked", I don't normally comment on hands during the game but just say "lovely free card", at this point the sb berated me for not having the correct odds to call the flush on the turn.
Some questions:
In my opinion he made a huge mistake giving me the free card, but was I in error also?
If the bb folds the turn is this a clear fold (considering the sb could also be bluffing)?
Does the paired board greatly affect my decision?
regards,
darren.
i believe you should bring it in with a raise in this game. he gave a free card but maybe was trying for a check raise so may not have been a mistake. but with that kind of flop trips will usually get some action. you werent getting good enough odds to call on 4th street and should have folded unless you thought the ace high might be best. he should have folded to your raise on the end as his hand could never win in this spot. i hope things are good for you down below. skipper.
I'm a tight semi agressive low-limit player(mostly 5-10)and i'm trying to improve my game and be a little more agressive to take advantage of week players. Here's the kind of play i'm thinking about :
I hold A10o in mid position. 4 players call, BB, early position, me and the button. No raise before the flop. Flop comes Q 9 7 rainbow, it's checked to the button who raises, everyone folds to me.
I used to always fold in this situation, now i'm thinking about check raising the button and betting the turn no matter what card comes on the turn. Am I only asking for trouble or can this kind of play be successful often enough to be profitable ? Thanks for your input.
I'm relatively new to HE and Poker in general. But I would say absolutely - the play you describe can be and is profitable. The trick is to try it against the right opponent(s). You need to be reasonably certain they are drawing to a hand and have not yet made a hand which they will call to the river with. Also, many players, in the face of the aggressive play you describe, will call the turn and if they don't improve fold the river. So, almost no matter what card comes on the river, you have to bet the river too.
If there's $100 in the pot and your bet is $10, this play only has to work 1 for 11 to break even. Therefore if you believe you have a better than 9% chance that it will work, it's profitable. Not to mention the side benefits it has for your table image.
My odds are wrong. This play cost more than $10. Hopefully you catch my drift though. This play will cost $30 = $10 check-raise + $10 Bet + $10 Bet when it works. When you get raised ro re-raised, you may fold.
It is entirely about your opponent. Don't try this move with the wrong person or you will get killed.
It's all about knowing your oppponent.
Rounder is right here be careful. i suspect by your post you are not ready to be making these plays very often. most times you will lose badly fooling around like this. and ace ten isnt very much to be in the pot on either.
This isn't really much of a semi-bluff since all you have is one overcard some runner-runner straight draws. This fall more on the pure bluff side and will not be profitable in the low-limit games as it is very tough to get people to fold even a low pair.
What would you do if you got a few callers? What if the button re-raised?
this move is not right. it is bound to cost you money. there are better hands to distort your image that can be very profitable also.
Rounder and Ray are right on the money. You need to have a great read on your opponent to make this move. Ray also makes a good point about ATo being marginal. Remember, after it is folded around to you, you are now going to be first to act on the turn and river, and you must bet out each time to make this play (as you said). If this player already has a hand, you'll just be betting it for him. I'm not saying this is not a viable play, but you really need to pick your spots.
True, you need to realy know your opponent and the right spot, however, it can work to vary your play. If you are caught it can have some future value when you do have the goods. Your opponents may be less inclined to automaticaly fold on your check raises.
in the last 30 hours playing 10 20 holdem an opportunity somewhat similiar to this has arisen for me exactly once. (and i took advantage of it.) any more than this and you may be overdoing it.
brad
I think this is a bad place to try a semi-bluff. For one thing, semi-bluff implies that you have outs if called. In this case, you may have three overcard outs with your ace, but may have big trouble on your hands if an ace comes. What if your opponent is playing Axs and is betting the second or third pair? And if he HAS a queen you have three outs at best. Pick a better spot to semi-bluff.
For instance, if you hold 9s10s and the flop is 8s Jd 4c, this is a good place to semi-bluff. Here, you are semi-bluffing with a draw that has 8 solid outs if you are called.
Another good place to semi-bluff would be when you have AK and the flop is J 10 3 rainbow. Here, you have a gutshot and two overcards, with perhaps as many as 10 outs to work with.
Dave in Cali
Good comments by Rounder, RZ, and others already, but I will add my 2c worth too.
Very situation specific type of problem. As others have said, this is virtually a full bluff, and often difficult to pull off against (usually) non-thinking low limit players. This type of semi-coordinated flop is fairly easy for someone to catch a piece of, and if the button is even semi-conscious at the table, he might ask himself: "If this guy has got a big hand, and we're heads-up, why is he check-raising me on the flop? Why wouldn't he wait until the turn?" And you will get called (or re-raised) all the way to river. You had better improve.
If you are going to try this manoeuver against someone you feel you can push around, you might be better off trying it on the turn. Yes, I know the variance is double, but you might have a better chance of pulling off a pure bluff, especially if your table image is right, IMO.
i always thought that in a loose game holding small suited connectors like 67s was better than holding nonsuited connectors. a friend tells me the opposite is true. first he tells me my chances of hitting a winning flush is less than 1% on the flop. he says that the chance of someone else making a higher flush is significant and it will beat mine. with unsuited connectors if the flop is low cards i could pair or get 2 pairs and still have a shot at a straight or full house plus if i do not improve i can and probably should drop. also the bad part of suited connectors is if i get 2 more of the suit i will have to stay to the river. he also tells me not too many people would put me on low cards. i am confused now. i read the books and study the tables, but my friend plays well and makes a living out of playing holdem. help please.
Start with some logic, how can both be true?:
With suited connectors:
A) flopping a flush draw will cause you to lose money
B) You have to call all the way to the river with it
If A) were true you could fold and your hand would still have all the chances of the unsuited cards.
Anyway, A) isn't true and suited is better.
Also your friend can not make a living at the game OR he is not really a friend.
D.
I luv Suited Connectors and hate Unsuited ones. In the games that I play in, Suited Connectors give me that Semi-Bluff win, and sometimes win me a big pot. If they don't hit the Flop I can dump them without hesitation (depending on the situation of course).
Unsuited Connectors are just too weak for me to be creative with.
I do believe that Mason has written that Suited Connectors go down in value in Loose games where players will play any two suited cards. This makes sense to me.
Later, CV
suited connectors offer you an additional demension in building a winning hand. of course you could lose to a higher flush but wou could also win a big pot with your small flush. i see this happen all the time. ill take them over unsuited every time.
Suited good. Unsuited bad. Next question.
-Abdul
HOW DO I ACCESS REC.GAMBLING.POKER? I AM NEW TO THIS COMPUTER STUFF.
Post deleted at author's request.
The word "any" is ambiguous, and is not what Mason wrote.
Even total idoits I play with know not to play 74s or 52s
I was thinking more on the lines of Axs, Kxs, Qxs, Jxs.
CV
This is silly; you could just pretend your suited connectors are unsuited. The trick is to avoid letting the suited character of the cards get you into trouble.
Suited connectors are marginal cards. When you take away their suited nature you are usually left with junk. Playing unsuited connectors out of position is perhaps the most common leak of low limit players that at least try to play well.
my 2 cents is that in a tight , tough game, connectors (suited or not) go way down (like to nil). AK is good though :)
brad
These hands can be valuable if played on late position for no raise. Silly to play them early to me they are a button play only.
another fine logical assesment that mirrors HPFAP! Rounder sounds like a man that plays solid cards. Others here I am beginning to wonder about.
I agree with the above.
hes our superego.
(dont play loose, dont play loose)
brad
Abdul said it all. PS, glad to see you posting again, Abdul. I don't play unsuited connectors lower than JT, except at a discount in either blind.
Two references to S&M -
In HEPFAP21, in the "loose games" section, they say that for any 2-card hand, "being suited is a huge advantage." Read that whole section.
In the older Hold'em Poker by DS, he has a section on "flops you like" and "dangerous flops." If you have a small 2-card suited hand, your expected profit is much greater if you flop a four-flush, instead of getting your complete flush on the flop. Read this section if you have this book; otherwise, I will, in the spirit of DS, leave it to others to elaborate.
Dick
If you are playing suited med connectors 8h9h would you rather have what flop.
Ts7c6d or 2h4hJh
now I hope this shows the strength of ranks over the suits.
a corresponding flop to the hearts would be QJT for the connectors (89).
see your point though.
brad
I agree that you would rather flop the nut straight than the non-nut flush any day. I also agree that you are much better off making a straight with small connectors than making a flush.
BUT, the value of these hands is still clearly much higher if they are suited. You are NOT going to flop a flush draw with 67o. The added possibility of flopping a flush or flush draw is what makes these hands better if suited.
People are always worried about losing to a higher flush. Yes, sometimes you will in fact lose to a higher flush, this is true. But this does not happen often enough to make it unprofitable to play these hands. What are you going to do, complain about making a flush? It is also true that you would rather flop the four flush than a made flush, despite the fact that you will probably have to go to the river with the four flush....
By the way Rounder I am not contesting any points you have made on this but your post prompted me to think of these things to say....
Dave in Cali
Setting up an 'illustration' which stacks the deck in favor of your argument doesn't prove anything.
Here, let me try one: if you had 89h, which flop would you rather have:
TcJs4s, or AhKh4c ?
Both are draws, neither of them to the nuts.
These 'compare the flop' exercises are silly. You can always build a case for any hand by doing that.
The fact is that as the rank of the cards goes down, the suitedness of the hand becomes the MOST important thing. It's not irrelevant, it's the only thing that makes these hands playable.
But you and I would agree that, suited or not, they are weak hands and should be played sparingly.
If a 7 hits it is the nuts.
BTW, I like suited connecters in late position for 1 bet in a multiway pot. I also like them in the BB for a free play. (this is basically by the book and experience seems to prove it correct).
.
Hmmm... think I'd rather have Th7h6h
Unfortunately for you the turn and river are the Jh and Qh and someone is sitting with AhKh. Ouch, big time.
Suited connectors are obviously better than non-suited ones since you have more outs with them. Just be careful playing them in loose games, they'll often make 2nd best hands. For example if 3 or 4 players in your game consistently call preflop with Qxs or Jxs regardless of position, then you probably want to be a little more careful if you flop a flush draw and get 4 callers in the hand going to see the turn. Chances are that one of them might have a higher flush draw than you. In these games you want to be holding Axs and Kxs.
In a limit game, of course anyone would prefer suited connectors over non-suited.
However, having played some live no-limit, I think there can be a case made for playing off-suit cards instead of suited. In a no-limit game, you are much more likely to get busted with a hand like 98s or 76s than with 98o or 76o.
If you make a flush in a no-limit game with suited connectors (let's say below JTs) you are generally going to win a small pot or lose a big one.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't play suited connectors in a no-limit game, but if you are ahead an uncomfortable amount, you are better off not playing hands than can make non-nut flushes. You are going to have a hard time calling a huge raise with a non-nut flush.
I feel I am still missing bets when I have a decent or good hand. Two hands I played last night illustrate this point. I'm curious how many of you would have bet these hands.
10-20 game with several loose players, one or two are close to on tilt.
I'm in the big blind with AcKc. UTG (seat #3) calls, seats #5, #6, CU, and SB also call. I check, and 6 people take the flop of Tc6c3d. SB checks, I bet the 4 flush/overcards and get 2 callers (SB folded). Turn is the Qc, giving me the nut flush. I bet out, and all fold.
Questions: 1) is this an easy raise pre-flop with the 6 callers. 2) Check the turn when I make the flush? One of the reasons I like betting the nut (or 2nd nuts) 4 flush on the flop is it disguises my hand. Usually, when I bet the turn when the flush hits it increases my chances of getting called or raised. I think I played the flop and turn correctly, but want to make sure.
Hand #2: I'm in BB with 6d7h. (game is 7 handed). UTG (seat #3) folds. #5 raises (I think #5 may be a bit on tilt, and his raising requirements are loose). #6 cold calls the raise (also loose), the SB calls (a little loose), and I call. Most likely a bad call, but I was getting 7-1 on my call, and the pot was down to the 4 worst players in the game (yes that 4 includes me as this was only my 2nd foray into 10-20).
Flop is 6c7dAc, giving me bottom two pair. SB bets, I raise, #5 (original raiser) raises, #6 folds, SB folds, and I cap it. I figure unless #5 has aces, I am in the lead now, and want as much money as possible in the pot and as few opponents as possible.
Turn is Kh. Now I am worried that #5 might have AK, so I just check. He checks begind me.
River is 9c. Now I am worried about the flush getting there, so I check again. #5 checks behind me and turns over AdQs.
Questions: Was I being a wuss on the turn and river?
Thanks,
PRC
A reraise preflop is a good bet. Once you have the nut flush, a check is definately not a good idea. Someone may have a set, or more likely two pair on the turn. Don't give them a free look at the river to get a full. Make them pay now or get paid the pot.
On the second, i agree with your checks. Bottom two pair is a decent hand, but there are too many opportunites in the hand and not enough outs for you before the river. I would've done the same.
any criticism will be taken kindly and thanks in advance.
If these players were loose and on tilt, then it appears as if they read you pretty well. If that's the case, then in the first scenario, you might have checked the flop, since you have 5 other players to build the pot for you. There are times to be aggressive and times to be passive. If you find that loose players are folding whenever you bet, well then, you have to adjust by being less conspicuous. seeya
You make a good point. You have to combine their looseness with my general table image. As I haven't played much at 10-20, I was playing pretty squeeky tight.
Thanks for the thoughts.
PRC
You didn't miss bets here - you seemed to play both hands OK - 1st hand betting the nut draw is good and it didn't matter what hit on the river if you had given a free card you were done getting money out of this hand.
2nd - your thinking was clear and your play was justified.
I have one concern - considering yourself an inferior player just because you haven't played at that limit much is a big mistake - you have to be confident in this game it is way to mental to go in with an inferiority complex. If I don't think I am the best player at the table I pack up and find another game or go home - this doesn't happen to often.
Anonther arguement brewing?
A good player makes one big bet an hour. Missing one turn or river bet an hour significantly reduces your earn rate. I'm sure it isn't a full big bet as even the best pros aren't 100% accurate in their value betting. However, it is fairly close.
I'm trying to patch any and all leaks in my game. I fear that missing bets on the turn and river may be one of those leaks.
Thanks for the help,
PRC
I believe you are right. In fact, I would say consistently missing out on bets on the river is a way bigger error than consistently playing a hand like 6s3s up front.
Rounder,
Thanks for your thoughts. I have a question for you and others. First a recap of the hand:
Hand #2: I'm in BB with 6d7h. (game is 7 handed). UTG (seat #3) folds. #5 raises (I think #5 may be a bit on tilt, and his raising requirements are loose). #6 cold calls the raise (also loose), the SB calls (a little loose), and I call.
Flop is 6c7dAc, giving me bottom two pair. SB bets, I raise, #5 (original raiser) raises, #6 folds, SB folds, and I cap it.
Turn is Kh. I just check. He checks begind me. River is 9c. I check again. #5 checks behind me and turns over AdQs.
What cards would you have bet on the turn and/or the river. I was thinking any card less than a J (unless a club), and I was betting the turn. Same for the river. Is this too conservative? too aggressive?
Thanks,
P.S. Rouncer,
Being the 4th worst at the table was a bit tongue in cheek as I definitely had confidence that I could win in that game. However, I wouldn't have taken the shot if I hadn't seen the poor players there. From that perspective, I'm sure I wasn't the best at the table, and at 7 handed, even 3rd best would equal 5th worst!
I bet the turn/river with 2 pair unless an A or pair hits the board hits the board in this case another K. Club on the river doesn't scare me here eigther.
No. 1 - The AK suited is easily worth a value raise pre-flop; you probably should.
Absolutely you must bet your nut flush on the turn. Now that you have the nuts, the object is to make some money. And IF anyone has made two pair or a set (unlikely due to their passive calling), you don't want to give a free card.
Another point not mentioned yet is that your bet on the flop (which I like) conceals your actual holding very well. You are representing a Ten, JJ, or some other hand that is in the lead. That should make the 3-flush on the Turn less threatening to your opponents.
No. 2 - Your preflop call is fine. You only have to pay half of what the others paid, and your implied odds are much greater than what it will take to find (usually) a straight draw.
I really think you should bet the Turn. Granted, you have to make your own read of player #5, but you said that his raising requirements were pretty loose. Would he raise pre-flop with AT? I know plenty of people who would. And your holding of bottom 2 pair is still vulnerable, just as it was on the flop.
I like checking and calling on the river when the 3-flush appears. It saves you one bet (or a bad guess) if someone raises, and it can induce bluffs as well.
Dick
Just one point, when you have AKs and 6 people limp BTF, this is an easy raise. You are getting implied odds from them with this big suited hand. Get some more $$ into the pot since you have such a good start. That way if you make your flush or straight you will win a big pot.
If your AK is unsuited with 6 callers then don't raise.
Dave in Cali
PRC,
Hand#1,
I think not raising with AKs from the big blind in this spot is an absolutely terrible mistake for several reasons.
a) Most importantly is EV on the current hand. Your hand has huge value against 5 loose limpers. By not raising you are throwing this value away with the HOPE to recoup it by having a disguised hand. This is ALMOST always a mistake in limit holdem IMHO. Limit holdem is a game in which you try to accumulate small additions to your virtual EV wallet on every betting round by making the right play. Do it over and over again and you'll come out ahead. Disguising your hand has way more value in big bet poker. b) Disguising your hand from the blinds is overrated in general anyhow. Once you start putting in check raises or leading into several people, they'll just assume you clobbered the flop. They will find out very soon (right away) that you don't just a have a BB hand that is headed for the muck and in the mean time you missed the 5-way raise before the flop. c) If you're not going to raise in this spot with AKs, what do you need to raise there? AA and KK only? Will you then decide that you don't want to raise with those hands either sometimes to disguise them? Then you'll make an enormous EV mistake not raising with AA. Do yourself a favor and raise MORE often with hands from the blinds like two suited big cards so that you're not tempted NOT to raise with AA and KK for deception when you get them. If you're going to play bigger, tougher games eventually, then disguising your hand can become more important because pots are often heads-up from start to finish. At this point you should also raise more with hands like AK from either blind.
Note also that the hand would play differently had you raised preflop and people may have continued because the pot would be bigger and it would not be easy to see you had a flush on the turn.
Hand#2, You indeed missed a bet on the turn. Don't be one of those players that freezes up on the turn when a scary card comes off. Honestly, when you flop two pair you're better off closing your eyes and leading again in this spot rather than trying to guess if the turn card just beat you. Don't try to figure out how to save money the rare times your opponent spikes a second pair. Figure out how to get more money in there and just hope he didn't because your paranoid instinct will be wrong too often in the long run. The action on the turn should be BET, CALL. The action on the river should be BET, CALL!!
His most likely hand is AQ or AJ and these are both hands that a player like your 10-20 opponent will NOT BET if you check. You cannot put yourself in a position (when acting first on the end) such that you can only lose $20 on this round of betting.
--------------- I hate to sound mean or harsh, but you cannot play hands like that and be a winning holdem player. It simply will not happen. Believe me I know from experience and losing money myself. I was fortunate enough to have people take me aside and yell at me for these mistakes early on.
Kirk
Kirk,
A little harsh, but I prefer harsh honesty on this forum then losing money at the table. I really appreciated your post.
No question, I should have raised AKs from the big blind.
In hand #2, I also believe I should have bet the turn and the river. However, what would be the best play if I bet the turn (when the K falls, putting AK on the board, plus my 67), and he raises me? Do I go to check/call mode on the river unless I improve? That seems right to me, but I want to make sure. Or does your bet/call comment mean that even if raised on the turn, I should still bet the river and call a raise?
Thanks again, any post that is well meant, and full of excellent reasoning is a great post in my book. One of the things I like about poker is there is no bullshit. Long term, either you win or you don't. If you can't handle some harsh light falling on your play, you probably should pick another game.
PRC
You bring up an interesting and difficult question about hand #2. I think this is the type of thing that makes poker difficult. Generally speaking I want to be the type of player that puts other players in this position by betting and raising aggressively. Unfortunately sometimes it does come back at us. Note: if this guy is trying to steal the pot from you with a raise on the turn, he has to put 2 bets in the pot to do it. You have forced him to do that if he has the worst hand.
Now you have to ask yourself something about your opponent and the others around you:
1) Is this player capable of raising my turn bet (after I showed considerable strength) with AJ AQ or a drawing hand semi bluff?
If the answer is no, you should quite likely fold. You should also ask
2) Are the players around me likely to take advantage of the fact that I'll (sometimes) throw my hand away in the later stages of a large pot for a raise?
If the game is typical 10-20, probably not. But even so be cautious about making this play often. And sometimes call the raise anyway just to make sure people aren't stealing. This is why it is so important to pay attention to the regular players to learn how they play.
It is, I admit, a complicated issue when you're raised in that spot. However, I think betting is justified nonetheless for all those times you are ahead and need to get value from your hand and avoid free drawouts.
Just my two cents. I would be interested to hear what experts think.
Kirk
Kirk,
I'm no expert, but I've been thinking a lot about this hand. First, I think your point about forcing him to put two bets in on the turn if he wants to bluff is a great point. By betting, I make him really think before he tries to bluff me out, especially after I two bet and capped the flop. That alone, may make betting the turn the best play.
However, I was studying the "hand reading" chapter of Theory of Poker the other night, and decided to apply it to this hand. Here goes:
Guy is on tilt a bit, and has somewhat loose raising requirements. He raises from early position. Hands: AA-99, AK, AQ, AJ, ATs, KQ, KQs, QJs. That seems fairly reasonable.
He is called in a few spots and flop is A76 with two clubs. SB bets, BB (me) raises, he re-raises, SB folds, BB caps. Ok, now what does he have? I would limit his hands to AA, KK, AK, AQ, AJs, KQs, QJs (if suit is clubs). I beat all but AA. Turn is a K. Now I beat 4 out of the 7 hands I put him on. Ok, given that betting is better than checking, and I beat most of his hands, I bet the turn.
River is the third club. Now I only beat one of the hands I can give him. I think I check the river, and call a bet.
If he raises my turn bet, I agree the decision is close, and a fold is probably the best play.
Thanks for your help in thinking this hand through.
PRC
Hand #1: I think you played it right, although I might have raised preflop. You are holding AKs which is one of the best holdings preflop. Although you have terrible position, if you do flop an ace, king, or flush draw, you are probably going to make alot more money if your hand holds up.
Hand #2:I would bet the turn 9 times out of 10. If you check and your opponent bets, you're going to call him 99.9% of the time. So why lose a bet, especially if you give him a free card that beats you? On the river, I would probably bet 90% of the time. Again, if your opponent bets, you will call him. So why lose that bet? You probably lost 2 BB (1 to 3 hours work, depending on your skill level). If there were 4 players in the pot, I would definitely bet the turn and probably check the river.
If you play timid, you'll get pushed around by tougher players. Would you have played the hand differently if this was a 3-6 or 5-10 game? The answer should be "no". I don't think you made a bad call preflop in hand #2.
Played in a 3-6 game with a full kill. Loose play for the most part. the kill pots seemed to make it a bit tighter but not necessarily so.
First hand I have KK in late potition. Four limpers to the kill which is the BB. I raise to 12$ and 5 take the flop (I have bought the button).
Flop is raggedy Q 8 2 rainbow. All check to me I bet, all but one call.
Turn is 5 offsuit, no flushes possible. All check to me again and I bet 12. Two callers.
River is a 3. All check to me.
Here's the thing, I am pretty sure that hoss in the 7 seat is planning to check-raise me. I have an overpair, yes, but this is a big multiway pot in a looooooose game. I am pretty sure that someone has probably made two pair. I check it down. I feel that I cannot bet for value here because it is too likely that I am beat and will get check-raised. I got some criticism from hoss in the 7 seat for not betting when I checked it down.. Of course he has made two pair on the river, with his 23o! Most of the time I would bet for value expecting someone with a queen to call, but I guess I just had an uncanny read here and knew not to bet.....
Second hand: Kill pot BB posts 6$. All fold to me, I look down and see Ks9s on the button. I raise the blinds and the BB (Kill) calls.
Flop is Kd Qh 3s. Checked to me, I bet, he calls.
Turn is 2d. Checked to me, I bet. Mr. loose aggressive in the BB check-raises me. I am thinking, d'oh! He may have made two pair. But I think folding too easily here would be a mistake. I call his raise and plan to make a crying calls on the end.
He bets the river which is the 5s. I call. He flips over Q7o and I win the pot with my kings. He is pissed off that I called his check-raise! Oh well, let's just say I got lucky.... In reality he tried to pull a move on me and I decided to call him down. Think about it, he would have had to call my preflop kill pot raise with a pretty trashy hand to have made two pair on the turn. I just didn't quite believe him.
Comments on both hands welcome.
Dave in Cali
Hand 1: Without a King that's the best flop and river you can get. Presuming you had the best hand on the turn and the board didn't pair nor is a King and the opponents each have a different pair and different kicker...
There are 8 ranks that don't pair nor King. 6 ranks don't make them two pair. There are 6 cards that can pair one of them, and 24 that do not; so if they have random kickers you are a 24:6 or 4:1 favorite to STILL have the best hand. EASY bet for value except for your great read of the hoss who jumped out of his seat; then easy check. Naaaw, sorry, this isn't a "great" nor "uncanny" read; just a normal one for those watching the opponents as the river card is turned but I digress...
The key here is you are against only 2 opponents. I would still be against 4 since a straight draw is SO unlikely.
Hand 2:
In general, rarely lay down top pair heads up against an aggressive player; even if it IS reasonable that he just made two pair. I wouldn't hesitate to call this guy with QJ. Excellent noticing the unlikeliness of him making 2 pair (except that these guys DO call raises with trash like 53s or Q5s); it shows you are thinking about the continuity of the hand.
- Louie
3-6 kill game, very loose lineup of 7 players (except for me, of course).
I have 22 in the bb in a killed pot. The killer is UTG and posts 6$. When it gets back to me, it is an incredible family pot. I call the extra 3$ and all 7 take the flop.
Flop is A A 2 with two hearts. Seems like a great flop for me, right? Well maybe, maybe not. This game is really loose so I bet out.
Here is my logic on this point: someone probably has an ace, and if so I will probably get raised. I am hoping this happens because I am going to raise them back. Also, IF someone has an ace, they have a three outer to beat me. I am NOT going to let them hit their kicker for free! Just think how much $$ I am going to lose if someone else gets a better full house on this hand with a killed pot! I also figured it was a loose game and I would probably get callers for the flush draw anyway so I might as well try to build a big pot.
I know many players would slow play here but I think this would be a mistake. comments are welcome....
Dave in Cali
ps the result will be posted in my response to this post.
The results of the hand were actually acceptable but a bit disappointing. Everyone folded and I won the pot uncontested. Whatever, I think I made the right play anyway and I would do it again. I still got 6$ from 6 players which is fine with me.
Better to WIN a small pot than LOSE a big pot!
Dave in Cali
You can't beat winning Dave. The flop hit you hard and you made the right move. Lets say you slowplay it and then the board pairs again on the river, assuming you dont catch a miracle card you now look like a loser. I would only slowplay a hand like AA's unraised (from UTG position I sometimes do not raise with AA) to a flop like A, 2, 7 rainbow. Your hand is a lot more vulnerable and should be won asap.
Good point. In fact, if I had an ace I would not slowplay either, for the exact same reasons.
Dave in Cali
i think i would go for check raise with this many people.
brad
Dave wrote : Also, IF someone has an ace, they have a three outer to beat me.
They have an immediate 4 outer to beat you (the case A plus 3 cards that pair their undercard. Assuming they don't have a deuce (since you have two this is likely) They are only (roughly) a 5-1 dog to get the case A or make a higher full house (by the river).
Also the more remote chance that the turn and river will be paired which I believe is about 14-1 against.
(I calculated odss using 45 and 44 remaining cards since we know your holding and we are assuming the anti-hero holds one (and only one) A and any card other then a deuce.
Add all the other things that can go wrong here and I think raising early and often is warranted!
Sean
j
Haven't looked at your "results" yet, but here is my take. I completely agree with betting out. If raised, I re-raise. If called, bet out again on the turn, and if raised, re-raise once but if capped, call and then check-call the river. If only called on the turn, bet again on the river, and if raised then, just call. Any card outside of the case deuce is potentially a card that can beat you, so make 'em pay. If they draw out on you, them's the breaks.
Same 3-6 kill pot loooose game. I have 9s10s on the button and limp in a killed pot after 4 callers. Killer and blinds check.
Flop is As Kd 10h. Everyone checks to me and I check. Button bet maybe, but I smell a check-raise and I don't have much!
Turn is Ks. Again everyone checks to me. I decide to try a semi-bluff with my flush draw. In reality, I would probably bet here anyway since I am on the button and everyone checked to me twice, but this is a loose game, so I am very happy to have a bunch of outs.
Real quick, an analysis of my outs: I have 9 spades which give me a decent flush. I have two tens which may give me the winner with the bottom full. I don't think anyone else has a king so I probably have 11 solid outs. I also have some equity in that I may be able to bluff the river if a threatening card comes, or perhaps even if a blank comes.
So anyway, I bet the turn putting my 12$ in the pot. The BB hems and haws and finally decides to call. The rest fold.
River is an offsuit jack, making 4 to broadway on board. The BB seems unhappy with this card and proceeds to check. I have no way of winning this pot without betting, but I feel this is an excellent time to bluff. I bet 12$ again.
After agonizing for about 45 seconds (or was it me that was agonizing?), the BB decides to fold and mucks Ah4h face up. He says "you had a king" and I calmly assured him that "yes I did, I just got lucky" as I mucked MY cards face down.
I felt this was an automatic river bet, but mostly because of my read of my opponent. Many other times it would probably be suicidal to bet here.
comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
I think you got very lucky,too, Dave. Lucky that the guy with the weak Ace didn't think things through very well. If you had any sort of decent King in your hand, I would think that you would bet the flop on the button Despite the scare card J on the river, I think your opponent should call, IMO, especially because he knows this will close the betting. Good bet on the river, though; it put this guy to the test.
I just had a quick question regarding what your opponent said, did he say "you had a king" or did he say "you had a queen". Why would the king scare him if he had a pair of aces?
This sounds right to me. You may have a little more equity that you think on fourth street since your pair of tens may be good.
I agree with your check on the flop. Part of the reason for betting with a hand like this on the flop is to buy you the button, But you are already there. I would do what you did and take the free card.
Here's a question. What would you have done if someone bets on the turn. Of course it depends on the player, but if the bettor only holds an ace you have 11 outs plus some chance he might fold if you raise either immediately or on the river. (If he has a king or a QJ he obviously won't fold.)
OK there was 30$ in the pot after everyone limped for the flop and everyone checked the turn. I think if someone would have bet on the turn, I would have been tempted to raise them. I would be getting 30:12 odds or slightly less than 3:1. With the odds of getting my flush being 4.1:1, I am a bit short on immediate pot odds to just call and try to make the flush. (This is assuming it was still heads up, with another caller then a call would be a more profitable play).
Counting implied odds, and assuming I could only get one bet out of them on the river, I would still be ever so slightly short of getting the right odds to just call and try to make the flush.
Therefore a semi-bluff raise is probably the best choice had this situation arose. I believe these opponents would be capable of folding for a raise since they were loose but fairly timid (most of them). Therefore a semi-bluff raise would probably be the best play since there would be some chance of them folding.
It would depend on my assessment as to whether or not I believed they had a king, and if so, whether they would reraise me if they had one. If I put them on a steal I would definitely raise. Even if they had a king, I still had 8 outs. I couldn't count my tens as outs if they had a king, and if they had a king one of my spades would pair their kicker and make them a full boat.
Despite all this, I think that if I was bet into on the turn, a semi-bluff raise would be the best play.
Is my analysis of this scenario correct?
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Dave,
I don't understand how you come to $30 in the pot before the flop. You wrote: "I have 9s10s on the button and limp in a killed pot after 4 callers. Killer and blinds check" that sounds to me like you have at least 8 players for the flop. In a kill pot, is the pre-flop bet $6. If so, then there should be around $48 in the pot. When the guy bets $12 into you on the turn, there is $60 in the pot. You have 8 outs vs. the king, 11 outs vs the ace, and the pot is laying you 5-1. I think you have a good call.
Personally, I wouldn't raise unless I was positive the bettor might lay down his hand to a raise. This is still a 3-6 game, and I think a lay down is unlikely if the guy has an ace AND has the guts to bet the turn. If he has a K there is an excellent chance you will be re-raised. Most low limit players wouldn't bet a K into this flop, but would come out firing on the turn when they tripped up. Other hands that might bet (and wouldn't drop for a raise) are two suited hands (like yours going for the semi-bluff), JT (with the gut-shot), and of course the Ace hands. You have the odds for a call, and the chances you are ahead are pretty slim if someone bets this pot. That puts the raise solidly into the semi-bluff category, and I think the chances someone might fold a better hand are very small. I call but don't bet.
Flames welcome,
PRC
Mason,
I'll answer this without putting in a lot of thought. I've had a tough day and just feel like writing.
In general, if the turn bet came from a player in early position (especially the blinds or the killer) I would probably just call figuring that he would think a late position king (or any other strong hand) would have bet the flop so his weak king is strong. He also will not lay down a mediocre ace for the same reason.
If the bet came from someone in late position, I would discount the ace or king being in the hand for the converse of the reason above (i.e., I would figure an ace or king would have bet the flop). I would raise most of the time unless it is a player who just won't take shots at the pot without something decent that he also won't lay down.
If the bet came from someone in the middle I would call on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and raise the rest of the week :-).
Regards,
Rick
What factors do you think about in a situation like this to decide on which street to Raise.
As a side note, at this limit, I see players bet 2nd pair on the turn, when the flop has been checked.
I like everything you did except when you said "yes I did." Much more stylish to just say "I got lucky." You imply that you had him beat when in fact YOU know the lucky part was that he laid it down.
I think I may be giving too much respect to a raise or a bet following a raise. Here are 2 examples.
Circus Circus 3-6 hold 'em game. I am in late position with QQ. There is an early raise, a couple of callers and I re raise. Two callers. One of the callers is a dealer who just finished his shift here.
Flop is A Q 7 rainbow. First person checks, dealer bets, I raise, call, call. Turn is a J. Check, bet, I call, 1st person calls. River is a blank. Check, bet, call and the first to act folds.
First to act had pocket nines, dealer had A-10 and I win a big pot with trip queens.
I thought the dealer might have AA and is trying to confuse me.
Second hand I have A9 in late position, 5 players see the flop for 1 bet. Flop is 2 6 9. SB bets out, 1 call, 2 folds and I fold. I figure SB has two pair because he bet out. After the hand is over, SB had a 6 with a blank and won with a pair of sixes.
Too much respect?
Second hand: WAY WAY WAY too much respect! You have top pair ace kicker and folded for one small bet. You should have raised him and probably gone to the river.
Dave in Cali
Way to much respect. Only treat the tightest rocks with this type of respect. A dealer could be making that play with bottom pair. Your trip Q's were gold.
Other hand top pair with A kicker is a good hand you raise here on the flop. Can't be much future in folding top pair to one bet.
I suggest more red meat in your diet.
i agree with everything here. play more aggressively and eat more meat.
scott
Top pair-top kicker is an easy raise on the flop. And I suggest a vegetarian diet for good blood flow to the brain.
1. I think calling him down is best
2. I'm not folding. I will either raise him on the flop or raise him on the turn with the intention of checking down on the end.
Hand 1: You need to raise with trip Qs, you can't assume someone that just because someone bets, they have AA.
Hand 2: I would raise here. You have a good hand with this flop. Since you're in late position, you'll be able to learn a lot by how the early position bettor reacts to the heat.
I think your play was way too tight.
The trip Queens hand I thought was a good hand. The dealer who sat down, I guess I should have made sure he was playing with his own money before I assessed the situation.
Raising on the turn would have driven out the other player so I don't think I lost too much there.
The top pair with a kicker hand, in hind sight, I played too weak. That was actually a pretty good flop for me. If I didn't like that flop, I shouldn't have called the pre flop bet.
Up until the trip queens hand I had been losing so I guess I tightened up too much.
Thanks for all the input.
If you're going to play a hand like A9 then 9-6-2 is about as good a flop as you can hope for (except for flopping complete monsters such as trips or better but they are rare). If you're afraid of *that* flop you'd be better of not playing A9.
On the QQ hand...if the turn bettor was a 93 year old lady who never bets out unless she has the nuts, I would raise without much aplomb...against anyone else, I am splashing the pot:)
skp,
I think I played against that old lady around 1986. I'm still working an aerospace job and flew to Los Angeles to use a special lab for about ten days. My lab time didn't start until noon so I fly out the night before. I get up at 3:00 a.m. PST which is my normal time back east. So I drive to the Bike to play a little 3/6 lowball before work. It turns out there is about a $4500 jackpot which is big for that game (in fact, I never saw one bigger).
Anyway, when I arrive at 4:00 a.m. freshly showered and wide awake there are a lot of games going with players looking like they have been up thee days chasing this jackpot. I get a seat and am just getting my coffee and thinking about breakfast when I get a one card draw to a 6 4 with the joker. Of course I put in all the action I can before the draw.
After the draw this 78-year old lady bets out and gets called by a player on my right. I look down and I see I make my second nut dream hand. I raise, the old lady reraises, other player folds and the old lady smooth calls with a lot of chips in front of her. I lay down my second nut and start to think about getting a decent breakfast. She turns over the wheel and we win the jackpot! My share was $2954
Regards,
Rick
P.S. In the old lady's defense, she could have been worried that someone else could have hit the jackpot while we were raising each other back and forth :-).
not only is it a big mistake not to raise based on the value of the hand, you give others a chance to get in cheaply to outdraw you. playing like that is akin to putting your head under a guillatine and looking up. 2nd example you must have had a bad read on your opponent. how can you figure what he has if you dont know how he plays. and if you had watched him it would be impossible to make this fold and not raise here. however with an unraised pot and that flop a fold would not be too costly given an early position bet.
I have only played Circus Circus LV once or twice, but unless the texture of the game has changed dramatically this is a showdown type game. All the advise has centered on the players, which is legit. Try to classify the players whom you should respect and those that are just splashing around. Trips are a strong showdown hand which deserves raising at each opportunity except river if the board gets scarier.I'd bet you would have got a call from the ace any way. You don't want a gutshot to draw out on you and most will pay to see the river with anything substantial for 12 bucks in this type game.A raise/reraise on the turn indicates a possible straight already,it's time to slow down and hope to pair the board. People have been taught to led into the raiser and not allow a free card. Taking the pot now can never be a bad thing. Suppose the river was a K, you'd wish they were gone. Don't respect dealers until they earn it, not all play well. After raising the turn on hand one your flop raise on hand two would have gotten mucho respect. Hope this helps , I agree with all former advise. I may have things out of sequence but you get the point. Did you win ? Was it LV ? I have no knowledge of east coast games, but 3-6 is 3-6.
It was Circs Circus in Las Vegas. I made a little bit, mostly on the trip queens hand.
The reason I mentioned the dealer was that if he were a prop player, I could see him smooth calling AA before the flop. When he raised, he caught me by surprise and I wasn't thinking as clearly as I should. I should have taken a little more time with the hand.
On the A9 hand, I played it poorly. Does the rank of top pair matter much when deciding whether to raise, call or draw? A pair of nines just didn't seem strong enough to go all the way. In hind sight, I should not have played the hand.
Over estimating what my opponents have is one of my poker weaknesses.
I may be piling on here. The one that concerns me more is the second hand. On a raggedy-ass flop like that, if I were one of the blinds, I would definitely bet any six or nine vs. 4 opponents, and you could even imagine hands like 7-7, 7-8, 8-10, etc. leading out. A lot of players would even bet overcards there. You have the best hand by far most of the time, but you need to raise to force out hands like Q-10 or K-J, IMO.
Piling on is ok. After reading all the posts, I realize how much I misplayed the hand.
Either bet top pair or don't play A9.
Reading 21C HE and I may have missed something.
Can someone tell me how many player are there to define a short handed games.
As always, thanks
I believe, generally 6 or 7 (or less).
mike
x
I believe a short handed game consists of five players, depending on what game your playing. If your playing Hold-em with only four players at the table, you are definetly short handed. Just another note, in short handed games watch out for more high cards coming out on the flop!
Short-handed can be considered less than 7 in my opinion, but the short-handed section in HPFAP 21st, seems to be geard to heads up play and 3 handed play.
There's no absolute definition, but I would usually say 5 or less. 4 or less is absolutely, definitely short handed. In my experience you often see a noticable change in the way a game plays when it gets down to 6 handed, but I can't really call that "short". You see changes again at 5 and 4. To me the change from 4 to 3 usually seems less pronounced. And of course heads up is another clear change. That's sort of subjective, but is it clear as mud? (The HPFAP stuff on heads up gives a good theoretical foundation to extend to games up through 3 and 4 handed, etc.)
ive noticed playing 5 handed it may be better to play trappy and let others loosen way up, while 4 handed (or less) you want to loosen up and roll over the table.
but i have limited experience shorthanded.
brad
IMO, a very important statement about short handed strategy was in the prior editions of HPFAP. (I don't remember for sure if it's included in the new edition.) It was the point that preflop play in a short handed game is much like play in a full game in a late or late-middle position after eveyone ahead of you has folded, leaving you, in what is more or less like a short handed game for that hand. So your preflop standards will be quite similar in these two situations. (There are differences which stem largely from the psychological differences betwen the two situations.)
I don't consciously make a qualitative change in my play, say from "trappy" to aggressive, going from 5 to 4 handed (though you may have a point there with regard to postflop play in some games), but I do think the removal of one player just starts to make more hands playable, usually opening for a raise (just like being one off the button versus two off in a full game after eveyone ahead of you has folded). Also, it will make more pots head-up, allowing for looser postflop play, more typical short haneded play, etc.
I consider 5 players or less to be short-handed. This is the point at which my strategy becomes very different from the one I would use in a full game.
However, in a 6- or 7-handed game, I begin to make small strategy adjustments. Although the full-game strategy still prevails, I begin to "move the needle" towards making more use of short-handed strategies such as favoring high cards and big pairs over drawing hands, raising and reraising to isolate, semibluffing against 1 or 2 opponents, etc.
HEFAP discusses heads-up and 3-handed games primarily. In a 5-handed game, I often raise/reraise to isolate players in order to put myself in a heads-up or 3-handed situation, where the HEFAP strategies can be applied.
Kevin
I think the HFAP strategies apply to games that become heads up, or three handed, after a bet. My experience is that this occurs around five players (not maniacs), but sometimes four, and occasionally six.
I played in a game last week with a table of rocks. When it got down to five, I loosened up. So did everyone else! There would be 4 or 5 seeing the flop and the turn, when with the full table it would be half that number. It was like playing no fold 'em. I guess we had all read the book. I had to tighten up a little until they all calmed down.
I justed wanted to hear some opinions on pocket pairs from other people. I have a feeling that no matter what pocket pair you have, you are a underdog unless you make a set. I win more often with pocket deuces than I do with pocket aces!. I was playing last night and got pocket aces three times literally, and didn't win once. I lost to two pair twice and three of a kind another time. I think that with pocket aces you need to get a pair on the board to have better chances, that way you have top two pair. I know that pocket rockets are supposedly the best starting hand, but I have doubts. I know this sounds strange, but I would rather start out with A-Ks than A-A. What do you think? Pocket aces only come about 1 in every 220 hands, and when it comes you expect to win with them. I rarely win with American Airlines.
Trust me! Play the aces and be very careful with the deuces - late position and five to one minimum.
Aces will outdistance deuces - no question about it.
The important thing about aces is to try and narrow the field before the flop and make whoever is left pay the max to try and outdraw you.
The lower the limit you play, the more abuse you will take with aces but they will still show a profit.
Bravo Moron, well said. The problem with AA's is in a bad short run having them will put you on tilt. Usually, you will be raking in the chips. Recently AA's have done nothing but win for me.
worm, I think the idea of deuces being better than aces is absurd .. and i think you realize it too. believe me, even a guy like me with my game having a vaguely fishy odor knows that. I think you're just looking for a little commiseration. okay we've all had them cracked. so here's the deal ... if you can't run a simulation program to compare their respective win rates.. or read simulation results somewhere, then do the following: take a deck of cards. pull out two deuces for one player, two aces for another aand then deal out eight more hands and a five card board. keep the deuces and aces for each player and repeat the process for a while and you'll see the truth as far as aces go: GET 'EM AND BET 'EM
Certainly in the long run you can expect to win more with AA than 22 if for no other reason than your chances to flop a set are the same.
Seriously, though, your problem with the aces is one of having your expectations too high. You say that "when it comes you expect to win with them." That would be great but the truth is you will NOT usually win with aces if you are playing low limit holdem and every pot is contested 6 or 7 ways on the flop. But the point is you will win way more than 1/6 or 1/7 of the time!
People claim that AA is a better hand in the higher limits than in lower limits but I'm not sure that's the case. Sure, playing 100-200 the aces will probably win the pot 80% of the time. But the pot will be contested heads up or threeway.
In lower limits you win much less often with the aces but much bigger pots (respectively).
It is really a question of "What is the optimum number of opponents for AA?" I'm not sure of the answer but my intuition says something like 6 or more. Perhaps someone computer savvy knows the answer.
So just remember when you get the aces that you are an underdog to win the pot if there are many opponents but you are a big money favorite.
Kirk S.
If you're playing with pocket Aces in a low-limit game, position is very important. Here is how I play them most of the time:
In early or early middle position, I raise before the flop. Then, I check raise on the flop (it works, because people put you on AK/AQ, think you've hit nothing and are scared, and bet into you). Then, I drive the turn and driver unless the board looks scary.
In late position, I rarely raise before the flop, since it won't knock anyone out and will reveal my hand. On the flop, I will raise only if a few people bet into me and the folks behind me look like they won't call two bets. After that, I always raise on the turn unless there's a scary board. People with a small two pair very rarely re-raise, and act timid on the river. If I am re-raised on the turn though, I am in trouble.
If you aren't raising in late position with aces when you already have callers, you are losing a TON of money.
If raising in late position gives your hand away as being pocket aces, you need to be raising with a few more hands.
Man, we just went 'round and round on this question about a week ago. If it's not still on the message board check the archives. Bottom line: Aces like LOTS of callers. But make them pay. No limping unless you might only win the blinds with your raise. A limp-reraise strategy is okay if you're almost certain someone will raise behind you. You don't need to thin the field with aces - you just want to build the biggest damned pot you can.
Pocket pairs below TT are very dangerous to have at a loose table. Having them out of position is death. AA & KK can survive a lot of positional challenges if the flop blanks. I play KK a lot like David K does with AA. But with AA, I treat it a lot like Omaha; I try to buy the first seat or buy the button.
There is a reason why 53s is better than 22:
The obligatory bad beat example: last night (after 2.5 hours & ~60 hands without a pocket pair) I had pocket deuces in the small blind and called. This is a weak-tight table with occasional outbursts of mania. Flop is Qc8h2s. I bet, one caller heads up (this is good). Turn is Jc. I bet, UTG calls. River is a 4s. I bet out, the guy calls(!) with T9o (no kidding). I'm not sure why he didn't raise with the nuts (or for that matter why he stayed in with 5-1 pot odds on a gutshot); but the problem with low set is that very few people will put you on it in a loose game. So if there are high cards on the flop with your low set, people will stay in far more often and you get into the horse race.
This a hand i ran into about 3 weeks ago in a 3-6 game with 8 players. I am in BB with A2 off suit and there are 2 callers with no raise. Flop comes A-9-2 rainbow. I decide to slow play with no forseeable draws that can hurt and check. So do the other two players. The turn is a 2 and brings the second spade. I decide to bet and either win it there or make 2nd best pay me off. The first player folds and the second calls. River is the 6 of spades. I bet,oppnent raises,I reraise,opponent reraises and I call. Opponent turns over A-A. On the river I put him on a flush until he capped it and I still thought I had the best hand. Maybe since I was slow-playing I didn"t see him doing it also but something tells me I played it right and he didn't. Please help.
Your slow play is questionable in my mind, in a low limit game I usually just bet out. After that I would have played the hand similarly. The ohter guy waited to the river to raise and with that board and the way the hand had been played I wouldn't have considered AA, until maybe the third raise, and even then I would call.
There's nothing really that wrong with the way either of you played it postflop except for perhaps the extra raise you threw in. You just got a big hand cracked by an even bigger one. It happens...but I wouldn't be playing A2o in any circumstance (except BB) in a low limit game. People are going to limp in with garbage like A7o and A8o regardless of position which makes you far behind. At least in a higher limit game you can often smell a big ace when it comes in for a raise. At the low limits they may flop their ace and STILL be scared to bet it even though that is just the card they are looking for. You may end up betting it the whole way(since they will also call with middle pair) and watching in horror as your A2o is beaten by A7o. The alternative to that is to check a flopped ace the whole way and win nothing on the pot or having to pay off someone's two pair or backdoor draws when they hit on the river. To put it simply...don't play the hand unless you are good enough to lay it down when you hit an Ace or be strong enough to sense when you might have a chance to jam a bigger ace out(usually when someone bets a draw on the turn and you raise forcing the guy to call 2 bets cold with a lousy kicker.) I'd just as soon not play it at all.
Nothing wrong with the way either played the hand? the guy with AA, didn't play the hand correctly on any street till the river, I can see his reasoning for his play on each street individually but grouped together makes for a very lousy way to play a hand.
I have As Kh on button; I raise with callers in BB and UTG. BB is a solid player.
flop comes Ah Ks Jh
BB checks, UTG bets! I raise, and he reraises (BB folds). I am dead, but pay him anyway.
Comments?
Nigel
Nigel,
I'm going to the river in this situation about 99.9% of the time. Here is why.
I don't think AA or KK are likely since most "solid" players who limp with these hands as a change up and get raised reraise before the flop. I admit JJ is possible and so is QT (probably suited). But you have four outs to these hands so you are far from dead and will get paid off good if you hit your redraw.
Also possible are AQ and AJ offsuit or suited, KJ suited, and maybe another AK. These hands could easily be played the same way by UTG and you would be way ahead in the first three cases and tied in the latter.
The other consideration is the fact that many players tend to wait to make their move till the turn with their real strong flops. These same players may get real aggressive on the flop with problem hands like AQ or AT suited.
I would probably call the flop and consider a raise on the turn if he leads again. Of course a lot would depend on what the turn brings. Anyway, this is one river that I am going to see just about no matter what head up.
BTW, I hope you didn't show any sign of defeat or disgust during the play of your hand. You sounded like a whipped puppy dog in your post.
Regards,
Rick
Well, I probably showed some hesitation when the raise came. I did call all the way down, and my pal at the table immediately said 'QT of hearts' before the cards were flipped (and he was right). This made me wonder if I should have folded.
To the jerk posting below: I really didn't intend this to be a trivial bad beat story. I wanted comments about whether one should ever give up in a situation like this. Comments like the one from Rick N. are helpful, thanks.
Nigel,
I was just about to respond to "who cares" with the observation that I interpreted your comment that you were dead as an indication of your feelings at the time the flop betting was almost complete. I still maintain that the player could have had many hands that you were ahead on.
Here is a quick story. There was one mid-limit player who I thought was a big rear end and bad for the game. He would openly criticize other players and/or sit next to his buddies and engage in sotto voce conversations. He liked to show everybody how smart he was but in reality I was only a B- talent at best. I got in one hand where I had the better hand going in and after heavy action all the way raised on the river when my AK redrew against his AQ with a board of A Q x x K. After he called my river raise he said with pompous certainty "I knew you had that hand.". I was able to keep my mouth shut but I really wanted to thank him for the free thirty dollars he gave me on the river :-).
Regards,
Rick
I'd have to agree with ya about rude,childish posts the last few days many have appeared from, "just a little chicken", and "imasucker". Looks like "ima sucker" is Andrew Prock.
Enough of these type of posts. You had a good hand, it wasn't good enough. Big Deal!! Are you looking for a shoulder to cry on?
Hand analysis is good for everyone's game. But as Rounder said, these bad beat stories are a waste of space. Send in your hands that make people think, not the ones that make people say "tough luck."
IMO, The question of wether to fold top two pair in the face of a reraise- possible nut straight is a valid question. And the responses from those intending to answer this question have given me insight. As player with limited experience this is a major concern- when to fold the a possible second best.
If you don't have anything good to say then don't bother reading the post and certainly don't respond with mud-throwing and belittling coments. Or at the very least post your handle so we know not to pay any attention to what you write.
Doc writes:
"The question of wether to fold top two pair in the face of a reraise-possible nut straight is a valid question."
Yes, it's just as valid as the question of whether to muck AA before the flop, or the question of whether Linda Tripp should be the next Playboy centerfold. :)
Even if you know you are up against QT, you have 4 outs plus a nut backdoor flush draw. There are 11 small bets bets (plus the small blind) in the pot when it's reraised back to you on the flop, and you would get a minimum of 2 big bets out of QT if you hit your hand, so that's an effective pot size of at least 15 small bets bets with slightly over 4 effective outs. You have to call only a small bet, so your effective pot odds are at least 15 small bets to 1.
If you multiply your outs by one more than the effective pot odds and this is greater than the number of unseen cards, then you should call. 4 times 16 is 64, which is way more than 47, so you at least have to call on the flop even if you know you are up against a straight.
On the turn, you will be just shy of the odds you need to chase against QT if you will only get one big bet on the river, though you will have odds if you will be able to raise and get paid off on the river.
However, the entire question is silly, because you cannot go around laying down top two when only a few hands beat you, especially when the aggressor may simply have a flush draw.
-Abdul
There's rarely any talk about it, so:
I was entering a game last night, and just missed the blinds. So, I bought in and the dealer asked me if I wanted to post. I said no, that I'd wait. The guy next to me says "That's a long time to wait! Anyway, the best time to post is near the button". I thought to myself that it's never a good time to put in a bet without seeing 2 cards, except when you're in the blind because you HAVE to. Besides, you get a chance to see the game, the players, get a feel for how the game is (loose, tight, etc.). Or is it better to pay to jump in?
thanks in advance, jordan v.
If you've only got to put in one live bet behind the button, then it's well worth it.
First off, if you post you're not going to do it "behind the button." I've never been in a game or heard of a game where a new player can post between the sb and the button. Would never happen.
As far as posting goes I say you wait for your blinds or you put up a straddle. Tight-aggresive or "loose-aggresive" not stupid-passive. If you're concerned about making an impression on the table I think it's important to stand out as either smart or dangerous. But wimpy is not what I'd want stenciled on my forehead. Of course, if you don't want the heat (increased action) that a straddle might stimulate then you can wait for your blind.
going along with the crowd is the worst of these 3 options.
Note: Some rooms don't allow a straddle from anywhere but UTG. Easily solved; you simply announce "raising blind" or "raise, no look". And if you can't pull this off without getting heat from the dealer i.e. you're short on charm and/or people controlling skills then you probably shouldn't be playing cards for money anyway.
First of all, I think the generally accepted usage of 'behind the button' means the cutoff seat, next to the button.
Second, you've lost me with your notion that it's better to straddle than to simply post the blind. You're trying for some sort of 'image' play right off the top? That's an expensive way to do it.
You're going to pay 1.5 bets per round in blinds, or .15 bets per hand, on average. If you post right behind the button, you'll get to play 7 hands for your 1 small bet, or .14 small bets per hand. And, you get the second-best position for your post. It's well worth it.
Note that we're talking about a new player to the game. If you've missed your blinds and have to post a live big blind and a dead small blind, you may be better off to wait for your blinds, but that really depends on the type of game you are playing and how advantageous position is in that game.
In Omaha-8 games, I always post it from directly behind the button. You have good position and unless the game is a total maniac game, you are unlikely to be raised anyway. If you happen to find a hand, you are in a superb position to make things more difficult on your opponents. In HE games, I'm more inclined to wait.
Essentially, you're paying .5BB to play the round. If you're beating the game for 1BB/hr, your EV for the round is about .33BB. However, your money is live, so things aren't quite as bad as they seem. Basically, it doesn't really matter what you do. If the game's super good, you might want to jump in, but if you just arrived, taking the round to watch won't hurt.
Jordan V.
Dan is right. Another problem with waiting is that you are putting a big sign on your forehead that says "I'm very patient and I'm going to wait for good hands." And you haven't even played a hand! That is a lot of information to give away for nothing.
But let's say you are two or three off from the button. Now is close or slightly -EV from a math standpoint but waiting will still put that same sign on your forehead. What I sometimes do here is get my chips and stuff and maybe take a bathroom break then. I don't want to be seen sitting and waiting for more then two or three hands were most players will wait for the blinds anyway.
Regards,
Rick
What is the right way to think about this in terms of EV? Allow me to throw out some ideas. First of all, let's assume this isn't a raked game, in which case I don't think it ever makes sense to post. Take a 10/20 game, where you post $5 on the hour and half hour. You make 1 big bet, or $20/hr in this game. Is there any way to determine where in the half hour it is better to to post, and where in the half hour it is better to wait? Suppose you have about .3 equity in the blind you post. This means you are posting about $17. However, if you enter 5 minutes after time has been paid you are effectively getting the whole hour for the $10, where is if you post right before time is paid, it doesn't seem to make much sense as you are only getting a little more than half an hour to earn your $10+7 back. Is this the right way to think about this, or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Hetron,
There is no doubt you want to avoid time collections when possible (I am the master of doing it within the rules). But generally you will have to pay time if you lock a seat with a board in most card clubs. If there is no board yet they want the collection if you take a hand while the light is on (shame on them), then wait for the light to go off at most limits (I've never done the EV but it just makes sense).
The rest of your numbers have me confused a bit. I'll add a few more thoughts though. I try to post behind the button in a 15/30 structure and take the blinds in a 20/40 structure. I'll post in a full game with the button as far as two seats to my left if I'm coming in as a new player. Otherwise I wait for the big blind. I never wait for the blinds to go by if I already have been waiting three or four hands.
Anyway, I'll probably be busy for the rest of the day so you may want to address any more questions to some of the other 2+2r's :-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick
Here is the situation I am talking about. You have just gotten a seat at your time rental holdem game in AC, sometime between 1 and 2pm. (We don't have lights here indicating a board or not, just a monitor of the board broadcast all over the poker room.) Time is paid at 1:00 pm, 1:30pm and 2:00 pm. What I am saying is, should you post depending on whether or not you have entered the game at 1:05, or 1:25? My argument being the most costly hour of holdem one usually plays is the first one, because you are paying time for an incomplete hour, and you usually are paying to post out of the blinds and get right in the game, though you do have some equity in the amount you post. I am just trying to ascertain if there is a different strategy in posting/waiting to be used for getting called for a seat a. right after time collection and b. right before time collection. thanks in advance.
I use the two hand rule. If I have to wait more than two hands I post.
I do this for psychological reasons. If you're one off the button and refuse to post many players will put you (correctly I'd might add) as a tight-butt. This will reduce the amount of action that you will receive on future hands.
I don't care if it's mathematically correct to wait. If poker was just math the PHD's would always dominate.
By the way my advice applies to just the low-limits, although I'd suspect its correct for all but the highest of games.
Make them think you're there to gamble with them. Use the "Two Hand Rule."
Just my 2c. Tom B.
pretty minor subject. I'm going to respond without reading the other posts so sorry if I say something redundant. It's pretty simple for me. If I don't know the players I will wait for my blind no matter where my posisition is. If I know the players and am 1 off the button I'll get in. There is certainly no reason too hurry, either way. seeya
Assume 4-8 game. If you wait for the blinds, the cost is $6 or .60 a hand (assume 10 players and no one leaves). If you jump in on the cut off, cost is $4 or .59 a hand (seven hands until big blind comes around. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.
Here's the deal. My bankroll permits me to play whatever limit I want up to 20-40. But I believe it would be foolish to play at that level as I am new to the game. And I am diligently trying to get acquainted with the many facets of HE that I must become proficient at to be a winner in the long run (some of those facets known and I'm sure many unknown at this time).
With that in mind:
I went to Hawaiian Gardens last night wanting to play 4-8 HE for 2 or 3 hours. I've beat this game in the past by both getting the right cards and by bluffing the right opponents and it's live. But when I got there the board had about 5 people on it so I decided to wait playing 6-12 HE. The table I sat at was loose aggressive with 2-3 solid players (one VERY solid) and 4 mediocre live ones. I had been there about 15 minutes and observed many opponents playing any two suited cards. And taking some large pots when they made flushes. Then I was dealt Q9h two off the button and I limp in. I made the nut flush on the turn - 5h 7c Kh Ah and scooped an over $200 pot. At the same time I made my nut flush (on the turn) they my name was called for the 4-8 game I originally wanted, but I just ignored it. At that point I was up $148. But I ended the night -$180. I had a good idea that I was outmatched - but I wasn't able to leave the table.
So I have three requests for your thoughts:
1) How does one go about identifying a soft seat?
2) Is there any mental trick to getting up and leaving a game (even when you're stuck a little) when you know you're against stiff competition?
3) Lee Jones says that in low limit you only need to play a little tighter than your opposition to get the money -- what is your take on that statement, should one play Kxs from any position if your opposition is playing any two suited cards from anywhere?
Thanks,
-Michael
Michael,
Buy some HE books and read, read, and then read them again. Go back to the tables with that knowledge and kill, kill, and kill.
Paul
Bought and read HE, HFAP, WLLHE, Theory of Poker, Poker Essays I. Am planning on readng: Getting the best of it, Gambling theory and other topics, Poker Essays II.
Thanks ... I guess some things you just have to figure out for yourself and also decide if it's even worth dwelling on (i.e. will the correct answers to my questions positivly impact my win rate?).
"1) How does one go about identifying a soft seat?
2) Is there any mental trick to getting up and leaving a game (even when you're stuck a little) when you know you're against stiff competition?
3) Lee Jones says that in low limit you only need to play a little tighter than your opposition to get the money -- what is your take on that statement, should one play Kxs from any position if your opposition is playing any two suited cards from anywhere"
Michael I thought you were just starting out, but if you have read these books thoroughly, and feel comfortable playing in 6-12 that's were I would start. Play and win for at least 200 hrs at this level and you will be able to answer your own questions. But be able to answer these questions before going higher.
Thanks ... I guess some things you just have to figure out for yourself and also decide if it's even worth dwelling on (i.e. will the correct answers to my questions positivly impact my win rate?).
Yes, because you will move up when you are comfortable at 6-12. Oh and winning also!!!!
Good Luck Paul
calm down Paul. you must be taking scott and Rounders advice and eating too much red meat. which leads to high colesterol then heart attacks then death then no more poker.
1. It sounds like you sort of know the players and that is how you decide if the game is good. You have to watch like you did if the players are unfamiliar.
2. The fact that you lost money is completely irrelavent to the question of whether your table evaluation was acurate. The short term fluctuations are too big. If you are going to get up you just get up though, no trick for me.
3. I guess Lee maybe said that, but the overall strategy of his book is a fairly tight approach. You don't play Q9s two off the button for instance if you are following his advice. With Kxs, it is more a function of the raising, if every hand is a no-raise before the flop family pot you can get away with more of these cards.
if there's no poker after death what's everybody going to do ?
Always try to be the best at the limit you play. I play almost exclusively 6-12. I avoid 3 kind of games for two reasons; 1. very wild aggressive games, 2. very short handed games, 3. very tight games. I played in all these kind of games for many hours. These games can be profitable, but I would rather put my time in better games. The reasons are: the game No.1 can cause big swings and does not exist often enough to balance out short-term result; the game No. 2&3 can make the rake (button drop) significant (button going faster and pot getting smaller). Whenever a game turns into these 3 situations, I would quit that game. Hope this will help.
regards,
jikun
Thanks for your responses on posting. I've got another one for you all. I appreciate your helping a newcomer:
Let's say on turn I've got the best hand: Say top trips or a straight. But the board is two flushed and it's obvious that someone at the table is drawing to the flush. I know the general rule is 'never give free cards' and that I should bet out. My logic says the same thing, since the statistical odds of my opponent hitting it are less than him not hitting it. Therefore I want him paying to see it. But aren't there situation where juicing the pot will give my opponent the correct pot odds to see the river, therefore giving him the advantage?
I think I'm just missing something obvious here. Help me work this out.
thanks, jordan v.
if you dont bet the pot odds are infinite, ie, he has to pay 0 to win x. 0/x.
brad
I think I understand your question -- the scenario is a small pot. Say it's a 10-20 and there's only $70 in the pot somehow. You're saying your $20 gives him just enough pot odds to make it a call. That may be true, but it's irrelevant because if you don't bet, his pot odds are meaningless. The only odds that matter to you are the odds that you will make more money on average if you bet.
21st century edition HEPFAP, p. 309: The superscripts are obviously misleading, because straight flush draw has less outs than straight draw. I'm sure this has been pointed out....
You mean "fewer" outs, right? Or is that a typo? Sorry -- couldn't resist.
You are correct. This is a type-o.
If you are in either blind in a loose game and there are 2-4 callers when it comes around (no raise), what are your views on raising with the big unsuited cards? I know, I know -- re-read HPFAP. But I want your real world views, particularly in looser games. One effect that concerns me is that your raise gives the fish a better price to take off a card or two, and it seems the raised hands get snapped off more as a result.
I think there's (at least) a couple of things to think about when you hold big cards in the blind. If you are a favorite right there, you're getting equity on every dollar that goes in, so deception aside, raising is a good play.
But since you have two unsuited big cards, that chances are very slim that you will win the hand unimproved. You can control the outs that people will have on the flop. Coupled with the fact that few players will flod pre-flop for an extra bet, this can change an incorrect call on the flop to a correct call.
Example: You have AJo in the BB, two callers to you, and you raise. They both call. Flop comes JsTs5h. Now there is enough money in the pot for the flush draws and straight draws to call easily. But if you called, and check-raise a late position bettor, their odds do no dictate a call.
Long story short- you're out of position on a hand that needs improvement. Save your money till you have the best of it.
Mike
P.S. The only unsuited hand in Group 2 is AKo.
Scott Wyler,
I'll keep this discussion limited to AK since that is the only group two offsuit hand but AQ offsuit plays almost the same way.
I would tend to raise against two or three opponents most of the time as long as they are not too tricky. Raising is also better when the limpers are in the later positions which tends to indicate weakness and a better chance to hit top pair.
I would almost always raise one limper. With four opponents, I would tend to want them to be very predictable. That's my two cents. Gotta Run.
Rick
Much has been said and written about betting to prevent flush draws and straight draws and overcards from getting a free card. However, there is also some support for the belief that when you have a flush draw or open ended straight draw you should bet to get more money in the pot in case you hit.
So, sitting with JhTh on the button, 12 sb ( 6 @ 2 bets each)in the pot and the flop is Qc7h3h. Everyone is giving me a free card for my flush draw, should I take it?
A lot depends on the aggressiveness of the 1 or 2 players to your immediate left because if there is going to be a checkraise, it will come from one of these guys. In fact, if either of the 2 fellas to my immediate right had the temerity to pull off a checkraise in this situation, I will probably show him the audacity of making it 3 bets to go as surely he too must be on a draw (an exception may be where the preflop raiser is to your immediate right and the flop raiser is to the immediate right of the preflop raiser).
Normally, I would bet against 5 opponents on the flop. If I hit my flush, I would obviously be happy that I bet. If I miss, maybe I can take advantage of a more valuable free card in the next round of betting. Also by betting, I might get a hand like AJ to fold which may give me 2 additional outs on the turn...yada yada yada.
Also, if you bet a four flush on the flop, and get 3+ callers you are making money on those calls.
Reasons to bet a 4 flush on the flop:
1) To get a free card on the turn. Of course if you are check raised, or a guy bets on the turn, this costs you money.
2) You have confidence that your flush is good, and you expect 3+ callers. This is a positive E.V. bet, even if raised (as long as they all keep calling.)
3) As a pure bluff.
4) Some reasonable combination of the previous three reasons adds up to a positive E.V., in other words, semi-bluff.
Of course, every one of those reasons has some component of judgement, and correctly assigning the correct probablilities to the events is what makes the experts so good.
I wonder, if you never bet a four flush on the flop, how much would this cost you in hourly earnings? I think for a 3-6 game it would be a lot, but not quite as much in a 15-30 game.
PRC
So, in essence when we make the flush and straight draws pay to draw we are playing into their hands because they want more money in the pot anyway.
Everyone wants more money in the pot as long as they don't have to put money in themselves. Of course, that is non-sensical, as is your post.
To get money into the pot, the draws have to put money in themselves. The question then becomes, when are the draws willing to put more money into the pot. Answer: when the number of callers is greater than the odds of them making their hand. Skp's original post, said he would bet against five opponents. The number of opponents is critical, as is the position. If I am out of position, and there are only a couple other players in the pot, I would almost never bet a draw. If I out of position, at a table of calling statings, and have 6 opponents, I will almost always bet the nut flush draw.
By the way, given the condition of more callers than the odds of making the hand, both the original bettor (assuming the bettor's hand is best) and the draw are making money on the bets.
PRC
This is one of the most obvious tells in low limit games: The flush drawer bets big on the flop, cold calls, even raises sometimes. Then when the turn doesn't hit him, he realizes, "Hey, I might not make my flush after all!! I need to slow down!". So, on the turn he checks all the way, turns into a chicken. Sammy's question is from the standpoint of the player on the draw, mine was from the point of view of the player trying to defend against this draw. Comments on both, please!
BTW, my absolute favorite situation is this: The player fills his flush on the turn, bets with both fists, then the river comes and four flushes the board. Suddenly the dork holding 25s is praying that no one else at the table has any of his suit in his hand. Of course someone does and mr. flush draw has gone from 'the man' to 'the goat'. Those situations remind me of Rounder's attitude on suited cards.
jordan v.
"This is one of the most obvious tells in low limit games: The flush drawer bets big on the flop, cold calls, even raises sometimes." Hmm.. When in late position, if I know my potential flush will probably win, and it's checked to me, I'll usually bet. Because in the LL games, you can expect enough callers to be getting great equity. OR I'll checkraise in early position - RARELY even 3 bet it to buy the button.
"Then when the turn doesn't hit him, he realizes, "Hey, I might not make my flush after all!! I need to slow down!". So, on the turn he checks all the way, turns into a chicken." That's why I am betting, checkraising or re-raising. I want the free card. I do not think it is a chicken play, rather, I think it is a good play, especially at the LL games. In virtually every LL session I have had, ANYONE who shows aggression will be checked to. I like having the option of seeing the turn for free, if I choose to. If I had a flush draw, and top pair, say, I will come out swinging regardless. If I only have the flush draw, I'll usually take a free card...
Of course there are always a bunch of variables in play, as in any situation, but these are my tendencies in my usually weak passive LL game.
Comments and Barbs? Tim
With all due respect, the potential for running flush cards is another reason to gamble with your flush draw on the flop so that somebody holding a lone card of your suit will lay it down.
Gambling with a flush draw is a judgement situation. Sometimes I will and sometimes I won't. Usually I need to be drawing to the nuts with an overcard to want to gamble in this spot.
I will agree that gambling with low suited cards can be expensive for all the reasons you stated. However, raising with a flush draw against weak opponents to buy a free card is not a bad thing.
The problem with this hand is that you probably can't win if the flush doesn't come. 6 people in is a lot of people to get rid of with a semi-bluff, so the added equity that would come from potential folds weakens the play. I've been advocating playing passive in these situations, but I think, from late position, it may be correct to make the bet IF:
1) You believe you won't get check-raised. 2) You believe you can get the river for free if you don't hit on the turn.
The fact that it is also a free card play makes it a very valuable move - getting 4-5 callers here and hitting on the river is just as good as taking a free card now and only getting 2-3 callers if you hit on the turn.
Betting here will also weed out the people who don't have legitimate draws and make apparent those who do. A whole lot of callers may be worrisome because there may be a higher flush out there - this is information you couldn't have gleaned if you took the free card.
Dj~Tj
David's assertion that a "true expert" should perfer games, which permit double bets on the river, because it allows an expert player to play more hands and allows larger final bets on the end, is very wrong. I suspect David has not played in too many of these games.
The problem is not that experts don't adjust better to this structure, the problem is the game adjusts too much in favor weak players.
The types of mistakes that typical weak players make, become either correct or less costly. The adjustments made by "expert players" can overcome the lost value of weak players mistakes in standard structured games.
Against specifically the type of player whose main problem is playing too loosely before the flop but who is tricky and pretty solid from that point, on I would agree with you. However against all around bad players you are wrong. And you are especially wrong against weak tight players whose only stength is their pre flop tightness. The easiest way to prove this is by noticing that this structure gets a bit closer to pot limit where bad players are beaten up on by good players. I will let Gary Carson elaborate.
Post deleted at author's request.
I disagree. Weak players playing good opponents are more apt to get hammered by this structure.
Although they'll see a little uptick on their longshot draws, those hands don't come in often enough to turn around a weak overall performance.
The more common mistakes are to paying off with a second or third best hand, drawing dead or nearly dead, bluffing too frequently or rarely. The double bet on the end will put people who make these mistakes even deeper in the hole.
Let's say, for example, that you have JJ against a weak player with A6 and a board of T653 going into the last card, no flush draw. One the rare occasions when he hits his draw and you have to pay him off, he'll win a bit more money than he would in 20-40. More commonly, however, he's going to pray that you're bluffing with overcards and will spend twice as much money to see your higher pair. You should gladly be willing to pay a somewhat higher "drawout tax."
If you are a strong player, the only inferior opponents that will catch up with you through this structure are those that play just as well in nearly every category but struggle to get the right price on their draws or steamers that play too many hands but sober up during later rounds. If they are inferior in other categories as well, however, the bigger bet should exacerbate their disadvantage.
A structure that really hammers the weak player, and which is sometimes used is $10-$20-$40-$40. It appears in the low limits as $1-$4-$8-$8. (There is usually a $2 blind so the $1 is a little misleading.) What's interesting is that many locals want to play this structure because it punishes the tourists so badly. What's also interesting is that virtually every small cardroom that I know of that went to this structure usually lost their game and a few of them went out of business.
All theory aside, this structure is similar to playing "overs". If you consider yourself the best player at the table, why would you want to be in a situation where your opponents have to pay 1 bet to outdraw you and you have to pay 2 bets when they get there.
In as much as I play very few drawing hands, I must side with the author here. I think this structure stinks.
Post deleted at author's request.
Thank you for sharing that with me.
I agree with you completely. That is precisely why I don't play in such assinine structures.
If you have played in this type of structure with a lot of loose players and beaten the game, you must be an expert.
Greetings,
You know ive recently stopped playing in a casino that only offered (3 6 12 holdem at low limit), and started playing in a 4-8 game because I think (and still do) that all too many draws become correct and I was forced to pay off all too often on the river. Mnay hands I looked at in retrospect which seemed like my opponents were playing incorectly were not due to this structure (I can give many examples).
I still think one is forced to pay off all too often on the river and many hands I felt i could not bet bc I would only be called if beat.
Maybe my river play needs improvement but by in large when i posted here and discussed w/other strong players my play was usually correct.
But,in comparison I think 1 4 8 8 is a great game, many of the draws which had correct drawing odds in 3 6 12 , no longer have such odds.
Alot of other players have said thtat there is just way too much luck in the (say) 10 20 40 limit and less in a 10 20 game and i think it is true.
All comments appreciated.
20/40 on a limited bankroll I play tighter than HPFAP suggest before the flop and after. Question is am I giving up too much by playing extra tight.
* Can you play to tight?
If on a limited bankroll isn't it correct to play tighter.
The recommendations in HfAP are not all that tight. If you read it literally, you'll often be playing J9s UTG and T9o (and much much worse) on the button after limpers. Even if you get rid of all the questionable hands, it will not kill you to tighten up further. Mason Malmuth plays extremely tight, for example, tighter than the book recommends, it seems.
It's certainly possible to play too tight. However, it is difficult. It's conceivable that what you fear may be too tight is actually properly tight.
By playing super tight preflop and coming in mostly with raises, it allows you to just pound-pound-pound postflop. You thus become unreadable, and your opponents become afraid to mess with you and will often fold incorrectly. It's probably best to muck some hands that have marginal profitability in order to promote your tight image and further support your pound-pound-pound postflop strategy. With a tight image, the pros will get out of your way (fine by you), but the fish will still give you much more action than is wise.
In a game with all conscious players, your ultra tight strategy could make you too predictable. You may either loosen up a bit or just use game selection to assure you get some action.
By the way, the biggest factor in your standard deviation is not how you play but how your opponents play. In a crazy game, you will have a large standard deviation even if you play rock tight. Compared to a normal game, in a tight game, your standard deviation will actually be higher, because you will be often attacking and defending your blinds, going multiple bets with very weak hands, rather than sitting back and waiting for the near nuts. Your required (Kelly) bankroll will be proportional to your standard deviation squared (variance) divided by your expected value.
-Abdul
"20/40 on a limited bankroll I play tighter than HPFAP suggest before the flop and after. Question is am I giving up too much by playing extra tight."
Postflop, absolutely. If you make certain folds too easily, not only are you giving up a lot of equity, but better players will notice that they can easily knock you off a hand and constantly take shots at you.
"Can you play to tight?"
It is definitely possible to play too tight. It is difficult for a reasonable player to play too tight *preflop*, especially in an aggressive game. A large fraction of your profit in holdem comes from premium hands, and always mucking sketchy hands like KTo doesn't cost you much in tougher games, and a player would lose far more from misplaying weaker drawing hands and marginal hands than from never playing them. That said, overly tight preflop play makes you predictable, and in most games that can still be beaten with such play you will give up a lot of potential profit. Unless the 20-40 game is exceptionally good and the 10-20 is tough and tight, it is highly unlikely that you wouldn't make more playing 10-20 optimally than playing 20-40 with a primary focus on reducing variance.
"If on a limited bankroll isn't it correct to play tighter."
Theoretically yes, but it's almost always better to play lower and play right. If variance is a problem, look for less aggressive games, but *don't* play overly tight in a passive game.
Just wanted to tell you Dreamer that the two answers you got were both superb.
all of these responses got me to really think.After the flop is not the time to play tight,but i don't want to run in the trap that so many of you talk about.Playing tight preflop and not being able to release my hands after.I have to find the right balance that I feel comfortable with,thanks for the great suggestions. By the way I'm a rec player i play on average 15hrs a months i just want to be able to hold my own when i do play,anything lower than 20/40 i might as well be playing golf.
While in theory, you can reduce your variance by omitting some hands and playing tighter than you otherwise have to, I think that it IS possible to play too tight.
What worries me is your insinuation that you play tighter than what HPFAP suggests after the flop. 'Tight' play does not win money. 'Correct' play does. Most winning stratagies involve tight play. But it is difficult to obtain a decent win rate merely by playing tight. In fact, in a tough 20-40 game it's a sure way to lose. (albiet at a lesser rate than loose play)
I am a firm believer in having an adequate bank roll for the limit you plan to play. Even the best players can have an off run of cards. My point is, simple tight players get chewed up and spit out in tough higher limit games. You must be willing to make the correct plays at the correct times knowing that if you're wrong it can be expensive. And playing correct sometimes means playing incorrect in order to throw opponents off which can further increase your variance. Could you do this on a day when you're running bad, stuck, and on a short bankroll? Also, there are situations where you will simply be giving up way too much by automatically folding non-cinch hands. It's just my opinion, but I think you are far better off working up the necessary 20-40 bankroll at a limit where your current bankroll is adequate.
"And playing correct sometimes means playing incorrect in order to throw opponents off which can further increase your variance. Could you do this on a day when you're running bad, stuck, and on a short bankroll? "
While I agree one may be giving up too much when playing too tight , I thnk the advice here is very dangerous. I don't think one should do these things when running bad or on a short bankroll.
WHen you are losing and on a short bankroll is no time to making plays to throw your opponents off. when youare losing opponents will take shots at you, and in general play better. One must tighten up in these situations. I think Mike Caro has written a bit about this , and im loosly paraphrasing
It’s possible that I gave a personal philosophy rather than solid advice. I apologize. It’s my opinion that few players can maintain an ‘A’ game with the pressure of having their bankroll in constant jeopardy.
SNIP- "While I agree one may be giving up too much when playing too tight , I thnk the advice here is very dangerous. I don't think one should do these things when running bad or on a short bankroll. "
I think it is much more dangerous if a winning player opts not to make a play, even though he believes it is correct, merely because he’s stuck, or running bad. Chances are, if you beat a game for a respectable amount, you are doing so because you are making the right plays, at the right times, for the right reasons. Rarely should the amount of your bankroll come into play when you are put to a decision at the table.
SNIP- "when youare losing opponents will take shots at you, and in general play better."
Your point that people are more apt to put a move on someone who is losing is valid. However, I’m not convinced that losing is the main cause for this phenomenon. Many players who DO lose, also simultaneously complain about the number of flops they miss, and how their hands never seem to hold up, etc. etc. The fact that many of them also play close to the felt, digging in their pockets every 1\2 hour for the minimum buy-in doesn’t help their plight. Assuming they ever did have the image of a strong, solid player, they are now creating the perception of being down on their luck, thereby making themselves an easy target. But now we are talking about image and perception, an entirely different subject. Good luck to you!
After 4 people limped in I started to muck my cards then quickly pulled them back as if suddenly realizing that I was the big blind. To make a long story short, I crushed a particular opponent with my pocket Aces. Is this legit? Or did I pull an unethical play. I never bet,raise or fold out of turn and would never do anything else which I felt was unethical. But I thought this was different. I did not go out of turn or even make a false statement. Any comments?
ive done it and will continue to do so if people fall for such a dumb trick. in home games and some others it would definitely raise an eyebrow. one reason to do such things even if some think it is indeed unethical is that you will do it by mistake at times and you must protect yourself by leaving some doubt.
What you did was not "unethical", but it is a play that wouldn't work more than once (if that often) in any level above $2/$4. I assume you were trying to set some other players on tilt with this maneuver---since as a money maker it will cost you more in the long run than it makes you in the short run. When you make a childish and obnoxious move like that, most people will stop playing with you, not wanting to be shown up by falling for a move like that. Unless you intend to bluff all night, you will have small pots and short odds. Good Luck! Black Jack
How about a twist like doing just as you said, and also saying, "oops, don't want to muck these rockets."?
I am two of the button with the black jacks. After everyone limps in I raise. The two players to my left are weak tight and I figure I can buy the button. They do fold, but the button cold calls and all the limpers call. Flop is 2H-7C-8S.
Everyone checks to me, I bet and everyone just calls. The turn is a King of spades. Everyone checks to me again. What to do? I bet figuring I'm still the best and make the spade flush draw pay if he's there. Should I fear the K and take the free card (assuming the buton checks behind me)?
It's not clear to me how many players you are against. 5? I would suggest betting and folding if raised. A free card doesn't do you much good - just two outs, and those may not be good due to T9 making a straight. Against 25 opponents I would check and fold... probably even 8 would make me check the turn and try not to put another bet into the pot.
-Abdul
Lucky2BeOn,
This is the non-Abdulian response. Not that I don't like Abdul's posts - I do. But I'm putting my average guy mind on paper first. I'll read his post later. BTW, it is great to see Abdul posting again.
Against most players (this sounds like a low limit loose-passive game) I would bet. You want to make anyone with a queen, ace or pair on board pay in addition to any draws. Best case is you are still good. Second best is that a weak king in front of you may only call and you can check down the river unless you spike a jack (beware that this may make someone a straight). Third best is you get check raised but you are probably drawing live to the jack and you should have enough (I'm not quite sure of the size of the pot from your post).
Regards,
Rick.
In most spots, you are probably looking at a bet and fold if raised situation ...the tricky player exception applies here.
skp,
I agree. I wish I knew how many players saw the pot. Some places play eleven handed then it would be close to spike a jack even if raised.
Regards,
Rick
Not sure of how many callers on the flop, but if several in front of you, I do not see the necessity to buy the button in the first place. Mulitiway, you will probably have to have a set to win anyway, and if there in behind you great. Had you not raised pre-flop, to build a big pot, you may have lost some players with a bet on the flop.
It amazes me how much people overvalue the mid-pairs. In multi-way pots they are very weak; you usually have to trip up to win. They are only good against one or two players. (The above applies to your typical loose game.) You did the right thing trying to thin out the field, but when you failed to do that before the flop you should then have backed off the gas pedal. At the very least when the overcard comes on the turn you should be happy to check-and-showdown, i.e., you hope nobody bets and you shouldn't, either.
6-12 Hold'em
I bet on the river, my only opponent remaining is obviously on the fence over making the call or dropping his hand. I say, "Save your money and I'll show you my hand." He tosses his hand, dealer pushes me the pot, and I turn over my busted flush draw. He was on the same flush draw as me but made a pair of sevens on the river(or so he said).
Is this an angle play? And do you consider what I did as unethical?
Plays like this and the one below (pretending to muck aces before the flop) are over the line for me. I won't argue whether they are 'ethical' or not. I simply know that my personal standards preclude trying anything like this.
Ray Zee's point in the second example below is valid, but I still couldn't bring myself to do things like that.
I'm with you Dan. I think it's playing dirty. I also don't understand why you want enemies at a poker table. The last thing you want is someone emotionally committed to seeing you lose.
>>The last thing you want is someone emotionally committed to seeing you lose.>>
I'd contend that that's a very good thing! It's a perfect recipe for an opponent going on tilt, which equals $$$ for you. However, I wouldn't angle-play to achieve this, which is IMO what the original poster did.
Now that would be over the line for me too. If only because you are verbaly telling a player what to do. I did not do that. They already made their action, independent of what I did.
There is a player in my game who will deliberately bet out of turn and then check when it is really his action. I would not resort to this because a). You are not supposed to act out of turn, and b). Only an idiot would be fooled by this. But I do think there are some legitimate deceptions that are within the overall ethics of poker.
I disagree with other posters. This is within the bounds of proper ethics, since you did what you said you were going to do, i.e. show him your hand. He draws the inference that you are strong (to be making this offer) at his own risk. If he had any sophistication at all he would realize that YOU realize that his hand is weak and you want to nullify his only remaining reason for calling, i.e., to satisfy his curiosity (you now are saying that he will see your hand without HAVING to call). Your only reason to DISCOURAGE a call (which is what you are, in effect, doing) would be if you are weak yourself. The ploy is actually kind of transparent (which is not to say it couldn't be reversed). I suffer the consequences of my fellow man's stupidity every waking minute of my life. At the poker table, at least, I get to take advantage of that stupidity. Therefore I feel no qualms in encouraging a poker opponent to do something stupid, especially when such encouragement would only work on a truly stupid player.
.
I tend to agree with Kevin too... Unless you are one of these old rocks that always checks to your friends at the end, there would be no reason for you to discourage a call if you had any kind of hand, so if he automatically mucked because you said (or implied) you were strong, he has made a mistake.
I think all the posters here agree that a mistake that costs you the pot is a poker disaster right??? Well by not making the "play" to win the pot you are making that tragic error that we strive to avoid as often as possible. Now the way to defend your semi-unethical play is to flip your hand over and announce something like "2pair"....and when everybody sees that your hand is a pile of garbage just say something like "Jesus, I misread my hand, sorry man.......I wouldn't do that to you on purpose". And to cover your ass even better act like you feel real bad and offer to chop the pot with the guy........You win again-most card clubs wont allow players to chop a pot. Not only will you save your self from becoming a target you might now be looked upon as a "nice guy" who is playing for fun! This kind of play has worked for me twice (I have usedd it only three times) and believe me you dont want to do this more then a few times a year because if other players catch on........well I am sure you can fill in the blanks there.
in the old west ...
brad
i guess where you play determines alot of what is considered ethical. most, not all places ive played coffee housing is okay. i as well as many other players will try to talk a person out of his hand. it is quite legal and not very many people think badly of it. you see when you talk at all you give out some kind of information that can be used against you. and if someone acts one way because of it, it is only their fault. this is different than betting out of turn and then checking. although if the rules allow it why should you be considered an angle shooter for following the rules. the right thing is to give the option to the players of making the out of turn better leave his money in. or they can just ignore it and realize that the bet means nothing at all.
For about 2 months we got a new rule in one of our casinos: When you bet out of turn, you must not bet anymore if it´s checked to you. This leads to some problems too, if someone bets out of turn without purpose, just because he really thought it was his turn, but i think it´s still a good way to keep someone from betitng out of turn with purpose.
M.A.
the main reason to bet out of turn is to stop the betting to you so you can check. so the rule over in austria helps those that do that. you should make the person that bets out of turn leave his money in when it gets to him. that helps to neutralize his taking a shot if thats what he did and if he really wanted to bet he gets his wish.
And don't allow him to raise if someone bets first. And if there's a bet and a raise in front of him, he can call the raise or lose the bet he has already put out. Acting out of turn should put the early actor at a disadvantage. Basically, you should just force him to give up his position.
Both Sklansky and Caro suggest that you should seriously consider making a raise in late position if you think(by use of tells)that there is a good chance of buying the button, since the advantages of acting last are substantial.(If you'd like exact quotes, just let me know.)
But in lower limits(6-12 and below)is acting last such big advantage? I mean if you're in a game where every pot has 5 to 7 players(and sometimes more), what makes acting last so powerful?
Thanks for any help
Position is huge!!! I'll let Dan Hanson elaborate. :-)
in higher limit(but not usually lower) , acting last lets you steal pots,
while in lower limits(and higher) it lets you get more money into the pot when you have the best hand.
if you ever had a situation where early position bets the turn , 4 or 5 callers, and then you raise with the nuts, (say 4 of a kind) and everyone calls because in low limit everyone will call a raise if theyre already half in, you know what i mean.
brad
Well, I am just beginning my forays into low limit Hold'em, but I can tell you that my short 8 hours of casino poker experience has taught me the value of position.
Just tonight: When holding pocket 8's the flop came Q63 and it was checked to me - telling me that nobody had a Q. I bet and some people folded. Two more blanks hit turn and river and I bet each time, eventually getting everyone to fold and taking down the pot.
Being last gives you the luxury of knowing exactly where everyone else stands before having to make a move. You don't need to fear someone behind you who might actually have a Q; you can represent the hand that everyone fears.
Acting last didn't provide you with the luxury of being able to bet those pocket 8's. Even if you were first to act against three opponents, you should still have bet those pocket eights with the flop you described(Q-6-3), without hesitation. You just can't afford to give free cards to somebody holding a 9, 10, Jack, King, or Ace! If somebody pops you one, then you deal with that when it happens.
Martin D
??
I guess there's nothing left to say.
Yup. . .Holdem's a done subject. Next!
.
Jordan,
Could you look in the history books and tell us who won the Super Bowl in the year 2000 (and by how much)? Actually, could you send us all the NFL results for 2000? I'll be happy to split my profits with your great-grandparents.
I'll hop back in my time machine and pick up all the archives. . .baseball, horseracing, boxing, you name it. I wasn't there long, I only got to catch a speach by former President Ventura, then I had to go.
jordan
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Z2K birthday. He goes by the moon so it revolved around the earth 2000 times for Z causing a Zeeman2K phenom. Z was swimming with COKE at the time it wasn't pretty. You can no longer call him NUMBNUTS fossil.
SOTZ
I have been unable to post a new message for some reason for sometime, (although I have been able to post a response to a message. So, I am posting a new message. Hello........ But no one is listening, I can see.
No really, I am
Thank you.
To bad you can't respond to any thread that is entered into the 'Archive Zone'.
...but I've moved the most recent 500 or so messages back so you can continue the threads.
Chuck
.
Most of the literature on the subject classify A9o as a group 8 hand which means there must be some time to actually play it.
How about
1) To steal the blinds from the button? 2) To steal the blinds from the cutoff? 3) To protect against a steal from the sb? 4) To protect against a steal from the BB? 5) For one more bet in the BB with
a. More than 4 limpers?
b. Less than 4 limpers?
c. Heads up in the BB against an early raiser?
d. For a 1/2 bet in the sb against 2 early callers? 6) In late position with more than 5 limpers?
If all of these actions depend on the players involved assume all of them to be twoplustwoskies (aplologies to Izmet or Abdul, whoever coined it. BTW I think they're one and the same.)
(All answers subject to qualification "it depends"):
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) (a) Yes
(b) Rarely
(c) Never
(d) No
6) Yes
If it's in Group Anything, it's an above average hand (vs. a random hand), so, it would be good to open in late position with a raise, for example. It's a good heads-up hand against a blind.
Here is my take ( assuming the twoplustwoski's and mostly true in all cases )
1) 2) 3) 4) Yes
a) no
b) no
c) no
d) yes
6) no
D.
My answers would be identical to David's with the exception of #2 (to steal the blinds from the cuttoff seat) where I would qualify it with "sometimes".
I was wondering the same thing (I think the are the same)
I was beginning to wonder the same thing, since Izmet seems to espouse all my views. However, I've met Izmet and he doesn't look anything like me. He is simply someone who has taken my writings to heart, rather than S&M's.
I think it would help if Izmet would occasionally give me a citation, like "According to Abdul...", or "As Abdul says..." For a hypothetical example, it would be rude to say something like "When trying to adjust your play to a short-handed heads up on the flop situation, pretty much ignore the top card of the flop", without a tip of the hat to me for writing that first in Poker World magazine, especially when everyone knows you read that article.
It's pretty interesting that a nonnative English speaker from Slovenia (somewhere near Outer Mongolia :) who learned English from American movies passed for an American (me), though.
-Abdul
Abdul is of course referring to the chapter on shorthanded play from the newest S&M HfAP book, where the authors seem to have ripped off the quoted idea without giving Abdul credit for publishing it first.
I'm not aware of ever doing something like that, if so, please let me know.
And no, we are not the same. According to Abdul (here you go, is that better?), he doesn't look anything like me. Yes, I'm guilty of thinking (and writing) about the game along the same lines as him. I find it difficult to disagree with a man who makes so much hold'em sense and who taught me so much about the game.
I'm an S&M student, I'm a Mike Caro admirerer, I am an Abdulian follower, but I have tried to have a Fekali voice. If I failed, I apologize. It saddens me to see insinuations of my stealing anybody's ideas. I guess this is the price of spilling the guts on the Net.
Anyway, I'm happy to see the Turbo Tamer posting on hold'em again. With him around debunking the myths, there will be not much need for Fekali posts.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
"Abdul is of course referring to the chapter on shorthanded play from the newest S&M HfAP book, where the authors seem to have ripped off the quoted idea without giving Abdul credit for publishing it first."
Izmet:
You went to far on that one.
1. The chapter on short handed play that appears in our book was based on my private notes which I developed with David Sklansky several years before I had ever met or heard of Abdul Jalib/Michael Hall.
2. When Michael Hall submitted his short handed play article to POKER WORLD I sat down with him and went over it. My memory is not perfect but I believe that I suggested this concept to him. To set the record straight, I first heard it from David several years earlier.
Abdul wrote:
"I think it would help if Izmet would occasionally give me a citation, like "According to Abdul...", or "As Abdul says..." For a hypothetical example, it would be rude to say something like "When trying to adjust your play to a short-handed heads up on the flop situation, pretty much ignore the top card of the flop", without a tip of the hat to me for writing that first in Poker World magazine, especially when everyone knows you read that article. "
I just took a look at the article "Short-Handed Texas Hold'em" that you wrote and which appears in the February 1996 issue of POKER WORLD. No where in that article did I find any mention of the above concept.
The copy I submitted to Poker World said, "Generally bet your middle pairs heads up as if they were top pairs at a full table (especially with an overcard kicker, double so an ace kicker), generally check-raise the better hands such as a good top pair or bottom two pair, and check-fold the hopeless hands."
Additionally, I posted to rec.gambling.poker before the publication of your latest edition (which I have not read to this day), "A good rule of thumb heads-up is to ignore the top card on the board..."
Do you admit that the old notes themselves were information from Roy Cooke and Ed Hill that you promised not to publish?
-Abdul
No. The old notes that I am referring to were all done with David Sklansky. This was all done before I was even aware of RGP.
Very well, I will take it on your word that this concept was in your old notes. I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion since you don't seem to give any acknowledgments to anyone at all in HfAP.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I don't care who are but I would like to know why I should ignore the top card on the board when heads-up. Does this mean a heads-up match or heads-up whenever everybody else at the table has folded leaving it heads up. I play in a game where there are several players who if they bet I know they have top pair. (Please respond)
I wanted to respond here, but resisted the urge, not wanting to give (probably) the same answer Abdul would. You'll have to wait for him.
I jumped in just to change the thread title. I'm sick to the bones logging on 2+2 and getting a feeling that nobody wants to be Izmet.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
'
Actaully, I'm Abdul. Well, no, but neither is Izmet, though Sammy wants to be Izmet, so it all balances out somehow, I think. Anyway, you ask:
Does this mean a heads-up match or heads-up whenever everybody else at the table has folded leaving it heads up.
The former.
And while you obviously don't literally, truly ignore the top card, it make sense as a general rule of thumb heads up often to play your hand more or less as though it didn't exist (i.e., 'make it a deuce'). That is, when the flop is something like K-7-4, and you hold, say, QT, you don't automatically fold because you "don't even have overcards". You do have overcards to the 7, which is not so bad heads up. The point is that any sort of aggressive opp will be betting into you very frequently in heads up play, yet his chance of having top pair or better on the flop is considerably smaller than in a ring game where the hand just happens to come down to head-up
The fact remains that Abdul published the thing on the Net before it was published in the new edition of your book. I don't know about the Poker World article.
Whoever thought of the concept first, I don't know. I apologize if I offended anyone.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Post deleted at author's request.
If Abdul wrote about the concept on RGP I was not aware of it.
There's no "if". The article can be found here.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I mentioned the concept in several rec.gambling.poker articles, e.g., the 1996 article here where I said "When heads up, you can almost pretend like the top card on the flop is not there." Also the quote I gave before was a direct quote from an April 1999 article. And I'm sure I mentioned it on this website before. In any case, this is neither here nor there, since as Mason explained it to me, David Sklansky apparently came up with the concept long before I did, perhaps while I was still in $1-$2 diapers. I don't think Mason is guilty of the slightest legerdemain here and I apologize.
-Abdul
I see exactly what the problem is. The concept that Abdul is talking about is NOT what appears in our book. Here is the question that is asked in the post that Abdul answers:
"I want answers to questions like: In a 3 handed game with over-aggressive opponents, should I be calling down often with middling pair"
Here is Abdul's answer:
"No, you should be raising with that strong a hand, 1/2 ;) When heads up, you can almost pretend like the top card on the flop is not there. Middle pair with an ace kicker thus rocks (especially since the ace is over the over card), and middle pair with shitty kicker is often worth either a call or an informational raise (and maybe fold or free card afterwards, depending on the opponent's reaction). On the river, in a pot that has been heads up the whole way, it's not far from correct to say that you should often call with as little as pocket deuces."
Notice that Abdul wrote "When heads up, you can almost pretend like the top card on the flop isn't there." If that's all you read it sure sounds like the same thing, BUT IT'S NOT. The reason why it is not is that Abdul is addressing the situation when you have made a pair. Here is what we say on page 193 in the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP:
"How often do you flop a hand that under normal circumstances is reasonable? You will flop a pair approximately one third of the time, a straight draw about 8 percent of the time, and you should have two overcards in the neighborhood of 10 percent of the time. That brings us to 50 percent, which is not enough against a very aggressive player who is automatically going to try to steal. Our advice is to pretend that the top card isn't there! Take it off the board, or turn it into a deuce in your mind, and see if you would still play. In other words if you have the QsTh and the flop is
Ac 9d 4s
just change it to
9d 4s 2c
If you do this you should be at approximately the right strategy for playing against super aggressive players who constantly take the pot odds on a steal or a semi-steal. (You would play in this spot since you have two "overcards" and a backdoor straight draw.)"
Notice that we are talking about calling when you DO NOT have a pair while Abdul is talking about calling when you DO have a pair. These are two very different animals.
If my memory serves me correctly, earlier in this tread Abdul stated that he has not read the book. Perhaps this is why the misunderstanding took place.
By the way, we actually wrote this idea in a slightly weaker form in the original edition of HPFAP that was released in 1988. On page 112 of my spiral bound version we state:
"For instance, when someone opens, they are much more likely to be on a steal. This means that they are less likely to have anything good after the flop, and you must call enough on the flop to stop an opponent from stealing too much. For example, if you fold everytime you don't have a pair, a draw, or overcards, then you are not calling (or raising) enough in a head up pot."
Notice that we said (way back in 1988) that if the weakest hand you call with is overcards that you are not calling enough. This means that you must sometimes call with undercards to the top card on the flop, and you do this when you don't have a pair or a draw.
Post deleted at author's request.
I thought of this idea six or seven years ago when Mason and Ed Hill asked for a few hours on shorthanded play. I gave them this rule of thumb guideline for head up games that seemed about right for many situations. I think Ed Hill will verify this.
Mason,
Was it really necessary to publicize Abdul's real name? He didn't divulge yours? And I don't believe your parents were cruel enough to name you Mason!! :-)
Yes they were.
bleep
Post deleted at author's request.
.
Post deleted at author's request.
Ace-nine will trap kings on down when an ace lands on the flop. It also has some use when players are playing any ace. I might play it from any postion about once every third time it is dealt, but dump it if the action gets ugly behind me.
When considering playing A9o, the most important question to ask yourself is, "Is this the best Ace out there?" If you think someone might be playing an Ace with a better kicker, you're in trouble and should avoid the hand like the plague.
I'll play it very occasionally on the button if I have a good handle on what the other players in the hand might hold (and I know it doesn't include a bigger ace). But usually this hand goes straight into the muck if there are callers in front of me. My decision to call with it really has more to do with the nature of the players. If I think I can push them around and win the pot outright with a bet if the flop misses everyone, I'll play it. Then if I fire a bet on the turn and get called, I can show it down on the river without betting and perhaps still win the pot, whereas with a weaker hand like 78o I'm committed to having to put another bet in.
It's a fine hand for stealing the blinds, because it has a good chance of being the best hand. If the blinds call you, you have position and can check an unimproved Ace on the river and hope it's the best.
A9o is about as loose as I play. Unless I am pretending to be on tilt. It is the last ace with any value. I do not play it early very often and then always with a raise. Two kings flop. I would check and watch. No one seems to have a king, I would raise. I did raise preflop and now I seem real happy to be looking at two kings. Also, what if a nine hits on the flop, now you have a great kicker. How many smiles have faded when an ace falls on the river. All that money invested in the pot down the drain. To hold on to A9o without a strong flop for those cards is sad but of course that is true for almost any starting cards.
Yesterday I was playing Hold-em at my usual casino. I kept getting pocket pairs, and flopping a set over and over again. I have to say I flopped three of a kind with pocket pair at least ten times within a few hours. I only won the pot once. I went on tilt soon after to say the least, I couldn't believe how lucky I was and how unlucky I was thanks to people chasing the river. I think that the reason I lost so many times was because of the limit I was playing.People kept beating me me straights and flushes on the river. Am I overestimating the power of flopping a set? Or am I playing the wrong limit for my skill level. I always play 1-2 and almost always win. I go to the casino buy in with $10 and win $150 dollars in about four hours.
Here's the secret.
Patience.
You will win with sets many, many more times than you will lose with them.
If you have lost 7 out of ten times in the last session then imagine that turning around for you and make sure you bet them strong the next time. You need patience to insure that you are consistent and that you win more when you win than you lose when you lose.
Sammy I agree with you, I think you couldn't be more correct. In the future when I flop a set, I will have to pay better attention to the board. If I see a straight or flush draw out there, I will just have to check and see what everyone else does.I think I just played wrong.
My advice is to keep betting til they reraise you. Even if they pull a straight or a flush you could still fill up by the river and then it's Miller Time!!
Below the 10-20 level you're not going to get straight and flush draws to fold. Period. If they outdraw you, even on short odds, tough you know what.
It's a waste of time to discuss how to play a set. You bet and raise, unless there's 3 to a flush or 3 to a straight, then you at least call and you might still raise depending on your players. The last year I've had a set beaten by a bigger set exactly twice. Set of 4's beaten by a set of 7's and a set of 10's beaten by a set of A's. I don't know how many times I've had a set beaten by a straight or a flush. But if you've got two or more players other than yourself in the hand and the flush and straight cards come, more often than not, your set is about as good as top pair, good kicker and you should play it as such.
Whats the best way to play in a tight low limit game where every body plays by the book.
Playing loose isn't working for me. If I'm in a late position I can usually bluff or semi bluff and get the ante's but if someone calls or raises back I am forced to fold because they only ever do so on good cards.
On the later streets I seem to gain nothing by loose play at all because anyone who is still in at this stage ethier has a strong hand or a good chance of drawing for one and will always call me.
Does any have any advice for me?
Fold all but TT-AA, AKs/AK if they raise in early or middle position.
Rob them blind by stealing their blinds and semibluffing, primarily on the turn in pots where they did not raise or cold call two preflop.
Be passive-aggressive when you have a hand that is not vulnerable but which you are not sure is best. For example, if you have AQ and raise an early limper, the flop comes with an ace, and the early limper bets, you can just call all the way. (These type of players usually limp with AQ and sometimes with AK but not with weak aces.)
Adjust as necessary.
In my opinion, this is a very profitable type of game.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I know this is just wishful thinking on my part, but if you were ever asked to give an hour(or so)long seminar at your local Casino, would you accept?
-dsm
x
I'd travel to Vegas for that seminar!
pdk
x
.
x
I play only low limit mark, and on those rare occasions that I run into a tight game, it ussually turns out to be profitable. If I manage to find a short-handed tight low limit game, then I am usually pretty confident that I will walk away with a win. The key is of course not to go up against the rocks when they show aggression, unless you have a very strong hand. You can obviously steal more pots, which is where you will make the money in this game.
I would prefer the game be a little more loose/passive and short handed. However, a tight game, as well as a loose/aggressive game, can be very profitable, allthough the latter can be frustrating and you will experience some vicious swings.
Mike
Speaking only from low limit, I will also add, that if the hand does get mulitiway with several tight players in, yet you had the odds to draw, if you do make your hand, these also are just the type of players who, will not lay down the big pocket pairs, they will pay you off. They've been waiting for their hand all day.
Keep in mind that these players are basically playing their hands faceup. If the flop comes K 9 5 and Mr. Rock bets out, you can take it to the bank that he has, not only a King, but a good kicker (he doesn't play K10 and the like), at a minimum. When a loose airhead bets he could have anything down to and including third pair or an inside straight draw. So you don't need to give action to the rocks, whereas you might have to call the loosie on down with top pair--lousy kicker. In the long run you beat both players, but the variance is MUCH less against the rock. Some observations: 1. You MUST respect the raiser in this game. Preflop raisers will have big pocket pairs or AK, AQ suited, minimum. The value of hands like KQ or JJ degrades sharply in these situations. You would actually prefer to be playing something like 44 or 87s against this type of raiser, planning to get french-kissed by the flop or to get the hell out. 2. There are enhanced opportunities to semi-bluff, simply because the tight player will fold his own busted hand more often, or lay down a weak hand that still beats yours. 3. A good strategy is to build respect from the table, and then exploit it, for example (after having played solidly for a while), raise on any two cards, and then if the flop comes with an Ace, or King with no Ace, bet like you had the World's Fair, If you get away with it, lather, rinse, repeat. If you get caught, then your image will be enhanced; you will get calls far out of proportion in the near future because the seed of doubt will have been planted in the rocks' minds. 4. In conjunction with (1.) above, avoid the second-best trap, both before the flop and after. Be evry tight in calling rock raisers. On the flop, give the rock bettors credit for top pair with top kicker and play accordingly. Yes, you will occasionally lay down some winners, but you will also lay down a lot of losers. 5. When you DO outflop what looks like a high pocket pair, make 'em pay. The rocks don't play that many hands, so it's kind of hard for them to let go of one (and BTW "marrying" a hand is a very common rock mistake). Now go get your pick and shovel and start breaking rocks!
Some games are just not profitable to play in and this sounds like one of them. I'd just find another game.
In a tight low-limit game, the rake eats everyone alive. To beat a low-limit game, you need lotsa fish throwing their money around. Pack up and find some better action.
Greetings,
I remember reading some advice last summer (i think it was Cooke's) saying not to look at your hand preflop until it is your turn to act. In many ways I think this is good advice as a)you dont' give away any tells regarding whether you are going to play the hand b) you don 't develop any biases with the hand ( very often one might see a hand and say "im going to play this" it gets raises when the action comes to them and they still play despite the fact this hand isn't strong enough to call a raise cold).
However it seems by doing this I slow the game a touch. And the players who do pay attention look at you when you are looking at your hand? Should one look earlier than when it is time to act? But not as soon as one gets the cards.
What do most players do? (or feel is best to do?)
All comments welcome!
( I suspect some may say this isn't that important, but most do things like this by habit on every hand.)
x
I have gotten into the habit of just glancing around the table when the cards are dealt out, just to see if anybody does anything when they look at thier hole cards. They think nobody is paying attention to them, so they aren't concerned about giving off a tell. So, I look around for a second, then look at my hole cards. I can't say that doing this has made me a dime, but it's gotten to be a habit, and I doubt it is costing me anything.
One play that I do is to look at my first card, and depending on the Players and the action up to me I decide what the second card would have to be before I even look at it!
Say I get dealt the Jc in First Postion. In a Tight but not too tough game I would need the second card to be a: Tc, Qc, Kc, any Ace, any Jack. Now would I play any combo diferently than an other? I may Raise with the JJ if the game is Tight enough. Hopefully, I'm not in that type of Game!
Hey, when you sit around the table getting crappy cards for hours this excercise does make things a little more fun.
CV
When I am the big blind, or on the button, I don't look at my hand until the action reaches me. In these positions, I already have a good idea of what I'm going to do based on what those who acted ahead of me have done (and what my possible holdings are). It doesn't take me more than 3 seconds to act, and I don't believe that slows the game. I am annoyed by people who wait until the action is on them, and then proceed to "squeeze" their cards, or begin a conversation with the waitress or with another player, before they act. Good Luck! Black Jack
It depends on the size of the game and where you are at.
I think it is rediculous in a 4-8 game to see some clown always waiting to the action gets to him to look at his hand. It does slow the game down, especially if more than one person at the table is doing it at a time. If you're that worried about unconscious tells then you shouldn't be playing poker.
At the higher limits I could see some justification for doing this but to me it's a little thin. Always look to speed up the game, not slow it down.
One caveat, in a tournament at the final table or close to it I see nothing wrong with this. If you are playing for serious money players will give you the benefit of the doubt and this is generally accepted behavior. But in 4-8, get a life.
Just my 2c. Tom B. / pokerchip5
I've always thought this was a pretty marginal issue, not worth wasting a lot of time on except in perhaps the toughest games around.
One argument for looking at your hand right away is that it tells you WHAT to look for in other callers. For instance, if you have AJ, the information you really want is if anyone is paying AQ, AK, KK, etc.
Then there is the fatigue issue. It gets mentally tiring to have to focus that hard on what everyone is doing, only to look down and see 72o and throw it away. You'll get tired, and start missing details.
There are equally good arguments for waiting until the action gets to you.
I'd suggest doing whatever is comfortable, but if you notice yourself making errors, switch your tactics. Use whatever works.
When playing hold 'em (or stud) I almost always wait until it is my turn before the action gets to me. This way I can watch the other players. This only works because after many years of playing I can look at my hand and instantly know what to do and not make a mistake. (Also when playing stud I take into account the other up cards before I look at my hand.)
However, for most of you I would recommend that you do the opposite. This will give you more time to make the correct decision in those situations that might give you trouble.
Thanks all for the responses.
For Abdul Jalib thanks i think i will try this.
For CV , I do this exercise when playing O/8 and often find myself asking myself ,"is there any 4th card that can make this hand playable?" I think it would slow the game down if i only looked when it was my turn to act in o8. But i think in holdem it is not a good thing to do, as ive read other authors who look for people who do as you suggest.
For TomB, I dont' think it is as bad you say to do this in a 4/8 game or such. I think one should try aand practice good habits whatever limit. Maybe doing this practice slows things a touch but not enough that i think ,"hmm i think i will do this when i start playing 40/80 but not until then." I think I will start looking when the player before me looks and it shouldnt' slow anything down...
For Mason Malmuth, I think most holdem preflop decision aren't that difficult, the time i gain i think would not cause me to play differently. Stud is another question though, I used to look at all the up ccards before deciding but other players i spoke to say they want to know their down cards asap so they can concentrate when all the up cads come on 3rd street.
For, Dan Hanson Its not that tiring, and i think it makes it easier to keep track of how many bets are in the pot.
Thanks all.
As in most poker questions there is more than one correct answer.
If the action is usually behind me I'll look quickly to observe the players behind me if action jacksons are in front of me I'll wait for my turn. Everything being equal I'll wait for my turn to act. The real tells come on the flop - I never look at the flop until I've checked out the players in the hand 1st.
I was playing $10-$20 and was on the button with 88.
5 saw the flop with the cutoff raising. Flop Ks 9d 7h. UTG bets after a check from BB. 1 folds, cutoff calls.
$120. in the pot.
I'm figuring to spike an 8 is a 45:2, but a 6 or a ten give me a straight draw which is another 8 cards making it 35:10 to catch a card that helps. A ten gives a straight to QJ if it's out there and of course the helpful card for me might give someone a flush draw. Now, I have a headache.
Is this correct thinking or am I getting myself into trouble this way?
I would fold in this position because you are virtually always beaten right now, and because if you catch an 8 it might not even be good. The raiser could have pocket kings (a slim possiblity I know) or the BB could have J10 and could catch the straight if you catch your 8. BB could also check raise the flop, although you won't see this often.
The only time that I could see myself making this call is if the UTG player is the type who would bet a straight draw (810) into a preflop raiser, but then might check the turn if their were a few callers. Basically if I thought the UTG was betting a draw and the pre-flop raiser would check the turn if he doesn't hit his hand I might call the flop hoping for a free card on the turn. I would almost always lay the hand down on the flop though.
Shawn Keller
this is a situation where I see many people call pre-flop, because they are getting odds, to catch trips, yet the raise pre-flop lowers those odds imo. If the raiser is a loose type of raiser, then I'd call pre-flop, otherwise I wouldn't. I would be gone on the flop. even with the back door possibilities you aren't getting a good enough price. seeya
Even your initial call was quite dubious. You needed about 8:1 pot odds to cold call the raise; at the point you called you couldn't even be sure that you would be getting 5:1. IMHO the added implied odds garnered from flopping an 8 and getting additional bets are just about canceled by the negative (reverse) implied odds of making the hand but getting it cracked anyway. The basic axiom in this situation is to make trips on the flop or get the hell out. In this example, your trips odds were down to over 22:1 against and the runner-runner straight was a parlay fighting roughly 15:1 odds. Realistically, just about ANY hand can come up with these kind of thin justifications for playing (third pair, runner-runner flush draw, etc.) but, as you imply, that kind of thinking just gets you into trouble. You've missed your hand. Fold.
Trouble ! Don't draw for draws. Unless you think you have the best hand, fold. If you think you have the best hand, raise, then you may find out where your really are, narrow the field, get two cards for a discount or win the pot right now. Cutoff was trying to get rid of you now he is calling ? If you get reraised or called by certain players you don't have to wonder any more. I might be the only one that thinks like this. If you fell the better has a good king that he won't give up, fold. Because you called the preflop raise and now are raising some will fear your'e alredy set. You're there for a better reason than drawing to a draw, if not get out. Nothing wrong with being wreckless if you think you can get away with it, but wreckless ain't calling. PS. I don't play 10-20 yet and your bankroll may vary.....
x
x
Actually I do. Do you feel I should mind my own business ? Is this an open forum ? I wouldn't want to interfere. I am only cynical because if you teach a player how to play and he only plays that way then ,YOU, should always know how to beat him. I find some players to be particularly technically irritating winners then try to I mimick them, sometimes.
My general rule is no set no bet. So if there is action here with two over cards to your pair I muck.
Forget the math and the mental gymanstics you you're specualting and that is expensive in poker.
A possible play would have been to raise the cutoff preflop, if you felt that it might get you heads up(unlikely). But as the hand played out the way you stated, you would need more that the 8's to continue after the flop. It is over 20 to 1 to hit your backdoor straight, and as you said, it may not be good anyway.
PS. I have looked at the turn card here on an occasion for one bet, but the pot was offering 30 to 1 odds.
2 hands that I checked on the flop and didn't work out.
1. Blinds are 25-50. Early limper, I raise to 200 one off the button with ATo. Big blind calls and so does limper. Flop comes AT9 rainbow. Check, check, and I check. Turn is 8. Big blind bets 200 and I go all in for a few more hundred. Of course, he flips over QJ and I lose. It was still in the rebuy period so I was able to rebuy. I would like confirmation that my check on the flop was stupid or if not, why.
2. Blinds are 300-500. All fold to me in the small blind and I raise to 1000 with AQo. Big blind hesitates and fiddles for about 20 sec. before calling. Flop comes Q93 rainbow. I checked trying for a check raise on a possible bluff. Turn is 8. I bet 2000 (the size of the pot) and 1800 of it gets called (all in). He flips over his 83o and wins with full house when another 3 comes on the river. I'm not so sure that my check on the flop is wrong because there's little chance of being beat and may get extra money from a bluff or check raise a weaker queen. This hand made me tilt and I was out 2 hands later.
Thanks in advance for any comments.
On both hands I think you got carried away with inappropriate slow plays. Sometimes you should slow play in Big Bet poker, but most of the time you should charge your opponents big $$ when you have a hand and they are on a draw.
Keep in mind it is better to WIN a small pot than LOSE a big one.
Dave in Cali
Robin,
Slowplaying is overrated! Don't be afraid to bet just because you might not get a call. In both situations you probably get beat anyway. The QJ probably hangs around with the open ender and if the person with 8-3 is stupid enough to call a $1000 pre-flop raise then they would probably call anything else thinking there pair of 3's were good... It doesn't always pay to play with the fish!
I've been playing 6-12 hold'em for about 7 months, and in all that time, I've never experienced what it's like to have accumulated a really large amount of chips. (I do okay, but just no really big kills.) And the only people I see who accumulate very large amounts of chips, lets say, 4 to 8 racks of chips, are the guys whose starting hand requirements are much looser than mine.
A typical example; a gentleman at my table last night, who had just over 5 full racks of chips(God, that's over 1000 bucks! That's a lot to me), kept cold calling raises with hands like 8-10 offsuit. Or cold calling an early position raise from solid players with hands like A-10 offsuit(I think he felt 10's were lucky for him, since he kept making trip 10's by the river). And that's another thing, these type of players are much more likely to chase all the way to the river than I am.
So here's my question: Is my never amassing a really large number of chips during a session a symptom that I need to loosen up? Or maybe it's a symptom of something else that's just not occurring to me. The thought of cold calling raises with 10-8 or 6-4 offsuit(or suited) makes me cringe, then there's always the chance that the pot will get capped by the time it gets back around to me, ooouuuuuuull shiver-cringe!
Thanks for any advice, Don
You really don't give enough information to say anything helpful. How many hours played in 7 months? What have your results been like? It is more valuable to estimate your variance and compare that to typical values then to look at the outlier wins.
In my own experience when I was playing a lot of 6-12 I had a few 5 rack range sessions but only a handful of occasions.
D.
Don,
You're probably just seeing statistics in action. I'm not an expert; so, I won't tell you what hands you should play. But, if you play almost anything, the standard deviation of your results will be huge. If you play tighter, it's smaller.
This means you can be a winning player because your mean is positive but almost never amass 5 racks because your standard deviation is low. The reverse is also true. That fellow who won 5 racks of chips may be a losing player with a negative mean but a huge stanndard deviation. You're not as likely to notice the days he emptys his wallet with a fresh buy-in every half hour.
Fat-Charlie
Believe me, the way you describe these players, they're going to give it all back, and then some. You just have to be patient and play good hands against those guys, they're gonna pay your rent (or mortgage) someday ! That's the kind of players we all dream of....
Good luck.
Maybe you need to loosen up as your position changes.
You can play hands on the button you wouldn't think of opening with. I play a fairly tight game yet will pick you 5-7 racks often. Trick is not to be losing chips by seeing more cards than you should when the odds are against you winning the hand.
The chips you don't lose are as good as the ones you win.
Mason's book on on Gambling Theory addresses the level of swings you are comfortable with reagarding standard deviation
Rounder,
After reading all the other posts in this thread, it 'seems' unanimous that people who regularly have as many racks of chips in front of them as you say you do(5-7 racks,regularly), often find themselves down that much as well. Is this at least some of the time true for you, or is that the beauty of your style of play, in that the 5 to 7 rack swings you "often" experience, only swing in an upwardly direction and rarely(if ever)in a downwardly direction?
-dsm
I don't always have that many racks to the good but I win 8.2 out of 10 sessions and my swings down just aren't drastic. I have not lost more than $300 in a session all of 1999 those sessions where I did lose I can say I was not sticking to my winning system I deviated and lost - so since I don't chase cards and play after the flop only with a real chance of winning the hand my chances of big swings are deminished.
the looser players win bigger and lose bigger. but i suspect with no 4 rack sessions in 6 12 you have a few too many leaks and need to work on closing them up. you may be calling raises with much better hands than they do but finding yourself with a much worse situation. such as they have ten eight against ace king and you have king queen against ace king. see who does better here. read and study and you will do better as seven months isnt much to draw too many conculsions from if you are a winner.
ray,
Four racks is $800. Unless you are playing long sessions (which is not necessary in 6/12 as a good game will always be there tomorrow) or in wild games, I would not be surprised if a decent player didn't make this much in a single session in seven months.
Regards,
Rick
sorry i always used a rack as 100. i forgot that in california and some other places the chips may be $2 ones. then 800 is alot to win in 6&12 except for our card catching Rounder.
Rick,
You presume right that I don't play very long sessions, usually about 2 to 4 to 6 hours. And thank you for the encouraging words in your message down below.
-Don
If you had a record of whom in your cardroom had won the most amount of money over some brief period of time, say five hours or so, first place and nearly all of the top twenty spots would go to players that play too loose to win. Bad players also win many more pots than good ones. In the low limit game I've played in for several years, I've seen many players take down more than I ever have in a one session, but nearly all of them were worse than mediocre. (Come to think of it, the biggest load I've ever taken down was after I had had a bit to drink).
One thing that can inhibit your high-end performance is unwarranted fear of the nuts and a reluctance to go to war with a maniac when you have a likely better hand.
Don,
A quick thought. Sometimes a player with five racks in front of him is in seven racks. Don't get discouraged.
Regards,
Rick
As a good player, you shouldn't be seeing the kinds of wins the loose fish can rack up on occasion. My biggest win in 10-20 in the last 1000 hours is $1367. I've had 5 or 6 wins just over $1000, and a whole bunch in the $500 range. Yet I've been in the game when people have won over $3000, and on any given night there's usually at least one player with over $1500 in chips in front of him. Don't worry about it. Watch some of these loose players on a bad night. I've seen guys have to buy in for another $200 every 2 or 3 hands, and keep it up for hours on end. God knows how much some of these guys lose in the long run, but I'll bet that a phenomenal $3000 win probably doesn't even erase their losses for the month.
Time for the cliches:
Slow and steady wins the race.
It's all one big game.
Individual sessions don't matter. What counts is the win rate after several months of play.
Yada yada yada
These characters you see cashing out 3 or 4 racks will often lose 3 or 4 racks on bad nights. You don't do that.
There are guys in my games who will go through $1500 swings in an hour or two constantly. If I have a $800 swing in a couple of hours once a week, I start to wonder what the hell's going on.
To accumulate "racks" of chips in a session, either the cards have got to be running over you or you are a very solid player. As for your play, you may not be making enough on your good hands. This means raising on the come multiway with nut draws on the flop, learning to check-raise, and as stated before, staying out of the marginal situations,as money saved equals money earned. You can loosen up in late position. Do you know the free card principle? Do you know the players in the game? Many factors. IF you can stay out of the marginal situations, then it only takes a few big pots to accumulate the "racks". Good luck.
I was recently in a LL HE game with AcJc in late position, with one player acting behind me and two in front. The flop came 9-6-3 with two clubs. A bet, call, and I raise, the player behind me cold calls, and the other two also call. The free card play works, as they all check to me on the turn, and I check when the turn is an offsuit five. The river brings an offsuit 10, I make the mistake of making a play at the pot when it is checked to me, being called by the player behind my holding 9-something. My question is..when the free card play doesnt work, when should you try for a play at the pot? Two things I failed to consider during the hand were: its hard to bluff in low limit, and that the player behind me probably knew the reason for the raise, and when he didnt see another club figured he had to make the call.. Comments?
If the player behind you knew the reason for the raise, then why didn't he bet the turn?
Making a play for the pot, especially if it's multiway in a low limit game is almost always a bad idea. I'd say in this situation, if you wanna make a play, check and hope the 9 behind you bets, and then check raise him if he doesn't get a caller. If he's fairly tight, you probably won't get called unless he has the nuts, and in that situation there's a straight possible on board. gotta pick your spots though, do this against a loose player (or even a tightish player with a mound of chips) and you'll get called.
I've tried this several times at low limit and it is a money loser. Another mistake I've made with the free card play is to bet the turn when I got a card that mildly helped my hand but was not what I was looking for. One must know what they are looking for on the turn. It may still be best to just take the free card.
As a general rule, i don't think you should ever bluff against more than two players. Especially after taking the free card as you described, even at low limit a lot of lot players are aware of that play. If you check on the turn, you're probably going to be called on the river by a player who holds a week hand, just because he wants to keep you honest.
Good luck.
Seems you need to make a decision whether you want to try to steal the pot or take a free card. I agree the bet on the river is very likely to be called (as is the check raise for the matter) once you chekced the turn.
If you bet the turn youll lose a few more people and greatly increase the probability you can bet and take the pot if a blank falls ont he river. But as usual you must know your players and their propensity to lay things down on the river.
Last night I was in the game of my life against the legend... Crazy pants McGee...For 85 thousand dollars... he pulles 3 kings of hearts of threes so i'm left with 2 pair of 14teen's of eight's... damn i thought ... (Don't worry guys I kept my poker face on)... so I knew I had to come up with a 5 of spades of kings but the odds were against me so I quickly thought back to my day's of a elephant feeder and remembered a trick we used to use to feed elephants... So i quickly threw some oats on the floor and as Crazy pants McGee scrambled for them I reached into the deck and pulled out my 11 of dimonds of threes... Wew!! ... Almost lost that one boys!!!
I Can't believe you came that close to lossing you are a god of poker we should all worship the groung you walk on... wew! Good thinkin with the oats
x
Of drawing the 11's of diamonds of three's holding two pair? (Sorry, couldn't resist it.)
I don't understad what you are asking!
I was being cute. (See the post directly beneath this one.)
I like to raise or check raise on the turn with the current nut staright. Mostly if a flush or higher straight redraw is possible. I do this because I think the extra bets may not be availible on the river. Lately I've noticed I've been getting burned by two pair or a set pairing the board. This is a little disheartning in that now in addition to flush/str8/set draws I also have to worry about possible 4 outers in certain games. I didn't give an example here because it is the principle that I'm interested in. Which is better? (a)Waiting to the river to see if your current nut straight is still the best possible and missing bets from failed draws or(b) getting as many bets as possible on the turn when obvious redraws are there with multiway action, and I'm driving ? I still think (b) but I'd like to know if it's just a matter of temperment or if there is some mathematical answer. Keep up the good work.....
You should maximize the number of bets that go in on the turn if you can, as you are a favorite against a set, two pair and such. No more than 10 cards can hurt you from the deck. (eg if some one has a set then he has 10 out on the river and there are 35 cards that don't help him). If there is more than one set or two pair out there the odds are even better.
I read somewhere that in multiway games, that you may be favored against any one player, but collectively someone will get there. Remember, I'm talking about two suited, 1 card staight turns with 5 or more. Thats a lot of bets to pass up, you definetly want to eliminate (but you know you can't), is raising still worth it ? Example flop = 7h,8s,9s turn is Jh, you hold Qd,10d. Now I think it's hartder to find cards that don't help someone else in a loose game.
Your policy of raising on the turn is a good one - make the drawers pay to see it. If they hit they hit you are favored on the turn so bet and raise with the nuts.
If they don't hit you ain't getting any more money any way.
What we've learned:
Abdul's real name.
MM was clever enough to keep a spiral copy of HPFAP.
What we have not learned:
How often MM thinks it's a good idea to call with no pair and no draw vs an overcard head's up.
I raise in early position with AK get two callers. Small cards flop. I'm playing in a average mid limit game.
1. How often should I bet on the flop.
2. If I bet on the flop. How often should I bet on the turn?
3. How about the river?
If I check on the river I do have over cards, but someone my have folded a small pair.I often misplay this hand,and lose a lot of chips. I've almost reached the conclusion the best way to play this hand good is to check and fold on the turn. Would that be playing to passive?
You need to be thinking about the chances that the other players will fold if you bet plus the chances of catching a A or K the next card if called. Also think about your backdoor potentals, and the possibility that you still have the best hand. KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS.
Not easy and not cut and dried. This is still not my best area, especialy since in the Past 6 months I moved up from playing in games (Loose Low Limit) where folding AK, if it doesn't hit the Flop, was basicly automatic.
CV
I think if the opposition looks like the flop didn't help I bet it out and keep betting until raised or the game is over.
The correct answers to your questions are heavily dependent on the particular flop, the number of opponents, and your position. In general here are my recommendations:
1. When out of position with only two opponents and an uncoordinated board (no two flush, no two straight, etc.) I will bet the flop virtually every time. I frequently win the pot outright and I have some outs when I get called.
2. Whether or not you continue betting the turn depends upon what the turn card is, how your opponents reacted to your flop bet, and how much you know about your particular opponent(s). I usually follow through with a turn bet when out of position and if I have only one opponent on the turn.
3. On the river if I am unimproved I usually check because I can beat Ace-high but it depends on the factors mentioned above.
One card room in which I play utilizes a Live Blind, another utilizes a half-hourly collection. I am wondering if anyone has in thoughts on a preference to playing with a Live Blind vs. a collection.
Thank you
x
Hi All,
I'm a l.l. player with a few hundred hours, and I've been booking small wins pretty consistently (approx. 1 bb per hr.). I like to think I'm fairly aggressive, but am wondering if I'm still a bit on the weak tight side.
Here's 2 hands from my last 3-6 Hold'em w/kill session. They both involve two players that are types with which I'm sure you all are familiar.
1st Hand
Kill pot. I'm dealt JJ middle position. Early position killer - a loose goose enjoying cocktails - raises to 10. I reraise to 15 trying to get head up. Late position calling station old gal foils my plan and cold calls(she calls 80% preflop, calls all the way down w/any pair, but will bet or raise on river w/nuts or close). Loose goose caps at 20, all call.
Flop - K, Q, 9 rainbow. Loose goose checks, I check, old gal checks. Turn 3 - loose goose checks, I check (should I bet here?), old gal checks. River J - loose goose checks (I figure he'd bet if he had a 10 for fear of checkaround), I bet (mistake?), old gal calls, loose goose folds and flashes me pocket 3s. Old gal has A-9 offsuit, my set wins.
Questions - Should I have bet turn? I didn't for fear of the old gal - she cold called 3 bets pre-flop and was snapping big hands at the table all day. Also, was my river bet a misplay given that she needed only 1 card for a straight? I bet because I knew she would call with a weaker hand than mine.
2nd Hand
I'm dealt KQo on the button. Strong, solid player UTG raises. Early loose goose calls, rest fold to me, I fold, old gal in SB calls, BB folds.
Why I folded - I figure there's a very strong chance that the raiser has AA, KK, AK, or AQ - all of which dominate me. He could have QQ, which would put me in a little better situation but still far from ideal. The only remaining hands I think he would raise with from that position are JJ or TT, and these are still superior to KQo.
Why I considered calling - the button, the button, the button. I had position on him, but I didn't think this was enough. Am I wrong?
The result - not that it matters but I'm sure you can guess that calling would've worked out favorably for me.
Flop - A, K, 2 rainbow. Checked around. Turn 2 - checked around again. River offsuit 8 - loose goose bets, old gal calls, pre-flop raiser (strong player) folds. Loose goose wins w/K-7 diamonds.
So I would have split pot w/loose goose, but I am still pretty sure my pre-flop fold was correct. Opinions?
On the first hand, I would not bet the turn with two over cards on the board to my pocket pair.
On the second hand, your fold of King-Queen offsuit when faced with a bet and raise from a solid pre-flop raiser is correct despite having the button. It is too easy to be dominated and develop an expensive second best hand.
Someone calling 80% of flops is NOT a favorite to have a K or Q when the flop is KQx. While fear of a tight player is very reasonable, fear of this lady is not. I'd be tempted to bet the flop hoping LG isn't slow-playing. When LG checks twice, bet the turn. (BTW ... Interesting turn check by the LG. Any sort of aggressive player would have bet through YOU.)
No-brainer value bet against this type of strong caller; especially if you can confidently fold if she raises.
You don't like KQo short handed against a solid UTG raiser? That's because you're not brain dead and know your hand value is a pittence. You're DOOMED if you think your hand will win its fair share of show-downs...
No-brainer non-braggable fold.
However, if you have strong control over the better and caller you will often be able to win this pot without a hand; such as if an Ace flops and they both check. This last sentence makes for an EXCELLENT excuse for calling raises with any old piece of cheese and is the downfall of many otherwise aspiring players.
- Louie
You cluld have bet the JJ on the turn but the check was not bad you got info and the fold of KQ was not a bad mistake eigther. Your logic seems sound and will pay off in the long run. Not passive play but logical.
I have the upmost respect for the other posters here, but I have to disagree with them. You re-raised a loose raiser pre flop which is great and got a caller. There is only three of you in the pot, so when the raiser checks, I'm going to bet the flop here, overcards or not. I would only do this against one or two players.When your loose raiser shows weakness on the flop , he can't have much otherwise he would be putting chips in. So you have this calling station behind you. There is 12-13 bets in the pot and you are 8-1 to make a straight or trips.... You have shown strength before the flop.... The original capper is checking showing weakness. These are are some of the factors you should be thinking about. If you bet the flop and get called, then you can check the turn if a blank hits, or if the loose player folds when you bet the flop you could have considered betting the turn if the lady was the type who would have raised if she had top pair or better on the flop. If she would just call with top pair, then you could check the turn. 2 points- when you raise pre-flop you aren't going to improve most of the time. When you are up against just 1-2 players and they give you a chance to lead...take it. By doing this you are following through on your pre flop re-raise. if you aren't following through enough, you will be an easy read when you do hit a flop that is more comfortable for you. Thisis where your game isgoing to grow fast. You are not being too loose by being aggressive here. I'm sorry that I haven't been more consise here ,.. I hope this will help alittle. seeya
I agree with Al that the partial-semi-bluff on the flop just looks right. You have enough to call for just the gutshot and with the pair and possible folds right there, betting seems good.
Certainly the turn must be bet after the money starts rotting out there.
D.
. . . then the calling station called and and the loose goose had check-raised, what does he do?
why would the loose player check- raise? this is a big problem with players. All ways afraid of being checked raised.When someone checks it means WEAKNESS 90% of the time.
Also, in this instance our hero re-raised before the flop, showing strength, so if the loose player is going to check-raise in this spot, then I'd have to give him credit for a hand unless I knew that he was a complete nut case. There is a difference btween loose and plain crazy...don't you think?seeya
I wasn't suggesting it as a reason not to bet, just speculating as to what the proper reaction would be. I reached the same conclusion, i.e., that you would need to fold if faced with a reraise. The loose player described in his post is more likely to get the bright idea to to check-raise here than many other categories of players.
I think one of the hardest skills to learn is the ability to lay it down after being check-raised. There are times when you just need to let it go, but in LL games it is very rare that somebody lets go after being CR'ed.
In 21C HE, S&M discuss short handed play primarily from a heads-up perspective with some discussion on three handed.
Regarding heads-up, they give examples and advice in situations where the Button is also the SB.
Assume that the Button is the BB, is there any appreciable change in the recommendations given i.e. in what ways does the increased money investment with the being BB change the Button's decision to check, raise or re-raise and how does this situation change the cards with which to open?
Thanks
One area I seem to have problems with is knowing when to pay off. Here is an example. 15-30 AC game. I am on button three limpers including a loose clueless player (LCP), as well as Loose Winning Player who is playing almost every hand and running over the game. LWP who is directly on my right. I hold pocket 9's and decide to raise (questionable decision here?) small blind folds and Big blind calls. Flop comes 8s 7c 3c. LCP checks, LWP bets, I raise, BB calls, LCP folds. LWP then folds. Turn card comes 4d. BB checks. I bet, BB raises.
Now at this point, I have a good inkling that 56 is out there. Am I necessarily beaten? I hadn't really had a read on BB's play, he showed down some decent hands and some questionable ones, though i guess he was more on the "good" side than "bad". What would you guys do in this spot?
I forgot to add the one other limper check-folded on the flop.
If this is a good player he'll know that you're raising with less than premium hands late. If he had a 2-overcard flush draw his call makes sense. Once heads up his hand is worth a call and will often raise because you often don't have very much and he may have 15 outs against you anyway. He MAY also make this play with A8.
Rarely if ever lay down top pair against very aggressive or very good players.
Having said that, this looks a lot like a slow play and I would have to lay it down against typical opponents; especially since they are likely to have 3-bet with "just" 2-pair; the only hand you can outdraw.
- Louie
Pre-flop your raise on the button with pocket Nines after three players limp in is questionable. I would not raise unless I had pocket Tens or better but your play is not bad.
Your raise on the flop is correct with your over pair.
On the turn, you of course bet when checked to by your lone opponent. He now raises. At this point there is $325 in the pot and it costs you $30 to take off a card and see the river. While the big blind could easily have Six-Five for straight, he might also have two pair if he started with Eight-Seven or even Four-Three suited in which case you have 8 outs to win. I think the pot odds mandate a call here.
Jim,
You made reference to your thinking that raising with pocket 9's is questionable, after three people have limped in. But you're comfortable raising with pocket 10's or better. I was just wondering, do you think it's important to raise with pocket 10's 100% of the time in that situation, or would you sometimes just call with them(and why?)? The reason I ask is that pocket 9's and 10's are kind of borderline hands for me, that I'm not always sure how to play.
Thanks, dsm
The problem with raising with pocket Nines or Tens after several players have limped in is that while you probably have the best hand, it is quite likely that over cards will flop and you will be playing a two outer at that point. In addition, your raise will always get called by the original limpers so you cannot win the pot outright. On the other hand there will be those times when the flop is all under cards to your pair and times when you will flop a set. On balance I draw a line at pocket Tens. But this is arbitrary.
Nothing wrong with limping with 10-10 after a caller or 2. Jim, do you raise w/ 10-10 if there are a lot of callers, like 4 or 5?
On the turn here, I agree that the blind does not necessarily have a straight, but he surely has a better hand. I would peel off a card, but I wonder if folding is really such a mistake. What if you think it's 50/50 that you even have outs? I have seen players who will lock in to a read (e.g. assume you have AK and go after you with top pair), but it is very unusual for someone to check raise with less than two pair in that situation. Maybe folding is correct against rational opposition.
I used to routinely raise with pocket Tens after 4 or 5 callers. I now usually just call. I probably have the best hand but the problem is that pocket Tens really don't play well against 4 or 5 opponents once the flop comes. Of course, if I am in a game where everyone routinely "checks to the raiser" that I am more inclined to raise. This happens in $3-$6 games but not often in $20-$40 games.
From the given action, I would think I am behind now. If this is a table full of weak players, I would fold here, because those players tend to check-raise with much better hands (usually trips or better), and they usually tend to bet out with one or two pairs (this mostly is the case in my 6-12 game). However, in a game with strong observant players (this, I guess, mostly is the case in higher limit games, and once in a while in my game too), players may check-raise with less hands when the turn card makes the board looking danguous. This seems not the case, but he could raise with two pairs. I would call the raise and call the river if I make two pairs or trips, and fold the river bet if I don't improve my hand. I think there are some advantages to call the raise here in those kind of games; 1. if he was semi-bluffing, it would be a realy tough bet for him to make on the river without position, knowing you are very likely to call him down(I have an example bellow which is one hand I played today), 2. if you fold often in situations when your hand is transparent, they will be encouraged to take a shot on you, 3. by calling the raise on the turn and folding on the river, they would hardly put you on a hand.
Today, I was in my 6-12 game with 3 strong players. I was in the BB with AhQh, 1 middle limper and SB (one of the strong players) called, I checked.
Flop: QcJd7s
SB checked, I bet, call, call.
Turn; Jc
SB checked, I bet, call, SB check-raised. We both called. I doubted he had a J, because he did not bet on the flop. (however, a lot of my weak opponents will check a J here)
River: 10h
All checked. SB: Ac7c, limper: k10
regards,
jikun
From the given action, I would think I am behind now. If this is a table full of weak players, I would fold here, because those players tend to check-raise with much better hands (usually trips or better), and they usually tend to bet out with one or two pairs (this mostly is the case in my 6-12 game). However, in a game with strong observant players (this, I guess, mostly is the case in higher limit games, and once in a while in my game too), players may check-raise with less hands when the turn card makes the board looking danguous. This seems not the case, but he could raise with two pairs. I would call the raise and call the river if I make two pairs or trips, and fold the river bet if I don't improve my hand. I think there are some advantages to call the raise here in those kind of games; 1. if he was semi-bluffing, it would be a realy tough bet for him to make on the river without position, knowing you are very likely to call him down(I have an example bellow which is one hand I played today), 2. if you fold often in situations when your hand is transparent, they will be encouraged to take a shot on you, 3. by calling the raise on the turn and folding on the river, they would hardly put you on a hand.
Today, I was in my 6-12 game with 3 strong players. I was in the BB with AhQh, 1 middle limper and SB (one of the strong players) called, I checked.
Flop: QcJd7s
SB checked, I bet, call, call.
Turn; Jc
SB checked, I bet, call, SB check-raised. We both called. I doubted he had a J, because he did not bet on the flop. (however, a lot of my weak opponents will check a J here)
River: 10h
Checked around. SB: Ac7c, limper: k10
regards,
jikun
I ended up paying off all the way. I just saw a whole lot of questionable decisions being made at that table, and hadn't paid particular attention to this particular player. As it turns out I noticed later that he would call with questionable hands, but raise only with extremely strong hands. The 8h came on the river (no flush possible), giving me two pair, and allowing me to beat a hand like 3-4. BB bet and I called and got shown what I suspected, 5-6 for the straight. Was the error of paying off big or small, or was it an error at all? Thanks in advance.
Know your player. If the BB is a good player, he may be taking a shot at the pot with a draw. You raised in late position, and the most likely hand for you to have is two overcards that missed the flop. If you have a 'tight' image, he may even think you may fold an overpair to a check-raise.
If the player is a tight-passive type, then you're probably looking at at least 2 pair, a set, and possibly a straight. But the pot is laying you enough odds to draw to a nine or the other two cards that can pair for you to win.
If you call the turn, you're pretty much committed to calling the river.
One play to consider here is to 3-bet the turn. Now you're representing a set of 7's or 8's. If your opponent calls and checks the river, you can check it down. If he caps it or bets into you on the river, you can fold. Either way, it costs you two more bets, which is what you'll pay if you call and then call a river bet. The difference is that you might get the BB to lay down two small pair or an overpair bigger than yours, and if you improve you win more money. And, if he was taking a shot at the pot with a flush or straight draw, you've made him pay the maximum for his agressive tendencies, which not only makes you some money, but buys you a bit of breathing room in the future.
Whether 3-betting is the right play or not depends on who your opponent is.
Down in the QQ thread, I wrote, "On the other hand, if KK has position, then it makes sense to sometimes just flat call preflop, because KK can often recoup the lost bet with a raise on the flop." Someone asked me about this in email and the problem is I did not say what I meant.
I'll try to say this concisely...
When you have a big pair, you are facing a raiser, no one else is yet in the pot, and you have position on the raiser, normally you should just flat call, in my opinion. This way you leave the initiative with the raiser, and he will usually bet into you on the flop, where upon you recoup the bet you gave up preflop via a raise on the flop. If he checks, then you bet, and you may still recoup that extra bet when he calls due to your preflop slowplay. (Also, there are other things in favor of just flat calling.)
In multiway pots, it's important to go ahead and 3-bet preflop, because you're probably going to want to bet the flop anyway, and your opponents will all call an extra bet preflop but will usually be dropping like flies after the flop even if you slowplayed preflop. This is doubly true in the blinds, since your position makes it harder to get money in on the flop.
-Abdul
I like your analysis. If you always reraise preflop in heads up pots with big pairs you take the initiative away from the initial raiser.
I played a hand which is not quite exactly the same but illustrates the same basic concept...
3-6 kill very loose aggressive game. UTG limps in a killed pot (BB was the kill) and everyone folds to me. I make it two bets (on the button) with AA, both red. SB folds and BB makes it three bets. UTG folds. In this case I felt that making it four bets would pretty much scream out "Aces" so I just flat called, planning to raise the flop and make up the extra bet. Had there been more callers than just me and him I would have made it four bets. But since it's heads up, I planned to raise the flop when he bet into me again.
The flop is Ks 7d 2d, practically the ideal flop. The only real danger to me at this time is if he has KK or two diamonds. He bets and I raise. My plan is to call him to the river if he makes it three bets but bet all the way if he just calls my raise and checks on the turn. He flat calls.
Turn is Qd, not the ideal card but still pretty good for me. Knowing the players in this game, I could be beaten by KK, QQ, KQ, (or a flush?) at this point. He checks to me and I bet (no free cards). I now have the nut flush draw and quite possibly still have the best hand. Of course he could easily have AK (which I am hoping he has, along with the Kd). He just calls my bet and does not raise.
River is 2c. He checks, I bet, he calls. He has AK with the Kd (how convenient!).
Dave in Cali
When I re-raise with a big pair I'm usually not thinking about the extra bet as much as I am about keeping the pot smaller.
That's not to say that I disagree with you, but it depends more too me on the player who is doing the raising and what my big pair is. If I have aces I would be more inclined to play as you suggest, where as queens or jacks (which I consider to be big pairs) I would be more inclined to re-raise.
When you spoke ofposisition, I had to chuckle since I can tell you absolutely that I have had much success by not re-raising big pairs when I'm out of posisition, IN the BLINDS.Especially since a re-raise there gives away much info most of the time. seeya
I agree with your analysis completely. How do you feel about raising with big slick from your big blind after several players limp in?
Yepper, gotta raise with big slick in the big blind after limpers, partially because of al raiseya's objection about the information given away by raising from the blinds. Big slick serves as a pocket rockets poseur.
The basic idea is that when you have a big pair you're getting like 50% of the extra bets put in before the flop, and times several players that's just too much money to pass up, but you need to balance the hands you hold when you make a raise or reraise from the blinds. Players generally put you on a big pair when you raise from the blinds, so convince them of this by indeed raising with big pairs, but also rob them with some other hands.
Hands like T9s, KJs, and AQ can raise limpers from the blinds, since they likely have the best of it on the raise outright, and besides they have enough potential to flop a draw or something to carry through with a semibluff bet on the flop. When you have a draw with T9s, your bet on the flop might get raised late by a draw, and then you back off, give him a free card, and then often take down the bloated pot on the river with a bet if there are only one or two opponents and no obvious draw came in.
It's harder to find nonpair hands that can 3-bet from the blinds in multiway pots, but AK, AQs, and KQs are the obvious candidates, and versus several opponents hands like T9s can probably 3-bet profitably (barely.) You just need a few for balance.
Of course, after you have screamed "BIG POCKET PAIR" with your raise from the blinds preflop, if someone plays back at you on the flop with the implied question "REALLY?", be careful; however, if you have a marginal hand you might very well play back at them, answering the challenge with "YES, I HAVE A BIG POCKET PAIR" and then muck your marginal hand if they reply with yet another raise that screams "POCKET ACES NO GOOT!" Try to come on like a steam locomotive no matter what your hand, and then lay it down when you are almost sure you are beat, earlier rather than later.
Abdul
I have a question about 3-betting a big pocket pair in a multiway pot. Abdul suggests that one reraise with a big pocket pair preflop, especially in one of the blinds. By making it three bets in that position, one may force some of those who have to call two cold out. However, if they do not fold, it seems that you have created a bit of a problem because the pot is so big and weaker hands will now be correct to chase past the flop. Of course, if you save your raise for the flop, they may now be forced to call two cold when you check raise. What do you think?
I play mostly low limit (3-6 and 5-10) in AC. They are usually pretty loose games, so I have to worry about not playing in such a way so as to make my opponent's normally poor play coincide with the correct play. In some situations, therefore, I ?think? saving the raise for the flop in a multiway pot may be an OK option.
Carlos
Carlos, the fact that these guys may be playing correctly post-flop by making a mistake pre-flop should not deter you from 3 betting with your big pocket pairs in a multi-way pot. Who knows what these guys will do or what the flop will bring or how they will play after the flop? You need to strike while the iron is hot.
It depends on what you want.
If you want profit, you have to build the pot with the best hand, but you'll have to gamble some postflop. You are having way best of it, but may have to wait a bit before the long run shows you the correctness of your ways.
If you want to reduce risk (which can be a valid argument, as long as you are aware you are doing it at the expense of profits), you'll want to keep the pot small, thereby increasing your chances of winning it. You'll be able to buy a sandwich with your winnings when the smoke clears.
Abdul advocates the former, S&M the latter. Both strategies are valid, depending on your needs (and your bankroll).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
You wrote: "Abdul advocates the former [raising], S&M the latter.
I enjoy the disputes between you/Abdul and S&M but please be fair. S&M certainly advocate reraising with AA and KK out of both blinds (page 44 of HPFAP21stC). They have an alternative play to reraising with QQ for the situation when you are up against an UTG raiser (I can't find the page right now) but they certainly do not seem adamant about the play.
Regards,
Rick
Oh yes, of course, I wasn't clear on that one. I was thinking of general pot manipulation tactics S&M sometimes advocate. I'm sure they are pretty much aware of the power of big pairs and have no objections to building the pot with them (except I suspect they might recommend flat calling in extremely loose games).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
By making it three bets in that position, one may force some of those who have to call two cold out. However, if they do not fold, it seems that you have created a bit of a problem because the pot is so big and weaker hands will now be correct to chase past the flop.
I hear a lot of this type of S&M pot manipulation thinking, and I do not think it is correct. Given the choice between having the several fish call two cold versus just one when you hold a big pair, if you choose just one you're giving up roughly 50% of those extra bets, and this includes the effects from the postflop action. (Or if they fold, you also benefit tremendously.) It will take you hours of good playing to recover from such a huge mistake. When you have a reverse implied odds hand, you would like to just have everyone push all in preflop, but you cannot do that, so you should do the next best thing and charge maximum price, wrecking the implied odds of your opponents' hands.
Of course, if you save your raise for the flop, they may now be forced to call two cold when you check raise. What do you think?
When you charge them two cold preflop and they call with weak hands like JT and T5s or even much stronger hands like AJ and KTs, they don't have close to the odds to call. If you wait and try to charge them two cold on the flop, what will happen is that a lot of the players will not have odds to call even one bet and they will fold while a lot of the other players will have odds to call even two cold and they will call. Then there are the players who have odds to call one, but not two, but this means they have marginal draws and their EV for drawing is close to zero and so on the flop you are not losing much if they call one bet (and you're gaining some ignoring the pot), nor are you making much if they cold call two.
Sometimes after slowplaying preflop and going for a check-raise on the flop you will wind up giving a free card on the flop, perhaps slowplaying your big pair into oblivion. The other thing that commonly happens when you slowplay a big pair early preflop is that you decide to bet the flop because it looks too dangerous to risk a free card, and then everybody folds, in which case you've given up all those bets preflop for nothing.
Big pairs are really, really strong, because first they may be enough to win outright, second they may improve to two pair when the board pairs (and thus suck out on two pair), and third they can make big sets that can turn into big full houses. When you have an overpair, you can tolerate some competition; when overcards flop, you generally just check-fold. I suggest thinking about how you can get the most money into the pot, especially before the flop.
-Abdul
Many thanks Abdul as this is an exremely thoughtful post.
I know many of you are sick of the sob stories about bad beats and losing nights, and I promise that this will be my last. I need advice and perhaps words of encouragement from you vets, if not a shoulder to cry on.
As usual, I blame most of my frustration on my small BR, which keeps me at the low limit tables. These games are HIGHLY eratic, and it seems all of HFAP's advice can and DOES often go straight down the crapper in these games. Last night I was at a table mixed with amateurs, maniacs, a few drunkards, and the generally clueless. I wound up losing $70 in my last session, which is only 18 big bets. Still, it was the WAY I lost that had me so damned frustrated. As an example, this was my final hand before leaving:
I'm in the BB with Kh3h. Of course the betting gets capped preflop, and flush draws have been getting proper odds most of the time, simply because the pots have been huge. (one drunk actually raised on every street up to the river WITHOUT LOOKING AT HIS CARDS. He lost the hand.) Anyway, on this hand the flop comes AhJh7h. I bet, it gets raised, I of course stay in to the cap. Turn comes 2c. Field gets narrowed to 3 or 4 players. River comes 2s. I bet, get raised, and lose to a full house: TWOS FULL OF 7's. Someone stayed all the way to the river with TWO SEVEN OFFSUIT.
This is just one example of the way I was beaten up. Now, if there's one bad player at the table, I can easily say to myself "They will eventually lose it all back with that kind of play", and that's usually the case. However, when there are 8 other players at the table, all playing any two cards, it seems almost insurmountable to me. So I'm left with a few choices:
1. Keep fighting the good fight and take the swings, as wild as they may be.
2. Overplay my BR and move up to a higher level where the play is less erratic. In my time at the 3/6 games even, I've noticed much steadier BR variance, although my ROR is through the roof.
3 Stop playing for a few years until I have a larger BR to work with.
Thanks for reading this rant, and as I said, it will be my last "Woe is me" post. (fingers crossed)
shooter
calling a capped pot with k3 siuted???????????
Alright. . .I may have protected my blind a little too loosely. I still think some skilled players would have done the same. Besides, in my previous post about low limit frustration a week or two ago, I was advized by several players that I respect that Axs and Kxs gain in value in super loose games with large pots. Once the flush flopped, I of course felt that I made the correct play.
Just b/c the flush flopped doesn't mean this was the correct play. That is like saying calling with 72o was ok because the flop came 772. Don't let one good flop affect your judgement next time your in this position fold. Based on your comments I have a feeling you are playing too loosely and playing bad hands in bad position. If you have a small bankroll, protect it. Play tighter than even S&M suggest, you should be concerned with protecting your money and eaking out a profit, it will force you to play in a way that is not the most profitable but it will reduce your fluctuations. Playing tighter will also reduce the number of tough situation you'll be put in which will also reduce mistakes. All this will give you experience while giving you more confidence which is crucial.
You're right. I didn't mean to sound like I was justifying a bad play by its good result. I admit the pre-flop play was perhaps not sound, but I believe I played the rest of the hand correctly, since I had the nut up to the river.
I also understand and agree with you about tighter play. Still, after hours of saying to myself, "I would have won that pot had I played. . .I would have won that pot had I played. . .I would have won that pot too" got the best of me. Not that I would start playing most of the hands I said that about. I'm talking about Q3o, and having the flop hit 33Q, etc. However, I DID feel some regret at not playing some marginal calling hands, like some TJ's and A9's.
thanks for your comments.
It is frustrating to fold a marginal hand pre-flop and see the perfect flop come. If you are in the right postion call with these hands (marginal ones, suggested in Sklansky's hand groups), in fact its more in the long run, but you will have larger fluctuations, which can be very frustrating. If you tighten up, and start winning a little bit at a time your confidence will increase and then loosen up a bit. I was in your situation about a year ago, I know its frustrating just keep plugging at it, and study alot, you'd be amazed at all the leaks you'll find in youe game.
My advice: 1) Play very very tight in these games. KX suited is not a playable hand unless you can get in for 1 bet in good/late position. I would recommend playing Sklansky's Groups I and II hands only. Small wired pairs can be played if you are getting 5 to 1 minimum on your action.
2) Move up in limit when your bankroll can afford it.
Playing fewer hands limits your exposure to the rake and also helps you maintain your sanity as you try and weave your way thru the low limit bad beat mine field.
Good luck
Well shooter, I know how you feel, LL is frustrating, but I can certainly be beaten. I have a small BR too (<$1000) and I'm not ready to move up just yet. I would take a crack at 6/12, but it isn't ever spread around here. In fact, it's hard to find a 10/20 game most of the time, and 5/10 is pretty rare, allthough I plan on giving it a shot next time I see it spread.
As far as this particular hand, I would say first of all, don't defend your blind so loosely. I know what S&M have to say about playing out of the blinds, and I'm sure for some, theirs is the best strategy. I don't concern myself with defending blinds, and if I do call a raise from the BB, it is only with a very good hand. I wouldn't call 2 bets (let alone 3) from the BB with a suited King, regardless of your implied odds. Let the fish play these hands, you stick to the good cards.
AN interesting hand last saturday night- The dealer made a stupid mistake, he dealt out hands to everyone and then we all noticed that the flop and turn card from the previous hand were still face up on the table. I turned my hand over, it was AJs - I was in seat 4, so although it was a nice hand, It was as bad as it could have been. Anyway, as I tossed my cards to the dealer, i said "thats allright, you can give me pocket aces this time". Well, he proceeded to deal out the cards a cesond time, and I'll be damned if he didn't give me the aces. So UTG folds, and I said "what do you know, aces!" and I raised, all fold to the SB, who calls, BB folds. On The flop is something like K84, two suited, SB(also a dealer) says, "check to the pocket aces", so I bet, he calls. Turn, a rag, he says the same thing, I bet-he calls. River card is an offsuit three, he says the same thing again, I bet, expecting him to fold, or call hoping to catch my bluff. Well he check raised me, I called and he turned over pocket 3's. Fortunately, I had a good day, I had just won the tournament there earlier, so his suck-out didn't bother me much.
Keep a sense of humor about it and have fun (but don't stop playing!)
mike
In his outstanding article in Poker Digest written awhile back, John Feeney provides several examples of how an average player thinks about a hand versus an advanced player. However, in his second example I have thoughts which are very different from either the average player or the advanced player. Here is the example:
"Second Example: Protecting Your Hand
Overview: A relatively loose game containing several calling stations. The player holds JhTd in the big blind. Six players limp in. The flop is: Ts8c6s.
Average Player's Thoughts: I have top pair. That means one thing. Gotta bet it.
Advanced Player's Thoughts: I have top pair, but with all these players in there and all those possible draws, my hand is extremely vulnerable. If many players stay to see the turn, there is a good chance someone will draw out on me. Perhaps a check-raise would help me knock out some of these guys and protect my hand. The latter position players here are the more aggressive. So yes, I think I should check and hope that it is checked to one of those guys. When he bets, I can raise and make it two bets to all the other players. That should knock out at least the long shot draws and improve my chances of winning the pot."
Jim Brier's Thoughts: I have top pair but with a weak kicker under the circumstances because someone could easily have AT,KT, or QT and have just limped in pre-flop. There is a two flush on board as well as three cards in a straight zone. This is a small, unraised pot and I have a large number of opponents. If I bet, I could easily get raised. Rather than lead, I think I will check and see what happens. If someone bets and several players just call, I think I will call and take off a card. A Ten gives me trips, a Jack gives me two pair, a Nine or a Seven or a Queen gives me an inside straight draw but if any of these are Spades my hand is severely compromised because a flush possibility is now out there. If it is bet and raised to me I will fold. If it is checked to a late position player who bets into me, I am not sure what I will do. I don't like check-raising because it is costing me two bets plus it could get raised again. Furthermore, I will not drive out someone on a legitimate draw anyway. If my hand was not strong enough to bet initially in this situation, I don't think I want to make the power play of a check-raise. I think it would be close to folding or calling. I would call if I thought no one would check-raise behind me.
What does everyone else think and how do you approach this problem?
P.S. to John Feeney: Hey, John how do you like my new posting style?
john must be thrilled. he's hit the big time.
scott
"Jim Brier's Thoughts: I have top pair but with a weak kicker under the circumstances because someone could easily have AT,KT, or QT and have just limped in pre-flop. There is a two flush on board as well as three cards in a straight zone. This is a small, unraised pot and I have a large number of opponents. If I bet, I could easily get raised. Rather than lead, I think I will check and see what happens. If someone bets and several players just call, I think I will call and take off a card. A Ten gives me trips, a Jack gives me two pair, a Nine or a Seven or a Queen gives me an inside straight draw but if any of these are Spades my hand is severely compromised because a flush possibility is now out there. If it is bet and raised to me I will fold."
I agree with the above 100%.
Jim further wrote:
"If it is checked to a late position player who bets into me, I am not sure what I will do. I don't like check-raising because it is costing me two bets plus it could get raised again. Furthermore, I will not drive out someone on a legitimate draw anyway. If my hand was not strong enough to bet initially in this situation, I don't think I want to make the power play of a check-raise. I think it would be close to folding or calling. I would call if I thought no one would check-raise behind me."
Here, I do disagree. Having escaped the dangers you alluded to if you were to bet out, you now need to raise (or fold) to protect your hand. Personally, I think folding top pair to a late position bet is not a very good thing to do so I would choose to stay in the hand and would do so with a raise.
Couple of other points:
In an unraised flop, it is rare for someone to checkraise from middle position. Most checkraises come from early position bettors. Thus, your last sentence "I would call if I thought no one would check-raise behind me" does not seem to make much sense (actually, what I am saying is poorly worded...everything you say does make sense but I just disagree with your last statement because I would think that the probability of you being raised if you call is very slim.) However, i prefer raising to calling as you definitely stand a better chance of limiting the field. With a arise, you may just have to fend off the legitimate draws. With a call, you amy have to get through all kinds of goofy draws in addition to the legit ones.
Jim also wrote:
"If my hand was not strong enough to bet initially in this situation, I don't think I want to make the power play of a check-raise."
I also disagree with this statement. What started out with a cautious approach (i.e " I'll check and see what happens) can well turn into an aggressive approach (i.e. "Aha-here goes the late position bettor taking advantage of position...well, I'll show him")
Good analysis skp. I agree that in most game situations a check-raise is unlikely.
But I still don't understand why you think driving out other players when you could easily not have the best hand is a good idea. Even though the bet comes from an aggressive player in late position does not mean that he has a worse hand. If he has a Ten with a better kicker he will bet that as well along with two pair. Is he necessarily going to bet bottom pair or middle pair into 5 opponents 100% of the time? He will definitely bet top pair all the time and anything better. All you could be doing is being the unwitting accomplice to the guy with the better hand and helping him do his work. Your raise is assuming that you have the better hand otherwise what sense does it make to be raising Ace-Ten, King-Ten, or Queen-Ten or even two pair when you have Jack-Ten? Furthermore, is a guy on a flush draw or an inside straight draw with a pair going to fold because of your check-raise?
The hand did not go up in value because someone bet. It actually when down in value.
Your raise is not "protecting your hand" unless you are confident it is the best hand. Calling is better than folding because I still have an interest in the hand and can take off a card at a small cost.
I, also, think that the response to a late position bettor is raise or fold, but the decision is probably close. However, I think a call is probably a distand third to raising or folding.
Yes, late position player will be betting a lot of good hands, but he will also be betting hands you can beat, including draws, middle pair, and overcards. If you call, you are putting the 8th bet into the pot, giving the very next caller 8-1 odds on his call, plenty for overcards and close enough for some gut-shots. As each player calls, the pot odds increase, allowing for longer and longer shots to call. Plus, with no one raising, they don't have to fear a re-raise by the original bettor.
When you raise, you are putting the ninth bet into the pot, giving the next caller a 4.5 to 1 shot, significantly reducing the pot odds for him, and each subsequent caller. Now you are chasing out over cards, gut shots, and maybe even that middle pair/gut shot you mentioned (at best he has 9 outs, needing 4.2 to 1 for a call, but given that it is two bets to him, the two flush on the board, and the fear of a re-raise, he just might fold it).
The fact that you may be up against a better hand affects both decisions equaly. Why call if you are facing a better hand? You are barely getting the outs to a 5 outer, and by calling you are letting in a number of hands that can beat you down the road. By raising, you are probably increasing your chance of winning the pot by far greater than the cost of the single raise (making it positive E.V., not just the play that wins the most pots).
So, depending on the players, I think your options are raise, fold, or call in that order.
Of course, while I truly believe that is the correct ranking of options, I would probably fold it. I don't have the experience necessary to take this hand beyond the flop if I raise (or call). I'd be very interested in hearing your opinions my above comments and on post flop play ...
Jim, After calling the flop, how do you handle the turn and river, especially if blanks fall?
skp, If you chase out many of the opponents and the original bettor calls, how do you handle the turn/river when blanks fall? If you chase out many of the opponents, but the original bettor raises you on the flop, how do you handle the flop, turn, and river?
If I do get it heads up, I obviously maintain the aggressive stance and would bet regardless of what comes on the turn (I would hope that the late position bettor hasn't read my "reading hands" essay where I suggest that the late position bettor should now and then put a power play on me here by raising with just about anything on the turn because he can take my raise on the flop to mean that I have a pretty vulnerable hand).
If the late guy makes it 3 bets on the flop...who knows what I would do...a lot depends on the specific situation and it is hard to comment in a vacuum.
BTW, I agree with your comments in response to Jim's post.
PRC let us take your good points one at a time.
1. Your discussion on pot odds is fine. The problem is that you do not have enough of a hand to merit the strong action. The cost you are paying to drive out remote draws is probably not worth the cost of your raise given the weakness of your hand.
2. The fact that you may or may not be up against a better hand does not affect both actions equally. If you are up against a better hand, you could lose a lot of money playing this way. You could also lose an entire pot if you just fold.
3. If you are playing against a better hand you are making less of a mistake by putting in one bet rather than two with the possibility of a third if someone else re-raises including the original bettor. The problem is that YOU DON'T KNOW! When you don't know in these situations when you are being bet into with a large crowd of players the best option is to simply call. This is not a raise or fold situation.
4. With regard to the turn or river, that depends on what cards show up and how the betting proceeds. In most cases if I don't improve and there is serious betting action I will be folding on the turn and I will be happy that I did not dump any more dough than necessary into this hand.
The reason I posted this as a problem is because I believe that the check-raise concept is greatly abused by many of the fine posters on this forum. This abuse comes in two flavors. The first is check-raising when you catch a good flop and try to get one of your opponents to bet your hand for you. The second is this case, where you have a weak, marginal hand given the texture of the flop but you insist on trying to manipulate a table full of opponents with a spurious raise. I believe in the long run it simply costs you money.
Without a doubt, you are my favorite poster on this forum, but I don't agree with you here. I think there is a critical assumption being made about the bettor's hand, but you are changing the assumption depending on what argument you are discussing. Lets take the assumptions as a) you are almost positive the bettor has a better hand than you, and b) it is 60-40 that the bettor has you beat. Your points are in quotes:
"1. Your discussion on pot odds is fine. The problem is that you do not have enough of a hand to merit the strong action. The cost you are paying to drive out remote draws is probably not worth the cost of your raise given the weakness of your hand." a) if you are beat by the bettor, you also don't have a strong enough hand to call. The most likely better hand is ten with a higher kicker, leaving you drawing to three outs (and the J would make Q9 a straight, since you are calling, you likely give him odds to call). Either way, you have around 3 outs, four at most, making you a 11-1 dog with only 7-1 odds, and plenty of possible re-draws behind you." b) If there is a 40% chance you are ahead, then you are getting odds to call. Yet, the raise doesn't cost you that much in the long run when you are behind. Most importantly, you want to get those ugly draws out that are behind you. Getting Q9 to fold gives you three more outs right there. As skp says, raising with the second best hand is definitely applicable to this situation. In fact, it seems to be made for this situation.
"2. The fact that you may or may not be up against a better hand does not affect both actions equally. If you are up against a better hand, you could lose a lot of money playing this way. You could also lose an entire pot if you just fold." a) You are, of course, right, and I worded that poorly. When against a better hand, you shouldn't raise. However, I don't think you should call either, (see 1a above). The argument that you can lose an entire pot if you just fold is a winning pots over winning money argument, and one you wouldn't normally use. The question is whether you have pots odds to call. Against a better hand you probably don't. b) This situation is what I meant when I said that you may or may not be up against a better hand, making the raise or call an equal option in the long run. If you raise, you win more money when ahead, lose more when you are behind, and vice versa for the call. The extra equity you gain by forcing out the long shots, makes the raise the better play. Plus, I think it makes the hand cheaper to get away from if you have experience in this area (which I admittedly don't have enough).
"3. If you are playing against a better hand you are making less of a mistake by putting in one bet rather than two with the possibility of a third if someone else re-raises including the original bettor. The problem is that YOU DON'T KNOW! When you don't know in these situations when you are being bet into with a large crowd of players the best option is to simply call. This is not a raise or fold situation."
I disagree. When "YOU DON'T KNOW", the best option is not just to blindly call. The best option is to decide if a) he is best, or b) he might be best, he might not; give it your best guess percentage wise, and come up with the most optimum play. In this case, if he has you beat, your best play is to fold. If there is a good chance he doesn't have you beat, your best play is to raise, but it probably isn't much better than folding.
"4. With regard to the turn or river, that depends on what cards show up and how the betting proceeds. In most cases if I don't improve and there is serious betting action I will be folding on the turn and I will be happy that I did not dump any more dough than necessary into this hand."
I would agree with you there, thanks for your thoughts.
"The reason I posted this as a problem is because I believe that the check-raise concept is greatly abused by many of the fine posters on this forum. This abuse comes in two flavors. The first is check-raising when you catch a good flop and try to get one of your opponents to bet your hand for you. The second is this case, where you have a weak, marginal hand given the texture of the flop but you insist on trying to manipulate a table full of opponents with a spurious raise. I believe in the long run it simply costs you money."
I think you might be right here, and certainly you are right in the lower limit games that I generally play. I have greatly reduced the amount of check-raising in the low limit games as I find the greatest errors these players make is calling too much, and giving too many free cards. So, when you are strong, there is a great chance your attempted check-raise will just be checked around, and when you are weak, they will most likely call your double bet cold with any 3 outer. Ironic, that in my lower limit game, I would be more inclined to play the above hand like you would. However, in my limited 10-20 experience, I still like the check-raise.
Thanks again,
PRC
PRC, I agree that if I knew the bettor had a better hand I would fold. I agree that if I knew the bettor had a worse hand I would check-raise. But my reaction to this uncertainity is not to assume one case at the expense of the other. My reaction is to simply call. I do not feel compelled to make an irreversible decision at this point. When I am wrong and he has a better hand I will only lose a single, small bet since I will usually find out fairly quickly where I stand. But again the focus should be on your hand, your position, the texture of the flop, the betting action, and the cost. Worrying about driving out a remote draw because it may provide microscopic increases to your chances of winning the pot should not be dominating your thought process at this point in these situations.
"When I am wrong and he has a better hand I will only lose a single, small bet since I will usually find out fairly quickly where I stand."
Jim, I think that this statement sums up your argument. Frankly, I don't agree with its wisdom. Let's assume that you just call and one other player overcalls. You and the overcaller now check the turn when a blank hits. What do you think that the button is going to do most of the time? He will bet of course. Now, do you know where you stand?...I don't either.
Now, suppose you raise and get one cold-caller and a further call from the button. You certainly have gained a lot more info here, have you not? Suppose a blank hits and you decide to check anyway. Now, if the button bets, you can with a little greater degree of certainty put him on a real hand. If the button bets, he will be doing so not only with you in mind but also the cold caller. It is more likely than not that he has a real hand.
While I am not a great beliver in raising for info, I think that this is one situation where it might apply.
As for your question above, I certainly would rather have a late position bet as opposed to having the action checked through. This is so even if I decide to just call rather than checkraise. If the flop gets checked through, I will have no idea whatsoever where I stand even if something like a 3 comes off on the turn. As well, if I bet the turn when the 3 comes, the guy left of me might get smart and figure that his A8 must be best and raise. I will then have to muck the best hand. A bet from anywhere on the flop makes the players more readable on the turn. Also, it gets out hands that completely missed the flop like A5,Kh3h etc. which makes it more likely that my hand will stand up if an Ace or King should hit the turn.
I believe that you are putting too much emphasis on the possibility that the late position bettor could have you beat. My general rule of thumb: "He's a late position bettor...well, he's got sh*t...Raise!.":)
Oh for sure, if you think that the late position bettor is betting a superior hand, then you are better off just calling or even folding (there are some exceptions i.e. you might want to raise even though you know the other guy has a better hand). However, one can rarely know what the late bettor is holding.
If the late position bettor is a straight forward player who would rarely bet in a multiway field with a hand worse than yours, you are not better off raising. In fact, a fold may be called for. However, when I read Feeney's article, the impression I got is that we are talking about a type of player who may bet here in late position with a variety of hands (some better than yours some not).
Given the size of the pot, you only have to have the better hand a small percentage of the time to make raising (rather than calling) the percentage play. In fact, a raise even if you have a lesser hand than the bettor may be the percentage play i.e. the principles concerning "raising with the second best hand" come into play here.
As for the effectiveness of my raise in limiting the field, a lot depends on the quality of the players left to act. However, in most games, players holding only an inside straight would fold and players holding only middle or bottom pair would also fold. The one problem is that the flop if I recall properly was 10s8c6s. With this type of flop, players holding a gut shot draw will also often have a pair to go with their draw. Conversely, the guy holding middle pair will also have a gut shot draw. These hands may indeed call 2 bets cold. But that's their problem. I am not going to make it easy for them to call. I will raise.
Perhaps it's a case of semantics, but I believe that my J,10 does go up in value because of the late position bet. If no one bets, I have given a free card to several players some of whom would have folded had I bet. Thus, once I check (which I still think is a good move for the reasons you state), I would rather have SOMEONE bet instead of having the flop checked through.
But skp if no one bets then you almost certainly had the best hand on the flop. If someone bets, regardless of their position, you know there is a good chance you do not have the best hand on the flop. How can you feel better about your hand when someone bets?
I am not sure this applies to every situation but I should would like to hear from skp and Jim why it doesn't. David says that for all intents and purposes if you are prepared to call a bet then you're better off betting out yourself.
Because in this situation it is too easy to get raised given that dangerous board and this many opponents. By always betting I never get a free card. Frequently I end up spending two bets to see a the turn when I could have gotten by for one bet. In addition, suppose you bet, several opponents call, and the late position/aggressive player now raises? Well, there is now over 12 bets in the pot and it only cost you one more bet so do you call? It is tough not to given the pot odds. So you call and then one of the original callers now decides to raise with his draw (maybe he read about Morton's Theorem or someone's post on limp-raising or whatever) and everyone calls. Now there are close to 20 bets in the pot and it only cost you one more bet to see the turn. How can you fold given these great pot odds? So here we go, paying 3 bets to take off a card.
I like betting out on marginal holdings even middle pair or bottom pair when I have good reason to believe I can win the pot outright or can take it down on the next card because I have good position and only a small number of players to deal with. But to do so out of position with highly coordinated boards and lots of opponents is simply bad poker.
'
I haven't yet read all the posts in this thread, but I did read the Feeney article in question before it was published and agreed with it. But I also agree that the play is close, and that Jim Brier's position is reasonable.
With that being said I do play the hand like he describes providing that the board is a little more uniform than Feeney's example. For example, if the board was all spades or perhaps Ts9c7s then I am much more inclined to just check and call against a late position bettor. This is based on my experience at the tables.
Great problem, Jim, thanks. I am already learning.
For example, I'll freely admit I would have fallen squarely into the Average Player's Thoughts, and bet my top pair weak kicker, to see where I was.
My question is: when would you bet this hand. I imagine the answer has to do with the number of opponents. Let me change the original question slightly. Same situation, except the latter position players are somewhat passive. Counting down from six opponents, when do you start betting this hand from the BB? Would you bet against two other opponents, three?
With passive, late position players, and several calling stations, I think I bet this hand with two opponents, but not more. With more, I will wait and bet the turn if a blank card hits. The reason I check is I gain a lot of information when no one bets, as I can fairly put all the players on a draw or an even weaker ten. If I bet it out, I am going to get callers because of the connected board, but I won't know if they are calling with a draw, or a better kicker, leaving me with a tougher decision on the turn.
I don't know what I would do if an early position player bet in this case. I still play top pair, weak kicker poorly (as evidenced by agreeing with the average player's thinking). I especially play it poorly when I am out of position.
That is why I love this forum. Every now and then, a thread appears that directly applies to one of my leaks.
Thanks for all the great posts!!
PRC
Actually whether or not the latter position players are passive or aggressive is not a dominant consideration. Trying to speculate where a future bet might come from when holding a weak hand facing a dangerous board and a table full of opponents is not real productive. In an unraised pot, I like betting top pair/weak kicker when I have a small number of opponents, 3 or less. When faced with 4 or more, I think checking is better. Betting and especially check-raising is very bad given that board and the large field. I did get a piece of the flop, I have an interest in the pot, and I am willing in most cases to pay one bet to see the turn.
This thread could easily make the "Best of the 2+2 Holdem Forum". And my guess is that John Feeney will love it.
I just got in and only have a few thoughts. First, I think John's example may have been a little better if the bottom card was a "baby" rather than in the "straight zone". The board could be a little too dangerous to check raise even a late position bettor but it is probably a close decision. So in this sense I can see Jim's point
Jim also wrote: "If someone bets and several players just call, I think I will call and take off a card. A Ten gives me trips, a Jack gives me two pair, a Nine or a Seven or a Queen gives me an inside straight draw but if any of these are Spades my hand is severely compromised because a flush possibility is now out there."
Let's say I decide to take Jim's advice and check and see what happens (and maybe plan to check raise a late bettor a la John Feeney and skp). I would tend to fold if a player on my left bet and there were several callers in between. My thinking is that the cards that improve my hand are generally very dangerous and will often generate a lot of action on the turn that I may not be able to handle. For example, let's say I make an inside straight draw. With this large field I can't imagine often seeing the river for one turn bet. So will it really help me? I'm also not very confident if my mediocre made hand is improved by spiking a ten or jack. It will be better but still a mediocre hand (e.g., trips with a bad kicker or two very vulnerable pair) and may often have me end up coming in an expensive second or third best.
On the other hand, if an early player bets and there are no callers, I would tend to take one off since I don't have to worry about getting squeezed on the turn and river. Against one opponent, I may be able to make the brave move on the turn with a higher likelihood of success.
Am I too tight with my overcalls against a large field here?
Regards,
Rick
If an early player bets and several call with no raises then there would be about 10 bets in the pot and it would cost me 1 bet to see the turn. I agree that turning a card which gives me a gutshot is not really helpful unless by some remote chance no one bets the turn. But suppose one of the 2 Tens shows up? My chances of having the best hand increase because the likelihood of the bettor having a Ten is diminished. It becomes more likely that he was betting a draw. In addition, with trips I have a lot of outs to a full house which will beat any straights or flushes my opponents might make. Suppose a Jack turns? Well, the Jack of Spades is of dubious value since it could easily give someone a flush and for sure there will be redraws at the river. On the other hand, I would have the top two pair and have some outs to fill at the river. The other two Jacks could give someone a straight if they held specifically Queen-Nine or Nine-Seven and again there could be redraws. I am looking at maybe 5 outs (2 Tens and 3 Jacks) on the turn. This is about 8:1 so I have a small overlay. But frankly with a lot of opponents still in the hand, like you say it could get expensive. I think I would venture a call but a fold against a large field may be right.
i see what you are saying about just calling the early/mid bet and folding to 2 raises, but you have to raise the late bet. you're a scaredy cat. just so you know, i have had about a pitcher and a half, but all the same you shouldn't be so afraid of the check raise from the average table. definite check raise after a late bettor. also, assuming it is 2 or 3 handed up to you, i would check raise an early or mid bettor in the hope of getting a free turn and a calls on the river.
if anyone else has said any of this, i'll read it shortly. in any case i said it under the influence.
scott
Interesting thread. I don't like just calling the late position bet.
One reason not getting enough weight here it seems, is the danger of an overcard beating you. Allowing those other hands to take one off cheaply is definitely going to cost you if any of the many overcards turns. If you are down to just 1 or 2 players you don't have to freeze up and check fold, and your turn bet will be nice and scary to the remaining players ( if the overcard didn't help them ).
D.
Wow, there have been a lot of good points made both pro and con here. Not surprisingly, I tend to agree with skp, Scott, and with much of what PRC says too (Oh, and David Steele who just posted as I was finishing this.) I'm working from memory now about what various posters have said, but I'll just make a few comments that hit on some of the issues that have been raised.
Rick may be right that a flop with a baby third card would have made the point more clearly, but I wanted to make it clear that this top pair was very vulnerable. If it's not so vulnerable that you'd just have to check and fold, then I still go with the check, hoping a bet comes from a late player so I can raise. It is in large part because it is so vulnerable that you have to raise. No you don't expect to knock out four-flushes or (probably) open ended straight draws. But you should often have a good chance of getting out gut draws (sometimes even if they do have a pair), middle and bottom pairs, and overcards. Note that if an early position player is lurking with a hand like QTs, planning his own check-raise, confronting him with two bets cold just might get him to fold as well.
Yes, the bettor may have you beat. But, first, the very fact that the bet is coming from a late position player who has just seen everyone check to him makes it more likely that he has any of a range of hands including many that you beat. Often, he sees all those checks and thinks (probably correctly), "Well, heck, with all those checks, maybe this little 'ol middle pair here is the best hand. I better bet it, cuz sure as Scott uses "small caps" (TM Nebiolo, 1999) the next card off is gonna kill my hand.
Next, note as well that I described the late position players as the "the more aggressive" in the game. This makes it even more likely that when such a player bets the hands with which he'll do so include many that the JT can beat.
Much as PRC says, you can't restrict your check-raise in this spot to those times you're really confident that you have the best hand (as you would be with a straight, or might be with a set or two pair). (In fact if you had a really strong hand, betting out would often be better so as to get calls from players who will now have a tougher time drawing out on you [such as bottom pair], or against whom you at least have good redraw potential [such as when you have a set].) As skp points out you don't have to have the best hand such a great percentage of the time to make the raise correct. It will improve your chances of winning those times your hand *is* best (which I would guess could easily be over 70% of the time), will enable you to win some of the time when you're second best, and, as PRC states, should increase not just win frequency but EV. (I'd be interested in any disagreements with that comment about EV from any of the "thin the field" nay-sayers. To me this looks like a classic case for thinning the field.)
To go a step beyond the advanced player's thinking in the article, I would be thinking about the check-raise, but, like others in this thread, would also be thinking about what I would do if a bet came from an early player and was followed by many or by few callers. This is a tricky decision. In many instances I would just call, but would then bet out on the turn. I can hardly imagine a scenario where I would fold for one bet on the flop. Well, I could contrive one involving a bettor who's just terribly predictable about betting only with strong hands… or maybe a weak-tight bettor followed by several similar callers. But under normal circumstances I'd be thinking about how to get the most value out of the hand, which with its reasonable chance of being best now, but its being very, very vulnerable, would often mean thinking about how not to decrease my own chance of winning the pot.
I do agree, Jim, with the idea of seeing what happens after you check. I see that as kind of going along with the intention to check-raise. Sometimes the action before it gets back to you makes it clear that you have to fold.
As for Sammy's comment about the rule of thumb that "if your hand is worth a call if you checked and someone else bet, then you should bet yourself", I don't think the check-raise here violates that. But I also think that idea is usually applied to hands that are a little weaker like middle pair or a draw - i.e., cases where it's not so immediately clear that your hand may in fact be best right now. You look at your hand and think, "It's not so good, may well not be best, but it's worth at least a call. Hey, then maybe it's worth a bet!" With this hand, however, it's not only clearly worth a call, it's immediately clear that it's worth a bet, that it's got quite a good chance of being the best hand right now. But "betting" by check-raising is better than betting out in this spot. (I don't know if that's very clear, but that's it for now.)
All in all, I'm going to have to pretty much agree with Feeney's analysis in the article. ;)
Though I may not have a lot of time, I'll try to look in on this thread in the morning. Maybe by then Jim will be a check-raising convert.
Btw, Jim, I do like your new posting style!
Then what would be the right play?
be already all in?
brad
DS,
I would bet especially if it was Z's money.
TOF
Assuming the same limits, you defintely raise and hope your irrational opponents fold at any opportunity.
Assuming rational opponent, anyone with a single out to beat you will call, you are a longish shot, but even then it seems you might add a little bit to you EV with all those weak calls.
D.
If you're counting on your opponents to make a dumb fold with a million dollars in the pot, calling the flop and checkraising the turn might be a better way to knock them out.
I tend to agree with Niels -- if you think there's some chance people might fold. But if you assume no one will fold at all, then I think I'd just bet, purely for value, thereby slightly increasing EV with what is reasonably likely to be the best hand. Then, still assuming no one will fold, if someone raised I'd just call all bets to the river. (Unless of course I'm playing a limit like $100,000-$200,000, which changes everything. But, sadly, I haven't seen such a game just recently.) Also, here I'm guessing Rick will *not* check and fold. ;)
Have Zee knock the power out in the joint, then you and Mason scoop the money and run.
John,
I'm a little tired fighting the flu but this is such a good thread let me see if I have the energy to make a comment. I really don't have much of a quibble with your example or the fact that in battle I would also check raise an aggressive late position bettor most of the time. Perhaps I was leading in with a conciliatory approach with Jim before I made my main point since it applies to other situations (for example, let's say you were the button with the same hand, number of opponents, and the bet came out of the blind).
Anyway, assume I checked and the person on my left bet, I don't think I would overcall an early bettor and several callers in between with a hand that will often get me in trouble in a pot that is really not that big (in proportion to the number of competitors). If that same player bet from early position and my call means it will be head up, I would easily call with less pot odds but with only one opponent I may be able to outplay. So I seem to be tighter then most when holding an OK hand with OK back door draws facing a "protected bet" into lots of opponents who do call with a dangerous board. But then again, illness may have dampened my spirit. Or maybe I'm just delirious :-).
Regards,
Rick
A new poster comes to us and says "I opened with a raise under the gun with pocket Sevens because: 1) I might drive out the players behind me who could have an Ace, King, etc. and catch a flop to beat me, 2) I might get a better hand like pocket Eights or Nines to fold, 3)I want to thin the field and get position over the blinds if they choose to play, 4) A great deal of deception is added to my play and my opponents cannot always assume that I have a big hand when I raise, etc.." Now his approach definitely increases the likelihood of him winning the pot and the tryo might believe that these reasons are compelling enough to raise rather than limping in. But I am certain that we would all be in agreement that the raise is still bad poker because his hand is not strong enough to merit the action he is taking. Plus he could get re-raised. The correct play is to simply limp in and await developments trying to see a flop as cheaply as possible.
Those of you enamored with the check-raise concept are using similar logic by check-raising with a tenuous holding. Yes, in this case the pot is bigger but more than offsetting the larger pot is the fact that you have a lot of opponents, a dangerous flop, and an opponent who is willing to bet into a crowd. I think you need to have a real hand to be dumping dough into a pot in these situations.
Jim -- I tend to agree about the 77 (though Abdul argues for a raise with them :). But I don't think they're analogous to the hand here. It's looking to me like the cause of the difference between your way of looking at it and mine may be our assessments of how likely the JT is to be the best hand on this flop, once the late postion player bets. Am I right to think that you might guess the JT is only about 25% likley to be best? As I mentioned above I think it could well be over 70% likely to be best (given the aggressive, late position bettor). That's why I see it as "vulnerable", but not as weak or tenuous a holding as I think you do.
Here we have two of the most articulate and knowledgable posters on this forum looking at the same hand with the same flop with the same philosophy. One optimistic, one pessimistic. Both have good arguments for their views. It's no wonder when we novices try and apply what we learn here that our play becomes inconsistent. I would tend to side with John on this one for one simple point. Tight and agressive gets the money. We don't play poker at the $20-$40 level to be cautious. I'm not saying that caution doesn't have its place. It's just that if Jim and John are split on it how wrong can either choice be? So, see it for one bet. It won't be the biggest mistake anybody made that session.
/
The 25% estimate is probably reasonable. It may even be higher if the bettor so aggressive to the point of routinely betting any piece of the flop when 5 or 6 players check to him. But the board and the large crowd is what makes me nervous.
I haven't read any of the other posts yet, but in this situation, I would check and only call if I had a back door flush possibilities, unless of course the better has shown that he would bet with nothing here.seeeya
!
Didn't any of you guys wonder what I was getting at? Hint: Horse race paradox.
Yeah, I wondered, wondered a little more, then may have gotten my previous answer partially wrong. The horse race paradox says that if you have multiple draws against you (a good possibility in this hand), and you hold a decent but not great hand without a lot of additional outs, you may have become the least likely to win of all the hands out. This is despite being a favorite against any one or maybe two of the hands against you. This highlights the value of thinning the field when you think you have a chance to do so. So, in the case of the million dollar pot, *if* for some reason you thought there was even a *tiny* chance some of your opps were capable of folding before the river, you should do all you can to get them to do so. You might raise on the turn, for example. But if you know there's no chance any of them will fold (the likely scenario), then you might do best just to check and call all the way since, if they do indeed hold multiple draws against you, your underdog status would dictate against betting for value. The tricky part, though, would seem to be making the judgment about whether they do have those multiple draws. Maybe it's enough just to have a straighty/flushy ten-high flop and 6 limpers against you? Hmmm, yeah, probably so.
As the pot gets larger and the players get trickier, Jim's arguments get stronger and stronger. On the other hand I hate arguments that try to justify saving fractions of small bets which is why Sammy B's post is best of all.
To clarify, David meant Sammy's second post - the "fuzzy thinking" one about the situation being close. I think Rick zeroed in correctly on the fact that I could have picked an example flop like Ts8c3d to make it a more clear cut case. Mason's comments also point to this, given that with just a slightly more uniform flop he would likely check and call. So, though I still think that given the parameters I laid out the check-raise is usually best, I made the example more debatable than necessary in making very sure it was clear that the JT was "vulnerable".
Here are some additional comments I got from David when I asked for clarification of his last post. (Remember that this was not a raised pot.):
"I don't remember if you said the pot was raised before the flop. But if it was, checking and calling may be right. Besides the reasons given, another one is that if you check and there is both a bet and a raise behind you can save money. You also can save a lot of money if you check, call and then someone check raises. This second saving can occur not only if the button reraises but also simply because you are more apt to get away cheaply. Finally if you check and everybody checks you will usually win without a fight on fourth st. if you have the best hand and bet out. (If you are raised you can again save money against most players.) Remember however that these comments are predicated on this exact hand, PLUS an assumption that there are possible sandbaggers behind you."
John, your post was under mine so I'm not sure if you wanted comments from me or whoever... so your stuck with me........ the outsider.
Thinning the field here just doesn't seem right as you might not even have the second best hand. you know for sure you don't have the best backdoor draw, so why play ? If I had the backdoor flush in this case I would just call.
With medium cards and no raise pre-flop you can easily be up against two pair, trips open enders and of course the flush draws as well as better kickers, and your out of posis tion.
Now list the positives............top pair med kicker against several opponents?
My gut reaction when I first read this post was check/fold. I since then have read all the posts, and mostly stayed with this feeling that a fold is best for several reasons.
I decided to look at what HPFAP might have to say, and there is some interesting material in the 21st on pages 65-68. There is much discussion about top pair/weak kicker in several different contexts, but the final comment runs like this, paraphrasing:
If the top pair is jacks or lower(and assuming a weak kicker), fold, but if you play and the bet is late, raise.
I by no means think HPFAP covers all situations, and is mostly intended to provide guidelines for correct thinking. Many decisions in poker are not either/or, and are so dependent on infinite variables, that examples like this should only be taken as a point of departure for discussion. Much of what we do at the table comes back to style - very aggressive players will check raise this hand, less aggressive will check/fold - even things like current table image and available bankroll can be a factor.
Great thread - I would still mostly dump this hand and wait for those Aces.
I've gotten hammered my past few low-limit sessions. Today was my best showing but I compromised my starting criteria to get there. Some thought from you all please.
The game is 4-8HE. My first hand was QJc and I lose to Q3o when a 3 hits the turn. I bet the whole way. I was dealt JJ twice. First time from early position and I raise. Nobody folds, 9 players see the flop for 2 bets. I loose. Second time from middle position I decide not to raise (no one gets out anyhow). I loose again. I was there for 2.5 hours and watched K2o flop top pair and draw to the river calling bets all the way to catch a 2 and take down more than $100 pot! This type of playing was rampant. Then I won a $175 pot to bring me back to even. I was dealt 56c in early position. I figure playing this hand is still playing tighter than the rest of the players, so I played. The flop is 4s 7c Ts. I bet and everyone calls. Turn is 8c, someone bets into me and I raise - two callers. River is 2h. I bet and get one caller.
How the heck is one suppose to play against a field such as this?
Thanks,
I'm thinking about only playing 9-18 and above. VERY FRUSTRATING!
On the first hand, I would like to know more details. How many players took the flop? What was the flop? What was the betting? etc. How did the hand play out?
On the second hand, you lost with pocket Jacks when you raised and got a bunch of callers. What was the flop? Did you get when over cards flopped or did you stay and play a two outer??
It will take several hundred hours before you will know where you are at. I recommend writing down as many hands as you can and posting some of them for comment. I strongly recommend you stick to $4-$8 until you are confident you can beat the game before going to a higher limit.
played today and decided i'd play good cards. most of the players in my one game town have fun capping with 5-7 players andhope. i've not been holding any cards to play except hands like 9-10 not s so i play most blinds if they were cheap or tossing. then came several hands that were very playable and it payed off with a $250 win. play good cards all the time and be patient.
In the game you describe, I think that you should be raising good hands like JJ for value, not to try t drive out players. Getting 8 or 9 callers with a big end middle pair like that is great. Making them pay two bets is even better.
I think that you are seeing some of the adjustments you must make. You played 56s in an early position because the game was loose. You don't say, but it sounds like a passive game. This kind of game allows you to play marginal, drawing, (and even some weak) hands up front. You need to play drawing hands and raising with the strong ones to do well in this game. You will have a hihg variance, but as long as you know when to get uot on the flop, you should have a large mean to go with it.
Sorry for the typos, but my son climbed into my lap for a little comforting.
Eric
I am an up and coming player and have been playing about 10 hours a month (not enough), mostly 3-6 for 4 years. I would like to know how much money and how often does a good player lose at this level? I know over the long run they will win, but I am talking short term losses. I am trying to figure out if I am playing incorrectly or just having a run of bad luck. Jim Brier and Rounder please respond. Thanks.
It sounds like you play about 100 hours a year. When I played $3-$6 my standard deviation was about $80 per hour partially because they allowed an optional $12 bet on the end. Let us say that your standard deviation is $70 an hour (you should be computing this from Malmuth's book). Let us say that you are capable of beating this game (after paying an exorbitant rake in most cases) for about $6 per hour. Then at the end of the year you should be ahead $600. However, after 100 hours of play your results will vary from this due to the tune of $700 ($70 x square root of 100). In extreme cases it could vary by $1400 (two standard deviations). So it is quite possible that you could be a top player in this game and be down money at the end of the year. This is because 100 hours is not the long run despite having taken a year of your life to accrue. There is a formula for determining how many hours you need to play to assure a win based on your hourly expectation and hourly standard deviation. I think in a $3-$6 game you need about 400-500 hours but I am not sure.
If you play 9 hour playing sessions you can easily win or lose $200 from your expected results.
I think you need a playing bankroll of about $500 to $1000. You should play 8-10 hour sessions and have a couple hundred on you. Write down hands. Post for comment. Review with other players you know who are good. Don't play any higher than $3-$6. Avoid shorthanded games. Try to avoid games with high rakes especially jackpot games. Don't over tip. Avoid games with a lot of raising before the flop until you are booking wins and regain your confidence.
Jim and all,
Excellent post. Several of my friends have been concerned about the bad beats they experience at low limit. In this case, they are playing 2-4 Hold 'Em on-line. Rake is 5%, and there is no tipping or jackpot rakes. They are anxious to step up in limits as soon as possible in an attempt to reduce the number of bad beats.
In my view this is a mistake, and I have always advised that players should play as cheaply as possible, until they have built up a decent role. My reasoning is a) the 5% rake makes this game easily beatable, even at 2-4, b) you play better when within your bank roll, and c) the more bad beats you take, the worse the play at that level, thus making that game the easiest to beat, not the hardest.
Lately, I've been reading enough that I am beginning to doubt myself. Specifically, I'm worried that a) even a 5% rake is not beatable at 2-4, or more correctly, you can't beat it at a high enough rate to make it worthwhile, b) according to a recent article by a twoplustwo author, you may be picking up some bad habits if you play to long at this level; habits that will be very difficult to change one you move higher.
Given the above rake and a recreational player, if your bank roll is under $1200 (and is very difficult to replenish), should you stay at the 2-4 level until you build a higher bank roll (say $1500-$1800), or are you better moving up and risking your bank roll at a higher game. I'm using the rule of thumb figure of 300 big bets for a safe bank roll.
Thanks,
PRC
Sound advice from Jim. A caution is needed though. If you're not beating the game it's much more likely that your game is flawed than you are experiencing a bad run.
Scott: Really? I would think that in a low limit game, with an extreme rake and everyone chasing everyone else, it's unlikely that anything be likely after only 120 hours.
I play 2/4 3/6 and 5/10 games. This is what I find:
I can almost promise you that you will have a 3-1 or better win/loss session ratio in a 2/4 or 3/6 game if you just do the following:
1- Play 10-15% better (or tighter) hands than your opponents
2- DO NOT CHASE! Know when your beat and get out
5/10 games are better and more fun to play, since you need to be more creative in order to succeed.
If you love poker then play more and master those 2/4 and 3/6 games.
I would love to play in a regular 10/20 game, but I just don't have the roll right now. Good luck and think positive!
this is my first post on this sight. i have played at various limits for many years. i am fairly succesful player. when you play lower limits you have to avoid all tricky or advanced plays. the typical opponent at these levels will not even be aware of your moves. you must play tighter than in larger limits and go in with the mind set that you will pound these stiffs and absorb any bad beats. these games can be very profitable and are real confidence builders.
Your worst loss for a single session should be in the neighborhood of 50 big bets, which at $3-6 limit is $300. If you go sailing for much more than that, you probably have your game deteriorate a lot when you are stuck by playing too many hands trying to get even.
That's my limit as well. I usually walk into the casino with a G-note for my $10-20 game. If I lose it, I am a goner because try as I might, I can't play anywhere near my best when I am stuck that deep.
I don't know where you are playing - let's assume you are in a house with a selection of games or tables to play in.
I think one of my strongest playing traits is I am good at picking the right game for me. Some games - regardless of what some say here are just to hard to win consistantly in. A table with no loose players - a rock garden and a table with more than 3 loose maniac types is also really tough to beat without huge variences.
So be selective of your game if that is possible.
Another mistake all losing players make is playing to many hands, suited gapped or coupled cards in early to mid position and calling raises with marginal hands. Loosing players also stay in hands to long. If you don't hit a flop hard, muck - period - don't be drawing thin - 3 card flushes and straights without anything else going like over cards and a pair is gonna cost you to many bets for to few outs.
10 hours a month is not much time at all - it is mid month and I only have 12 hours logged and I have been sick and played 9 tournaments. It is hard for me to imagine only playing so few hours.
Get in the habbit of quiting while you are ahead. Even if it is less than $100 if you are ahead and the game is getting a little tougher pick up and go. It will do your confidence wonders.
I wish you success. E-mail me if you have specific questions.
I think you probably ought to be winning somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% of your sessions. However, since you don't play very much, this may be hard to accomplish (it's difficult to become a winning player at any limit unless if you can't put some real time in at the table).
Playing 1-5 spread limit 1$ blind, drunk maniac, straddling everty hand then raising max on his option has caused the game to end up heads up with him 9 out of ten hands. The other players all uncomfortable paying 10 dollars a hand have really tightened up. only playing connected face cards and similar hands.
There are two callers before me I have KQo, I'm about to call when the dealer announces that the Ks will be the burn card. I muck my hand figuring I probably won't be getting any help because of the other two callers are prob. playing similar cards.
At the show down I saw the other two K's, and no help ever came for me on the board. Was my fold correct or should I have raised and let the drunk re-raise me to knock out the other two players? I know he would have capped the pot with any holding as he was doing this all day. thx
Your fold was correct. The absence of a King seriously cripples your hand. Furthermore, you cannot be sure the other guys will fold and you could be in serious trouble paying $10 and having other opponents in the hand besides the drunk.
In this came with a $1 blind that is spread limit with a drunk putting in a $10 straddle you should simply play very tight. You can afford to because your fixed cost is so small. Lay back until you get AA,KK,QQ,AK or maybe AQ suited and then lower the boom with big pre-flop raise to $15. In a game like the one you describe just calling behind the drunk pre-flop is rarely correct. Either fold or raise.
If your idea wouldn't have worked you'd be in a bad place unless you hit the flop hard. And if the maniac had position on you there's a good chance it wouldn't have worked (I'm assuming he wasn't in the blind).
Both limpers are already resigned to paying 2 bets to see the flop. At least one of them might well pay 3. In that case, the action after the flop will probably be (1) everyone checking to the maniac and you overcalling with crippled overcards, which you'll probably dump on the turn or river; or (2) a bet by a limper that you can't call with the raiser behind you. A hand that can't beat any pair or any ace needs all the help it can get. Good fold.
Baelwulfe,
I'll answer before looking at other responses.
Since two tight, "uncomfortable", players are already in the pot, you have to figure that you are beat by one of them in at least one spot since they are expecting heavy action from the maniac. My guess is that they will probably be playing a good pair or a better king or queen. I would fold even if I didn't see the king being used as the burn.
In general, KQ offsuit is not the type of hand you want to be involved with when there is a maniac and two tight players already in. It will cost you a lot and your worry will be action from the tight players.
BTW, if you were heads up with the maniac, KQ offsuit is a fine hand but be prepared to go all the way with it.
Regards,
Rick
This is a variant of a problem from a recent thread where I am not sure of my decision making in this type of situation. I'll post the problem here and reveal what I would do and why in a separate post immediately below. I will be home most of the day for a change so I should be able to respond quickly if the thread generates any interest.
Let us say you are in a relatively loose 20/40 game containing several calling stations. Six players limp in before the flop. You are on the button with Jh Td and call. The SB folds and the BB checks. The flop comes Ts 8c 6s. The BB bets out and all six pre flop limpers call in front of you. It is your decision. What do you do and why?
Regards,
Rick
I would tend to fold in this situation. I believe that my hand is very weak and the cards that improve my hand on the turn are very dangerous in this situation.
For example, let's say I make an inside straight draw to go along with my pair weak kicker by spiking a nine or a queen that is not a spade (six cards). With this large field and a clustered board it will usually cost me more than one big bet to see the river. I will often only split even if I make by straight. Of course a river straight that makes a three flush on board could easily make someone a flush with this large a field. In addition, making two pair (i.e., jacks and tens) on the river after getting the straight draw on the turn will put four cards to a straight on board which would make my hand barely worth a crying call. So will these six cards really help me? Note that, given my thinking when the nine or queen is offsuit, I obviously don't believe spiking a queen or nine of spades is of any value unless it gets checked through (very unlikely).
Let's say my mediocre made hand is improved by making two pair on the turn (jacks and tens). Now this would be playable most of the time but it is by no means a lock. The jack would make someone holding Q9 a straight or give other hands straight draws. If the jack of spades comes I am probably holding two pair versus a flush. None of these seem to have much EV in the face of the relatively small pot and large number of opponents with redraws.
The best turn card may be to a ten. I have trips with a weak kicker. I now hope the flop better was on two small pair or on a draw. I would figure any ten the BB bet would probably include a better kicker or would already be full or would contain the draw (e.g., T9). I also have to hope that there was no player just calling with a ten better kicker (remember, in a relatively loose game so this is very possible). And if the set was already out you would be facing plenty of unwanted action (I seem to fear sets by mid position flop callers more than most).
An ace or a king on the turn would make my hand unplayable unless it got checked on the turn (unlikely again). A baby would be a fair card but I don't think I could call the double size turn bet and several probable callers.
On the other hand, if the BB bets and there are no callers, I would play since I don't have to worry about getting squeezed on the turn and river. Against one opponent, I may be able to make the brave move at some point in the hand with a higher likelihood of success.
Anyway, I seem to be tighter then most when holding an OK hand with OK back door draws facing a "protected bet" into lots of opponents who do call with a dangerous board. Am I too tight with my overcalls against a large field here?
BTW, flames are welcome since I am wearing my asbestos robe today.
Regards,
Rick
Well, let us go through our choices here. We can raise,fold, or call. Pre-flop there were 6 limpers plus yourself and the big blind. That adds up to $170 in the pot pre-flop. On the flop, everyone calls to you with no one raising. This brings the total pot size up to $310 and it costs you $20 to see the turn with no possibility of a re-raise. My immediate pot odds are over 15:1. Depending upon the subsequent action, this pot could end up at $600 or $700 perhaps even higher. Being on the button with the big blind leading I am ideally positioned to get out if all hell breaks loose on the turn. I am also well positioned to trap a lot of players for extra bets if I hit a hand. I have top pair and some remote drawing possibilities. I am most likely up against lots of flush draws, straight draws, and perhaps a made hand. With all this in mind, here are my thoughts for each option:
1. Raising is simply obscene. It could easily get re-raised and I could get pushed right out of the hand never getting to see the turn. It is not a value raise or a money odds raise or "thin the field" raise or deception raise or any kind of raise worthy of the name.
2. Folding because the turn might bring a card that gives me a second best hand is understandable. The problem is that I am totally setting aside the fantastic pot odds that I getting plus my superb position. I do have a piece of the flop. I don't know what will happen on the turn. I guess I have to have enough confidence in myself as a player to capitalize on my superb position and the betting actions so I can avoid paying for an expensive second best hand when the turn comes. I agree that I may be faced with tough choices on the turn and river in some cases when the pot is large and my outs are few. But to simply throw in the towel because things might get difficult goes against the grain for me.
3. I like calling. For $20 I get to see the turn and maintain my prospects of winning a large pot. It is good to have a plan like you have outlined in your post based on the various turn card possibilities that improve your hand. It is precisely because of your ability to intelligently assess your future prospects that makes a call superior to a fold. Rick, I would cheerfully take a piece of your action on this one if it ever came up.
fold unless you have the back door flush draw. same as the john feeney thread below. I believe you are totally correct in your thinking here, since most of the cards that help you can help someone else, and the threat of a flush is out. seeya
al raiseya,
Are you responding to me or to Jim Brier? From the content of your post I would guess me. Anyway, I thought Sklansky was the only one who didn't know where to place his posts -;).
Regards,
al reraiseya ...Err, I mean Rick
Rick, I was responding to you, and yes I don't know what the hell I'm doing with regards to where my posts are going. seeya
Jim,
Thanks for the analysis and vote of confidence. I certainly wouldn't mind selling a piece of my action because I would think calling could be a high variance play.
One thing is for sure. If I did take one off and hit a pretty good turn card, warning bells would go off in the face of heavy action. So I shouldn't be caught in there without any decent outs very often.
BTW, take away the two flush on the flop and I will call every time.
Regards,
Rick
First of all, "A 20/40 game with several calling stations" Why can't I find games like this? Though I've never played Cali.
My thoughts are that with Six callers, even though I may have the best hand right now, there are so many cards that can come of the deck that would be very scary to me that I may want to fold here. I can't knock anyone out and even if I do snag a T, J, or 9. I may still be in bad shape. Whats the pot offering? 15 to 1? I still say fold.
What would I want with JTo preflop? I'm sure I would have liked to see a Straight draw, Hidden Two pair or Trips. Then I could have played. With Top pair Weak Kicker on the flop with a Straight and Flush draw looking at me and 8 players calling the Flop Bet.... Gack....
CV
Chris, if the only reason you limp in on the button with Jack-Ten offsuit is because you will play if you flop a straight, a straight draw, two pair, or trips but fold everything else then you should always just fold pre-flop. The reason is because you will not flop these hands enough times to make calling profitable. There are about 19,000 possible flops. How many give you a straight, an open ended straight draw, two pair, or trips? Not enough to make even calling worthwhile.
Jim,
You wrote: "Chris, if the only reason you limp in on the button with Jack-Ten offsuit is because you will play if you flop a straight, a straight draw, two pair, or trips but fold everything else then you should always just fold pre-flop.
With this many opponents, you would be getting odds just on these flops alone :-). I'll let others elaborate. But I agree that there are many good flops that contain only one pair (or even no pair - e.g., an inside straight with two overcards) with this hand and position.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. One reason I will let "others elaborate" is that I have forgotten what the odds that middle connectors will flop an open ended straight draw or better (including double gut shots). I believe it is around 12% of the time. Can anyone help me?
I looked in "Hold'em's odd(s) book" for the Numbers. I didn't take into account the possible paired or suited flops.
The Strong Flops for JTo in combinations from 50 cards.
JJJ = 1
TTT = 1
JJT = 9
TTJ = 9
JJx = 132
TTx = 132
JTx = 396
KQ9 = 64
AKQ = 64
KQx = 640
Q98 = 64
987 = 64
98x = 640
AQ8 = 64
K97 = 64
-----------
Total = 2344
2344/19600~ 0.12
Someone want to verify? LOL
CV
"if the only reason you limp in on the button with Jack-Ten offsuit is because you will play if you flop a straight, a straight draw, two pair, or trips but fold everything else then you should always just fold pre-flop. "
Why else would you be playing JTo if not to pull one of those flops? Surely you're not hoping that your Jack high will win the pot for you, and jacks with a ten kicker (or vice versa) isn't anything to scream about.
Dan
I think your post was directed at me rather than Rick so I will take the liberty of answering it. While in general you hope to flop a good draw with Jack-Ten offsuit, there are times that you flop top pair and sometimes it holds up or improves on the turn or river to the winning hand. Now of course it does not rate to win against a large field but it does represents some of your winning chances. In this case you have a very large pot, excellent position, and you have got a piece of the flop. I think it is premature to just dump the hand for $20 when there is already over $300 in it and no one has shown any particular strength.
Jim,
You mis-read my post, I may not have explained it that well either.
Flopping "Top Pair" is great if you can narrow the field and the board isn't too scary. If the bet had come late, and to my right then raising might be the best play. I still don't like the board and suspect many draws are out. The way the hand was bet early and to my left with many callers makes folding my best play.
CV
Rick
I haven't read all the responses yet so forgive me if I bump heads here. I think your chances of winning this pot aren't exactly monstrous, but the pot certainly is. I don't think I'm running with top pair for only $20 with about 15 times that in there already and no chance of a raise. Since you define these players as calling stations I suspect you could go all the way to the river for pretty cheap. One play I might consider (granted all things being equal I always lean towards the aggressive) is to raise. You're certainly against all kinds of hands, overcards, flush draws, straight draws,and possibly top pair with a better kicker, but if everyone in the game is a weak player I suspect they would be the type to not bet into a raiser without a hand. You could gain a little information and probably sneak into the river for free if a blank hits, again if these players are all the typical weak players. Your chances aren't necessarily the best, but you're getting excellent pot odds without much fear of aggression later on. Either way I think I would certainly at least call with top pair in such a big pot.
MB
Facing 6 limpers at the 20-40 level is unusual. Is this game similar to the one in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"? I will assume I'm not up against 6 mental patients here.
I'm not playing JTo in this spot. Not even tempted, thank you very much. QJo also will go into the muck in most cases and KQo will be played while holding my nose.
JTo is a classic sucker hand, much better in Blackjack than Hold-em.
Scott,
I chose 20/40 holdem since this seems to be the limit the author's who wrote the original material (John Feeney and Jim Brier) write for. I would note that even in Los Angeles the games are rarely that good so perhaps I should have used 6/12 -;).
I will make a comment about JT offsuit under Jim Brier's response to Chris V.
Regards,
Rick
I would make the call in the conditions described mostly do to the calling stations and me having position over them. It is true that sometimes the cards that will help will also hurt but with these players you should be able to loose less and win more. I will be looking to get a Jack, a ten or nine. I also be looking for a seven or a queen. I think you loose a little too much here if you don't call.
This is a close decision. Jim's right about the 15-1 odds being attractive, but he's forgetting about the negative implied odds in this situation.
I think an argument can be made for both folding and calling, depending on the nature of the players in the hand.
Dan,
It is funny, but this hand has either negative (unfavorable is the term I use) implied odds or favorable implied odds depending on what happens on the turn and river.
If you improve your made hand (two pair or trips) you have the negative implied odds you speak of since it is still very vulnerable to redraws or may even be dead on arrival.
If you pick up your inside straight draw and can see the river for no more then one bet, you are getting some implied odds. I just cannot imagine getting to the river that cheaply.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Great response to Louie on that Morton's Theorem thread on the Theory Forum
fold.......ur already beat and if u make 2 pair somebodies got the straight (ala Q9) and somebody might have it already. Unles u runner runner a boat ur beat
I always think dynamic part of poker makes the game exciting both for good and bad players for different reasons. In holdem game, the turn card can change the action, your oppornent's thinking, and your hand's value as well. In most close situations, "to see what happens" is what I usually do. Those hands or draws are not always there, even if they are there, that is where we use our skills to make judgement. I would call here and see what happens on the turn.
regards,
jikun
I would fold immediately against the possible flush and straight draws and the liklihood that you are drawing dead against a T with a better kicker.
There is a good thread about holdem called "Morton's Theorum" in the "General Theory" forum.
The following hand occurred severl months ago in an 8/16 Holdem game. I had just sat down, so I did not have a read on any of the players.
3rd to act raises and I call in 6th position with TT. The button reraises and the original better (OB) reraises back. I call and the button caps. Three of us remain with 16 1/2 Small Bets in the pot. Flop comes 7 8 2 with two spades. OB bets and I raise. Button reraises and OB reraises back. I muck.
Turn is a blank (low and red), Original Better bets and button calls. River is also a blank (low and red) and both check. Button shows AK of spades and OB shows 99 to take the pot.
My question is: should I have taken the heat with a questionable over pair. Also would it have been proper to three bet the OB before the flop and would this have made a difference. After observing them for a while I found them both to be fairly tight players, but very aggressive once they committed to a hand..
Your 1st mistake was calling a raise with TT at a table where you didn't know anyone. The rest is just a compounded error.
So in an 8-16 game, knowing what you know about 8-16 games in general, you would lay down 10-10 because there's a raise from the 3rd player to act? What if you knew the game to be loose aggressive? I play a lot of 10-20 games where the raiser could have a very wide range of hands. I think you guys give great advice and really think things through, but it seems to me that you come from a very strong, tight-game base of experience. In wilder games, a reraise is not so crazy, and a call is at least justifiable to me.
Would your advice change if Calvin had the button?
No, same advice - it was predicated on the fact that he had no knowledge about the other players - that is what I based my comments on. In a loose game in better position the advice would be different but I advise players to assume players to be solid until they KNOW differently.
Hope this clears things up.
Pre-flop your cold-call of the first raise is fine with pocket Tens. The hand is not a 3 bet hand pre-flop. When it is re-raised and then raised again making it another 2 bets to you, you should fold. In a sane game against intelligent players someone will surely have a bigger pocket pair then Tens. It was very bad poker for you to pay 5 bets to take a flop with pocket Tens.
On the flop, your raise of the flop bet when you fail to flop a set given the pre-flop action was very bad. You should have been playing a two outer at this point. Again, a fold is clear.
The "Original Bettor (OB)" is a looney tune and in this case he costs you the pot. If you keep playing with this guy he will give it back with interest over the course of a year.
Jim I thin he sould get it back with interest the same session.
A little time on the rail beforehand, may have let you know just what the players will raise with in this game.
"The following hand occurred severl months ago in an 8/16 Holdem game. I had just sat down, so I did not have a read on any of the players"
Neither did they have a read on you! I think if you are going to gamble with this hand here you might as well raise and put the pressure on them. Let them figure out who you are. Send them the message.
I like the title of your post - Outplayed?
The answer is yes, and you set yourself up for that to happen.
See Roy Cooke's article in his book where he had TT against an opponent who raised. He called, but he knew the woman very well and she was extremely predictable on how she would play from the flop to the river. At the end of the article, Cooke says he would have mucked if there had been even the slightest doubt about how to play post flop, due to the chances of making a mistake, and the severe cost of the mistake.
In your case, you ended up folding the best hand (no comment here about the correctness or not of the fold), but it did cost you a nice pot and several small bets.
Your situation pre-flop was extremely difficult. The main problem was not knowing the player making the raise from an early position, and you have several unknowns behind you. For me, this is an easy fold pre-flop.
Page 79 BTW.
There seems to be a wide disagreement about this play.
Now if it were a very respected early position raise, a player you don't want to mess with then fold is OK.
I think Roy needs to raise that hand for his intended play to work correctly. If AQ or KQs or QJs etc call from the blinds his isolation play is toast, all the overcards will beat him and there is more then one player to beat.
I don't like mucking 10-10, and what about JJ, it is almost the same here. Although you are not in great shape, the 3-bet is a way to play the hand with a slight edge.
D.
Good point about re-raising. I guess even experts can't think of everything at once. He was probably considering how he was going to play the rest of the hand and forgot he had players behind him.
I think JJ is a clear re-raise and go with it from the position he was in, and I doubt we would have had this column.
I haven't read the responses yet so if I repeat something, sorry bout that.
Calling the raise with 10,10 is okay, although I tend to re-raise with it.
When you were facing two re-raises you might have thought about folding.You're in the middle and not in control.
I'll leave it there. seeya
The call of the first raise was okay, given the 'typical' opponent you'd be up against. When it's re-raised and capped with only 3-way action, you can fold, but calling isn't a huge mistake if the players are overly agressive. In fact, in your case calling WASN'T a mistake, and you had the best hand going in.
On the flop, I would have raised like you did, but when it's re-raised and capped coming back, there are 24 1/2 small bets in the pot, and you have to call two. You're getting 12-1, and you're a 20-1 underdog to make your hand on the turn if you're up against a bigger pair, which all evidence says you are. However, if you're up against a bigger pair or maybe two, you can count on getting 4-16 more small bets if you hit your ten. Now the odds are close, but slightly -EV, even more so when you figure that if you hit your ten you can still lose to a flush or a bigger set on the river. If you're up against overcards, then you have the best hand but will be beaten perhaps 1/2 of the time. So if you are more than maybe 75% sure that you're up against a bigger pair, you should fold. In this case, I would have figured it a near certainty.
I would probably have folded before the flop when it was capped coming back, and I probably would have folded on the flop when it was capped.
One comment - if you're going to make tough folds, the earlier the better. If I can't get off the tens on the flop, chances are I'm going to be hooked to the river, and that's an expensive situation. So try very early in the hand to figure out where you stand. The best place for it in this case was when it was capped pre-flop. You have to figure there's a good chance you're up against a bigger pair, and you're getting about 5-1 on your call of the re-raise and cap. It's actually a close decision considering implied odds, but it'll be an expensive hand, so I'd probably look elsewhere where my edge is bigger.
At the Stratosphere here in Las Vegas, there is a no limit holdem game spread every sunday evening. The blinds are 1-2, no antes. The rake is 5% up to 2.50. The average pre-flop steal is 10 dollars. The average "go over the top reraise" pre-flop is 50 dollars. The game is 9 or 10 handed with a total of between 1,000 to 2,000 at the table altogether. There are on average 2 good players, 3 average players, and the rest are tourists. How much can I expect to earn per hour at this game? How much of a bankroll would I need? What's a good basic strategy? If they do end up spreading this game daily, should I stop playing 15-30 holdem at the Bellagio and just attend to this game full-time?
Few questions - are you an experienced NL HE player.
What kind of success have you had in Limit? NL? PL?
I'm experienced only at tournament no-limit play. In fact, the Stratosphere game was my very first no-limit live game experience ever. That's because to my knowledge it's the first time it has ever been spread in this town. I had somewhat of an easy time my first time out. I made 150 in two hours, was able to steal a lot on the flop, won and lost a few showdowns. I had to quit to join their tournament.
I guess the answer is "it depends" if you are able to win at the NL HE game you should play that one over the limit. You can win a lot mote a lot faster you can also loose faster too.
It is a different game and will favor the better player a good NL player should skin average limit players in this game.
I hope you have success keep us posted.
Hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the past that Ray Zee has recommended 200 times the big-blind for a buy-in. I don't think you can punch any numbers into your calculator for an "hourly" win such as in a limit game, but if you are a competent player and play a solid game, your daily win should easily exceed what you can make in the 15-30 game (assuming 1 BB per hour at 8 hours = 240 .. not even 1 double-up at the NL game).
I recommend playing tight except in situations where they slip and give you big implied odds. Eventually, the tourists will let you back in late with the small connectors, and that is an opportunity to take them off for their whole stack for a mere $2. In general, stay away from all the idiot limit hands such as K-J, "any-Ace", 3-gap straight draws, and non-nut flush draws. Don't overplay A-K, and when it comes to big cards, if you don't flop to it, get rid of it. You should be able to beat that game without ever buying a pot.
if the game is tight it can play about like a 3&6 game. remember most people only have 100 bucks on the table. if the game is fast and lively and as the nite goes on many weak players get hunderds or a few thousand on the table it becomes a game. then you can win from 30 to several hunderd an hour depending on you and your opponents. it will vary so much from time to time that it will be had to figure. if you truly can beat 15&30 well thats where you will make more. but this is a great time to expand your horizons. like Earl says i like at least 200 big blinds for a days session, but in this game since its not your main thing you can go with 100 bucks and play and go home if you lose. thats what most others will have. your seat position will determine how well you ultimately do each day. good luck.
I play at a number of different limits -- and something about the post and replies to Shooter's LL woes made me think about the games that I play in. One is a rock garden (and the rocks will get you if you make a mistake). The other is a ramming-jamming game with lots of maniacs and fish.
Sample hand:
$5-10, 1/2 blind Middle position I pick up pocket aces. Early position player (weak, loose(WL) bets. I look down the line and see that Button (B) (semi-tight, too aggressive)is thinking about raising. I smooth call. Button raises. SB folds, BB calls, early WL calls, I re-raise, Button re-raises, BB and WL shake their heads and call, I cap it. ($100 in the pot pre-flop).
Up to now my play screams "Ace-Ace". In this game I've never capped with less and the players know it. My guess is that Button has A/K suited, or KK or QQ. Probably not AA given that I have two.
Flop comes 2d,7d,Ks. BB and WL check, I bet, Button raises (sure hope it's not KK), BB and WL fold, I re-raise. Button calls (definitely not KK). Turn is a 2 (still a diamond draw possible). I bet, button calls (gotta be A/K - hope there's no diamond draw). River is a diamond. I check and call and button turns over A/K of diamonds.
Is this a bad beat? Not really, this is a sign of a GREAT GAME. With 4 players in a pre-flop capped pot there is so much money in the pot (when I'm a favorite) that you can't go wrong if you play tight. That night I cashed out $300 up. Why because I didn't play marginal hands for lots of money and did ram and jam when I had a monster.
The point is that if you play well then you are getting the best of it when a bunch of money is going into the pot. I know the good players know this, and yes it sucks to get sucked out on, but the long run will even things out. Look at the games where players play any two cards in any position and call many raises pre-flop as an opportunity to make a killing if you wait for the right moments.
As a related thought. Moving up in limits can be very dangerous if you can't beat the game you're playing now. A place that normally spreads 3-6 sometimes spreads no-limit(small blind and ante). Three guys who are used to playing 3-6 came in two days ago during this game and they lost 600 in about 1 hour in a 6 handed game. Why, because they played crappy cards, out of position, and became calling stations with marginal hands. It was like heaven for myself and the other stronger player in the game. I probably said, "I'll put you all in" 5 times and they called everytime and lost.
The race doesn't always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. BTW, BB said that he had 8/7 off-suit and WL had 10/10. There is no way I'm going into a capped pot against a tight player who is screaming "A-A!" with those hands. But other people regularly do.
Thanks for your thoughts and comments. Your sample hand has an unhappy ending too. Difference is, your opponent flopped top pair with a 4 flush. Mine flopped with bottom pair and no straight/flush draw at all. Still, both are heartbreaking. At least mine was.
As for the long term, you're absolutely right. Although temporarily pissed, I'm not going to let it get the best of me. I'll be back at the tables again soon, and wiser for the wear.
shooter
I REGULARLY PLAY 3-6 OR 4-8 HOLD-EM WITH AND WITHOUT A KILL. I REGULARLY WIN AT THESE LEVELS BUT I WANT TO MOVE UP.THE NEXT GAME AVAILABLE IS 10-20 AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE BANKROLL FOR THIS LIMIT.THEREFORE HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
1.WHAT IS A SAFE BUY IN AT THIS LIMIT?
2.SHOULD I STAY AT THE LIMIT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH?
3.SHOULD I PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT SPREADS 5-10 OR 6-12 BEFORE MOVING UP?
ANY HELP OR ADDITIONAL ADVICE IS APPRECIATED.
1. I think to play $10-$20 you need to buy in for $500. It would be nice to have at least another couple of hundred to back that up if you run low.
2. If you had a solid winning record at $4-$8 over at least a few hundred hours of play I think you can give the bigger game a shot.
3. It would be prudent to try $6-$12 for awhile and see how it feels before going to $10-$20.
Make sure you feel confident that you can beat the game. When you go to the higher limit try to pick a game where there is not a lot of pre-flop raising. In addition, avoid shorthanded games.
Are you talking about taking a shot at a game? Or, playing that game regularily? If it's taking a shot, by all means, go right ahead. With any luck you may run it over the first time and never look back...
But if you don't... My advice is to be very careful. Many, many people seem to disagree with me on this. But my philosophy is that I want to prove myself at the limit I am currently playing first. The way I do that is to not just beat the game regularily, but to "earn" a bankroll for the next limit. $500-$700 should suffice as a buy-in at 10-20. But to play this game regularily (and correctly), I think you should have a minimum 6k bankroll. This may be overly cautious, but many aspects of a game can change from 4-8 to 10-20 and you want to be prepared. Good luck!
I have read HPAP (approximately) 50X. I don't understand the rationale for two semi-bluff illustrations on pp. 44 & 45 of HPAP. On page 44 the authors advocate semi-bluffing w/ a small pair and an overcard kicker with six people in the pot (Q, 5, 3 rainbow flop). On page 45 they advocate semi-bluffing with a gut shot straight draw on a flop of Q 6 3 rainbow (5, 3 pocket cards) "against many opponents". It seems to me that with that many opponents someone is likely to have a Queen and the semi-bluff has little chance of success. I would think it would be a better semi-bluff,or bluff for that matter, with few opponents rather than several. I would appreciate the groups' input including the authors if they are so inclined. This is my first post. I have enjoyed the threads that I have read. Thanks.
Correction!: The pocket cards are 5, 2 instead of 5, 3 for the gut shot example.
JJ,
I have time for a few brief thoughts in one example.
You wrote: "On page 45 they advocate semi-bluffing with a gut shot straight draw on a flop of Q 6 3 rainbow (5, 3 pocket cards) "against many opponents".">
[Note: This example is on page 57 of the 21st Century edition.]
I'm not too sure about this example either. I would prefer fewer opponents and a flop of K 6 3 instead. When many players limp pre-flop and the flop includes a queen, there is a very good chance that the queen is out. This is far less true then with a king which tends to be raised pre-flop. I also don't like to semi-bluff at A 6 3 since so many mediocre players play Ax.
Maybe we will get more comments but I gotta go.
Rick
JJ
I have to question this example myself. By definition a semi-bluff has some chance to win just by betting but can improve if called. It would seem to me that with so many opponents, the chances of getting no callers are basically nil. There has to be a calling hand in such a large field somewhere.
MJB
We consistently get criticized for similar comments because players do not appreciate fully how little your chances to steal have to be, especially given you have to call a bet anyway, to make a bet better than a check. And that is the point. The question is not whether a bet makes you money. Almost certainly you would rather be all in. The question is merely whether a bet does better for you than a check.
David,
In the book you don't make it clear where you are located. It seems to me you can only be in this hand holding 7d 5c in the blinds or on or near the button (where else would you play it?). That means you are either leading into the stipulated large field or betting after a whole bunch have checked to you. Now betting may be the best play for all sorts of reasons, but it really doesn't seem to fit into the category of semi-bluff all that well, since the large number of opponents does preclude you taking down the pot almost exponentially as each one is added. Perhaps betting or lead betting "on the come" would be more appropriate. And this may be the play, as you have a good chance to take the pot on the turn (assuming no flop raise) if a queen comes (pairing the board of Qc 6h 3d). Add this to the deception value when you do hit your gut shot and I like the play. I just don't think it is a good example of a "semi-bluff", even if you coined the term :-).
Now reduce the number of opponents to about two to four (for this you would be lead betting out of the blinds), and maybe change that queen to a king (since queens, jacks and tens are in so many calling hands). Now I like my chances to take the pot right there.
Anyway, think of the possibilities. A new chapter added to HPFAP in a few years (think how much Bill Gates makes off small upgrades). More and better books to sell. Perhaps there would be a small bonus for me? I'd settle for "Rick's Guide to Betting on the Come" instead of money.
Regards,
Rick
You are righter than right.
If the vocabulary of poker ever increased by ten times what it is now, the games would be much tougher to beat.
You are also overlooking an additional benefit for the semi-bluff here, which I believe the authors do point out in their book. If a 4 does happen to fall on the turn, it is now difficult to put you on a 6 high straight. You may get excessive action from other hands especially if one happens to spike 2 pair on the river. This combined with the chance (however small) of winning right there, make a semi-bluff (usually) correct.
I think bluffing is really over rated - I think bluffing is situational - and when I find myself in a bluff situation it is because I set it up for another play that got busted on the flop. Table image and your confidance are more important than the cards you are holding semi bluff to me is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp.
JJ, I believe their advice here is highly problematic. I also believe that there have been other posts on this last year in the October time frame by myself and Mark Glover.
Specifically, on Page 44 of the earlier edition of HPFAP (which is now Page 56 of the new version) you have the Ac2c and the flop is Qh5d2s. The recommendation is to bet into 6 players with your bottom pair and Ace overcard against typical players. I would feel a lot better about doing this against 2 or 3 players than against 6. However, I will say that in this case you do have a piece of the flop and there is a remote chance that you have the best hand. In addition, if you are playing in a passive game where the risk of a raise is minimal than this play might work out well.
The other example you cite is on Page 45 of the older HPFAP where you hold 5c2d and the flop is Qc6h3d. It is noteworthy that this was changed slightly in the newer edition of HPFAP on Page 57 where your hand is now 7d5c. In both cases you have a gutshot but in the latter case if a Seven comes off you have a pair of Sevens which beats bottom and middle pairs. Nevertheless, I would be hard pressed to lead into a crowd with this hand. I have virtually no chance of winning the pot outright against many opponents and I could easily get raised. Of course, when you hit your hand you win a larger pot as a result and you will probably collect some extra bets on the end that you would have not otherwise collected since your opponents will not be putting you on a gutshot.
As an aside, you need to get the new edition of HPFAP. About 100 pages of new material has been added and the book is far and away the finest hold-em book ever written.
Jim, I appreciate your input and that of the other posters. I find it ironic that the subject of my post was the problems I had with some of the HPAP strategy and I am going to end up buying the revised addition. I have some other questions regarding HPAP strategy but I will save them for another day. I did locate the prior October 99 thread on this that you had mentioned. Thanks again to all who posted.
So here's my thinking:
Thanks in no small part to the works of twoplustwo I have become a consistant winner at the low-limit hold'em tables. My game of choice is 3-6. I regularly play 6-12 and have played profitably at the 10-20 and 15-30 tables, but I find that 3-6 is my most profitable limit. In addition, it's a lot more fun because the tables tend to be so loose you can get involved in the action a lot more.
My questions are thus: (1) theoretically a good player should win somewhere between 1 and 2 big bets per hour. My records show about a $55 hourly rate over the past several months. Is this just the result of a short term lucky streak or is it that play at these tables is so poor that even relatively solid play can produce such high profits? If the latter is the case, why ever play 15-30 when you can put less at stake and win more?
(2) It's been my experience that suited aces and low suited connectors are the most profitable hands at these tables. I think I would prefer a JTs to a pair of bullets any day at these tables. I wouldn't say the hand is exactly more powerful, but I think it rakes more of the chips in your direction because so many people regularly take the flop and even stick to the river with some holdings you would never see at a higher limit game. I would welcome one or two longshots against wired aces, but seven longshots seem to add up to a pretty good chance of otherwise powerful hands getting knocked off. In addition, it's easy to get away from these hands when they miss, but you have to pay off with those aces a lot.
I was just curious to get some other people's thought about the low-limit felt battlefield. Let me know what you guys think.
Good Luck at the tables Mike
"It's been my experience that suited aces and low suited connectors are the most profitable hands at these tables."
If you're being dealt suited aces, I'd ask the floor to check the deck again.
"I would welcome one or two longshots against wired aces, but seven longshots seem to add up to a pretty good chance of otherwise powerful hands getting knocked off."
At the bigger tables, you sometimes hear people say "I would have taken that pot had I played my rags". At the low limit, it's "You took the pot with THOSE rags?!?".
shooter
I meant Axs, but I appreciate the joke.
You ever notice that the guy who talks about someone taking the pot with THOSE RAGS will be the same guy bragging about his skills with he hits his 7-4? What's a reasonable player to do?
MB
A $55 hourly rate for a $3-$6 game cannot be maintained in the long run (i.e.-over many thousands of hours). If it could all the pros would flock to these games and not play anything higher. It would be interesting to know how many actual playing hours this represented and the length and results of your individual playing sessions so that your hourly standard deviation could be calculated. A good friend of mine who is an excellent player claimed that he was averaging $40 per hour in the $4-$8 game at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana before they closed their poker room. It turns out that he won about $4000 over a about 100 hours of play. This is a statistical anomaly and does not represent anything close to his true long run average. 100 hours is simply too short a length of time. Last week in Lake Charles I won almost $700 in 8 hours at their $3-$6-$12 game while waiting to get into the $10-$20-$40 game. But this is just pure luck and the results are meaningless.
Ace-little suited and suited connectors can be very profitable in these games if you are getting a lot of callers and no raisers before the flop. What makes them even more profitable is when you make your hand and get paid off at the river in several spots. This hardly ever happens in a bigger game. But you still have to very lucky to catch a draw, make a hand, and have your hand hold up. This parlay will not happen very often. Some of the biggest pots I have won in low limit games were when I had a big pocket pair that held up through the river when my numerous opponents busted out.
Tell me its not true. Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana closed their poker room? When and why? I always found easy pickings there in the 4/8 game. What about other games in Louisiana?
Yes, I am sorry to say that they closed their poker room on January 3. The reason is that in Louisiana the river boats are only allowed 30,000 square feet for gambling. Jack Binion wants to expand his business into the midwest (Ohio and Indiana I think). In order to get the financing, the banks told him he had to increase his revenue. His corporate staff told him that his revenue would increase if he closed the poker room and used that floor space for additional slot machines.
In Louisiana, public poker is availabe at the Grand on the Coushatta Indian Reservation near Kinder Louisiana. They spread mainly $3-$6-$12 hold-em. They have tournaments every Saturday and spread pot limit games as side action. The pot limit games are a round of Hold-em (blinds of $5 and $10) and a round of Omaha (blinds of $10 and $20). Also the Isle of Capri in Lake Charles Lousiana has an 11 table poker room and they spread $3-$6-$12 hold-em every day, $20-$40 hold-em on Wednesdays, and $10-$20-$40 hold-em on the weekends. I play in Lake Charles. There is also a small card room in Marksville, Lousiana but I have never played there. Finally, Harrahs has a casino and a cardroom in downtown New Orleans and I believe they spread $4-$8 hold-em and bigger Omaha games.
Jim, Thanks for the info!!! May see you in Lake Charles sometime but would rather pay you for a lesson off the tables than GET a lesson at the tables. Your post are very informative. There is no doubt you are an accomplished player. Are you in the Houston area?
So....No games in Shreveport? Business takes me there more often, (and no Jim B to kick my butt).
Joe, I'm currently in Beaumont if you ever want to join in a home game or something. I also go to Capri in Lake Charles as often as possible (which is 1-2 times a month lately) so I might be seeing you.
Hey Doc, come on over and say hi! I go to Lake Charles a couple of times a month and would love to meet a fellow poster!
That would be great, I got your email address and I'll send you a pic so you can recognise me, I have family in Tyler TX so I play at the Capri In shreveport on occasion also, hope to see you some time!
1) How many hours? See the older thread on I believe theory, where we all debated with Badger how much could be won at 3-6. In my oppinion it is very difficult to beat it for 10/hr and you should be playing 6-12 if you have the money and can do that.
2) The big pairs are defintely a lot better. Also you have to be extremely careful at getting away from your Axs when you hit only your A. These hands certainly do become playable though in most positions.
D.
3-6 and 15-30 are two horses of a different color. It sounds like you have a good beat on the low limit. Playing where you enjoy yourself the most means a lot, imo.
I was sitting in a 5-10 game in Aurora with my name on the 10-20 list and inside of a couple of hours I had $783 in winnings when my name was finally called I was racking up when one of the players said why play 10-20 when you can take that kind of money out of a 5-10 game. I agree WHY?
Play where you can make the most money if you continue to move up the Peter Principle concept will eventually bite you on the butt. I have a good pal who was kiling the LL and is now on the brink of permanent tilt in the local 20-40 game.
Go ahead do your thing at the limit that suits you best.
8-16 he, loose, semi agressive
I'm in the BB with JJ. six callers to me, flop comes 38J rainbow, My question, with this flop, thw number of players and the nature of the game (I thought that someone would bet it) is a check raise the correct play?
I would call here--this sounds like it might be the type of game where someone will raise for you on the flop, camouflaging your hand.
Then, I would check raise on the turn. It depends on the type of game, however--your main goal is to get as much money in the pot as you can with this hand.
Max
JJ,
With you holding two of the remaining three jacks and the flop a rainbow with only two cards in "the straight zone", why do you think someone would bet if for you? I would lead out and hope for callers.
However, with this strong a flop, I would go for the check raise if I thought the bet was going to come from my left (maybe someone was reaching for chips). I wouldn't want to narrow the field by check raising a late position bettor.
Regards
With 6 callers, you have a good sized pot. Why not bet out? You may get lucky and get to 3 bet the flop. With no pre-flop raiser you cannot be assured that someone will bet. You have a very good hand, but it is not a monster yet.
I would have thought a slow play was in order here you have the best hand and could be lookng at an openended straight and worst. I'd bet or raise the turn and river assuming the straight doesn't show up.
I am normally not a big fan of check-raising or slow-playing but in this particular example you have a lot of opponents so the likelihood of a bet is high plus your hand is strong enough to give out a free card if it backfires. You have top set and a raggedy board. I would check and I may not even check-raise if most of the field drops out. I might wait and pull the trigger on the turn. On the other hand, if after I check someone bets and several call, then I would go ahead and check-raise.
Not to be a nitpicker but you have a set on the flop not just trips. A set is a much stronger holding. I would have titled your post something like "Flopping Top Set".
Jim,
If Atwood had raised pre-flop with his pocket jacks(I don't think he did), do you think it might have been advisable to come out betting, since opponents often expect you to come out betting regardless of whether the flop hits you or not?
-dsm
Yes, if Atwood had raised pre-flop with his pocket Jacks then of course betting the flop would be correct since as you say it is expected. However, I think raising with Jacks pre-flop from your big blind when 6 players have already come in is a bad idea. It is too easy for over cards to flop and you are instantly reduced to playing a two outer when that happens against a large field. In addition, your poor position means that when you check someone will bet so you never get any free cards.
.
Jim,
If you held 9Ts in late middle position (5th caller) and this flop came, what would you be inclined to do?
I would:
If bet, I would call - hoping not to knock out players behind me.
If Checked to me, I would bet and then call any raise or re-raise.
I figure I'm drawing to the absolute nuts.
Wouldn't you be concerned about a player holding 9T in the situation ATWOOD describes?
Well, Michael let us go through your points one at a time given you have Ten-Nine suited in middle position and a flop of Jack-Eight-Three rainbow:
1. If bet into I would call because I have an open ended straight draw. I would only raise if several players had already dropped out and it looked like I would get it heads-up with the bettor with me having position. The reason I like raising on a come hand in this situation is because I can win the pot outright by betting the turn if a blank comes otherwise I have outs if my lone opponent stays with me. Of course in this particular case I am unaware that he has a set and not just top pair or some weaker hand. However, if it is bet and several players call then I would just call and not raise with my draw because I am much less likely to win the pot without making my hand given the presence of additional players.
2. If it were checked to me, I would bet if there were only one or two players behind me and I thought I could win the pot outright or at least get it down to one opponent. The reason is because as players check the likelihood of top pair goes down. If no one has a Jack then a Ten or a Nine might be an out for my hand in addition to my 8 straight cards. Of course I am calling any raises or re-raises.
3. Yes, I agree that for all practical purposes you are drawing to the nuts.
Yes, someone holding T9 is a possibility but it is only one holding and even then the flop may well get bet my the guy holding T9. Change the 8 on the flop to a Ten so that the flop is: Jack-Ten-Three and now I would definitely lead with my set and avoid the check-raise. The reason is because players will stay holding KQ, Q9, 98, maybe even middle pair, etc. There are a lot more hands players will call my bet with when the flop is better coordinated so I am encouraged to bet because I don't want to risk a free card and/or miss a round of bets. Keep in mind that players will call with many more hands than they will bet with themselves especially against a large field.
Sorry for the confusion, it was a set. Anyway I went for the check raise, it was checked around and some guy picked up a inside straight draw on the turn and beat me on the river. He was a fairly solid player and I'm sure he would have released his hand for a bet on the flop.
So my feeling being somewhat influenced by this poor result are that it would be correct to bet out in this situation, I'm almost certainly going to get callers anyway (the game was loose) and there's the possiblity that another J is out there with this many players and that player might raise, allowing me to reraise.
Looking over HPFAP last night this almost exact hand is discussed in the slowplaying chapter and S&M make points for betting out and slowplaying but I'm inclined to think I made a mistake and should have bet out.
Lee Jones' advice in these situations is to always bet out in early position. First of all it gives you an opportunity to 3 bet if you get raised and secondly, all of your opps would have slowplayed the trips and therefore they won't believe you have them if you bet. If everyone folds to your bet you probably saved yourself the pot. Too many funky draws out there in the low limits. Great things can occur on the turn if an overcard falls and you get raised on the turn.
I am a low limit Texas Hold'em player simply because I cannot afford to lose in the higher games. My average bankroll is about $200-$300 for 2 day session. In Las Vegas, I found that reading a few books had prepared me to hold my own against the players at the Excaliber. There was very little pre-flop raising and quite a bit of checking. Then I went to Tunica and played at the Gold Strike. I was amazed to see a lot of pre-flop betting and many caps throughout the two days. I was very discouraged in the fact that although I felt that I had played well, I was continually beaten by people playing hands like 23 offsuit. I only played group 1,2 and 3 starting hands, but with the amount of betting going on I could not wait for a card on the river unless my odds were pretty good. On the last day I went next door to the Horseshoe and played 4-8 Texas Hold'em. It was an entirely different game and much more like the games I played in Vegas. My question: Was the game at Gold Strike just to wild for me too play in? I probably played 1 hand out of 25-30. Was it just a matter of not being able to stay long enough to make it profitable? Any suggestions would be appreciated.
(a word for Gold Strike, they treated me well and I did not pay for a meal while I was there.)
Glen Glen
You say "a lot of pre-flop betting" and "the amount of betting going on"... Do you mean raising? This does not necessarily mean that the game was wild but rather, you may have found yourself in a tough game. I can tell you that in higher limit games with good players, a lot of raising pre-flop (and after) is the norm. You will find some wild games at these limits too. It's not at all unusual for me to go 25-30 hands without seeing a flop in a wild game. Sounds like you played Ok pre-flop.
You don't mention if you hit any of the flops you did play. I don't think you should get down on yourself or read too much into the results of a short 2 day stint.
You did not state the limit, but in any event, a game like that can have big flucuations on your bankroll. Probably not what you were looking for. If not, find another game.
Game selection is really important. It is really heard to win in super loose/wild games like you describe. I just flat refuse to play in them. There are those who will disagree with me but I am convinced the table mix or personality is as important as the quality of your cards.
In general the games in Tunica, Mississippi are much better than in Las Vegas especially at $20-$40. The players are not nearly as sophisticated and they play many more hands and go too far with their hands. If you are on a short bankroll, you need to avoid games where there is a lot of pre-flop raising. I think the $4-$8 game at the Horseshoe in Tunica is probably a much better game that a comparable game in Vegas because you will get payed off more.
I recently played a 9-18 hold em game with a kill at Oceans11 near San Diego. I was amazed that whoever got the kill button generally went on a nice run. People were playing tight, the kill buttonn would normally raise before the flop making people tighten up even more, and then winning a lot of games by betting and everyone else folded. It seemed to me the kill button was power. This is not how I have looked at a kill before. I always thought it was weak to have to put in money blind.
Anyway, I wonder what kind of strategy differences come into play in a kill game. There are a lot of things that change since there is a third blind and the bets double, etc... its an awkward game for those that are not used to playing it.'
Thanks for any ideas.
D-M
Yeah we play kill in Arizona and I like it a lot. I don't necessarly like being the kill but I like to raise the river and find that is is really unusual for a 6-12 or 10-20 player to put in 48 or 80 on the final bet. So if you have a good table image and don't mind playing for more money you can score in kill games by making the stakes uncomfortable for your opponents.
My advice in kill games is to bet and raise on the turn and river a little looser than in the regular games and you will rarely have to show down.
I play 5/10 with a kill @ $100 at Foxwoods. Once the pot hits one hundred, the winner must post a $10 blind- along with the regular $2 and $5 blind and the game is 10/20. If the pot continues to be $100- which can easily happen- the next hand(s) is 10/20- with the $10 kill. I think your questions regarding change of strategy are good ones. I don't have the answers. I know it is tough to be in a $2 blind and have to put up $8 more or $18 when there is one raise. I would say overall you are at a disadvantage to be in the blinds in any kill pot. I notice some players will not call the $10 bet when they would have called the $5 bet on the first round. I don't think this is correct. My tendency is to fire it up and to look to steal the $17 that is out there. As can be expected most everyone at the table is looking for the pot to be killed and the action is great. I played in AZ and it seems to be a mucher longer time between kills under their rules. I would also appreciate any thoughts that anyone has regarding strategy changes in these games.
Online 3/6 fairly tame (seldom >4/flop - no maniacs). Third to act opens. I BB check JTo. Flop 5JT rainbow. I bet, he raises, I raise, he calls.
{I put him on (descending order of scariness):JJ TT 55 JA JK JQ J5}
Turn (flush no longer possible) J. I bet, raise, raise (and here's the bet that's the point of this post), he caps.
{I can only *absolutely* rule out JJ, but now feel fairly sure that we've tied because of his failure to cap on flop with subsequent cap on turn. I've not ruled out any of the others}
River K. I check, bet, call, he has KJ.
The point of this post is not to seek so much comment on my play (particularly the check on the river), although that's welcome, but to explore the title issue. Sequences like this happen regularly in live games without my thinking too much about "he must have known what was coming on the end to cap it on the turn".
There have been many (mostly absurd or statistics-ignorant) posts about the non-random dealing and possible collusion or hacking of online sites and while all this could be, I heavily doubt it, particularly at small limits.
The point I am trying to make is that because of the widespread fear of online stuff in general it is easy to let paranoia rule one's responses to what would otherwise be a rather commonplace bad river result. Has anyone anything to say about this?
Love.
you are paranoid. No one ever cheats at poker online, or anywhere else.
heh,
Good one. But that's not my stand. My stand is:
Players cheating is roughly as common online as it is in live cardrooms. As such, you should always be on the lookout for cheats whenever, and wherever you play.
- Andrew
Recently I've been wacked 2 times by 4 of a kind after flopping a Boat. Makes you wonder. Overall my experience has been good. When I play well I win, when I make stupid plays I lose. That simple. I think there is some cheating but can't prove anything. I have not been adversley affected to the point where I won't play. I do make notes on who pulls too many miracle rivers.
online distribution patterns do not have to be manipulated by others to have unusual patterns. In other words, fear of specific players sucking out is unwarranted (unless they have noticed the patterns) The problem can be with the code. The critical factors are the minutes and seconds(in degrees of longitude and latitude, not degrees of freedom) set into the random code generator. This is an object usually of location. The engineers working with the servers could alter this several times a day to avoid the same card patterns coming. The quads beating a boat I have seen, the 4 flush cards on the board,the repeated distribution of the exact same hands roughly ever 30 minutes, these are common on Planet Poker. Paradise Poker gives a better mix. Of course players such as Andrew Prock will dispute this because he plays online at Planet Poker and apparently wins. Mr.Carson insists that the distibutions are symmetrical. My simulations do not show that.
Mike Caro had an excellent post regarding the distributions on rgp.
To paraphrase, he would have been more suspicious of a coin flopping HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT than he would be of HHHHTTHHHHTTHHHT even though the odds of these events occurring are exactly the same. His point was you cannot look for patterns with samples smaller than a few million trials and since PP has only had 2,400,000 hands in total no peculiar distributions mean anything.
whatever..justify the strangeness if you must
Post deleted at author's request.
don't you realize that we are talking about knowing what the cards are going to be? Maybe you do...better go play in jail again Mr.CArson because you are defending a rigged game. Ray Zee isn't the cheat..you are.
check your own notes...you stated that these are symmetrical distributions.The only manner in which I could take your statement was to assume you meant that the patterns in which the cards are dealt fall into a random, bell curve over extensive runs. This is how I began tracking Planet Poker hands over 6 months ago when it became clear to me that certain probabilities were being violated (such as the number of times per day each table shows 4 flush cards on board) Now you are referring to hands which win for your distribution analysis.If we are talking which win in practice, then you are correct..players would have to play hands to the end for any hand to win. Incredible bad beats take place frequently at Planet Poker from players that seem frequently logical. Nevertheless, The point here is the analysis should address whether the actual deal is random. If the hands that are dealt are not random, and the flops aren't either, then a problem exists. In other words, this analysis should address whether players can with high accuracy predict the actual holdings of others, and the reamining cards to come based upon the non-random nature of the flops and their own holdings. .There are a few variables to assign, but the critical ones exist in the random code generator. Get some friends to help you program the code and do your own analysis. Of course, if you are more interestred in being hateful and you are a good representative of the poker community,then I think my interactions with you go a long way in deciding to end poker participation as a hobbie.
I've currently up roughly $500.00 at paradise poker... planet poker ,I must admit has me for about the same.I wouldn't call that losing play. Just break even. Planet Poker is the only place I've ever been dealt the exact same hand 4 times in an hour(my opponents winning the pots with his exact duplicate in his/her hands as well)and have had it happen regularly. This has happened over 200 hours at (5-10 and 10-20.) This is just a small example. I suppose I should go ahead and run the code, quit talking about it here, and make a mint of people like you. Seat selection is critical (without actually running the simulator,which would be cheating with the proper settings) as in regular poker. Here, however, if you do not like your repetitive selection a seat change takes you into a whole new series of repetitive cards. Maybe you will be lucky and hit one that pumps out AA, or KK. Be careful though, A whole book could be written on what hands are favorites in certain flops. A-2o, Q-2o, etc...the difficult part would be to throw away your normal poker sense and cap with the cheese. You'd have to trust that the random generator is functioning normally. I can say that after I posted my thoughts here about Planet Poker, I did not voluntarily close my account. Planet poker did it for me. If I am such a paranoid fool, then why wouldn't they love having fish like me play there. I spoke out about this not as a sore loser, but from some mixed up sense of fairness to the public. There are posts in the archives which discuss the actual code and how to type it up in C++ from about 6 months ago. I modified it to run samples. It just doesn't matter anymore. I'm through stating that the emperor wears no clothes. I believe that I'm going to quit poker as well, as the amount of time I spend could be rewarded better elsewhere. Good luck Chris.You and Mr.Carson will be happy to see me go!
I see alot more 4 betting heads-up on-line because the person who 4 bets knows that that's the Cap. They can see the next card without being worried about being 5 bet.
CV
Speaking from my relativly limited experience, I see plays like this all the time in low limit. Players like this habitually overplay thier hands.
I suppose if I didn't live in California, where low limit players commonly call and chase with anything, the online bad-beat syndrome might be a little more shocking.
I have not played online, but in this hand, although he played it fast, his play does not seem totally unreasonable.
The point I was trying to make is that there is a tendency for many to think there is some kind of monkey business going on *just because it's online*. As many posts and decades of experience show, this is mostly paranoia since similar plays happen all the time in live games, especially among those playing sort-of-for-fun in low limit games.
The question of non-random deals comes up every ten minutes in a lot of live games "mix 'em up better", "change decks so those 9s quit coming up so often" and other all-too-familiar table chants.
It is possible for an expert computer geek to cheat an online game. It is possible for a "mechanic" and friend to cheat a live game. It probably happens but if one lives in fear of these rather remote possibilities it becomes the sort of paranoia that precludes enjoying the game.
Love.
For what it's worth here's my experience with online poker. I've played about 600-700 hours (3-6 to 20-40 holdem) online mostly planet poker but in the last month paradise poker also. I've only seen what i would definitely call cheating once on planet poker. 2 guys probably colluding. i could tell by the way they were playing and they had the same hometown listed. I've seen every crazy suck out hit imagineable, but those guys have come and gone and i still win regularly. The one thing that did bother me was that i reported the cheaters to planet poker but never heard anything back from them.
In 10 months i've learned a great deal by playing online, i could not have got near as much table time by playing just live games.
I think this is an very good point that should be taken to heart by relatively inexperienced players that are reluctant to play online for fear of monkey business. With ten players, 1326 two card hands, 19,600 flops and 2.6 million five-card boards you are going to see things that appear strange. Also, the best hand in hold 'em wins so often that when it loses, it sometimes seems to lose in an odd sort of way. Add to this the mystery of cyberspace and the theoretical possibility of manipulation and you have the ingredients for oneline paranoia.
But for many players and potential players there are a few realities that are never irrational to hate: (1) paying $10-15 an hour in low limit rakes, tokes and jackpot charges; (2) never being able to play above $4-8 because your town has only a few tables; (3) never being able to play more than 20 hours a month because you live hours from the nearest casino; (4) not being able to play without wrecking your health because you have asthma or some other respiratory ailment or sensitivity; and (5) not being able to play at all.
I heartily agree that poker loses something when played online but believe that it offers much to the vast majority. It is far more worthy of promotion than the thoughtless denigration it tends to receive at the hands of sore losers and ignorant bystanders.
XX
If this is an invitation to compare records I accept.
i was in a fairly loose 10-20 game with two players that raised frequently with mixed holdings. with position a raise on or near the button, could be any two big cards or any suited cards. i was in big blind with 9-10 un s. three limpers button raises to 20 and i call. limpers call. flop 9 10 Q i fear straight i check check to the raiser bets all call. next card 3 now rainbow suits same check around to the raiser ,he bets and all call 20. now 255 in pot. any of these players are capable of check raising so im not sure of right play. river 2 same checks bet by button i call all others fold raiser shows KQd Iwin 295 pot but my play was not clear. Should i have raised om flop to check it out? maybe loose callers and risk reaise from button? any info appreciated
I would bet out on the flop. With bottom two pair and three cards in the straight zone you don't want anyone playing Kxs to get a free jack on the turn. If I get raised on the flop by the original raiser I would reraise and try and narrow the field. You have a good hand and it is probably best right now. If someone other than the original raiser gives heat then I would bet the turn unless the board gets a bit scarier.
I agree with this. If you bet on the flop here you can gain information. And then to 3 bet the raiser to make it two bets to the field. Then if he no cap, it is unlikely that he has the straight, and you found out. Play two pair fast on the flop. Either you find out you have the best hand or you find where strength is.....with small bets.
When you flop two pair like this you need to play it fast. You should bet the flop and re-raise if it is raised back to you. You probably have the best hand and must make the draws pay. You should continue to bet aggressively on the turn and river when blanks fall.
The chances that the preflop raiser would bet again on the flop are fairly high. Thus, I would attempt a protection checkraise on the flop. That is, I will check, hope the limpers will also check, then raise the preflop raiser once he bets. This action will raise the cost of entry of the limpers and thus deter them from playing on, assuming they are on a draw. This is a classic example of how to play "a good but not great hand".
I agree. If there hadn't been a raise pre-flop by an agressive player than I can see betting out but in this position there's an excellent chance it will be checked to him, he'll bet allowing you to check raise, hopefully narrowing the field. If you can't be so sure about a bet from a player on your right, than betting out is probably the correct play. Even so you should have played the hand more agressively, especially on the flop. If a straight is out there more power to him but in most cases you've got the best hand.
I agree. Check-raise if the original raiser on the button, or at least a late-position player, makes a bet. However if an early position player makes a bet then you just check-call on the flop because you're not going to drive anyone out now. Then on the turn, if a blank hits as it did here, I would come out betting to give the early position bettor a chance to raise me so that it becomes unprofitable for the draws to call 2 big bets. Then, on the river, when the other blank hit, I would just check-call.
You check raised but forgot to raise? Check calling is asking to lose here.
I think going for the check raise on the flop is good here and you needed to actually do it. Even on the turn you had a second chance after the first mistake.
D.
I'd like some input from you guys on the preconcieved opinions you have when a young person sits at the table. I am 23y/o but most people figure me for no more than 18. In fact I regularly get hassled in the casino and have to break out the I.D.
I notice that everyone at the tables I play at (3-6-12 spread) look at me with a grin, and there faces say "I'm gonna show this young-un a thiing or two." And it seems extra painful to them when I win in a show down.
So, is there any stigma against young players? Is it necessary for the older players to "bend me over their knee" for their ego? and if so is this to my advantage in a way I could exploit? I regularly bring a good attitude to the table and am very easy-going. I also enjoy polite conversation at the table and feel this seems to ease the attitudes others have toward me.
Or am I being too defensive thinking the other players are singling me out because of my increadible youth?
I would say on average The other players are at least 20 years my senior.
All comments welcome, and thanks
I'm 26, and I look about 12. I like the initial attitude of the other's thinking they can "get one over on the young guy." I play the role. I appear naive. When I loose to someone playing a cheesy 2 outer, I smile and let them know they played it well.
When I win a hand, if commented on (snidely by a crummy player, of course), I mention how lucky I've been lately.
Since I am a regular at my local room, the more in tune players (i.e., the good ones) respect me. The crappy players don't - even when I beat them. I like that very much. I enjoy playing the role of the naive youngster whose never been to a cardroom before.
Many times, I just keep reasonably quiet, and let those whose egos are so deeply entrenched in their game, think what they will. I let them (un)quietly bleed their checks to me. The Kung Fu of poker, if you will.
Don't worry about it. Play selectively and play well. The ones you want to respect you will, and the others will give you their money.
Enjoy, Tim
"Don't worry about it. Play selectively and play well. The ones you want to respect you will, and the others will give you their money"
I agree with Tim ..smile and play *well* and the cash is yours what ever your age.
Best of it !!
MJ
Well Doc I am 53 and I can tell you that some of the best poker players in the world are under 30. Dan Negreanu and Huck Seed come to mind. In poker, especially Hold-em which is counter-intuitive and not well understood, age does not equate to wisdom or even good play. While many players foolishly judge another player by their age or gender I judge them by their play. Specifically, what kinds of hands are they coming in with? What do they raise with? What do they cold-call a raise with?
Initially, because of your youth the older players will assume you don't play well. They will probably assume you are either weak-tight or just a loose-goose. In either case, they may try to move you out of a pot or stay too long with a weak hand when you are their opponent. You should just play a solid game and take advantage of their misconceptions.
I'm 53 look 55 and a players age means nothing unless they are over 65 when the old addage of the older the guy the bigger the kicker applies.
I judge by actions not looks. Only exception is a really beautiful woman - they are usually looking for something better to do. :-)
Hey Jim and Rounder:
I am 53 too! We should start the 'aged 53' club. hehe
But you guys are much better players than I am...and for whatever it is worth:
When i was Doc's age, I could sit at the BJ table and count and count, and win and win. And I was more patient at the poker table too. So young age was way better for me.
Doc: Play patient, play agressive, play tough!
Mark (aka MarkTwain)
Just one more thought. I actualy give the youngest players the most credit when they first sit down as I have found they usualy turn out to be the better players at the table. Could it be that they are reading all of the best books and avoiding common mistakes that the older, "seasoned" players seem to make more often?
P.S. I'm 44.
Doc
I'm 23 myself. While I don't think I'll be challenging Professor Sklansky to a heads-up match any time soon, I'm a fairly good player. I think that some older players certainly underestimate the younger players, but I use that to my advantage as much as possible. They figure I probably just finished watching 'Rounders' and decided to step to the felt. I do everything I can to reinforce that image. Since it's next to impossible to create the preferred image of tight/aggressive, I figure you may as well use their prejudices against them. The really fun ones will break down what you did wrong each hand of the night as you stack their checks in front of you. Let'em look you up all night and cash in.
Supes
Twenty three years old is way to young to be referring to yourself as Doc. Leave that name for the Geezers. How about 'The Mad Intern', or 'SugarBriches'.
Aspiring Med student.
I assume players I don't already know do not play well until I am proven otherwise ( and that is rare ). But I certainly don't do anyting to make them feel uncomfortable and I also enjoy the social side of the games.
D.
About two years ago, I had a conversation with a lady who regularly played 15-30 and 20-40 HE in So. Ca. We were talking about how to beat these particular games. That week (approximately 4 sessions of three to four hours)I had watched her win approximately two racks each session. I inquired how it was that she was so consistent in her winnings. (I realize that this time period is a very small sample). She told me that she never ever went for flushes or straights unless the flop happened to fit perfect. (Perfect means that on the flop you already have your flush or straight, no draws).
My question is this: Could this tactic be a winning tactic? I wish I could talk to her more about how she played, but I haven't seen her in some time. (Maybe she went broke?)
Thoughts on this would be appreciated.
MJ
MJ Here is a thought from a non expert. I play 10-20 H.E.. I rarely go for straights or flushes unless they hit, as in your expample, or I have the A-X suited and two hit the flop or 4 high cards open ended after the flop, and I then chase only if the pot is large or I feel a matching high card may win, (rarely).
I offer this observation. 100% of the times that I did not chase after the flop, I would not have produced a winner. I do not know how much in savings that represents, but it has solidified my approach. Conversly, I find that others seem to pull that river card quite often when it is against my leading hand. Have you tried keeping track of what ifs?
From what I recall, this lady wouldn't chase a four flush or open ended straight from the flop. Ever. Her thinking, I think, is that it just didn't come in enough to justify the amount of money she would have to call with regardless of pot size. She didn't want to "gamble". While I don't agree with this part of her play...I wonder if it is profitable?
Now if I see a situation where I flop a nut flush draw on the button against six players, it's a no brainer...let's party!
Yeah, under the right circumstances it is time to gamble. Pot odds mean a lot. I think the lady may still be able to win without ever chasing, but could probably win more if she chased at the correct times.
Think of it this way. Let's say there are 5 callers before the flop, and she flops a 4-flush that would win if it comes in. There's a bet and 3 callers before her.
There are 9 small bets in the pot. There will be at least 15-20 small bets in the pot at the end. She has to put in 1.5 small bets, and will win the whole thing about one time in three.
If she folds here, she is making an tremendous error. A huge, money-losing error. A bigger error than calling two bets cold to draw to one card in the deck.
Furthermore, if she plays like this, then there are going to be very few starting hands that are playable before the flop. If she tightened up and didn't play any of those now-losing starting hands (almost anything but big pairs), the blinds would eat her alive.
No maybes about it. She'll go broke.
4 days is not enough time to determine anything. I've seen losing players win for several consecutive months, and I've seen winning players lose for several consecutive months.
I think there must be a misunderstanding, possibly deliberately by her. Even the weaker players in 15-30 understand what a good draw is, though they may draw to a lot of other things as well.
Another point is that non-nut made flushes on the flop are not the way to riches. You will get limited action and get beat quite frequently by the end.
D.
This would be a terrible way to play poker and no player could possibly win in the long run by refusing to play a decent draw. I have played several thousand hours of $10-$20, $15-$30, $20-$40, and $30-$60 and have never heard or seen such a thing. In hold-em especially given that the flop bet is a small bet and not the big bet it is simply insane not to pursue your legitimate draws (i.e.-open ended straight draws and flush draws).
I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to word this scenario exactly as I want it, but here goes:
Assume for a second that your main concern is playing great poker and not your bankroll (that is, your decisions aren't influenced by the money you have to spend).
Now also assume that you're playing in a somewhat loose game, not exactly maniacs, but they certainly don't need AA to justify raising.
You're on the button with AXs and it's been called by 5 other people to you. Do you put in your small bet to see the flop? Of course you do. Pot odds, and your position, say go for it.
Now let's assume the same situation but the betting is capped before it gets to you. You're now faced with 4 small bets to cold call with your AXs. What do you do?
For those that would fold, I want to ask why. Aren't your pot odds basically the same in both scenarios? True the pot offers you $19 for your 3, vs. $54 to your $12 (in 3-6 HE), not exactly the same...but putting your money in gives better odds for the next in line to call the 12, thus giving you better odds too.
If your suit comes through, look at the pot you just raked up! If it doesn't...well, thems the odds, right?
Dan
ps Let me be honest. Given the second scenario, I honestly don't know what I would do. I'm trying to convince myself that cold calling is the right thing to do, though I know it might not be. So I want to hear why it wouldn't if it truly isn't a good move.
You're missing the concept of implied odds. A better way to think about this is to consider the amount of money you have to put in with Axs, and how much you'll win if you have the best hand at the end.
In the case of suited cards, you're a longshot to make a flush starting before the flop. But the flop defines your hand. You'll flop a 4-flush, two pair, or fold. But most of the time you'll fold. So considering purely pot odds, you'd prefer to put as little as possible in before the flop. Think of it as a two-stage process - the first stage is a longshot - maybe 8-1 to give you a hand that you can continue with. But if you get that hand, now you're only a 2-1 dog to take the whole pot. Obviously, you'd rather put the least amount of money in during the first stage.
Let me try yet another explanation. Let's say that in this game, there will be no more betting after the flop. We all put our pre-flop money in, and then flop 5 cards and the best hand takes the pot. If that were the case, two suited cards would never get the odds to call for just a flush. The best you could hope for would be 9-1 odds. On the other hand, If you can put in one bet, but know that you'll probably win 30 bets if you make your flush, you can call.
It's the bets they earn after making a 4-flush and getting involved for bigger money that makes the pre-flop call profitable. As the ratio of pre-flop to post-flop money gets closer, the situation gets worse for the drawing hand.
One of the reasons Axs is playable is the chance that you have the best Ace, and if you make top pair you'll have a pretty strong hand. It's pretty rare in a capped pot that someone does not have an Ace with a good kicker, so you also lose the value of winning with one pair.
And if you DO flop an Ace, are you going to be able to fold it when staring at 25 small bets in the pot?
So, besides the obvious AA,KK,AKs if the raisers are loose are there any hands you would call on the button for four bets?
Assuming that there are 5 players ahead of me, that means that there were three raisers ahead of me. But 5:1 odds is really nice especially when I know that I'll have support for thin draws.
Suited, I'd call with all suited Aces, maybe with K7s and above.
Suited connectors, I'd call with 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, maybe 54s, QJs. I feel very weird about KQs, and need more info on exactly how loose they are -- remember there were two reraises.
Unsuited, I might play AKo, again depending on my read.
All pairs 77 and above for sure, maybe 66 too.
- Andrew
I think you also missed the problem of the implied odds, see Dan's post above.
You cannot those hands for so many bets. You have a huge leak if you are serious and in some wild games.
D.
Heh,
Guess I've got a huge leak.
On the other hand, I don't really think I'm as far behind as you think I am with any of these hands. The *most* questionable of my picks are the suited aces and the big pairs.
The suited aces are weak because my ace clearly isn't any good. The big pairs are probably not so good because they are possibly dominated, but more importantly my secondary straight outs are almost non-existant, and I will often split 4 striaghts with my opponents.
The medium and small suited connectors are actually pretty darn strong. They ALL win more than their fair share down to 32s, if your opponents all hold high cards, and you are the only one suited in that particular suit. 98s, 87s, 76s, and 65s, are ALWAYS calls here.
In a pot with AA, KK and 98s, KK is a larger underdog than 98s.
- Andrew
If it's 4 cold to me, but with 5 callers, I'm pretty much down to big pairs and big suited connectors. If I thought the blinds would play as well, I'd call with just about any pocket pair. I can't agree with Andrew about playing Axs or K7s or a lot of the other stuff he says he'd play.
Dan,
I don't mean to quibble, but hands like K7s, and the big suited connectors which you mention (KQs, QJs in particular) as well as AKo are hands which I feel *very* wary of. I'm going to be needing more reasons to call with these hands than the pot size and number of callers.
If one, or more, of the players is "dead money" I'll begin to consider these hands. If I "know" what my opponents have I'll weigh calling even more.
That said, those are hands which I might play if the conditions are right. But I'll always play the medium suited connectors here.
I totally agree with most pocket pairs, but the larger ones are going to be more risky than the medium/small ones if the raisers/callers are going to be playing paint. Heck, folding JJ here probably isn't such a bad idea.
- Andrew
It really depends on who the players are that are raising and capping. If I know the players well enough to definitely put at least one of them on AA or KK, then I'm going to stay out of this pot with just about anything, although I'd agree with you that your best shot would probably be something like 89s. But with five callers and 4 bets cold, you're really not getting good enough odds to call with most of those draws. I like the pocket pairs better because I can flop a big hand and get huge implied odds from the overpairs, or I can fold on the flop (or see the turn if it's only one bet to me). The suited cards go down in value because I am likely going to have to pay multiple bets to draw with them as well, and the field will probably be down to 2 or 3 players after the flop. Also, the smaller suited connectors have more risk of making a hand and losing to a bigger straight or flush, since you could easily be looking at some big suited connectors in this pot.
I think I just need to pick up a book on poker odds. I never did think about the fact that there are different odds pre and post flop. I had merely learned that with 5 or more limpers, you were justified in calling a bet with AXs, so I had to wonder what the difference was between that and calling cap with the same number of players. Now I understand that the difference is how much money you're risking to begin with while you're still the underdog, versus how much you can get when you're not (or at least, not as much).
By the way, what are the odds of flopping a 4 flush?
Is Dan Osman your real name or is this some kind of sick reference to the dead climber, Dan Osman.
It's my real name. Most people confuse me with Donny Osmond. Actually, I've never heard any other Dan Osman's before, whether they be dead or alive.
I agree completely with Dan Hanson's outstanding analysis of the situation. I would also refer you to the "Wild Games" section of the new HPFAP regarding which hands you should play in capped pots that are multi-way. (Hint: AA,KK,QQ, and AK suited).
Finally, a few months ago I had a very spirited debate with the young and brilliant "scott" (small caps scott) where a player hand 76 suited against a large field and we went through a detailed analysis of how his expected value (EV) plummeted as he paid more and more money to take a flop. When he could see a flop for one bet he had a positive EV. If he paid two bets he was close to break even. At three or more bets he had negative EV. His EV got more and more negative as it became more expensive to take a flop.
no argument on suited connectors, but small pairs... nevermind.
scott
I'd argue for medium/small connectors, and medium/small pairs, but since I have little faith in ad hoc analysis, I'll probably have to bow out of any kind of "analytical" debate.
- Andrew
Andrew, I would appreciate your assessment of what scott and I went through a few months ago on this. If I can find it and repost it next week, would you be willing to review it and give me your comments? Thanks!
Jim,
In particular I will, but in general, the kind of analyes that are generated tend to be heavily based on particular assumptions. Some of the assumptions are good, some of them are bad. I do think it's true that the assumptions which are stated explicitly can be set up so that the good ones and the bad ones "cancel" out.
However, it is usually the case that *most* of the assumptions that are made are implicit, rather than explicit. Failure to address these assumptions in a reliable manner make it difficult to come up with a "correct" analysis.
In a lot of ways, I agree with Sklansky here. No-foldem odds are the way to go most of the time. From there it is much easier to make adjustments than it is to build up some complex flow chart of decisions and possibilities. This is because there are so few assumptions placed on the "play of the hand" that we can see how things are affected by more intelligent play.
I *do* think that tools like TTH are nearly as useful as no-foldem simulations. Unfortunatly, TTH has so many built-in assumptions that it's hard to adjust the results to the particular scenario you are interested in. You *can* adjust the assumptions, all of which are explicit in the program somewhere, but it is a difficult thing to do well. In my mind this makes no-foldem much more useful in general than TTH.
I also think that both no-foldem, and TTH are more useful than most analyses, for the very reason that they actually do enumerate ALL the possibilities in a very systematic and predictable manner.
One assumption that most analyses get wrong is card distributions on the flop. Most implicitly assume that the distribution is totally random outside the hand in question. In fact it is almost impossible to acurately describe what the flop distribution is given a set of preflop actions. This is primarily because it depends on the opponents, a thing which is *very* difficult thing to model.
That said, I think looking at your analysis would be interesting. I do have two quick questions. Was it the ev which plumeted dramatically, or the return on investment? How big was the field?
- Andrew
It was the EV that went down and we had 6 players to start with I think. What happened was that the hand was losing so much money pre-flop it could not win enough money post flop to overcome this. The pots got bigger but not in proportion to the upfront investment. For example, paying 4 bets to take a flop with six players did not result in the ultimate pot being 4 times as big as when all 6 players just limped in for one bet. On the flop and the turn, players started dropping out and when the hand won it only got paid off in one or two spots not six. The other problem was that 76 suited had very few ways of ending up as the best hand unless it made a full house, or a straight, or a flush, or trips, or sometimes two pair and even these hands did not win 100% of the time. Yes it was "assumption-driven" but I think an objective person would agree that the assumptions were reasonable and represented what typically happens. I will resurrect this and post it next week.
Jim,
At one point I sat down and did a *very* long an protracted analysis of *unsuited* connectors. I was very interested in seeing if these hands were profitable if you assumed that they could not win with anything less than two pair.
What I ended up with was that you wanted about 8:1 odds with small 0-gap unsuited connectors. I think I also concluded that 1-gap unsuited connectors needed 9:1 calling odds to be playable. What this meant was that neither of these hands were playable AT ALL outside the blinds, unless it was a family pot.
I don't really stand by the analysis mainly because of the conclusions that I iterated in my previous post. If you want to review it, you can check it out here
- Andrew
Oops,
I misquoted myself, I meant to say that you wanted 13:1 odds with unsuited 0-gap hands.
- Andrew
I was wondering what is the better Doyle Brunson book, Super System or How I won 1 Million Dollars playing Poker?" I was wondering cause I am going to buy one but I am not sure which one. Please respond quickly!
Thank you in advance, Chris H
They are both the same book. In 1978 "How I Won 1 Million Dollars Playing Poker" was retitled as "Super/System."
Played in a tight but generally passive 6-12 game today. In the cut-off seat, I raised with AcKd after 1 early and 2 middle limpers. BB called, so we saw the flop 5 ways.
Flop: As9s9d
BB bet, fold, fold, call, and I call.
Turn: Qh
BB bet, call, and I raised, both called.
River: Kh
I bet after they both checked, and only BB called who showed 89 offsuite, a winning hand (he said "I thought you have pocket aces" when he took down the pot.)
My thinking on the flop was BB is able to fold his weak ace if I raise, and if I wait the turn I could see what the turn card is (especially spades)and how the action develops (the limper on my right may raise on the turn with a 9). How to balance the play here so that if I had the best hand I would win the most, and cost less if I have worse hand. Helps are appreciated.
regards,
jikun
You say this is a "tight" "passive" game. So when the BB calls your raise before the flop, and then bets out after the flop, I don't see how you can put him on A-little. Particularly when the Q comes on the turn and the BB bets out again! Unless he is a maniac, the least he could have was a 9, and I might even put him on A-9 at that point. I think your raise after the turn was being overly aggressive, and I would have checked here. The K on the river could have completed a straight draw for the other player, who might have been setting you up for a check raise. Anyway, since I would now be putting the BB on 9-X (he wouldn't have checked A-9 on the river), you stand a chance of being third best in this hand, and I believe a check on the river was also in order.
I'm sure you'll be hearing from the "pot odds" wizards, and other mathemeticians who may say that your bets were correct. However, when the other players were as easy to read as these were, there is no reason to waste your money.
Good Luck! Black Jack
I was afraid to make the post too long. When I raised on the turn, the BB called time. He looked at me and shaked his head and called. I figured he had AQ to call my raise. If he had a 9, I was expecting a reraising. He is one of the regular player in my game, so, in retrospect, I know the reason he put me on a big hand is that he think I would raise on the flop with a big ace, which is the usual way I play the hand. thanks for the comment.
regard,
jikun
jikun, I would raise on the flop to make the spade draws pay then check the turn to induce a bluff or to protect against someone holding the 9. I probably would then have bet the river - just one man's opinion though.
In retrospect, if I had raised on the flop, I could have saved some money on this hand. Thanks for the comments.
regards,
jikun
Your raise pre-flop with slick was good.
Once the flop comes you should raise with the top two pair and the top kicker. Put your raise in on the cheap street for several reasons. You probably have the best hand since the bettor could be betting a weaker Ace, you want to make the flush draws pay, and you are more likely to find out where you are at if you get re-raised.
Once you decided to just call on the flop, your decision on the turn becomes less clear (which is why raising on the flop is best). Because you didn't show any strength by raising on the flop, the bettor may think he still has the best hand with his Ace or he may have trip Nines. We are in a guessing mode now. I think I would just call but raising could be an option. At this point it is close. On the river, I think I would just check it down since the King really did not help your hand as much as it looks since if no one has trip Nines you probably had the winner anyway and a worse hand won't call. If they have trip Nines or better you will get called and sometimes raised.
Not to nitpick, but a set is not involved here. Your opponent had trip Nines not a set of Nines.
are you sure about this whole set/trips thing? i am pretty sure i heard it first from you. i think it is a good convention, but noone seems to know about it? most posters have to be corrected, usually by you. and what about in stud or draw, isn't a set the same as trips there? it's a good idea to draw the distinction, but i think you should take credit for it if it is your idea.
scott
In Winning Low Limit Poker by Lee Jones the distinction is made between a set and trips. I'm sure Lee Jones is not the first to make the distinction. It is probably a matter of convention. Although, since we now know Jim is 53 years old maybe he did start it. :-)
It is not my idea. Lee Jones has a discussion of the difference in his book "Winning Low Limit Hold-Em". I believe the term "set" came from the world of hold-em not stud. I played a lot of stud before I ever played hold-em and I never heard the term used at the stud table. Now in all fairness due to the enormous expansion of hold-em across the country in the past 10 years it is possible that the term "set" has taken on a wider connotation to just mean three-of-a-kind or trips.
The reason I keep harping on this is because when you have a set of Nines, no one else can have three Nines. When you have trip Nines some else can easily have trip Nines as well. Huge difference in the two situations. The set is a vastly superior holding and deserves to be distinguished from trips. In addition, "set over set" always means someone gets to lose a lot of money and there can be no ties. Two players can tie with each having the same trips and side card.
no, no. i understand. it is an important distinction. and everytime you point it out very nicely as just an addition to your extensive ananlysis. i just thought you were maybe modedtly avoiding the limelight. i never read jones. i just saw it first and most frequently in the writings of jim brier. apparantly i was mistaken.
scott
I think you should raise the flop since someone could very well have a nine and you want to get out while it's cheap if this is the case. Raising the turn just encourages someone with the nine to make more $$ off you on the river. A raise on the turn may make someone think you "might" have AA, but no one with a nine is going to fold anyway and you only have two outs to beat him. Raise the flop to see where you are at then check the turn if checked to you. You will almost never get reraised on the flop by a worse hand than you hold, and given the flop the only better hands than yours are AA or any hand containing a nine. I think you cost yourself $$ on this hand.
Dave in Cali
with a flush draw and a pair on the board, this is no time to slow play. A raise is in order, and if you get called, you would normally check behind the caller if he checks the turn. WHY? Since there is the threat of trips, a caller usually isn't going to stay through a raise without trips or the best ace.
You want to either win this pot right away or put in as little as possible once you do get callers, unless the caller is such a terrible player that he might be chasing with an under pair .Very doubtful.seeya
The usual play is to raise the flop. If you get it heads-up, you can check the turn if you think that your opponent who has already checked will either checkraise or fold.
Your play of calling the flop and raising on the turn has greater appeal if you raised preflop with something like AJ and the flop was something like J99 (although even here the usual play is to just raise on the flop and just keep betting on the turn).
I don't see much in the way of audio tapes except for 5 by Mike Caro. Does anyone have an opinion on them. I will probably order them-$24.95- for all five. I am looking for something to listen to on the 1 1/2 hour drive- if I hurry- to Foxwoods. I would think there would be a great market for these with all the new poker players heading for the increased number of casinos. Does S & M have anything in the works on audio tapes.
tapes are so-so
I agree that more and better tapes could be great; i tape some of my notes and highlights from books to listen to while driving. They're good for a few listens over the years and dramatizes my improvement.
Chris, Thanks for the response. I wore out a tape I made of HPAP starting hand groups and their Pre-flop strategy. I just picked up a copy of the 21st century edition and am making the changes in their "basic strategy" with the addition of some of Abdul's advice. I tend to get obsessive about this because it is the one aspect of play that seems to lend itself to memorization to a degree. I did hear of one successful player who was a former truck driver that made his own tapes covering all aspects of holdem play. He listened to them on long road trips. I think your idea of taping your notes etc. is a good one. Maybe you should commercialize it and make a fotune! In any event I will probably hold off on purchasing the Caro tapes unless he revises them. Thanks, again.
Fooled You skp!
Congratulations on your first article in Poker Digest. It looks great but I had to read it on my feet at work. So I reserve the right to nit-pick it to death later.
By the way, I tore it out to read it and at first really thought you looked like the guy in the cartoon since I didn't see the picture on the second page yet. What a haircut (in the cartoon)!
Anyway, good luck and hope to hear more from you in coming issues.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I know this belongs on the Exchange but the title just would not have worked there.
oh my god, ....it all makes sense to me now. how clever.
skp's article is indeed excellent. Up to the same standard as his guest essays here, it's packed with information which provokes thought and which a player could put to use almost immediately. I offered to provide him with some snappy one liners to use when he gets flack for releasing such information. But I think he's opting just to take their money.
The slackers at my place didn't have it out yet. It will probably be there tomorrow, looking forward to that!
D.
OK, the opening I need, SKP problem #1.
SKP is just too aggressive for my taste. I dread the day I meet him in the Holiday Inn on Broadway. He'll skin my sorry ass alive unless I catch some cards and peddle him the nuts a few times.
I look forward to the article.
Good insight SKP, great article. This flower just keeps on opening, with rays of sunlight from articles like this. I had a grasp of maybe 3 of your 8 situations. You and JF ought to collaborate on a book.
There are some pretty aggressive ideas in the article. Perhaps overly aggressive. I would be interested in your take.
Well, I can hardly wait to read skp's article. Now that he has assumed increased importance in the world of poker, I will have to start a file on him. He has made my hit list along with Sklansky, Malmuth, Cooke, and Feeney. Congratulations skp!
Thanks Jim and I look forwrad to your usual excellent critique.
Is this article going to be put on the web for those of us who live over 100 miles from a cardroom?
- Andrew
E-mail me with your address and I'll be happy to send you a copy from my computer.
Phew! While there may be problems with the piece, I would have thought that it might take you guys more than 5 minutes to spot them:)
Actually, I do look forward to your "nit-picks"...it will be fun...the contents of the article are by no means undebatable.
Lastly, thanks for the encouraging words. I may draft another one soon once I get some time (it's pretty outta control at the office right now).
Ciao.
Hey skp can you E-Mail me your article as well? My E-Mail address is: jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov
skp,
Can I also get a copy m7h1j5@aol.com
Thanks
MJ
at the address next tomy name. thanks.
scott
...just let me know privately and I will send it out when I get some time...(not you scott, I have already got your message:)
I don't think Jim will like this hand very much. :-/ I just thought it was kind of interesting. I don't claim necessarily to have played it correctly. It was certainly real world, debatable play,and is very easy to question. That's one reason I remembered it. I almost didn't post it because I had decided that I had played it badly, that I knew why, and that there was no debate. But in thinking more about it I was able to get back in touch with what I was thinking/sensing at the time of the hand, reminding me of why I played it as I did. So I'll defend it at least to a point. I don't want to provide all my thinking just yet, as that might bias readers' opinions too much. I'll just say that I was responding to my "feel" for the game, if you will, and how I thought others were seeing my play. Soooo, here's pretty much just the raw hand. (Have fun Jim.;):
40-80 hold'em at the Bicycle Club. Completely unfamiliar lineup. I've been in the game for about 2 hours. It's not a very good game… tightish, aggressive, fairly frequent move-making, but one or two relatively bad (though semi-aggressive) players. As a result of getting few playable hands, my image at this point is clearly that of being very tight and probably fairly unimaginative.
I have KJ in the small blind. One early limper (solid), and one middle position limper (didn't yet have a good line on his play, but thought he was semi-tight, but tricky and aggressive postflop. Call him TA.) I call and big blind declines his option. We see the flop 4-handed.
Flop: J-5-3 (rainbow). I check. It gets checked around.
Turn: 6. (board = J-5-3--6) I check. It's checked to TA who bets. I raise. Others out. TA calls.
River: 3. (board = J-5-3--6--3) I bet, TA raises, I call.
Comments?
(btw, the play I describe in the current Poker Digest [yet another check raise] is going to *really* put me in Jim's dog house, and probably a few other dog houses too. Just please keep my water dish full, Jim. :-( )
I would bet the flop to provide cover for my frequent bets there with middle pair, a gutshot, or other relatively weak hands.
I would bet the turn, because now I fear giving a free card and having a 4 (or 7 or 2) come in on the river to give a straight to someone who would have folded for a bet. Also, it's not like I think the 6 has suddenly given someone a second best hand, nor a plausible bluffing opportunity. The limpers likely have T9s, QTs, or similar. And another reason to bet is to provide cover for when I'm betting there with almost any two cards after it checked through on the flop.
However, I don't think there is any big shame in how you played the hand. Given that you slowplayed the flop and slowplayed the turn, you have to raise on the turn and pay off that raise on the river. You just seem to have a slight case of checkraiseitis. Buy my new subliminal poker strategy tape entitled "Bet, bet, bet", and listen to it while you sleep - that should take care of the problem.
Possibilities for the opponent's hand are 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 98s, 87s, 86s, 76s, 65s, 97s, or a small chance of AJ. You beat the majority of these. So what did he actually have?
-Abdul
Abdul writes: "Buy my new subliminal poker strategy tape entitled "Bet, bet, bet", and listen to it while you sleep - that should take care of the problem. "
A very similar mantra can be had from Bob Ciaffone. Take a few lessons from him and soon you'll be on the path to str8foward poker. I'm cured but still require frequent booster shots.
Checking on the flop is fine and probably correct. Once all check on the flop, either betting on fourth st. or check raising is OK. However against a field like this I don't think you should lose two bets on the end. It is OK to check and call but probably better to bet and fold a raise. as it is almost inconceivable a guy would raise bluff you in this spot, since you could so easily have a bigger hand than you did. (Notice by the way that I am not wearing my math hat for this answer but rather my I have won more money at these limits than all you other posters combined except for Ray Zee hat, so I know whereof I speak.)
you have interesting style. where can i get that hat? i need a hat for the cold weather we are having in ny.
anyway, i don't understand the fold on the end. in fact, i am having trouble understanding his play at all. it's either a bluff, a 6, or a flopped set. you can beat a bluff or a 6 and you lose to a flopped set. getting 9-1, i call. i am probably missing what his hand obviously is, but i think he bets any pair/two pair on the flop, bets any hand on the turn when it is checked to twice. he calls the turn raise with overcards or a gutshot or 5 outer with the 6. on the river, he might take a shot at the pot. but the only hand he can have that you can't beat is a full house/quads. since he would have played that way up to the river with a vast number of hands, if he would bluff raise with 10%, that easily outweighs the few times he flopped a set. or so i think.
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
Bear in mind that I've never played 40-80 in Vegas or LA, but isn't it possible that this player, who was described as 'tricky and agressive post-flop', would believe that the turn check-raise was a steal attempt, and would try to re-steal? After all, it was checked to him twice, and he was last to act. Since a lot of agressive players would bet any two cards in that situation, a check-raise could mean anything. Of course, once he calls the check-raiser is committed to betting the river, and he may have felt that he could win with a raise. And there are 9 big bets in the pot on the end. Is there typically not a 1 in 10 chance that a player might be putting a move on here, given the heads-up action and two checks on the flop and turn?
I think this may be exactly the way John saw it. The only problem is if he had slowplayed a set or had gotten lucky on turn. I lean toward him either getting lucky with 6,5 or completely bluffing. I think with a set he raises the checkraise on the turn. With 6,5 he trys to induce another bet on the river while he tries to figure if John check raised with a draw. I don't think TA was worried about 4,2 or 4,7 from John who had called the small blind. Nor do I think he has either of these two hands. JJ is still a strong possiblitiy for TA. Tough river call. The bet was questionable.
Keep in mind that neither Ray nor I are big fans of saving a single bet. But sixty years of combined playing experience and the fifteenth root of a googol in winnings, should give us the right to tell you young, upcoming, superstars that this is one case where you should.
why couldn't you just say almost 5 million?
here's my thinking. entering the river he could have a vast number of hands, giving the positinal betting. i say only 5% beat you. he will always raise with all of these. for the fold to be correct he has to bluff raise less than 1/9 as often as he value raises. this means he has to bluff raise .56% of the hands that he enters the river with. that means he only bluff raises 1 in 170 times he is in the position to. i think that he will bluff raise more frequently than that, much more in fact, especially given the "tricky". and that a fold would be a mistake.
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
Mr.Carson conjures images of krusty the clown on the simpsons.
I concede that David Sklansky, Ray Zee, and Ronzoni are far older than I. If they put all their years of experience into one body, they would be dead. :)
Well, seriously, I probably pay off on the river more often than is optimally exploitive, but basically I try to play a defensive game theoretic optimal style. Here I suspect that if you were to work through the math (starting at the point that it is heads up and revealing your hand distributions if necessary), you would find that a call on the river was correct. If I were in the opponent's shoes, I would be value-raising on the river with hands that KJ beats, and I would also be bluff-raising some of the time.
If you concede that, then what you are really saying is that a typical LA 40-80 player would not value-raise or bluff-raise here as much as he should. Could be. But I'm going to play this one conservatively and wait for a better opportunity to try to exploit my opponent.
It's like a boxer who is weaving and jabbing in a defensive way, waiting for his opponent to make a big mistake and leave a big opening for a big left hook. A small opening offers too little reward for the risk, as I have to let down my guard to deliver a big punch.
One of the main things I'm relying on here is that I would definitely expect an LA 40-80 player to bet the flop with a hand like A3s or K3s. Also, because the player was described as "semi-tight" I semi-ruled-out 43s. I just don't see him having a 3.
Come on Feeney now give us the answer. Because of the odds involved, it's no biggie if I'm wrong, but if you (David) are wrong you're going to have some major egg on your face.
-Abdul
I vote for a hands like A3s, K3s, and Q3s as well. All of which are pretty reasonable, and which I would play almost exactly the same as TA - postflop.
- Andrew
John, I just read your article in PD and actually came here to compliment you. I think it is bold, creative and administers insight into some untold stories. Although the concepts you describe are well known to better players everywhere. Most would generally teach a rote form of play that challenges each player to break the mold and dare to be labeled, if you will a "loose goose". Poker is an exploration of caution and daring with logic and luck thrown in.
I appreciate all posters for their candid approach to playing the best cards in the best position but you are to be commended for breeching new ground for those developing (temoporarily weak tight) players who actually can benefit from a fresh approach. Your disclaimer (warning) was effective and appropriate. Thanks for restoring my faith in the community of better players.
PS: I think you lost the above hand to 6,5 or a set. But you and TA were bound to collide.. :>)
Headcase,
You wrote "I think you lost the above hand to 6,5 or a set. But you and TA were bound to collide.. :>)"
Note that John's two pair beats a 65.
Regards,
Rick
Your right, I finaly noticed the 3 on the end after I had posted.
I appreciate your comments. It's very hard to tell how these things will be received, and nice to know when people find them valuable.
i dont have a clue what he had but i dont rule out 34 as ive played enough to see that often. if he had you on 4th street you should have got a feeling if you were watching so id say he got you on the river. hence the 34 possibility. but im probably way off as there is not enough info for me. the big mistake is the bet and call on the end. no one in their right mind would raise you here without being able to beat a monster. remember you gave the parameters for how they judge you. i favor as David does the bet it out and fold with a sick feeling and wishing i checked and called. you certainly didnt do poorly.
i dont understand. it is checked twice to him. he bets the second time. he could have anything. you, immediately next to act, raise. you know he could have anything. you could have almost anything. he calls the turn. he could have lots of stuff. you bet the river. you still could have lots of stuff. why won't he raise if he can't beat a monster? the action could all be positional. you think he is 9 times more likely to have a monster than he is to bluff? i don't. what did i miss?
scott
scott,
you miss the big picture. you cant see the forest thru the trees. every pot you play is going to have that kind of money in and you must find some to fold. here is a situation layed out that has no pluses for Johns hand. if you take in the players and the game you will find there is no way a decent player is going to make a move on Johns hand.
It had occurred to me that you won this hand. That is why I specifically said that you shouldn't lose two bets on the end rather than specifically that you should bet and then fold. Rather I was saying that IF a bet on the end is CORRECT (as it would be in many situations) THEN a fold is also correct. If on the other hand this is a guy who will untypically raise bluff fairly frequently, but not ridiculously frequently, then the right play is almost certainly to merely check and call on the end.
Yes, right, I had begun to think about that after Rick Nebiolo mentioned checking to induce a bluff. That would have been the correct play I think. I knew the guy was a move maker, but had no reason to believe he would bluff-raise ridiculously frequently on the river.
John,
I started to peek at Abdul's answer before catching myself and I'm going to try to put it out of my mind for now and give you a less Abdulian, more average guy, response.
You must have checked the flop hoping to get in a check raise against the TA player in the last position. Maybe most would bet out but there seems to be a valid argument for playing it the way that you did. However, it got checked through which is somewhat of a surprise at this level.
The turn seems to be the key play. Given your missed check raise on the flop, I like checking again when a small but somewhat connected card hits. A tight aggressive player in back will rarely check a second time when this semi-blank (a new poker term perhaps?) hits. Now I believe his turn bet is less likely to represent strength then had he bet the flop. I think you were right in checking and right in figuring that you would get in the check raise on the second attempt (which you would want given the vulnerability of your hand). Or course you can't be happy that he calls but you have to figure he is more likely to be on a draw or a small pair combined with a draw. Wouldn't a decent hand in back have bet the flop or have made it three bets on the turn most of the time? Anyway, two hands that come to mind would be 98 and 76 suited (although 76 may have bet the flop).
I think the river three is a good card for you. If he was on a draw, he certainly didn't make it with this card. If he had a hand like A3 suited, I think he would have bet the flop. A better jack would have bet the flop and reraised the turn. Or he could have had a monster all along and he figured this was the way to get the most bets out of you. Since IMHO he is most likely to have either a busted draw /weak hand or a monster I think the best play on the river is to check with the intention of calling a possible bluff.
But you bet the river and are now faced with a raise. There are nine big bets in the pot. Given your tight unimaginative image (do you think they know you yet from the Poker Digest pictures?), I think a TA player is capable of putting in a bluff raise at this limit more than one time in nine. So I would call.
My guess is that you either were up against a monster or a busted draw. I don't think TA had a middling hand. The tone of your post would make one think that you lost on the hand but you are tricky enough to post it that way intentionally.
Anyway, those are my two cents.
Regards,
Rick
Before I begin my tirade I think we need to put some things in perspective. I have only played about 200 hours of $30-$60 and $40-$80 combined and I have only won about a grand. I am essentially a break even player at this level. I believe that when you go above $20-$40 you have crossed a threshhold and it may be that my thinking is too simplistic to be effective at these levels. In addition, I believe that when a world class player like Ray Zee and when the world's leading poker authority (David Sklansky) go to the trouble of providing a fairly detailed critique of a hand, their analyses should be given the most weight and anything I say or anything someone else says should be simply set aside. All that being said, here is my assessment for what it is worth:
Pre-flop you are in the small blind with King-Jack offsuit and only two guys limp in one from early position and one from middle position. Of course you call for half a bet. The big blind takes a free play. If you were suited I might consider raising pre-flop.
When the flop comes it is ragged and rainbow. We have top pair/with an excellent kicker. We only have three opponents. We almost certainly have the best hand but it is far from being invulnerable. If we check planning to check-raise we need to be fairly certain someone will bet. Now given that board and the lack of raising pre-flop coupled with a small number of opponents, what reason do we have to think this flop will get bet? Only the presence of a tricky aggressive player who we admit we don't know very well. So we are going to set aside the play that sound poker dictates which is to bet our hand and instead play the role of the table clairvoyant trying to anticipate what an unpredictable player will do. Perhaps in a no limit or pot limit game this ploy might make sense but I cannot see it in a full tabled structured limit hold-em game. Failure to bet here is simply god-awful poker. We get what we deserve when it is checked around. I think the poker gods should supernaturally intervene and give the big blind a pair of Deuces, let the turn card be a Deuce, and the river card be a King. Now after we have lost about a half-rack of chips we will walk away a better person for the experience.
The turn card now puts three cards in a straight zone which doesn't help our cause here especially since we just handed out free cards to three other players one of whom has not had to pay a penny so far. Now we check again! Do we think we are slow-playing a monster here? When it is checked to the tricky player he bets. He may be betting a draw or a pair but if he flopped a pair I would think he would have bet the flop after everyone checked to him. We come out of the woodwork and raise. I don't know if the raise is right or not. It probably is. We get it heads-up with the tricky player with him having position over us but we probably have the best hand. I feel better now that we were not re-raised.
On the river, the board pairing the bottom flop card only mildly concerns me with one opponent. I would bet the river like you did. The tricky player raises. At this point a call is mandatory especially against a tricky player. We are probably beat but there is too much dough in the pot to fold against one opponent.
John you have a lot more experience in playing at this level than I have and maybe poker is a different game at these celestial orbits. If this works for you I can hardly wait to read your book because to simple, straight-forward Jim who must play on planet earth your whole line of play on this hand is mind-boggling.
I've been winner played 30-60 and 40-80 in los angeles area more than 10,000 hours for the past ten years,I can tell you that David and Ray're right, you should fold on the river. 3 on the river helps him,the possible hand he can have is 36s,34s,A3s,K3s,Q3s and less likely 55.( is TA and TWA the same guy?)
Your post is a very good one. I read thru the other responses and realized a flaw in my game (one of many I'm sure). I don't check with an excellent hand when checked to me. Then to make things worse sometimes I might try to bluff my way out against a good player or somebody I perceive as "able to lay down". No wonder they just call me down and the other players look at me like what planet is he from? Duh. Then I'm sitting there time after time and thinking whether I'm giving tells or not not realizing they could as easily have picked it up from my play.
Since I play in such fashion and it seems this guy might be playing in simular fashion I would have to call him. I'm not normal what can I say. Beware of A3. Then again if I was him I probably would have bet the flop with A3 but a check is possible.
Okay now that Jim's had his shot at this, I can respond. First, let me say that the level of feedback and analysis here has been outstanding. (I have now taken a lesson from Ciaffone, and he has increased his frequency of check-raising by 32%! ;)
David and Ray, I defer, I defer! BUT…. I have to explain a couple of things. I think this may have been a lesson in being very careful just what information I include or leave out in posting the situation surrounding a hand. I may have said something that was a bit misleading. I said that my image was tight and unimaginative at that point in the session. Well, that was true - overall. I had played very few hands, and had actually seen indications that that was how a couple of players were seeing me.
Now, the reason I mentioned my image in the post was because it related to one important reason why I chose to check the hand a second time, hoping to get in the raise. These were mostly aggressive players who will take any chance they can get to run over anyone they think is, uh, runoverable. And my sense was that I was beginning to look like a ripe target for them to run over. They were certainly beginning to take more liberal shots at my blinds, and I'd been largely unable to defend, given hands like T4o, etc. While I think I'm fairly adept at dealing with players trying to run over me (having had a good bit of experience with it when my image was as tight as it is now, but a little less aggressive), I'd just as soon they fear me a little more. So I saw the play on the turn as an opportunity to strike a little fear in these guys, to tell them that they're going to get played back at more than they may have thought.
That said, I think the play was justifiable even without that consideration. That was probably the first hand I'd seen checked through on the flop, and I had seen none checked through to the river. I expected a bet.
(There's also the benefit of getting them to give me more free cards following my future checks with weak hands, but I see that as a longer term consideration which wasn't so relevant here as I wasn't expecting to play regularly with these players. I think the same might apply to Abdul's idea about providing cover for future bets with middle pair, etc. At any rate you have to mix it up. There are benefits to both betting and check-raising.)
Of course *my* reason for mentioning image was only in my head, not in my post. But naturally two of the finest poker minds on earth expertly integrated my "tight image" comment into their analysis. (Ray clearly did, and I suspect David did too.) They saw it as one reason why TA would not have tried to bluff on the river. Had I thought it all through as well as DS and RZ when I posted it I would have qualified my statement to say that I knew some of the players had begun to see me as quite tight, but couldn't say for sure how others (including TA) saw me. Now, I don't know if that would have made a difference in DS's and RZ's assessments, but it might have.
As you might guess, I'm leading up to playing results a little. I won the pot. When I called, TA just said, "Good. Take it.", and mucked his hand. My thinking was that he would have bet any pair on 3, and in all likelihood would have bet anything with any real relation to the flop. So even in the very unlikely event that he'd stepped out and played a hand like 42s, I figured he'd have bet it on 3. So on 4 I couldn't put him on much better than a hand containing a 6. (I probably didn't think it through that clearly at the time, but something along those lines…) So then on 5 I doubted the 3 had helped him. Also, I knew that if he'd done something like check along on the flop with a hand like 33 or 55 (not JJ because he'd surely have raised with it preflop), he might well have 3-bet me on the turn when I raised. Since he hadn't 3-bet me, it seemed to bring the chance of something like that down somewhat. And checking it through like that on the flop with a set is kind of unusual anyway, so… So I figured this guy to be a move maker, the raise just looked suspicious to me given the board and his previous actions, and I called. (Maybe I detected something in his behavior on the raise too, but I don't really remember.)
I'm thinking that TA may indeed have been playing against my image, but that his way of thinking about it was just that you can sometimes get a tight player to lay down a hand. I also concur with a lot of scott's, Rick's, and Dan's observations.
So the question is, am I just playing results? Had I left out the image comments would a fold still have been warranted? You see, I think DS and RZ are *very right* in their analyses. And if they'd been there advising me to fold, I would have folded. I'd be a greenhorn fool to discount their combined gooogolized poker brain power. I've certainly learned from their analysis of the hand I posted. I'm just not sure it was exactly the hand I *played*. They had only the sparse information in my post to go on, while, hopefully, I may have succeeded in making use of the more complete information available to me at the time. My "feel" for the situation was that this guy was not beyond a move on the river.
Anyway, next time, I either leave out all peripheral information, or think it through each piece very carefully.
I also apologize if I gave the impression that I lost the hand. But at one point I had decided that I had played it badly, and should have bet the turn. That's what I was referring to. I changed my mind about the turn play when I was able to really reconstruct what I'd been thinking/sensing at the time.
(Note to Jim: Such plays as this check twice and raise are really pretty common in a lot of games I play in. If you're always just straight forward, they give you a little Fekali… oh you know.)
Was TA winning or losing at that time( I believe he was losing)?
Yes, I think he'd had a significant downswing for a while before that hand. btw, "TA" wasn't his name. It just stood for tricky/aggressive
Now I think I made same call as you did,I call with all kind of good hands against losing player,let me tell a story of one of the best 20 players in the world that Mason ranked in one poker magazine about ten years ago. We played 60-120 or 80-160 hold'em at commerce casino,he got bad beat two hands in a row, the very next hand he limped in with 62s under the gun in 8 hand game got raise and called now 4 people in, flop come XX2 rainbow ...raiser bet and he called one called after him,turned rag raiser bet again he called other guy folded.Now what he tried to do is catch a 2 or 6 against almost obviously big pairs,river came 6 he checked and called,raiser showed KK. He should checked raise or came out bet when he knew he had the best hand. I smiled and looked around saw every body smiled too. BTW after he got two bad beat I heard he talked to himself that he should burn commerce casino. I don't try to make logical read on losing player.
John I think that a call is mandatory on the river because TA is the type of player who would bet anyhand with any sort of draw or pair on the flop, including a gut shot. The only way I see you losing this hand is if he slowplayed a set on the flop (which he probably wouldn't have done, oh and I don't put him on JJ because he would have raised preflop)and he probably would have 3 bet you on the turn with a hand of that caliber. There are really very few hands that I could put him on that could beat you from the way he played it only maybe 66 or 33.
BTW I probably would have bet the flop for much the same reasons Abdul stated, and also because you might get raised by a player like TA holding a hand like A6 maybe even KQ (although he probably would have raised preflop with this).
Shawn Keller
Though the poker knowledge of the people who have posted here before is about a gazillion times greater than mine, let me just post some thoughts on this hand:
I, like you, would have called on the river. Given that this player is a tricky and aggressive, there is a good chance he is bluffing. Furthermore, you point out that you may have had an image as a tight and unimaginative player. However, what I didn't see anyone mention here was the fact that his opinion of you may have changed on this very hand. Checking twice and raising on the turn is not the sign of a "tight unimaginative" player, I don't care what limit you play at. The second you put this "move" on, TA's thinking of you may have changed to the point where he thought u were taking a shot at the pot. Incidentally, this is why I prefer to make straightforward or "straightforward looking" plays against tricky opponents. People will tend to play trickier against someone who they think may also be up to no good. That is why I probably would have bet out on the turn.
The second you put this "move" on, TA's thinking of you may have changed to the point where he thought u were taking a shot at the pot.
A good point. It just adds to the fact that a check would have been right on the end. David's point that *if* a bet on 5 was correct, then a fold was correct, is the heart of the matter. In this case a check was probably best on the river.
I'm pretty sure Jim would have checkraised the river here, John. :-)
A rare poker play, inducing a bluff-raise!!!
Well, John different strokes for different folks I guess. When I first starting playing in the $20-$40 game at the Horseshoe in Bossier City after they first opened their cardroom, we had a lot of hyper-aggressive types who tried to run over the game. Many pot limit players from Dallas flocked to this game since they assumed they would just run over it by spraying a lot of chips around. I found the best way to deal with these guys was to simply take control of the hand when I knew I had the best of it and force them to follow my lead. This included aggressively betting top pair/good kicker on the flop and if raised I would frequently either re-raise or just smooth call and then lead into them on the turn. After a few sessions of being badly beaten they learned a few things rather quickly: 1) When I am in a pot I have a hand., 2) When I have a hand, I going to be betting that hand, 3) Spurious raising won't get me out, and 4) They are going to have to show me a better hand at the river, especially in a heads-up situation to take the pot and this is not easy to do. As an aside, I was able to occasionally steal pots once I got them properly trained which made the game even more profitable. Most of them went broke within a year and the game changed dramatically a few months before the Horseshoe closed their cardroom. My earn rate in this game dropped from about $60 per hour to a little over $30 per hour because the game tightened up.
How is it known that you would not have won a bigger pot by simply betting your hand from the start? How is it known that your goal of having them fear you a little more would not have been as well served by simply taking control of the hand from the start? I guess these are the sort of things an experienced player like yourself can only assess real time at the table. Again, whatever works for you. Great Post!
john, you don't need to cover for DS and Ray. It was interesting reading........ period.seeya
Well, I didn't mean to cover for them, Al. It's just that I wanted to acknowledge that I may have inadvertently given some misleading information in the post, and give credit where due for what I think was their good analysis. e.g., David's clarification of how checking and calling may have been best is, IMO, on the money.
btw, I induced a nice little bluff on the river today. Guess what I was thinking about at the time? :)
x
If that were really my motivation, wouldn't it have been easier just to lie and say the guy took the pot with a hand like 55 or 43s? Or maybe I should just tell David and Ray they were wrong because ha, ha, the call took the pot, knowing that a lot of people here will focus on the wrong point anyway. That could make me look really smart to the majority, while the guys who looked at the situation correctly will just say, "well, there goes another one who just doesn't quite get it."
I saw two parties process the same information and pass judgement. Abdul 1 : Sklansky 0.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet -- I think you're talking about the question of whether or not I should have called on the end. But, as I understand it, David was not actually talking about that. If you look back at David's first post, then his post clarifying what he meant, you'll see that he did indeed mean what he said he meant. He was talking about what would have been the likely best way to play going into the river, given my description of the situation. (I think Ray was too, though he may have integrated my somewhat misleading mention of image into his analysis more than David did.) I have a feeling that what David was talking about is going over a lot of heads.
John, you are the one who just does not get it, no offense, brown noser.
Sklansky first wrote:
"It is OK to check and call but probably better to bet and fold a raise. as it is almost inconceivable a guy would raise bluff you in this spot, since you could so easily have a bigger hand than you did."
Read that again:
"OK to check and call... probably better to bet and fold [to] a raise... almost inconceivable a guy would raise bluff you in this spot..."
After you posted the result of the hand, Sklansky changed his tune:
I specifically said that you shouldn't lose two bets on the end rather than specifically that you should bet and then fold.
Uh, no he said specifically that it was probably better to bet then fold than to check and call.
Rather I was saying that IF a bet on the end is CORRECT (as it would be in many situations) THEN a fold is also correct. If on the other hand this is a guy who will untypically raise bluff fairly frequently, but not ridiculously frequently, then the right play is almost certainly to merely check and call on the end.
I think we have discovered why Sklansky thinks he is correct 99.9% of the time. If I could change my answer afterwards, I'd be correct almost all the time too. I like Sklansky, but I'm 99.9% sure he blew it this time.
By the way, I played the LA 40-80 game almost exclusively for two years and I have many years of experience in the Bay Area, though not nearly so much as some.
-Abdul
Given the situation *as I described it*, betting and folding to a raise probably would have been correct. Also, David was addressing the situation going into the river, not simply the final call or fold decision in isolation.
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, I think you're on the right track, Gary. But I think when a poster says, "My image was XYZ, it's okay to assume that's accurate and incorporate that into your analysis." I agree that my comment about my image was off base. I think it was reasonably accurate with regard to my general image, but may well have been very wrong about how that particular player saw me. (Hetron's point may have come into play too.)
btw, I should try to clarify just a bit more what I think is key here. It looks to me like David was saying that either a bet-fold approach was right, or a check-call approach was right. A bet-and-call-if-raised approach never figured into it. If you took my messed up statement about my image as true, then bet-fold might well be right. But in retrospect it's clear to me that a check-call was right.
Anyway, as I recall most of Abdul's comments were about how I should have bet instead of going for the check-raise(s) on 3 and 4. Maybe I was just engineering getting some free cards from Abdul when I get to Vegas one of these days.
Why do you so want to make this a competition - talking about how Sklansky will have "egg on his face", how you're sure he was "wrong", Izmet's keeping score, etc? Isn't the idea here to learn, to shed light on difficult conceptual issues? Well, David's and Ray's posts about the logic of this hand on the river did that. Why get into all the other nonsense?
Why did I make it a competition?
David wrote:
Do you defer to your elders John and Abdul?Keep in mind that neither Ray nor I are big fans of saving a single bet. But sixty years of combined playing experience and the fifteenth root of a googol in winnings, should give us the right to tell you young, upcoming, superstars that this is one case where you should.
Who made it a competition? I never even mentioned David Sklansky before he posted that.
I like and respect David Sklansky. Think of it as a friendly competition, in which now I can make 9 mistakes of throwing away an extra bet before I'm down to David's level. One hand is nothing, but you have to admit that my feel was better for this situation.
By the way I don't necessarily agree that on the river checking and calling is better than betting and calling a raise (or heaven forbid betting and then folding to a raise.) It's not a clear choice, but one problem with checking is that now your opponent will almost certainly check any pair (except perhaps if he has AJ) and any ace high. I understand the pros behind checking, in that if he was semibluffing on the turn without a pair or an ace, then he might try again if you check on the river, whereas he might fold if you bet.
Listen to me now and thank me later. Liberally value bet on the river to camouflage your bluff bets. Almost always pay off raises of your value bets on the river, again to support your bluff bets. In large pots this advice is even more important, though it's less to support your bluffs and more just for plain value. It's almost never correct to bet for value and then fold to a raise heads up on the river. It's almost unthinkable in a large pot, as yours had become.
-Abdul
I've gotta agree with Abdul on this. I don't like the idea of betting and then folding to a raise, even though it may be the mathematically correct thing to do in this instance, for the simple reason that it paints a big target on your forehead. I don't want my opponents getting tricky on me, or I have to tighten up on my value bets. That loss in EV costs more than the *potentially small loss in this play.
But if you fold when it's mathematically correct to do so, you'll only be folding a small percentage of the time anyway. One fold to a raise on the river does not a target paint. If you're seen to have an unusual proclivity to fold to raises on the river that's one thing, but I really don't think you need to worry about opponents taking shots at you because you make the odd fold from time to time.
Put yourself in your opps' place. Does a guy folding once in a while under these circumstances instantly turn him into a target for you?
If a guy does it once, I make a note that he's *capable of doing it. That becomes a factor.
I'm not saying it's always correct to call. I'm saying that if the decision is very close, I'd lean towards calling just for defensive reasons.
.
You say:
Liberally value bet on the river to camouflage your bluff bets. Almost always pay off raises of your value bets on the river, again to support your bluff bets… It's almost never correct to bet for value and then fold to a raise heads up on the river. It's almost unthinkable in a large pot, as yours had become.
You make some unqualified statements here as if presenting established fact. Instead they are debatable assertions. Just to touch on one point, when you talk about value betting liberally on the river you seem to mean pushing beyond small edges that you can logically figure to have. Otherwise you would simply be value betting correctly. Thus it seems you are advocating sacrificing a little immediate EV in individual hands in the hope that being seen to have "something" more often will allow you to recoup in increased stealing equity more than what you gave up. But it's not that simple. For instance, very liberal value betting will also bring calls, when you are bluffing, from mediocre or marginal hands that might have folded to a player not known to bet such weak hands. Referring to the hand I played, you made this comment in another post in this thread:
If I were in the opponent's shoes, I would be value-raising on the river with hands that KJ beats…
Remember, the board was J-5-3-6-3. If this is an example of the kind of liberal value betting you're talking about, then my point above would apply big time. Any value raise here with a hand that KJ beats, after being check-raised on 4 and bet into on 5 would be something beyond liberal. If you're known to make such raises/bets, I don't think your bluffs will be too successful. Opponents will know that you may bet or raise with "legitimate" hands that can barely beat a bluff, and so won't lay down much more than a bluff to your bets.
I don't think you need to value bet on the river or call raises on the river much more than the standard logic of maximizing immediate EV would dictate. If you want to shade each to be just a bit more liberal I won't argue with it.
I'll make another quick comment responding to Dan Hanson's post, but about calling a raise after value betting on the river you say:
It's almost unthinkable in a large pot, as yours had become.
Unthinkable? Yet guys like Sklansky and Zee thought of it. I say it's reasonably thinkable, especially against the right opps. While it's obvious you have to pay off a lot, "almost never" and "unthinkable" clearly exaggerate how seldom you should fold. There are plenty of straight forward players out there who are essentially incapable of bluff-raising on the river. When they do raise they are virtually guaranteed to have an especially strong hand. Getting 9-1 from the pot is not going to be enough. If you're going to make the liberal value bets you describe, then call their raises -- which you run into more than "almost never" -- I think you're giving up too much.
But getting back to the hand in question, even assuming all your advice in that paragraph is valid, it doesn't much apply in this instance. First, I had less need than usual to do anything special to camouflage my bluffs, as I did not expect to be playing regularly with these opps. Moreover, I had reason to believe my ability to steal at that point against that lineup was quite intact. (I had not been caught bluffing, and the pots I'd stolen suggested that my bets were getting a great deal of respect.) Furthermore, there was no bluff-supporting value in paying off the guy's raise on the river. The board pairing provided all the cover I needed. Trips or better is a big hand. No one would be surprised that I couldn't beat it.
I wrote a long good response, but then Netscape crashed. The abridged version...
You wrote:
Furthermore, there was no bluff-supporting value in paying off the guy's raise on the river. The board pairing provided all the cover I needed. Trips or better is a big hand. No one would be surprised that I couldn't beat it.
If I think that you're laying down legitimate hands (e.g., top pair, second kicker) to raises on the river, then that's reason enough for me to bluff-raise you liberally on the river, and so your bluff bets are going to suffer. Consider that if you had semibluff check-raised on the turn, like with a straight flush draw, you would have bet the river when you missed. These two considerations were what caused your opponent to bluff raise you, I believe. Well, the way you played the hand also was just begging him to bluff raise you.
The Theory of Poker approach is to bet your strong hands, bet your zilch hands, and check your mediocre hands. Therefore, when you bet, the conditional probability that you are bluffing is high.
The Abdulian approach is to bet, bet, bet. Therefore, when you bet, the conditional probability that you are bluffing is lower. There are additional advantages to betting that we could go into later.
My advice was general in nature. I don't just make this stuff up. It comes from mathematics, logic, discussions with top players and top theoreticians, and a lot of experience.
In this particular example, I like a bet on the river, but it's not clear cut due to the chance of inducing a bluff if you check. One thing to consider: your opponent might have been willing to check down an ace or 22 had you checked, but when you bet he smelled weakness, on top of weak-tightness, and so he might have bluff raised with an ace or 22 there. Also, had you checked, he likely would have checked down any pair other than a jack with an ace kicker (though it turned out he didn't have a pair.)
-Abdul
I'll go one step farther. I think one of the best reasons in the world to bet this river is that you've inadvertantly composed a tailor-made scenario for your opponent to bluffraise you. Those thin river value bets get leveraged tenfold if you're probability of inducing this behaviour is anywhere near as ideal as this textbooklike example.
JG
I may well have induced it. But against typical players I don't think it's as easy to induce it. It has to be someone capable of "bluff-raising as a resteal on the river as a counter to the perceived resteal on the turn.". Or at least someone on tilt. :)
... "Did level 3-G thinking induce Jim Geary to enter a strategy thread?" ;)
and what is more important than that is .... scott: 1!
abdul's first post was all about the turn check. i was the first say river call better than river fold. yeah. abdul just jumped on the scott bandwagon, already crowded with that dan hanson character and rick among others who, while not citing me per se or even necessarily having read my posts, agreed with me.
david might be right about the check call being best. but almost never would a bet fold beat a bet call here.
scott
abdul's first post was all about the turn check. i was the first say river call better than river fold. yeah. abdul just jumped on the scott bandwagon, already crowded with that dan hanson character and rick among others who, while not citing me per se or even necessarily having read my posts, agreed with me.
My first post was the very first response to this thread, and there I wrote:
"Given that you slowplayed the flop and slowplayed the turn, you have to raise on the turn and pay off that raise on the river."
Pay off raise means call the raise.
-Abdul
so i was just on abdul's bandwagon.
scott
John,
We didn't get to see TA's hand but do you think my read of his most likely draw being 98 (probably suited) was what TA actually held? Do you agree that such a player would have played such a hand this way at this limit and in this situation?
The general gist of my analysis was that he either picked up a draw on the turn (or possibly a combo pair draw such as 76) or he was very strong from the beginning. That was the basis of my thinking that a check call was the best play on the end.
Regards,
Rick
Rick -- yeah, 98s is a good possibility. There aren't many. Maybe 87s. Or maybe he was a little on tilt, like Ronzoni is theorizing, and played a K4s? And, while less likely, a hand like A4s is not out of the question. (But I would have expected him to bet the flop with that and to show it or say "ace high" on the river.)
I think your reasoning about why a check would be right on 5 was good. It's the stuff from the "head up on the end" chapter of TOP. In this instance if my call was correct it was only because my bet was incorrect, you know? If you look at the hands he'd call with, the hands like busted draws that he'd bluff with if I bet, as well as hands that beat mine that he'd raise with, I think my expectation would have been better checking.
John,
(Maybe I detected something in his behavior on the raise too, but I don't really remember.)
I'll give my limp reason. I think you screwed up his plan by raising the turn. He expected you to call or drop and he was going to bet or raise the river. What you detected was a jilt in his aggressive armour. He should of dropped after you raised but he was jilted and threw it in. He cont'd on with his plan, figured it would still work, but you saw thru it. I don't know how he played after this hand, but I would imagine he had to be somewhere shortly after this hand.
(Check and call the river ASMHS)
paul
HPFAP on page 102 (21st) gives the example of KK, with board of Q832Q, 3 diamonds, wrong to bet beacuse it's unlikely a worse hand will call.
Today in 20-40 I have QTo, call with mid position caller, heads up. Flop is Q73, 2 diamonds. He is somewhat loose, but plays fair postflop. He bets, I raise, he calls. Turn is blank, check,bet,call. River is Q diamond, check,bet,call, he has something like J3 diamonds. I'm really chasing my tail trying to figure if I should have checked here. I had him on a possible flush draw on the flop, and I can't really say he would have called with a hand I could beat, I just hate to check trips on river.
I feel this is a mistake, but not a huge one, very borderline, and probably whether to bet or check just depends on how well you know the opponent.
Any comments? Anyone think either betting or checking is automatic here?
Same rationale as your example: it's difficult to construct a hand for him that he would call and lose with. Q-rag is about the only possibility but that's outweighed by the much more likely possibility of a diamond draw that got there. Something you said I have to comment on--"I hate to check trips on the river"--I notice a lot of people make the error of basing their betting decisions on the ABSOLUTE value of their hands rather than their present, RELATIVE value. On the river you either had the man beat or you didn't. If he was playing a weaker Queen, you had him---if he had been playing a diamond draw, he had you. The Queen falling on the river didn't really affect this situation because it was a QUEEN--it affected it (adversely for you) because it was a DIAMOND. The operative principle is that your bet on the river is very unlikely to WIN money; you will either make a busted hand fold or you will get yourself raised. This scenario comes up pretty frequently when you're heads-up against what you are pretty sure is a drawing hand; it can be right to check just about ANY hand that is smaller than the hand your opponent stands to make if he hits his draw.
Excellent response, espcially your distinction betwen relative and absolute value of hands.
I think you may have already answered this question but I would just like you to clarify, if you will.
Do you always check to a flush heads-up on the river?
Well, there's not very many things that I "always" do :) It would depend on how the three-flush appeared. If two of the flop had been suited and the third card rivered it would be much more dangerous than if the second and third flush cards had come runner-runner. The composition of the remaining cards is also a factor. If I've been betting AK after a flop like A93 I'm likely to continue betting whether or not the flush card comes, simply because I expect to get called by a worse Ace. If on the other hand my top pair is made by something like KJ or QJ after a flop of J62, there just aren't that many inferior hands that my opponent could call me with. Therefore I check and call. Another factor is that if I feel my hand-reading (and people-reading) abilities are such that I will be able to throw away the hand if I get raised, (correctly I hope!), I can bet into the river with much more impunity.
Gee, this game is HARD!!!
I fear betting and getting raised because I have a tendency to over-read (is that a real poker term?), and fold.
I got carried away in this case cause of the trips, but if it had been just any diamond, I would have checked.
Oddly enough, this guy is fairly agressive, but he didn't raise. What a come down when he showed me the flush. RATS!!!
P.S. New name, just watched The Hustler for about the 30th time - a tribute to the greatest sports movie ever.
Take a look at the hand example from "the tome", p. 106. You have T9o, board is TTQ45, 2s on flop, s on turn, blank on river. He says it is better to bet here. Ex. 1.
The hand on p. 102 is: You have KK, board is Q832Q, 2d on flop, d on river, he says you normally should not bet. Ex. 2
My hand in the example was QTo, board was Q73blankQ, river being 3rd d. Ex. 3
I see no real conceptual difference between 1 and 3. In the game, if I had Ex. 1 and called late and the same player had called with J3s on button, I would have bet and he would have called flop and turn, then what on river? In 3, he check-called, so if we had been playing Ex. 1, I think he would have just called.
I know there are many situational differences, but the conceptual key here is - "Will a worse hand call?" Fearless leader says on P. 107 re Ex. 1, a Q or an overpair might call or a bad player might call with even worse hands. I would think that someone who is not a "bad" player but has called all the way through a pair on board and a flush on board with just a Q in Ex. 1 might also call in Ex. 3 with an even worse Q, 99, 88.
It seems like a stretch to say someone who is not a bad player would call in Ex.1 with a Q, even though there is a pair on the flop and a flush on the turn, but not in Ex. 3 where the pair and flush both arrive on the river. Then there's the question of whether someone who calls not in a blind with J3 suited is not a bad player.
Okay kids,
Well I just took a beating at the table. Two hands are particularly haunting to me so I wanted to get some opinions. The game is 3-6 Hold-Em and is loose and passive (and pretty crazy as 3-6 tends to be.)
Hand #1:
I'm in the BB and pick up a pair of 8's. All but one player call (like I said 3-6,) and then the button, who's been raising with literally everything, raises. The LB calls. I decide to make it 3 bets in the hopes that I could limit it to just the three of us. Unfortuneately, every single player calls and the LB says, "May as well now..." and caps the pot. So I got sucked into a poor hand, out of position for four bets. The poker Gods smile on me and flop 8,7,4 rainbow. I bet out, again it's called around to the button who raises, the LB folds and I three bet, hoping to cut this field down... I fail. Now I realize that the poker Gods weren't smiling but laughing as the turn brings a 5. I have trouble believing that anyone is holding a 6 in this pot, but the way things have been going I'm sure someone is. I check, one off the button bets (I think, "okay there's a 6.) I call, with good odds for drawing to the full. The river brings a Q. Everyone checks to the bettor who bets again. I redefine the meaning of crying call, but I figure the pots enormous and these nuts have been showing down all kinds of hands, maybe he's got two pair. He shows 6-3 of hearts and rakes in a mountain. I'd like some general thoughts on this hand, particularly my weak call on the river, and if I my thinking was fuzzified pre-flop. Any other thoughts would also be apprecitated.
Hand #2:
The very next time around the table I pick up the Qd-10d in the BB. Not the best hand in the world but better than what most of these guys are showing down. I raise the 4 callers planning to play my tickets for their multiway potential and back off if I hit a pair. The flop comes just fine for me with Ad, Kd, Js giving me the nut straight with the nut flush draw. I'm in no fear and figure it's time to make a few bets back. I check and everyone calls the bet two to my right. The turn brings the 8s. I check raise the same bettor. Only one person folds. The river brings the 2s. I bet again fearing only the QTs. Everyone folds but the raiser who calls and shows me T3s. I'd like any thoughts on if my slowplay was correct and any other thoughts on this hand. Typically, I bet a high straight figuring that with all the high cards, I'll get paid off by some legit hands. Did I blow myself a big pot or was this just bad luck?
Sorry to be so long winded, but you know how it is with a fresh bad-beat story. I'd apprecitate any thoughts
Supes
I am not a fan of slow playing unless you are trying to trap someone in a NL PL game. I really hate giving out free cards even if I olse a few bets in the process I think I get a lot more by thining the field with aggressive play when I have THE hand at the time. With the NUTS on the flop unless you know a player will bet behind you you have to bet to thn the field of those potential hands that can beat you.
The weak river play was ok - there was a straight possibility on the turn and you saved a BB but had to call with a set of 8's.
These seem like pretty routine hands and you seemed to play them ok and understood what you did and why a mark of a decent player IMHO.
I agree w/Rounder that the slowplay is probably not in order here. Another thing to keep in mind is that w/a table this loose, simply betting your hand on the flop probably isn't going to scare/knock out that many players anyway - i.e. if your hand holds up, you win more by betting than slowplaying. Also, betting the flop may have knocked out the weak backdoor flush draw, but not necessarily in a game like this.
Hand # 1.
I think your preflop play was perfect, and while narrowing the field might be best you shouldn't dislike the action you're getting on your eights.
On the flop, anyone with a T, 9, 6, 5, or 3 has somewhere between a 2% and 16% chance of taking your pot, depending on their other card. I'd try to protect it with a check-raise. (In just about every other kind of game I'd bet out). Even though leading out will probably allow you to 3-bet, a lot of players will call two back after calling one but will fold to two after checking.
On the river, pay him off. You were getting, what, 40 or 50 to one? Those were probably good enough odds to bet that he misread his hand. Throw in the 2-pair possibility and it's automatic. And if you fold here, you should probably never fold in this kind of situation again. (Remember, they just need to see you do it once).
Hand # 2.
I don't like the raise with the one-gapper. You'll like this hand to make a straight more often than a flush, and the hole in the middle makes it too much of an uphill fight. I think the slowplay on the flop was fine even if the chances of them folding were remote unless these guys will always just call. The chance that someone with an ace will let it go to 2 or 3 bets would then be too tempting. There's nothing you can say about the rest of the hand except "sorry."
Raising to "narrow the field" in these games is like plowing the sea and you shouldn't even bother and you should already have noticed. Anyway, getting 8:1 for 4 bets with you mid-pair is still profitable.
The pot's already big and you won't be getting anybody to fold; certainly nobody with a hand as good as a one-card under-gut-shot. Put the most money in as you can and let the odds sort it out on the river.
You have 10 outs on the turn for about a 3.5:1 dog and are sure to get more than 3.5 callers in THIS game. Combine that with the chance nobody has a 6 means your check-and-call was HOPELESS and capping the turn is a very reasonable option with your top set.
If Mother Theresa bet on the end I MIGHT consider folding my 4th nuts in this HUGE pot but I'd call everybody else (unless I SAW the 6). I think the chances he mis-read is hand justifies it alone.
== Save bets in small pots, save pots in huge pots. ==
Hand 2: I don't like the raise and hate the slow-play. You might as well get the guy with a pair of Js and the guy with a 3-flush and a gut-shot-to-tie to pay for the privaledge to call; which, incidentally, they are sure to do.
There is no way you could have won these hands so don't worry.
-----------------------------
Don't apply "reasonable" poker playing criteria (such as they'll fold for two bets after putting in "just" one) to unreasonable determined callers. Yes, someone can easily have a 6. If a player is playing 70% of the hands then is no card the player "cannot" have.
Consider: "Well, if this was a reasonable game I would be thinking such-and-so, but since this is no-foldem-holdem I'll think this-and-that".
- Louie
OK, first hand, your thinking was definitely fuzzified when you tried to "limit the field"! You had already described the game as being super loose and you ignored your own advice and tried to get some of them out. After you three bet it of course the maniac would cap it! Other than that, your three betting the flop is good. If you were the only caller on the river, you may have had proper pot odds to make a crying call, even though you were probably beat. If you were the only caller you only needed a very small chance of having the winner to make a call correct.
Second hand: All I can say is that you should charge these people as much as humanly possible to draw at these hands. You probably should have lost MORE on the hand than you did! I don't really think you should have raised BTF with that holding in the BB though.
3-6 is frustrating as hell, I know as I have been there many times! nevertheless, these loose games are beatable if you can take your licks now and then.
Good luck next time
Dave in Cali
On the first hand, I don't like your pre-flop re-raise with pocket Eights from the big blind when you have 9 players in. Many authorities and excellent players who post on this forum think that because you are getting great pot odds it is okay to pour in more raises. My problem is that even when you hit you can easily lose against a large field so I would save my extra raise for a better gambling opportunity. So now you are playing in a capped pot with a lot of players with a hand that is not much better than many of your opponents and could be a lot worse than some of your opponents. When I am in a capped pot against a large field I will usually have the kinds of hands discussed in HPFAP under their "Wild Games" section (AA,KK,QQ,AK suited). Your play on the flop is correct. You want to play aggressively with top set because you usually have both the best hand and the best draw. Make them all pay through the nose. On the turn, you have to slow it down since it is quite easy for one of your many opponents to have a Six although you still have a lot of redraws to beat a straight. The more I think about it if you have enough opponents, a raise might be productive since your draw is so strong with 10 outs. But at the table I would probably play it the way you did. The river play is standard. Only one small demerit for re-raising pre-flop here.
On the second hand, QT suited from your big blind is not a good enough hand to raise with against 4 players. Once the flop comes you should bet out because with this highly coordinated board you will get played with and maybe even raised allowing you to re-raise. Your check and call on the flop is horrible poker allowing others with tenuous draws to catch up. Someone with a Queen or a Ten has a cheap shot to tie and split the pot with you cutting your equity in half. On the turn you should bet. I don't know if you blew a big pot or not. I do know that when players insist on abusing the check-raising concept and resort to excessive slow playing bad things frequently happen. Some guy gets to hang around at a cheap price and make a hand when he might have folded. When pots get raised pre-flop with a lot of opponents you need to focus on winning what is out there and not try to finagle extra bets with fancy plays.
The first hand was just too big to throw away on the river. Risk one BB to maybe bring home a monster.
The second hand, especially in 3-6, you should have bet out. I used to slow play and check raise in low limit hold 'em but it was costing me a lot of money. When you bet out, you don't lose anybody. Raising doesn't limit the field too much.
I used to think a check raise would thin the field but I have discovered that most people in those games don't even realize you are check raising. You need a howitzer to move people off of a hand in low limit hold 'em.
20-40 game, limp after 1 limpers with JT(?), button calls, blinds call. flop 893 rainbow. checked to me, i bet, button raises all fold i call.
turn blank (like a 2), i checked (intending to check raise semi bluff), button checks.
river is blank (like a 6), i bet , button calls with top pair.
was my river bet no good because no scare cards? i feel if i could have got in check raise on turn i could have had pot, but thats the way it goes.
brad
Could this guy put you on T7 - I don't think so, Bad time to bluff.
i guess i was outplayed. if i bet on the turn i get called, and button knows (i guess) he couldnt stand heat of raise on turn so checks it thru. if i hadnt been running real good i wouldnt have tried the bluff, but in retro it was a really bad play.
brad
Poker is about decisions both good and bad all poker players make mistakes - good ones just make less than bad ones.
Rounder,
What about a reraise on the flop? It would give the opp the indication that our hero has top pair beat. I think if the intention is to buy the hand this was the opportunity to set it up. Add to that the possible straight, it's a good time to bluff. Bet the turn, bet the river and see how much staying power the opp has.
Yeah setting up the bluff is all important a pre flop raise, bet the flop turn and river then you have something he probably folds somewhere in there but the check on the turn made the bet on the river a waste of a BB I can't see someone with a top or mid pair folding to 1 bb after the check on the turn - bet on the turn might have induced a fold on the river here.
Hi,
I was playing 2-4 HE on Paradise. Here's the hand.
I'm one off the button with JxJd. 3 people call,I call, button folds. Flop is AdJd8d. 2 fold, bet and I call. Okay?
Heads up. Turn is a blank. Bet,call. River is 8x. Bet, call. My opponent has KdQd.
I would appreciate an anaylsis.
OK you could have easily raised on pre flop, your set of J's on the flop needs a raise if reraised your opponent has a made flush or big draw so it doesn't bother me, your hand is still really live. The bet/call the turn is ok and you need to raise with your full house on the river.
Seems you missed at least 2 probably 3 bets.
Need to be a bit more aggressive with good hands.
You have two jacks of diamonds in the question.
Flop is AdJd8d. 2 fold, bet and I call(Button to the right here.... RAISE!!!
Turn is a blank. Bet,call. (OK)
River is 8x. Bet,(Button to the right here.... RAISE!!!
Best of it !!
MJ
id be a little suspicious when Jd came on flop.
brad
First of all, raise BTF.
Second, why did you not raise on the flop? You have a set! you had a chance to raise and you should have done so. If you got reraised you were probably against a flush, but you still have ten outs and two chances to get there!
On the turn, if you had been reraised, you could just call and that would be acceptable.
On the river you had a full house. Why you did not raise when bet into is beyond me. The only two hands that beat you are 88 or AA. RAISE! You missed several bets on this pot. These missed bets add up and you will never win over the long term if you consistently miss these bets.
This post may seem redundant, but I have not read the other posts yet and I am sure most of our readers will be saying the same thing!
Dave in Cali
What would be your minimum pre-flop raising requirements in this exact situation, if you had to do all over again? KK, AA only? Is so, you might want to consider adding some deception to your game. In 'Hold'em Poker for Advanced players', there is a section titled, "First Two Cards: Late Position. It will give you some good guidelines for raising pre-flop(and why).
-dsm
I haven't read the other responses yet so forgive me if I'm redundant. It seems to me that you could have been more aggressive here. I definitely would have raised preflop with my pair of hooks. Even with the three flush on board I would raise on the flop. You likely have the best hand, but even if the flush is already made you have 10 outs twice. Also I wouldn't want to give anyone with a lone diamond a cheap draw. Once you filled up, it was definitely time to raise. You have no reason to believe he may have aces full and if he has quads, well you cheerfully pay off that hand. I would probably raise back if I was reraised in this situation too.
...Either way I'd probably cash in my checks and run when the second Jd came on the flop.
Best of Luck Supes
how did your message end up where it did? Please, don't bother us with some bullshit excuse.
Haaaaaaaaaaaa! Anonymous. haaaaaaa.
In HPFAP it is emphasized that JJ plays poorly against more than two players if going for top pair. Therefore to just call once three people are already in, in the hope of flopping a set seems a reasonable play to me.
Jon
Just checking to see if people scroll down this far on the board looking for new messages.
Hey donny say hello to Marie.
vince
i have mine set on the past day's messages, so it came right to the top. i got sick of scrolling.
scott
Some people are desperate for knowledge, or addicted. Dave
Marie is busy discovering X-rays. I'd respond more to your post, but I'm too busy trying to lessen the confusion between me and a mountain climber.
Dan
I suspect most of us display using "Mixed Threaded Listing" where new threads appear at the top of the list but responses appear at the bottom of the thread.
For us, your post was at the top.
I've been playing LH or about 1.5 years. Starting at 3-6, was successful and moved to 5-10 and was sucessful, then 10-20 about 6 months ago. For the last month however, I've been on a horrible losing streak, stuck about $3K. I play a fairly tight and aggresive game - in ring games that are played about the same way generally speaking. I could go on and on about the hands I've had snapped and the draws that go no where consistantly for the past month. In the 18 months I've been playing, I've never had such a string of losses and bad beats.
Is there a good book out there with a chapter at least dedicated to stragegizing around this funk I find myself in?
Is this situation to be expected - can it go on for months?
Any advise would be appreciated.
Stephen C.
I posted on the General Theory forum a month or so ago on a similar problem. It was more of a short-term funk than a long-term one, but my advice would be the same: read John Feeney's fantastic essay in the essay section here. It gave me a little perspective on my situation, which is quite difficult when you're losing badly.
Mike
Mike: I hate to sound like a computer illiterate, but I couldn't find Feeney's essay or any essays for that matter on twoplustwo. Anyway - I appreciate that you took time to respond to my post.
Stephen C.
Duh!!!
This situation is to be expected.
The definitive work is Mason's essay in Gambling Theory and Other Topics called "How Much Do You Need?"
On my poker page I wrote an essay in which I created random numbers with the distribution of my poker session results. It is at Fluctuations.
My numbers were for a 4-8 game, so multiplying those numbers by 2.5 will give you some idea for your 10-20 game. The random numbers showed many $2000 losing streaks, so you could expect $5000 losing streaks on a regular basis at 10-20.
Read Mason's essay, look at my graphs, and you will be astonished!!
Dick
I just read the essay recommended by Another Mike. Thanks for the tip. A very good essay on this topic. I was surprised to read this post as I was just getting concerned with getting beat by one 22 -1 shot after another for weeks, unable to win a pot during hours of play, etc etc. About a 1 month skid of the worst kind. After reading the essay I realize I was analyzing my play, but concluding (wrongly) it didn't matter because I was getting beat anyway.
To Dick in Phoenix, I hope 5,000 skids in 10-20 Hold-em are not too common!
I find the graphs on Dick's page fascinating for the pictoral insight they lend on the supposedly "brutal" fluctuations that all winning players experience. What they show, I think, more than anything, is that any recent or any short-term performance gives you virtually no insight on the two fundamental questions of every fledgling player: (1) am I a winning player?, and (2) (on any given hand) is what I'm about to do (or just did) a winning play? We all know this, of course, but it takes a graphs to illustrate not only why it is pointless to contemplate short term results, but also how words themselves cannot capture their essential immateriality. It reminds me of those Seuratt paintings consisting of perfectly placed dots of color (perhaps analogous to correctly played hands), that by themselves or in small groups show nothing, but when viewed as a larger whole illustrate a beautiful landscapes with breathtaking clarity.
Let me share with you what I call the "Pendulum Effect" of playing poker.
It has been my experience that the quality of my play tends to loosen up when I am consistently beating a game. What happens is that as you consistently beat a game you begin to rationalize subconsciously that you can play a few more hands than normal because you are good enough to get away from these hands when they are losers. You may be successful doing this for a while. However, at some point in time, your expanded hand selection will begin to have an adverse effect on your performance. All of a sudden, you are playing small pairs and suited connectors in the wrong position and for the wrong price.
Now, when you take a beat with a premium hand, it is compounded by the fact that you have also blown off some of your chips on bad hands. What might have been a break even session turns into a losing session. What you remember, though, are the big hands that got beat - not the marginal hands where you tried to draw out on somebody and didn't get there.
I'm not saying this is what has happened to you. I'm just saying that the possibility exists to fall into this trap. When I see that my performance has deteriorated over several months, I try to assess my play and determine if my starting hand requirements have deteriorated. If they have, I tighten up my play significantly and swing the pendulum back to where it should be. This happens to me about every 4 or 5 years.
Good luck
Thank you folks (Mike, Dick in Phoenix, Mick, and Moron) for your responses. Most helpful!!!
Stephen C.
Stephen C. I know a lot of these guys say the forum is for hand analyses only, however, I think we all need a little psych. discussion once in a while.
There is a great passage in the book "Shut Up and Deal" where the main character states that everyone thinks the difficulty in poker is learning the skill, but the truth is the most difficult part is learning the luck.
Put up a post after your next big win just for the hell of it!
Will do Mick. Lords knows by then I'll need a good ataboy!!!
Stephen C.
for asking a GREAT question. And thanks to all the answerers!
Helps put things in perspective. Thanks for the links to your site also Dick - interesting stuff. The Feeney essay was GREAT!
I'm not so discourages now. I've played a total of 185 hours in a variety of limits and games. Mostly HE though. I'm down a total of $150. I've been down as much as $800 and up as much as $900. I've had >$500 wins and one time I lost $860 in about 10 hours.
20-40 HE, 9 handed. No limpers, I raise 2 from the button with KdQd. A loose aggressive player on the button calls; everyone else folds. Which of the following flops should I bet at?
As 6h 2c
Js 6h 2c
8s 6h 2c
What if the loose aggressive player was in the big blind instead and checked to me on the flop?
You should bet all of them but for different reasons. For the first flop, he may be hard pressed to call unless he has an Ace. You could easily have an Ace for your raise and opening with a raise from middle position should not be construed by him as a steal raise. With the other two flops you have over cards. If you check here you know he will bet and now you are in a guessing mode as to whether or not to continue. In most cases you will have to give it up. You need to put the pressure on him since these flops may not have helped his holding any more than yours. If he called from the big blind it is even more important to lead with these flops since his hand could be considerably weaker plus you have position so you can see how he acts once the flop comes before you have to make a decision.
Jim, Thanks for your comments. If he raises or check raises, with which of the flops would you fold KQ. If he just calls, when would bet on 4th street.
If I get raised after I bet or I get check-raised I would only fold facing the flop that was Ace-high. I would call with the other two flops because it is worth taking off one card with my two big over cards. If he just calls, I would bet the turn regardless of what came off.
Whenever you open with a raise like this pre-flop and end up heads-up you need to be very aggressive until you get resistance. When you get serious heat you need to be prepared to dump this quickly. The reason is because you are the aggresser here and have been representing a good hand. The very first time you take your foot off the gas pedal, an aggressive player will bet and take the pot away from you. You can frequently win by just betting your way out of trouble. It is awful hard for even an aggressive player to stay with you and call you down all the way to the river without at least top pair in most cases. They will hang around if they have some kind of a draw hoping to improve and beat the hand you are represeting but usually fold on the end when they think they are beat based on your strong betting. In addition, you have the chance of actually improving to the best hand with your two over cards.
YOU (or I) raise preflop from middle position with KQ suited. We bet the flop; he raises (or check raises); we fold on the A 6 2 flop, call with the J 6 2 and 8 6 2 flops. If he bets again on 4th, we throw our hand away unless we make a pair or good draw (catching a T to the J 6 2 flop)
Will these 4th street folds be correct...even if he's REALLY aggressive?
If these folds on 4th are not going to be correct, is there anything that can be done to keep this rascal from making us throw away the best, if very marginal hand.
The 4th street folds after encountering serious heat like you have described cannot be very wrong when we cannot even beat Ace-high. Keep in mind that very aggressive players can get good cards like the rest of us and they play them aggressively as well. When we have not mproved by the turn we are either a huge dog, a small dog, or a tiny favorite. At some point we have to back off not because of the possible strength or weakness of his hand but rather due to the weakness of our own.
I played the $500 no limit event at Harrah's last week, I doubled up very early and had $950 in front of me. Got a free play against 4 players in the BB with 7-3 offsuit. Flop comes 9-7-3 rainbow. I check, new player to the table who had been very aggressive in the half dozen hands I'd seen makes it $100 to go, everyone else mucks, I raise it $200 -- he comes over the top on me. I don't put him on wired 9's or 7's as I think he would raise these hands pre flop. More likely he has A-9 or had been slow playing A's or K's, I believed that the only hand he could possibly have that had me beat was 9-7, but I was willing to take that chance. So I call, putting me all in. He shows J-9!!!!!!!! Turn is a 9 and I'm playing roulette.
Two questions: Was my $200 raise too little (I thought it would win the hand right there, but obvioulsly it didn't) should I have gone all in right there (since I was willing to call an all in).
As an approx 3 to 1 favorite after the cards had been exposed, would a world class tournament player have been willing to go all in, risking everything even if he knew exactly what the maniac held?
i think you gave the answer to your question already yourself. with this flop you should either a) move in on him and pray, that he mucks his hand or b) fold. you don´t know, wheter you have the best hand or not (he might as well have a hand such as 97s, which is about the same categorie as J9), and bottom two is a very vulnerable hand.
regards
m.a.
I'd like a nickle for every time I got out drawn when I had the best hand going in.
My only move here after the $100 would be an "All in". The guy coming over the top with J9 made a bad play and I am sure he didn't last to long in that company.
You got out drawn happens all the time.
Roulette? why didn't you play in the satellites.
Here is a hand I played the other night. This situation is very common. I won't comment on what I was thinking, as it will be obvious to the elite players who post here, but maybe this will help some newer players. Comments and critcism are of course welcome.
The game is 15-30 Hldm, I'm in the small blind with A4suited(spades).
One player in early posistion limps, the cutoff calls while the button folds, I call and the bb takes the free ride.
4 of us in for the flop that comes K,J,J rainbow. I check, bb checks, early caller(good player bets, cutoff folds....I call, bb folds.
Turn is a 6. I check and so does my opponent. river a 7. I bet and my opponent folds.
If you put your opponent on something like Q10 then I like your play. Otherwise, I think you should have probably folded the flop. It seems unlikely that he would bet here without a king, jack or better ace than you, unless he had an open-ender in which case he is not all that big of a dog.
I am the first respondant and these are my initial reactions, if anyone disagrees then I would be eager to hear their responses.
Dave in Cali
While I can understand Al's thinking, I don't know that this is the proper place to apply it. Given that a Jack hits many limpers, I don't know how Al can be very confident that his opponent doesn't have trips. Furthermore, if Al is correct that his opponent has nothing or very little, the better play is for Al to bet the turn. Notice how this mimics a slowplay. What Al is saying with a bet is "ok, I just called the flop bet to keep the big blind in, But the bb has now folded. I am now afraid that the flop bettor may smell a rat and just check behind me. I better bet my trips."
An added advantage of betting the turn is that if the other player has a hand like 88 or something, there is a much greater chance that he will fold on the turn when he is faced with the prospect of calling Al twice as opposed to just once if the turn gets checked through.
Finally, the call on the flop is somewhat dangerous because Al cannot very confidently count the Ace as an out. This type of fancy play would be better if the flop was K55 or something instead of KJJ.
I have to say first before I explain this play, (which NO one understood, suprisingly), that I have come back to this forum in good faith and have offered fair and un biased feedback. But there is obviously a little click here at the forum, which is quite unfortunate.
This hand scenario happens very often. The reason I called the flop with this type of flop was because the good player in early posisiton didn't raise coming in. A good player is usually going to have a good jack or king in early position and raise with it.
I put the player on a medium pair or axs like me. This is a case of me thinking about what he thinks I have and beyond, therefore the title Level3. When this type of flop happens and there is a check and call by an early position player, quite frequently the caller has trips, not the bettor.
SKP's comment about betting the turn to make it look like I had slowplayed is the exact opposite of what I needed to do. I checked the turn for 2 reasons. #1- the check makes the player think I'm slow playing, I don't need to put chips in, as it is very common for early caller to try to get a check raise. #2 if I check and he bets, I'm gone.
As it turned out I was right as to what I thought he had, and at the same time had been able to manipulate him simply by calling his bet, as he was sure that I was slowplaying trips......what else would a good player call with with that flop???
I won't go any further as it is now painfully obvious that I will not be able to have any meaningful discussions here because I'm not part of the , abdul, Feeney, Brier, skp, Hanson, Sklansky, Malmuth , even Carson, Niebielio(whatever), click.
"Interesting" "analysis", sir. Good players raise from early position with a jack?
yes niels, a good jack like ajsuited or a good king like kqsuited,aksuited etc. Do you get it? I'll be happy to explain it to you. seeya
Hey big Al I not part of clique. skp answered question so why come down hard on him? If this level 3 then you would have to think about what other player thought you put him on. Don't see that in analysis.
I read your post and made a mental note to get back to it, but then got bogged down with some stuff and barely had time to get back to the couple of threads that I was already involved in. (where I was called names by Abdul, a fellow cliquer no less... He may lose his membership privileges if he tilts that way again.;-) So I kind of lost track of this thread till I stumbled back on it just now.
Anyway, I think every decision you made in this hand *could* be justifiable given the right opponent thinking the right things about your play. e.g., if he *would* be more likely to see a check rather than a bet on 4 as a slowplay, then okay. But skp's logic is good too, as a bet there can mimick having slowplayed on 3 as well. It's actually in that chapter on paired flops in HPFAP. The comments from posters about checking to induce a bluff on 5 are worth considering, but this may have been a good time to bet hoping that this guy really believed the "slowplay" and would fold any one pair.
Unless you know he wouldn't limp early with a hand like QJs, you can't really rule out a jack in the guy's hand on the flop. But if you know he takes a shot at these kinds of flops often enough you can make the play anyway. A very situational/know your opp hand.
Actually, it's spelled 'clique'.
4 of us in for the flop
On the flop K,J,J (rainbow). I check, bb checks, early Caller(good player bets, cutoff folds....I call, bb folds.
Turn is a 6. I check and so does my opponent.
Your opponent takes a free card after betting the flop when a 6 *rag* falls. This signals to me a draw or a slowplay. TQ would be my guess. The river bet is automatic when the second rags falls. If he raises then he may have slow played you. Then it's desicion time. The pot is small (3BB) so save the last big bet for your button next hand.
Best of it !!
MJ
I'd put good player on a QT. Since he bets the flop you can't bet the turn and his mistake was not betting the turn - you surely couldn't call his bet here - I wonder if you have correctly classified him as a good player - River your bet is routine.
Actually this seems like a poorly played hand. If you didn't say I'd guess it was a LL game.
I don't see why you have to bet the river, it seems as if it would be more profitable to check and attempt to induce a bluff. Also it seems like you will likely be called by any hand that can beat you (except perhaps a better ace.)
Also I would not have called the bet on the flop, I think that it would be better for you to either bet the flop or fold on the flop then call. If you bet the flop and get called you will probably have to bet the turn as well to scare out a gut shot or a pocket pair.
Shawn Keller
I agree with Shawn.
If you are betting on the river, you are trying to get a better hand to fold. Which hand is that going to be? Maybe AQ will fold here, but I don't see many of the hands which you can beat, and which he likely has, beating you. Can you call a bluff-raise here?
You do get some benefit from not having to show down your hand. If your read is really good, and the good player is relativly non-tricky, then betting can't be all that bad.
I also agree with Shawn that calling the flop bet was probably a mistake. Unless you've got one of your suit on the board, it almost surely is a mistake.
- Andrew
The rule of thumb I use is that you normally need about 10 or 11 big bets on the flop and be last to act to go for a backdoor flush draw, or else you need to be in a heads up situation with some other potential. Here you've got 2.5 big bets in the pot and a player left to act behind you. If the player behind you calls, you'll be in a nearly hopeless situation.
I also agree with the others that while it seems intuitive that you should bet the river, actually you should check and try to induce a bluff. The biggest benefit of a check here is that your opponent will likely check an under pair, whereas he will call if you bet.
-Abdul
30-60 hold'em at bicycle ten years ago,typical california game many people see the flop,go to far with their hands. Experience poker player(EPP)loose and very aggressive raised under the gun,I passed liked everybody...David made it three bets one position before button,button and both blinds passed... EPP called.Flop came one face card Let made it Q and two small cards(I didn't remember exactly what cards).EPP bet David raised...EPP threw away his hand as he flopped nothing. What cards David had? group 1,2,3 or something?
Since no one try to guess David hand I will give answer here 83 off-suit(name hand).
6-12 Hold'em,
If you have Q-J offsuit in last position(no preflop raise).
The flop is: Q-8-4(Diff. Suits)
A pretty tight player(I don't mean attractive) in the Big Blind bets out. When it's your turn to act you raise, then the Big Blind re-raises. You know he wouldn't do that without two pair minimum.
Question: How many small bets would you want in the pot to continue? (I can figure out how many opponents that adds up to later.)
Thanks for any help, don
1st I wouldn't raise the bb here - he just might be raising for a free turn if he is on a draw. If I think I am beat here (here is where reading players is really important - his reaction to the flop might tell me what to do here) I will probably muck.
"When it's your turn to act you raise, then the Big Blind re-raises. You know he wouldn't do that without two pair minimum."
If you know what his raising tendencies are, then you know you're beat. Sounds like he caught a miracle two pair flop, or you're outkicked. I'm guessing he doesn't have a pocket overpair. He would have raised preflop with KK or AA. Either way, you're chasing. Muck it and wait for a better opportunity.
shooter
well, all poker analysis aside. if you assume your five outs are good, putting him on specifically 84, then you see your cards, his cards (well, you know they are not the cards you need.) and the board. that leave 45. 5/45=1/9. you need 8 sb in the pot.
ok. poker analysis. there is no viable draw. he has you beat. he might not have 84. he could have a set, Q8, Q4, QK, or QA. against these you are drawing slim or dead. usually fold. the main exception is if he is a super aggressive player or you think he could have you on a resteal attempt. if i didn't know the player i would fold.
scott
He had Q-4. I got lucky and caught a jack on the turn. But at the time I wasn't sure if I sould call, so my call was more 'reflexive' than 'well thought out'. There were two people in between us, for 4 people total pre-flop(at the Normandie they have no small blind). One guy dropped out when the Big Blind bet the flop, the other guy just called.
So there were 10 small bets in the pot when I was considering calling his re-raise (the last player between us dropped when faced with two more bets and a possible cap by me).
Al's level 3 post below reminded me of a recent hand I played with the same flop (3-6 HE though).
I'm early position with A-K offsuit and I raise. Five callers.
Flop K-J-J rainbow. I bet, next player raises, rest of field folds to me. I'm fairly new to table and don't have a lot of insight into raiser's play, but my first impression is he's a bit loose agressive. I consider reraising but don't. Since I raised pre-flop and am betting into the field on the flop from early position, you would think he would put me on at least a K. I consider folding but don't - I'm just not convinced he has a jack, but he easily could. I call. Was this the worst option?
Turn offsuit 9. I check, he bets, I fold. He flashes me pocket 9s, so of course I was ahead on the flop and he caught a miracle. My thinking was that if he didn't have a jack, he may have checked the turn and taken a free card.
In the end, I lost less money by not re-raising the flop and betting the turn. Also, I'm sure he would not have folded to a flop re-raise. However, in retrospect I still think I should have played the hand more aggressively. Comments?
Let us walk through this hand. You wrote: "I'm early position with A-K offsuit and I raise. Five callers."
Although you are new to the table your opponents probably assume that your raise in early position usually means big cards. Keep this in mind.
"Flop K-J-J rainbow. I bet, next player raises, rest of field folds to me. I'm fairly new to table and don't have a lot of insight into raiser's play, but my first impression is he's a bit loose agressive. I consider reraising but don't. Since I raised pre-flop and am betting into the field on the flop from early position, you would think he would put me on at least a K".
This is 3/6 holdem and it is the flop where "loose aggressive" players do in fact get aggressive. He could be thinking you have an AQ, TT, or QQ. All of these hands he cannot beat (or is only a slight favorite over in the case of AQ) and hopes you may fold in the face of aggression. Since two jacks are on board and you raised in early position, he probably doesn't put you on the jack and he is thinking he won't get reraised, even by a king, since he figures you must fear that he has a jack.
"I consider folding but don't - I'm just not convinced he has a jack, but he easily could. I call. Was this the worst option?"
Forget about folding. This situation should make you happy. You are now head-up and there are eight small bets (not including blinds) in the pot that don't have any player attached to them (i.e. dead money). Most low limit players slow play trips on the flop but not all do. So you are either beat when your lone opponent holds the jack (not so likely) or way ahead with the better king or better pair (much more likely). If he doesn't have trips you are much stronger then he and free cards are not a big problem. One thing is for sure. He is unlikely to think you have trips. So I would also just call against most players and let him bet my hand for me. This saves me money on the occasions when he does have trips and allows him to bluff off or bet off worse hands.
"Turn offsuit 9. I check, he bets, I fold. He flashes me pocket 9s, so of course I was ahead on the flop and he caught a miracle. My thinking was that if he didn't have a jack, he may have checked the turn and taken a free card."
He would probably have bet his pocket pair on the turn even if he missed. And if he didn't you should bet the river no matter what comes. Now you get the weak pairs and ace high hands to call since you showed weakness on the turn. Free cards were not a big problem. Don't make the fact that he caught his two outer this time make you think differently. So it was a mistake to fold on the turn. Note that I would have called this guy down and would have lost more money then you, and it would have not been a mistake. Repeat this situation a thousand times, and my way does better.
BTW, even if he had a jack or catches the lucky full house (to his underpair) on the turn, you are not dead. There are two kings in the deck allowing you to redraw against a jack and four cards in the deck allowing for a redraw against an underpair (the two jacks in addition to the two kings).
In the end, I lost less money by not re-raising the flop and betting the turn. Also, I'm sure he would not have folded to a flop re-raise. However, in retrospect I still think I should have played the hand more aggressively. Comments?
Lack of aggression was not the problem. Lack of thinking was. You also have to stop letting the actual outcome dictate whether or not you believe you make the right play. There are hands I win with, yet, upon reflection, I played poorly. The opposite is true too. Try as make a rational assessment of your strategy based on the information you actually had at the time.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
EXCELLENT POST
I'd like to encourage more posts like this with good hand analysis. These examples help me and others learn how to think like a poker player. For those of you that play bridge, this stuff is the poker equivalent of Play Bridge with Reese by Terence Reese. For me it's still the best bridge book ever written.
Fat-Charlie
Fat-Charlie (and Jim below),
Thanks for the compliment. So many of my posts are written while I'm in a hurry before work or dead tired in the middle of the night (which at least cures writer's block and helps me eventually get to sleep). Today I had a little time.
I had to wait for a guy from Pacific Bell to show up to fix my DSL which never worked since it was installed four months ago. I've spent hours on the phone with Earthlink checking this, reinstalling that and so on. Pac Bell says it is an Earthlink problem and visa versa. Then I let it go during the holidays. I decided to get on them again when they hit my credit card for an installation and monthly fee.
Anyway, the guy duplicates my problem from his laptop, then calls Pac Bell. They flip some switch and now it is WORKING!
Hubble Telescope pictures in a second! Digestify 2+2 in a few seconds! I'm excited big time.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks for the great in-depth analysis. I agree with your conclusions and plan to incorporate them into my game.
Caddy
I agree completely with Rick's excellent analysis. Folding on the flop is unthinkable and you should have stayed with this hand all the way.
$5-$10 sb with T8o. MP and Cutoff are agressive/loose. I see the flop for 1/2 bet with 4 others. 8 6 8 2 diamonds. I check. Early pos bets out MP raises, cutoff calls, I call, BB folds. For Jim's sake I'll save the checkraise for the turn. Turn is Ts. I check, MP bets, cutoff calls. I raise, both call. River is 9h making Board 8d 6d 8c Ts 9h. My question:
Would it ever be right to check in this situation? As it happened I bet and both folded.
With the flush and straight draws out there I'm betting the flop and raising if possible with the trip 8's with the full house I am gunning the turn and beting the river if they fold OK they fold.
Sammy,
Few opponents could hold hands that they would bet more often than they would call with. An exception would be if they were habitual bluffers. For example, let's say the river made somebody a straight. They would call with that hand but may not bet it after your check raise on the turn with the board paired. If they have a medium hand they usually call but rarely bet with a scary board and the strength you have shown on the turn.
Only if they have a busted draw would they bet and not call. But you show so much turn strength that they probably would not bluff here unless they are lunatics. Bet the river. Now I'll see if Rounder agrees.
Regards,
Rick
Not unless one of them is a near-certain candidate for a suicide bluff.
If you check, the only hand either will bet is the unlikley straight. They'll show down trip eights (which neither is likely to have anyway) and any two pair. In other words, they will call with many more hands than they are likely to bet with (even though the universe of calling hands and betting hands between both of them is probably quite small). And if you got lucky and either of them has a seven for a runner-runner gutshot, you'll probably win 3 bets by betting. You'd therefore have to be positive that one of them will try to bluff.
On the flop with a two flush and three opponents I think you should bet out with your trips especially against aggressive opponents. For all they know you could be betting a flush draw and you will get action from anyone with a Ten or a couple of Diamonds. Your check-raise on the turn is risky because if your aggressive opponents were just fooling around on the flop with draws, they may check and not bet the turn. No it would not be right to check on the river here.
Let me give you an example of a hand I played awhile ago where I had a full house and I checked on the river. I was in the small blind with the Ace of Hearts and the Ten of Spades. Four players limped in and I called. The big blind did not raise so six of us took the flop. The flop was: TsTh9h. I bet with five opponents and a coordinated board. I got called in four spots. The turn was: Ac. I bet and two players called. The river was: 6h. I now checked because I knew that someone had made a flush and since I have the Ace of Hearts it was not the nut flush so I didn't want to frighten anyone into just calling instead of raising. After I check, one guy bet and the next guy called. Now I check-raised and they both called. The bettor had a flush and the other player had a straight.
Jim,
Normally, I would always just bet out with the trips due to my low limit experience which taught me they aren't going to believe you anyway. Once MP raised the early position player I knew it would be more profitable to checkraise the turn than the flop. When the ten came on the turn filling me up I was hoping for a diamond on the end. Would a check on the river be correct then, or would betting out give me a better shot at 3 bets?
I would bet out and hope to get raised. I know I will get called by any flush and maybe raised by a big flush.
'
I'm playing 15-30 Hold'em at Hawaiian Gardens. Been in the game for two rotations and haven't played a hand yet. Game is aggressive, I'm the fish. Pick up A4s two off the button and called an early position raiser. SB and BB call and four of us see the flop of J,10,5 rainbow with one spade. SB bets and BB and preflop raiser fold. I've got an overcard, two backdoor gutshots and a back door flush draw, plus my call will cutoff the betting and we'll be head's up. I call. Turn is 3h, giving me any 2 for the gutshot straight plus, I think my hand would be good if an A falls. I give myself 7 outs and call the sb's bet. River is 2s, he bets and I raise. He pays me off and shows K10o.
Calling an early raiser with A4s in late middle position in an aggressive game is certainly a poor play. Calling the flop getting 9:1 when any A would probably give me the lead and many cards would give me a decent draw to continue for one more bet. Calling the turn with a probable 7 outs should also be OK if the implied odds are there.
During and after the play of this hand, I was feeling bad about having played it. After analyzing the whole hand, I'm not sure that it was a mistake at all except for the preflop call which was somewhat loose but not a huge mistake. What do you guys think?
1stly John you play ONE over card better than anyone I have ever seen :-)
You know I wouldn't be in this hand and surly wouldn't be in post flop but I just wanted to say you are some gambler.
Mike
Go back to feeling bad. I will let Jim Brier elaborate.
why does Jim need to elaborate David? The most elaborating you have done lately is to Brag about how you have won a gugul of money at the high medium limits compared to the other posters.
Your bright, but you are one strange bird. You had a reputation for staying in games for very short periods of time, so I just don't think you ever made a guggul of dough except in your early days when you placed in a couple of tournaments.
You are a very good poker analyst, but please don't pretend to be one of the best players, because your name simply doesn't come up when people talk about the best players. Best author- yes, player no.
David Sklansky's accomplishments on and off the table are staggering. I'll let scott elaborate.
Why can't you elaborate? Staggering? Not even
well, hes certainly no phil hellmuth.
brad
I could not elaborate because just like you I have no idea what I'm talking about!!!
Your call preflop must have been impulsive. I certainly wouldn't call an early position raise with a hand this weak. On the flop, I believe that you played too meekly. I would have raised with the object of getting checked into (and thus getting a freecard) on the turn. I have a bias towards aggression. If, unfortunately, I am reraised, I would still call (the pot's much bigger at this point) but I would be more than ready to fold on the turn if I don't move closer to completing my draws.
KK,
You and I are on the same page pre-flop. I went for the call on the flop since it closes the betting. I would have then considered the turn raise since so many of these guys just don't respect flop raises. But I like your approach also. Too bad David is back to his ""I'll let others elaborate" mode. I thought he learned to type. Anyway, I still wonder if Big John is setting me up.
Regards,
Rick
Big John,
I swear I won't look at Rounder or David's post before responding. You can administer a polygraph tonight at the Commerce if you want. BTW, we may make it to the buffet as long as you promise not to drool while you eat.
First, I think calling a single early raiser with A4 suited is a significant mistake unless this player is very predictable and you have a lot of control over him. You have to hope the blinds are tight and predictable too.
OK, you called. It's your money. When the SB bets and the others fold there are nine small bets in the pot. The small blind bet into the big blind, an early raiser and what he should have perceived as a tight cold caller (given the fact that you hadn't played a hand). So he should have a decent hand. I don't think two backdoor gut-shots alone are worth taking one off with unless I had at least four or five more small bets in the pot. But your ace has some value as a bluff catcher (let's say he was betting KQ) and a little value if it pairs. So I would guess your call on the flop was no worse than marginal since you were now head up with position.
Once you catch a draw on the turn you are committed to see the river against most opponents. Did you consider a raise on the turn when the deuce came? This may win it for you there (given your image) and you have outs if called. You would have to really know your opponent for this play (since you want a fold).
Ok, so it appears you played this poorly. On second thought, you haven't posted for a while in the meat and potatoes section of the forum. You know I have Friday's off and would likely see this post. We will be playing each other tonight (hopefully). Could this be an image post? Am I being set up? We shall see.
Regards,
Rick
It will be very hard to convince me (not that anyone cares Love.
Bill,
Who are you responding to? I thought I made it clear that the pre flop call was ill-advised.
Regards,
Rick
Bill,
*2* backdoor gutshots plus a backdoor flush draw plus an overcard that was probably good if it hit. Add to this the fact that my call on the flop was 9:1 and closed off the betting.
The preflop call of an early raiser was a loser, no argument from me there. Once it was made, don't you think the rest of the actions were defensible?
I left the game the next time my BB came around, taking my ill-gotten $135.00 profit with me. I do tend to play somewhat "cheesy" starters from late middle position on.
I never considered raising on the turn, but I might very well have raised on the river even if a total blank had fallen.
It seems to be unanimous that I shouldn't have been in this hand. I concur, but don't think it was that big of an error (-$5.00?) given the texture of the game. The initial raiser had been raising on pretty much any two cards about 50% of the time I'd been in the game, so I treated his raise the same as if he had limped. I did mention that the game was a 15-30 at Hawaiian Gardens, which is somewhat different than the 15-30's spread in Vegas.
I'm not posting the 26 hands I didn't play or the reasons for staying out. If anyone had called the sb's flop bet I still would have called; if he'd been raised, I would have been gone.
Tonight at the Commerce, I'll try to play the same way in the NL, but I'm only bringing $2,000 with me.
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Big John
The tone of my post was supposed to be lightened by interjection of some [g]'s and other interjections that got omitted because when one uses angle brackets in this message box, it assumes they are bad HTML tags and drops them.
In the 3/6 game I play at an Indian Casino I would always play Axs because it's for fun. Because this is a forum about what's *right* then I was merely taken by the notion that in these circumstances the posts were (until Rick's) influenced, IMHO, by the results.
Love.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 January 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 January 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Bill Love (love26@gorge.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 January 2000, at 7:06 p.m.
Big John I appreciate your candor and I certainly do not want to add to your bad feelings here but I believe there were a number of serious mistakes concerning your play on this hand.
I know you realize your cold-call of the raise pre-flop was poor play but I think we did to re-iterate why. Ace-little suited is a weak, speculative drawing hand designed for play against multiple opponents in an unraised pot. You don't want to play this in raised pot with a small number of opponents especially in an aggressive game. You cold-call a raise with only opponent who raised in early position and is probably marked with a good hand plus he could easily have cards that cripple your hand. Furthermore, it could get raised again since there is almost half the table yet to be heard from and this is an aggressive game. This is the kind of play that your weaker playing opponents will routinely make and one that you should avoid.
The flop comes J,10,5 rainbow. The small blind now leads into three players one of whom raised pre-flop. We need to realize a few things. A flop that has both a Jack and a Ten is very dangerous. It fits a wide multitude of hands players come in with pre-flop. The small blind will usually have at least top pair to be leading into an early position pre-flop raiser. He will frequently have top pair with a good kicker and sometimes even two pair. The other two players folding means that you are in a heads-up situation when you have no pair, no draw worthy of the name, and hence no hand. Your Ace overcard may not even be an out if the small blind has Ace-Jack or Ace-Ten. If the small blind has KQ an Ace gives him a straight. Even if an Ace turns and you happen to have the best hand there are now three parts to a straight on the table giving your opponent potential redraws against you. Your backdoor possibilities are worthy of consideration when coupled with other things like a pair but in and of themselves they do not justify continuing on. While this is a raised pot it is not nearly large enough to merit staying on just backdoor draws. The other problem is that you cannot think of these runner-runner draws as "outs" because there is a betting around on the turn which means you will have to pay double to continue on. This game is not draw poker where you get to draw two cards. I think you have a clear fold on the flop.
On the turn there is $180 in the pot and it costs you $30 to call. I agree that a Deuce is an out. It is not at all guaranteed that an Ace is an out based on my discussion above. You have somewhere between 4 and 7 outs. If you hit your hand you will probably collect at least another $30 on the end and possibly $60. So you could win $210 or $240 for a $30 call here. Well with 4 outs this pot is not nearly big enough. With 6 or 7 it is marginal. This call is at best marginal.
Not only was your pre-flop call of the raise bad, your subsequent call on the flop was also poor.
but he played the river great!!!!
good analysis, jim. i agree. except that the sb could be betting lots of things besides top pair. he would often bet second pair or a wired pair higher than the 5 or a 5 or a straight draw (maybe even a gutshot). still john was in a bad position and should have folded. but i would have raised with any (that i might be in with) J, T (except 9T), legit straight draw, or gutshot with 2 overcards.
scott
Jim,
I think you are right about the turn call, but I don't think the flop call was so bad.
On the flop the pot was offering him 9:1 odds for a call. If we somehow manage to count all of his outs and come up with 4.7, then the call is correct. I usually count backdoor flush & straight as 3 outs. Since he's got two backdoor straights, how 'bout we call it 3.5 outs? If we believe that our hand will be good 40% (1.2 outs) of the time when the ace hits, then we are right where we need to be to call on the flop. It certainly is close, but I think the flop call is forgivable in general.
In essense, the call here really depends on your ace being good sometimes. If you know it'll never be good, it's a clear fold. If you know it'll always be good, it's a clear call. As it stands, I think the call is passable.
Of course the turn is a bit different. Now the pot is offering him only 6:1 odds. If we assume that we will get paid off on our river raise when we hit the 2, then it's like the pot is offering 8:1 odds. This still isn't enough for a 4 out draw to call, but *if* we value the ace as much as we did preflop, then... Well, we have to adjust are implied odds, because we aren't going to play the wheel the same way we play the ace. So let's discount our implied odds down to 7.5:1.
For these odds we need 5.4 outs that are FOR SURE good. We haven't quite dug ourself out of the hole yet. That is to say that we *can't* call on the turn with only 40% confidence that a paired bare ace will take it down, as that only gives us 5.2 good outs.
So, AGAIN, the turn call boils down to how much confidence you'll have in your ace. Ace good : clear call. Ace not good : clear fold. As it stands, I think that the call is marginal, so much so that I think folding is correct.
Remember, don't *hope* for cards, especially if they might not even be good when they come.
- Andrew
Just some nits about my post.
There is an underlying issue of effective odds, and reverse implied outs that I washed over with respect to pairing the ace. These details are important and make the calls in each case weaker IF we have any doubt in whether our ace will be good.
These effective/reverse implied odds issues go away if we KNOW our ace will be good. So the fundamental point that I was trying to illustrate still holds.
That is, calling in each case is strongly dependent on how likely it is that our ace is going to be good.
- Andrew
Andrew, I don't understand your logic about calling on the flop. I assume you wouldn't call with just one overcard and a backdoor flush. How can you add any value to the hand with the double gut-shots? Here you got one of your straight cards and can't call the turn. What good was this slim extra on the flop unless the SB was going to check the turn. This seems unlikely.
Fat-Charlie
Fat-Charlie,
I think you make a really sound criticizm here. It makes absolutly no sense for me to consider the double gutshots on the flop, if I'm not going to be able to call with gutshot on the turn.
I guess I'll have to back off of my basic analysis, and go with the one in the subtext of my post and say:
If you call here, you have to be very confident that your Ace is going to be good when you hit it on the turn or the river. If you have any doubt that an ace will be good, folding is correct.
- Andrew
Jim,
Thanks for your analysis. There was nothing in it that I disagree with. If we had played the hand with my knowing exactly what my opponent held, my rationale, post flop, holds up. Without this clairvoyant advantage, your analysis is correct. He sure didn't act like someone who'd flopped top two pair, and I was surprised that the preflop raiser folded so quickly. My limit Hold'em game is so riddled with leaks and weaknesses, I seldom venture above 6-12 anyway.
I think that there has to be players like me making erroneous starting hand decisions like this in order for *anyone* else to have any hope of beating the game for more than the combined collection and dealer toke amounts. In every game I've ever played in limit Hold'em, mistakes far greater than calling a raise with A4s second in from two off the button are routinely made. I seldom play against people who rigidly adhere to optimal hand selection criteria.
I think I'll post other, similar, hands in the future. Thanks again for your great analysis, I really do appreciate your detailed and clear explanations.
Amen
Big John - thanks for explaining your rational - I always wondered how maniacs rationalized some of their play.
My real thoughts are you are setting up the NL HE players for tonight. You are a sly old fox.
Rounder,
Check my post. I had the same suspicion. I bet he didn't even play in this game.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Now that I have read all the books, studied the game of hold'em long and hard and put in many hours at ten-twenty on down; I have come to the conclusion that open ended straight draws, and four flush draws, on the flop are nearly a sucker bet.
It is my understanding that straights and flushes were added to poker late in the games evolution. Like most changes to poker, to increase the action. They are long shots draws that tend to keep you in till the river.
I hear players complain constantly that they had an open ended draw that missed. I used to think that when I had one of these draws I had something good, as most players do. Rechecking with Super/System they are 5 to1 by the river. That does not seem too bad until ten of them go by without a pay off. At ten-twenty that could easily cost $50 per draw for a total of $500. Then, of the next three, one loses to a flush, one to a full house and the third splits. At ten-twenty you could easily be in for over a $1000 by that point. You must chase these draws by their nature.
I have changed my play of these draws. They must have something else going, such as a pair or pot odds, or must show by the turn or I dump them.
'Dis' me if I am wrong.
You are correct sir.
I am not drawing unless I am drawing to the nuts or near nuts. Must be openended or 4 flush and I am not paying 2 or 3 bets to see cards. The secret to this game is not to lose all those bets when you can't beat a pair of 2's EV, Implied odds etc. These guys are selling books I am making money. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Get ready for flames and venom - it is coming from the gamblers they mean no harm they just can't cope with a guy who doesn't play the cookie cutter game.
Danny,
I'm not sure who it will be, but one of the superstars of this forum is going to give you the math on this. And after all is said and done you will be guranteed that by the year 2372, a leap year, your draws WILL start paying off. Just be patient.
It's going to get pretty warm in here soon.
If you only draw to the nuts, you are giving away at least several big bets per session. For instance: KXs (a hand that can easily be played in late position in a loose-passive game) can flop a flush draw which is NOT to the nuts (it's beaten by AXs). Furthermore, AXs can also be beaten by a straight flush. But that doesn't mean you should not play it very strong against an unpaired board.
Sometimes, to maximize your profits, you have to draw to a hand that is not the nuts.
And don't be discouraged if you miss five or ten draws in a row. That's why you have something called a bankroll. If you don't have one, start in 3-6 and build it over time :)
xx
i know you're just having fun, but this use of the long run perpetuates misunderstanding. the long run argument is just that your actual results will always eventaully be very close to your expected results. but before the event occurs, there is no sense in which you can deal with anything but the expected result. i mean, if you are expecting to win half the time before the coin flip, you don't need to consider the long run to understand your expected result. you expect this half heads half tails result and that is the only value you can assign to the event before it occurs.
after it occurs you can compare the actual result to the expected result and the law of large numbers say that these will always converge. but that's not the issue here.
scott
scott,
Thanks for seeing the fun in my post. I know how it works in theory. I do adhere to it when playing, but I certainly understand the frustration of those that do not have enough hours to benefit from the long run. What I fear may be happening with many beginners is they think that any two suited cards can be played for one bet and they get into trouble because they're playing for the wrong price. The flop comes, they get the four flush and don't have connected or big cards to fall back on for backdoor wins. They call raises and even when the flush hits they didn't realize a paired board was a threat. It happened to me in the beginning, but because of guys like yourself, skp, Jim, Rick, John, Abdul, Izmet and the exalted authors plus many others who post their mistakes, I learned. And I learned a lot quicker and cheaper than I could have reading books or at the tables. This place is amazing.
I am new to the game and don't have near the hours to say you are right or wrong. In my limited play trying to draw to a flush or straight has been a disaster. Teach me something here. If I have Xs Xs and the flop is Xs Xs Xo, what percent of the time will I make my flush?
If I have 9x 8x and the flop is 7x 6x 5x what percent of the time will my open ended straight hit?
And lastly what percent to hit a closed straight?
I've ordered a couple 2+2 books. What others would you recomend?
Love the game and can't wait to improve.
When your cards are 9-8-7-6-5, you have a straight.
A four flush is about 9/47 * 9/46 with 2 cards to come.An open ended straight should be 8/47 * 8/46.This is to make your hand (which in some cases can be 2nd best) I bet ev guys will change this. But thats the way it is taught by probability.
that's not right. making the flush is 1 - 38/47 * 37/46.
scott
You need to get Mike Petriv's "Hold-em Odds Book" and it has all this stuff in it. You can order it through Cardplayer magazine, Gambler's book club, and perhaps 2+2.
no. he already knows how to multiply. he needs to learn how to think about these things himself. the exact odds are not that important and anyone here could just tell him. you need to be able to think about probabilty to understand the conditional events that occur all the time in poker. i wouldn't spend fifty cents on a book of odds.
scott
But the hold-em odds book shows the reader how to use probability to compute the odds in hold-em so it is more than just a book of tables and numbers. Therefore, if someone is really ambitious and wants to learn about probability and odds the material is there. Now what is really needed in hold-em is for someone to write a book showing how to compute expected value in various hold-em situations and how to run computer simulations for solving hold-em problems.
i have never seen the book and thought it was just a bunch of tables.
scott
i have never seen the book and thought it was just a bunch of tables.
scott
i know it is not your fault, but i am grown so sick of this topic. i think badger wrote the best explanation. maybe you can look through the archives or maybe he'll repost it. in any case, you are wrong. just learn a little probability theory and you'll be ok. your intuition about random variables all wrong. now is the long run.
scott
Me thinks you've seen RENT one time too many. :-)
i saw it once. you must have hated it. i thought it was worth seeing. i guess we just disagree.
scott
Actually I've seen it twice and would see it again. My kids perform it in my basement.
And I don't disagree with you about anything poker related, I just need convincing sometimes.
i don't usually like musicals, but i liked that one. it may even be my favorite musical.
"And I don't disagree with you about anything poker related"
are you implying that we are worlds apart philosophicaly?
scott
Not worlds apart, years apart! :-)
The correct odds are 50-50. You either make it or you don't.
In addition, the card god remembers every time you miss drawing to the nuts (most of the time for me) and balances the books by letting your opponents hit their staight draw with 3 to a flush on the board when you have top set or overpair (with one matching the suit on board) or their 7-2 flush draw when you have flopped the nut straight or top set.
That is the beauty of probability - things will always balance out.
'
Sammy, one night I was cashing out a pile of racks and this young chineese kid came to me and said "you always winning can you help me I need some good advice" I said "you have to stop drawing to 3 card flusnes and straights it is costing you too much money". He said "what if I get lucky" I said "well you might get lucky".
This is too much fun.
Now, if he only knew on which hands he would be lucky, he would have it made. Great story!!
sammy, you are a genius.
scott
Danny,
Do as you wish, but probability is truth. I offer Las Vegas as proof.
It should be all the proof that one needs to at least seek a deeper understanding of probability and statistics.
Look at the following proposition:
A die is rolled. If the up face of the die is a 6 someone will give you $6. If it is not a 6 you have to give that someone $1. Now you repeat this several thousand times.
Why or why not would you accept this proposition?
Don't think like Moron suggests -- the probability of a rolling a 6 is not 50-50 even though it is true that it's either a 6 or it is not a 6 (i.e. there are only two outcomes).
give me $13 and I'll give you $1 and we have a bet.
Come on - we are talking about one man playing one hand not millions of players playing thousands of games. Only thing that matters is this hand, this time against these players.
I agree that it takes a long time to get to the long run, but you do indeed get to the long run.
I've heard it stated many times in this forum that your ExpectedHourlyWinRate and Standard Deviation can not be computed with any acuracy until you've logged over 1000 hours. I take this to mean that after 1000 hours of play your actual results should begin to resemble your expetcted results.
But I definitely respect your low-variance approach ... it has obviously worked very well for you and given the large Standard Deviation associated with playing the cards the way probability dictates you may actually be ahead of where you would be if you played the probabilities. But in the long run, you will collect less - NOT MORE. The only assumption is that you have played or will play enough hours to reach the long run.
Rounder's style is not particularly low-variance. And if you give up a play that has high variance but even higher EV, the risk to you bankroll goes up.
I like your position regarding the original post.
But this "if you give up a play that has high variance but even higher EV, the risk to you bankroll goes up" makes no sense to me.
Can you elaborate? How do you measure to compare variance and expectation? Results worse than EV - 3*(SD) happens for a half hour once in every 100 hours of play (if my memory of stats is correct -- 3*(SD) is a 99% confidence interval). In poker SD is rather large. You're saying EV can be more than 3*(SD)?
Shame on me for posting that little trap. It should have been clear from the content that I am a very educated and experienced player. I read ALL the books. Studied long and hard. Many hours of experience. It is all there but was missed in a gleeful rush to talk down. Over looking details is not a mistake I make.
I was very happy with the first post by Rounder, he got it immediately.
Does Doyle Brunson's eyes light up when he catches just any old four card draw, I am sorry I just do not think so. Do yours? These draws are an art not a statistic.
I'm a little dense sometimes, were you just wasting everybody's time with this? We are fortunate that guys like Dan Hanson, Jim Brier, scott, Rounder and many other GENEROUSLY give of their time and their experiences to help those that need it, not to play games with someone who puts out flypaper to see how many suckers he can catch. This place is a treasure of knowledge. The last thing I need is Jim and Dan thinking twice about analyzing a hand because you once set a trap.
You wrote,
Shame on me for posting that little trap.
Shame on you indeed!!
Sigh.
You misread Super/System. 5 to 1 is roughly the odds to make a gutshot straight with two cards to come, not a four-flush or an open-ended straight.
Starting with an open-ended straight, you'll make a straight about 31% of the time, or about 2.1 to 1 against.
A four flush will turn into a flush about 35% of the time, or around 1.9 to 1 against.
The reason you guys keep thinking that it's so bloody rare is that you forget about the hits and remember the misses. Any event that happens once in three trials is going to to see some extended periods where it doesn't hit. You can easily go nine or ten draws without making it, but sometimes you'll make every second one, or you'll make a couple in a row. That's the nature of the beast.
It is almost NEVER correct to fold an open-ended straight or a four-flush on the flop, unless you have serious evidence that you are drawing to a losing hand. Even heads-up these draws are usually profitable.
Get your emotions out of your skull and apply some logical analysis.
I've been playing 3-6 and 6-12 HE in Northern California for about a year, with fairly good results. I have to fight a tendency to chase and to be passive with my good-but-not-great hands. For instance:
Last night I was in a loose passive 3-6 game. I'm 3 off the button with red 77. Two limpers before me, I call, button and blinds all call.
Flop comes 2 3 6, with two spades. SB checks, BB bets, call, call, I call, button calls. Should I have raised here?
Turn was a 7c. It is checked to me, I bet despite my straight worries, all but one call. River 2h. Checked to me, I bet, two people pay off my full house. I don't get to see if they had straights.
I think I should have raised for value on the flop, to chase out overcards, and to make the other draws pay. But with so many ways to lose I didn't do it.
My bet on the turn felt right even though it is now even more likely that there's a straight out there.
Thanks for comments,
mashie
I would have raised on the flop. You don't get that many favorable flops to small pairs. This flop was one of them.
You should raise to clear out any potential overcard calls as well as make those hands trying to draw out on you pay the max.
Based on your recreation of the hand, I doubt if there was a straight out against you. The action sounds like a typical brain-dead 3-6 holdem field.
Mashie, pre-flop a pair of Sevens is not a strong enough hand to be raising especially after two players limp in. You should just limp in and take a flop cheaply.
On the flop you have an over pair to the board. Yours is a strong hand under the circumstances. When it is bet and called to you, a raise is mandatory. Just calling is bad poker. The guy betting could be betting a top pair of Sixes with a good kicker and the other callers could be on draws. You must raise.
When you turn a set and it is checked to you of course you bet. Don't even think about being afraid to bet because someone might have specifically a 54 for a straight. In fact if anyone had bet you should raise. You almost certainly have the best hand and almost as important you have the best draw with 10 outs to a full house or quads.
Thanks, Jim & Moron. Actually, I did just call on the flop, not raise.
You should raise on the flop, and you nailed the main reason - to get the overcards out. This significantly increases the chance that you will win the pot.
On the turn, bet, or raise if someone bets. Don't play timid poker - even if someone has a straight you have lots of outs, and a straight is unlikely.
Mashie,
I only have time for a few brief comments. I'll write before reading Jim Brier and the others but don't be surprised if our comments are similar.
I think you want to raise on the flop but I would not necessarily get in a raising war. When you call in back pre flop and get in a war on the flop (after babies flop) it almost screams "small overpair".
I don't understand your straight worries on the turn. If a straight was out the seven doesn't change much. Bet and raise as much as possible within reason. My main worry would be the flush draw.
Regards,
Rick
I don't understand your 'straight worries' after the turn. The only concern would be if someone had 8-9 and stuck around for a bet with a flop of 2-3-6. I think I would like to be in that game.
If someone played 4-5, you are in trouble. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry too much about a straight.
Also, the more I play, the more I realize that trips is a pretty good hand, better than I had previously thought.
I was playing in a 6-12 with some rather interesting company. 2 players that I consider solid players, but the rest of them were all weak. This hand in particular I am one to the right of the button. I am delt A9d. I should preface with this, I do not play much, one night a week 2-4 hours. I play to have fun. But still want to win.
With A9d, UTG bets, then all hell breaks loose. A player that I consider solid raises. The next player (Fish) re-raises. Then call-fold. Then another solid player caps. Then I call, Button folds SB folds and BB calls. We go 7 handed to the flop.
If I'm right, I have good Implied odds. And I have $18 committed to a pot with $126 (7-1 pot odds?)
I look at it this way, there are 2 good players that have raised and re-raised. I am concerned with them foremost. The first raiser is in bad position. This tells me that he has group-1 cards. The other player I am not real familiar with but know that he is in fact a solid player. As for the other players they could hold just about anything (It was a great game to be in!)
The flop gives me a flush draw, Kd 8c 7d.
Out of 47 unseen cards I have 9 outs to make my Flush.
Is this a solid pre-flop play? When does this situation become a marginal call/fold situation? Lets say that there were only 4 callers instead of 7.
Ok....Now, the BB checks, solid player bets out, Fish raises other solid player raises. And it's to me.
I assume that because my odds are good, and there is a lot of money already in the pot, that I should just call. Or am I wrong? I look at it like this. I want to see the next card as cheaply as possable. With a crew like this it could very well be capped by the time it gets back around. What should be my play here?
It was capped and we go to the turn 4 handed.
Turn is a blank.
Now we have a monster pot brewing here. same scenario, bet, raise, re-raise, I call. then everybody just calls.
The river brings.....I will post later.
Can somebody break this scenario down for me?
Much thanks, Jayman
When you call a multi-way capped pot like this with A9s you are doing so based on your flush potential. The only other hands that might win for you are trip nines or aces and nines - both long shots.
Having called, you got an excellent flop - a flush draw. Your object should be to get as many chips in the pot as possible from as many players as possible. What apparently happened is that everybody started shoveling in chips without any help from you. That is good.
Going into the river, you need a flush card that doesn't pair the board. If you do catch the nuts, it's a no brainer. If the board pairs with your flush, I would be concerned about a full house. I wouldn't call a raise in this situation but I would call one bet.
Jayman you were way out of line playing in a capped pot with the Ace-Nine of Diamonds. See the "Wild Games" section of HPFAP-New edition. You need a premium hand here before you get involved (AA,KK,QQ,AK suited). You had the perfect chance to make an easy fold when it is capped to you and you have not had to put in a single bet. Your implied odds are horrible when you have to pay 3 or 4 bets to take a flop with suited connectors and Ace-little suited. You will go through big bucks over the course of the year playing in capped pots with weak, speculative drawing hands regardless of how many players are in or what they are flying around with.
On the flop, thank god your draw is to the NUT flush. Whether you call or raise at this point probably does not impact your expected value and long-run hourly earn as much as your near term variance. You are now committed to see the turn at least with such a large pot.
Bottom line is that your pre-flop call of 4 bets cold is terrible poker. Once you flop the nut flush draw and there is no pair on the board you are pretty much committed to going all the way to the river regardless of subsequent betting action.
Jim,
This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Thank you. But I guess Im unclear of what Implied odds mean then...either Im bone headed and cant figure it out...or Im not understanding what it means. The river ended up a blank, I missed and had to fol. I wastesd a lot of money chasing cards. I thought long and hard about this play. I had a feeling that this was not the situation that I wanted to be in.
Had it not been raised pre-flop and we were 7 handed, would it then mean I had good implied odds? and a much better pre- flop play?
Jayman
Jayman,
Try & forget about Implied odds before the flop! Don't get involved in pots with raises from solid players! You are paying 4 bets to try and make a flush! You can't be happy if you flop an ace so you are in horrible shape. Think of implied odds when your on the turn and have let's say 8 outs(a double gutter or something) and you have to pay $24 to see the river(a bet & a raise) how much will you win if you hit one of your outs. Don't think like that pre-flop.
RAZOR
Jayman, I am going to post something on this subject tomorrow for Andrew Prock and others to review. But let me try to explain what I mean by implied odds. If I spend 1 bet to take a flop against 7 opponents and I catch a draw on the flop and subsequently hit my hand on the turn or the river, I will win a pot that is a certain size, call it A. Now suppose instead of spending 1 bet to take a flop against 7 opponents, I spend 4 bets to take a flop against 7 opponents. The ultimate pot that I win will be bigger but it will not be as big as 4A. The reason is because some of these opponents will be dropping out once the flop comes and when my flush arrives on the turn or the river I will not get paid off in 7 spots. Typically I will get paid off by one or two players. Having to pay much more than 1 bet to see a flop with suited connectors, A-little suited, and small pocket pairs significantly damages their profitability in most cases.
this argument, while it is correct and produces the right answer here, is somewhat misleading. the final effective odds are clearly worse when the pot is capped. this is true with all hands, even AA. this comes from the final pot size not being 4 times as large as it would have been. that is true. but they still might be profitable (not here though). and if they are profitable, then your wager will be 4 times what it would have been. and 4 times a smaller edge might be more than the larger edge. it would clearly be the case for a hand like AA. so some hands that seemingly rely on implied odds (and here i mean wired pairs) are actually quite robust to preflop action provided the pots remain multiway. in some situations they even profit by a preflop raise.
note that the increased volume of your wager will never argue for an otherwise unprofitable bet to be preofitable. if the implied odds argument says that playing for more than two bets is unprofitable then it is. but if both 1 and 4 preflop bets are profitable, you have to account for the increase volume of your wager in determining whether you prefer 1 or 4 bets preflop.
scott
scott,
I've read your post several times and it reads like a textbook reads to someone who doesn't like the subject. I think you're making an important point but a favor please, explain it to me like I'm a two year old. You know, like say it again in English!! :-)
my point is that the ev of the hand is not just the expected effective odds. would you rather bet $1 at 3-1 odds or $3 at 2-1 odds for heads on a fair coin toss? in the first case you win 3 for every 1 you lose, netting you an ev of $2. in the second you win only 2 for everyone you lose, but you bet three times the volume, netting you an ev of $3. in poker, raises preflop hurt your final implied/effective odds no matter what your hand is. but by wagering more volume your actual edge is larger.
if this isn't good enough, just let me know and i'll try again.
scott
Okay, I think i've finally got this. Raising preeflop you risk $30 to win $120. Not rasing preflop you risk $10 to win $90. You're winning more actual dollars with the first example but you risked more and are getting worse odds. Is that it?
and it only took me 2 tries. i'm getting better at this writing thing
scott
clear fold preflop. can't fold after that unless the board pairs.
i'd raise on the flop sometimes. with that many opp this actaully makes you money. but since it will be capped anyway the reason to raise is it may slow the turn action.
scott
Judging by your post, I'd say your flush hit. I agree with everyone else, though. Definite fold pre-flop.
In these low-limit loose games I would definitely come in preflop with those cards since you could expect so many callers. But with the solid player raising in early position and the other solid player realizing this and still capping, you have to get away from the hand if you only hit the ace. You're at the very least way out kicked. With the four flush on the flop I would raise alot of the time with those cards, but if everyone's going to go ahead and put all their chips in without any help from you, I say let'em. On the river the only card that worries me is the 8d, because the solid player could have wired kings, but with the size of that pot I'd call just about any action with the flush.
How'd the hand turn out?
Supes
With apologies for the formatting, your odds of making the flush by the river are:
[(11 C 3)*(39 C 2)+(11 C 4)*(39 C 1)+(11 C 5)]/(50 C 5)
Assuming my math is correct, this is about 6.4%. If you call one small bet pre-flop, you need to expect 8 big bets _profit_ from the hand when you do make your flush. This is certainly doable with a large enough field.
If you call in a capped pot preflop, you now need 32 big bets in the pot, not counting your own. That's one heck of a pot to count on just to break even.
By the way, I didn't even bother to count the bets you're going to lose if you flop a four flush and miss it, and I counted backdoor flushes in your odds of winning. Basically, in a capped pot, your hand = crap.
basically in a capped pot your hand = crap? nice job, abd- niels
I played two hands in a recent 15/30 it was a loose aggressive game.
Hand 1 Ks Kc on the button. Player raised in late position I reraised BB called. The flop was Jc 4s 7h checked around to me I bet BB folds late player raised I reraised he calls. Turn Jd he bets I raised he reraised. What should I have done? This player could have any hand. I called him down he had K J. Could I have saved a bet here.
Hand 2 I’m in the small blind. 6 way action I just call with QcQs. BB raised everyone calls. I reraise everyone calls. Player on the button caps the pot. 7 way action big pot. The flop comes Jd Js 7d I check middle position bets everyone folds. I raise everyone else folds, he calls. Turn 4s I bet he calls. River 3d What would you do? My thinking was he had a big hand or he was on a draw which got there. My choices were
Bet if raised fold: Check and call: Check and raise: Check and fold:
I checked and called. He had a flush. Could I have saved a bet here also.
Sorry for the same post.I didn't think the first one got there.
you could have saved 2 bets on the first one. i would have just called him down on the turn. i think you played the second one reasonably correctly. (the check on the flop could go the other way.)
wow! all those folds in a capped 6 way flop!!!
scott
In the first hand you made it pretty clear on the flop reraise you could beat top pair. When he bets into you on the turn when the board paired top card I'd be calling to the river.
Second hand, check and call when the flush card hits.
Hand Analysis
I played two hands in a recent 15/30 it was a loose aggressive game.
Hand 1 Ks Kc on the button. Player raised in late position I reraised BB called. The flop was Jc 4s 7h checked around to me I bet BB folds late player raised, I reraised he calls. Turn Jd he bets I raised he reraised. What should I have done? This player could have any hand. I called him down he had K J. Could I have saved a bet here.
Hand 2 I’m in the small blind. 6 way action I just call with QcQs. BB raised every one call. I reraise everyone calls player on the button caps the pot. 7 way action big pot. The flop comes Jd Js 7d I check middle position bets everyone folds. I raise everyone else folds he calls. Turn 4s I bet he calls. River 3d What would you do? My thinking was he had a big hand or he was on a draw which got there. My choices were
Bet if raised fold: Check and call: Check and raise: Check and fold:
I checked and called. He had a flush. Could I have saved a bet here also.
Pre-flop your play is fine. On the flop, your play is fine but you need to realize that when the late position player raises the flop bet he is representing at least top pair with a good kicker. Your re-raise is fine. On the turn, the top flop card is now paired which is almost a death card for you under the circumstances. When he bets into you it is almost certain he has trip Jacks which means you are reduced to playing a two outer. I would probably fold. If you call then you must fold on the river if you get bet into unless a King shows up.
On the second hand, you should raise from your small blind with pocket Queens rather than just calling. It is irrelevant how limpers there are. Your re-raise is fine when the big blind raises. There is now 28 bets in the pot so you will be playing a two outer here if you need to.. On the flop you should bet. You have a big over pair to the board and you want to put pressure on anyone drawing to anything. Incredible with all that dough in the pot and that virtually everyone fell like dominoes. This is great for you. Your raise is fine. Your turn bet is fine and when he doesn't raise I would assume he doesn't have a Jack. Your question how what to do on the river, and please do not take offense, is frankly ludicrous. With over 35 bets in the pot IT WOULD BE INSANE TO EVEN CONSIDER FOLDING! I would bet but if you want to check and then call that is fine. If you bet and get raised then you simply call. There is absolutley nothing to think about when the pot is huge and you are heads-up at the river. YOU SIMPLY NEVER, EVER FOLD IN THESE SITUATIONS!
Thanks Jim that's what I thought.
When a late position player raises, he could easily have a draw. When you re-raise and he bets into you on the turn, that's a sign of significant strength. But the flop raise wouldn't scare me much, and I'd probably 3-bet it if the player were fairly agressive.
I also disagree that if you call you must fold if bet into on the river. If you call, it's because you believe that he doesn't have three jacks, since you're not getting the odds to draw to two outs. If you don't believe it, then you can't fold on the river.
You can make a case for folding on the turn, or calling the turn and river, but it's pretty hard to make a case calling the turn and then folding on the river.
Not exactly Dan. On the first hand if you call on the turn and a blank comes on the river, your opponent may not bet the river. However, when he is willing to bet on the river after all the other strength he has shown then that increases the likelihood of him having trip Jacks. But again, I would probably have folded on the turn when bet into.
I don't think it's ever a great idea to call with a marginal hand on the turn and then fold on the river when your opponent simply continues to do what he was doing all along. It's kind of wishy-washy thinking.
If your opponent bet out on the turn, he's probably got a better hand than yours, or he's on a bluff. If he's on a bluff he's committed to betting the river. If he's not, he'll maybe check a marginally better hand, but you still lose. What you're saying is that you hope he has a worse hand, and that he'll check and let you win the pot at the end. I don't like putting money in the pot with the worst of it, hoping that my opponent will make a mistake on the river.
I always try to clarify my situation on the turn, because I don't like folding to a bet on the river when I have any hand that can beat a bluff, especially heads-up. By telling yourself that you're paying TWO bets with that turn call, it helps you clarify your thinking. Either you're ahead or not. If you are, you're paying off the river. If you're not, you shouldn't call the turn.
I think it depends on your opponent and how he reacts to you. In addition, you have good position here over your opponent. Good players usually follow-through with a bet on the end so you are correct in assuming that it is wishy-washy to call and then fold on the river. However, weak players and some mediocre players will back off at the river, especially when they are out of postion figuring that it is not worth investing anymore money at this point.
Jim- I am not critizing the way you would have played the 2nd hand. Rather I'm trying to learn..
Why on earth would you bet into the 3rd diamond on the end and let yourself get raised here?!! Is it just because you THINK he'll be too scared by the paired board to raise his flush? The pot is certainly big enough where you need not be concerned with gaining an extra bet. I would definitely just check and call.
Just curious.
You are right AKs, a check is better than a bet at this point. I just wanted to be adamant about the importance of not ever folding here. Although with a big pot like this, a worse hand will definitely call but if we eliminate trip Jacks since he didn't raise on the turn, then obviously a flush draw is a real possibility.
First hand: You probably should have just called with your Kings on the turn. Why raise? If he's bluffing he folds, and if he's got a Jack you are way, way behind. With the jacks paired your hand is not in much danger if you're ahead. Just call, and call again on the river unless you hit a king.
You played the second hand fine, IMO, although you could have raised with QQ before the flop. Checking the river is fine - what are you hoping to accomplish with a bet? To get a better hand to fold? Not likely. To get a worse hand to call you? Again, not likely. If you check, you might gain a bet if he bets a worse hand that he would not have called with, and you save a bet if he raises you and you feel you have to call.
On the second hand, I agree with you and AKs that checking on the end is better than betting however, I think a worse will call with over 35 bets in the pot.
I played 4-1/2 hours of 3-6 HE (loose, semi-passive) at Foxwoods this afternoon, made a few bonehead mistakes, a few plays I'm not sure how bad they were, and also realized I have a major problem with fearing "going home a loser."
I don't think this fear affected my play much except by distracting me, but it did affect my fun. I bought in for $100, which I can certainly afford to lose, but began to get anxious when I started with blah cards, then lost a few hands and was down about $30. Does anyone have any strategies for working through this mental problem?
As for the poker mistakes: Obvious errors (at least I think so): - 2 off the button with 22, called 2 limpers (not enough people in hand) - 3rd after BB, I hold KTs, call 1 limper; flop T55, check, I bet, call. Turn J, bet to me, I call. River blank, bet, I call. Lose to a J, of course. I think I should have folded on the turn. - I opened UTG with AQo (loose?), flop JJx, I bet, was called, turn blank, I check folded. I think it was a mistake to bet on the flop with JJ on the board.
Plays I'm not sure were OK: - Opened 3rd after BB with JdTd - 2 button calls I think were OK: K9o after 6 limpers; Qc9c after 3 limpers. - 4th from the BB with ATo, limped in, then called a raise to my left.
Any and all comments much appreciated!
Kate
PS BTW, since I started studying HE about 18 months ago I have logged 63 hours in casino ring games, average hourly rate -$3. Not great, but will get better I know. The forum is a lot of fun to read and it's got to be helping.
Limping behind two others from middle position with pocket Deuces is risky but maybe okay if you are in a game where there is little pre-flop raising. Normally I would fold pre-flop. Folding your pair of Tens with a King kicker when a Jack turns against one opponent is not clear. It depends upon the opponent. Against a rock or an LOL I will fold every time but against other players I will take off a card. You should raise UTG with AQ offsuit in these little games. How many opponents took the flop with you? Against a small number I would bet the flop like you did despite the open pair of Jacks. Whether or not it was a mistake to bet the flop with your over cards when open Jacks appear depends on how many opponents you have and how they play. It is not clear that it was a mistake.
Yes it is okay to come in with JdTd from middle position but you may want to have considered opening for a raise rather than limping. King-Nine offsuit should not be played for a full bet regardless of your position and how many others come in. Make it suited and you have a play. The other plays look okay. Consider posting more hands so we can see your play on the flop, the turn, and the river.
Thank you, Jim. I will try to pay more attention to raising opportunities, and post more hands.
I can understand your going-home-stuck phobia kate, and it can be hard to get up from a game when you are losing. If the game is good, stay, if it is good, but you have suffered some bad beats, and your mental attitude is causing your game to disinegrate, then you must leave before all your money is gone.
One way to lessen your worries about how much you win/lose in any particualar session is to play from a bankroll. If you have this cushion to absorb those losses, they won't seem as bad, and you will worry less and likely play better.
mike
Mike, thanks for your response. I do have a bankroll; I also set a session loss limit ($100-$150 depending on my mood) but only once have reached it before it was time to go home. Actually, in the process of responding to MJS's post, I think I figured out what's going on.
I can think of several factors which may contribute to a fear of going home a loser:
1) Fear of losing more money than one can comfortably afford. This is a very serious issue. If you are prone to lose control and wager more than you can afford, you should avoid all monetary gambling. BTW, I disagree with the suggestion of playing with a bankroll. While a bankroll is necessary for professional players, I believe that recreational players should play within a budget. If you lose your limit for the day or week, you are finished.
2) Insecurity about one's poker competence. It might help to realize that there is no real (i.e., rational) reason for a recreational player to worry about this (provided they can stay within a reasonable budget). If you discover in time that you are a terrible player, then you will likely choose a different passtime.
3) Unfamiliarity with the normal fluctuations in poker. To begin with, one's results for a single session of play are meaningless. And it is silly to worry about being down 5 big bets! If you were to graph a winning player's poker results over a long period, you would see the line sloping downward most of the time (since most of the time you put money in the pot, you will not win). Of course, the line would jump up with each pot won.
It's not how many sessions you win, it's how much money you win (and/or how much fun you have). Some players will keep playing until they either get unstuck or hopelessly stuck, resulting in a lot of small wins and some big losses (I think this is a sign of a gambling problem). Good players learn to worry about making correct decisions during play, not winning every session.
MJS
Thank you , MJS, I think you make excellent points. For me, self esteem and ego are quite involved. If I were to lose my $150 session limit due to a run of bad luck or true bad beats, it wouldn't faze me, but if I lose many bets due to mistakes, I get down on myself. I think this will sort itself out in time.
Glad to help. I suspected it was mostly a self-esteem issue. Though poker can be a fun activity, your win/loss record is a rather poor measure of your worth as a person!
As you gain confidence, you may want to increase your session limit (while staying within a weekly budget for safety). In loose 3-6 games, a good player can lose $150 fairly quickly. After losing your first buy-in, though, it would be wise to assess whether the game is worth a further investment.
MJS
A couple quick comments that I haven't seen mentioned:
1) Don't worry about subtle preflop mistakes. If it's wrong to play 22 after 2 limpers, it's a very small mistake that will cost you $.25 or $.50 per hand at the most.
2) When you open in late position, always raise. When you open in middle position, usually consider raising. 3) Playing weaker offsuit hands: as Abdul says (this is paraphrased), the looser the limpers, the looser the offsuit hands you can play, but the more limpers there are, the tighter the offsuit hands you must play. K9o is still a mostly worthless hand that can you into trouble. Be more willing to play K4s than K9o. (The only time I play K9o is open-raising on the button or 1 off the button.) After 6 limpers, I wouldn't recommend that a novice play any offsuit king less than KQo.
4) In the JT55 hand, like Jim said, don't automatically fold top pair on the flop that is now 2nd pair, especially in a heads up pot, unless the bettor is a rock or weak-tight. Many people will bet KQ here or other hands that you can beat. Instead of caling down to the river, in these situations against a typical player, I prefer raising the turn (and folding to a reraise) and checking down the river if I don't improve. It costs you the same amount, you get the added benefit of charging any draws on the turn, and you might sometimes get a jack to fold because you "obviously" have a 5 or a boat.
-Sean
I play in southern CA and all the card clubs I've been to take collection in HE. Are there any clubs that take from the pot instead? The collection reems everyone and it messes up the structure of HE the way these clubs do it (single BB instead of 2 blinds). BTW, the button plays the collection.
Thanks
The infamous "button" charges in the low limit LA games should be avoided. If you cannot find a decently raked game then you must move into the $10-$20 games where the $5 per half hour collection is reasonable.
With my bankroll $10-$20 is not a reality. Can the low limit LA games be profitable? (for a good player).
The LA ripoff button drop games (below 10-20) are essentially unbeatable. A good player might be able to eke out 1/2 bet/hour but 3/4 of his winnings will be going into the drop box. These overpriced gouge joints do not deserve to be patronized. The nearest reasonably priced games are at the Indian casinos around San Diego and some private clubs in Oceanside, Ventura, the high desert, etc. For that matter Vegas is only a 1-hr plane ride away :)
Can someone tell me if it is the drop on the button or the LB + BB that kills your bankroll, and does having only one blind (like Hawaiian Gardens) make these games profitable?
I currently play at Hollywood Park, CA., I am curious to know who of the regular people who post here play in LA. Thanks.
If you are a tight player (or at least significantly tighter than most of your opponents), then a single blind (like at the Normandie and H.G.) is better than two blinds. However, the button drop is a bigger threat to a good low-limit player's bankroll. I would therefore recommend searching out the LA casinos with the lowest button drops (e.g., I believe the drop for 6-12 in LA ranges from $3 to $4). Among casinos with equal drops, a single-blind structure would be favorable (unless you are a poor/loose player).
Though I also dislike the button drop, I don't think LA casinos are taking more money off the table per hand on average than other casinos which use a rake. The 3-6, 4-8, and 6-12 games in which I play in LA take a maximum of $3 per hand. The rake games in which I've played (in OR, WA, and NV) typically took $3 plus $1 for the "jackpot" at these limits. The button drop assures that all players pay the same amount, which reduces the edge that tight/solid players have.
At the Normandie, they take the collection out of the pot in the stud games ($2 max in 2-4 games; $3 max in 3-6, 4-8, or 5-10). This makes these games beatable with basic solid play. [Hawaiian Gardens uses a button collection in their stud games; I don't know about other LA casinos.]
As for low limit holdem, I believe the 2-4 games (with $2 drop and generally terrible players) and 4-8/6-12 games (with $3 drop) are beatable. I suppose 3-6 is also beatable if the game is fairly loose...though 4-8 and 6-12 are better deals. But stay far away from those 1-2 games...they are unbeatable!
Michael,
In Los Angeles County there is no escaping it in limits 9/18 and below. Most of the larger casinos still have two blinds (Hollywood Park, Commerce, and the Bike). The Normandie and Hawaiian Gardens have one blind.
You may want to search the 2+2 archives for some thoughts. Search on rake, collection, or drop. Also search under my name on rgp. Use www.deja.com power search. I used to comment on the rake quite a bit over there. In short, I despise it and think it is bad for business. Perversely, it keeps the games unnaturally loose so it can be overcome at 6/12 and 9/18.
I'm in a hurry to meet Big John at the Commerce so I cannot elaborate now. I'll have a little time tomorrow night.
Good Luck,
Rick
My mom always said don't say you hate it till you try it... My games of choice have always been stud and hold'em. Last night at a 10-20 hold'em table a guy I regularly play against had some problems with me hitting my open ended straight on the turn to rake a sizable pot over his trip aces. He suggested, rather colorfully, that I give him some action at the Omaha tables. I've played very little Omaha and tend to think too much along hold'em lines when I do. I was hoping someone could suggest a good starting point as far as books about the game. I know the starting hand possibilities is greatly increased, but I would particularly like to see one with starting hand categories similar to Skansky's hold'em tables... I felt those were useful in the beginning of my hold'em days. Anyone have any suggestions?
Supes
Sorry guys
I'm so used to just coming to the holdem page. I'll repost this elsewhere.
...
I am three to the right of the button in a 6-12 HE game. By the time the action gets to me there are two calls and two folds. I have 10d 3d. I throw in my cards and they getted exposed. The players see the hand and all look at me like I had two heads. Am I missing something?
Maybe they were just giving you a stare to show they disapprove of you displaying your hand, even if unintentionally. It can affect the hand quite a bit.
I was playing in a 3-6-9 hold 'em at Sunset Station and had 5-5 in late position. Someone in early position turns over 5-4 accidentally. I fold when it comes to me. Flop is 5-6-k and a 6 hits on the river for a monster pot. If I hadn't seen the 5 turned, I would have called.
I am guessing they were asking you to be more careful with your cards.
that is not a good hand.
scott
No. You have a terrible hand and are suppose to toss it.
One point is that a lot of people will pretend they play any 2 suited cards while in fact only the really bad ones actually do. Needless to say these are the liveones you want in your game. You gain some nice low limit rock equity here.
D.
Thats funny Jolly....
Same thing happened to me tonite. Playing 3/6, I am in late middle position w/ Q8d...it is two bets to me, and I muck my hand, but somehow in the process of me mucking, and my wife (directly to my left) folding her cards, my cards and her arms collided and my cards fell on the table face up.
I got the same reaction from the table, including the dealer. I thought my third eye was showing, the looks these guys gave me!
Anyway, the flop is three diamonds, including the Ace, and the river card is the K of Diamondws, making my folded hand the nuts. Not the kind of thing that bothers me a lot, but these guys had a ball with it, and I got a little more respect for my pre-flop raises from then on (not a lot more, though, It's still 3/6).
mike
I thought in most cardrooms that husband and wife couldn't play at the same table. Am I wrong?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this message.
Does anyone know anything about online poker? Which casino is a place to play and anything to watch out for? Thanks for any information.
www.planetpoker.com www.paradisepoker.com
Play at the lowest levels until you get comfortable. RGP and the archives here have many posts about the possible pitfalls. Check them out. Good Luck.
This topic has been heavily discussed in several different forums. It has generated some heat, and I suspect everyone is going to be sick of it for a while. Unfortunately, the archives are no longer very easy to search. If you want to give it a shot, try using “Planet,” “Paradise,” and “Delta” as key words.
To play on the Net, you need to download the casino’s software first. Here are two addresses for places I’ve played:
Planet Poker: http://www.planetpoker.com/
Paradise Poker: http://www.paradisepoker.com/
You can also get to Paradise Poker using the link in the green part of the screen to your left.
I like Planet Poker somewhat better, but both places seem honest to me, and I believe it is in their best interests to so be. A few posters have disagreed and believe the games are rigged, being hacked, etc.
If you are a higher-limit player, I suggest you play in the free games of Paradise Poker and the lower-limit games of Planet Poker until you get used to the interfaces. You don’t want to lose a lot of money from folding by mistake.
The biggest hazard of online poker is that collusion is easy. I don’t believe there is a lot of it in the low-limit games, but I don’t guarantee this. I have no experience in the high-limit games. Another problem is the use of tactical all-ins, but if you’ve never played online, you will have no idea what that is, and I don’t feel up to explaining.
On the other hand, there is no tipping and the rakes are much lower. Also, no one can hold out cards or steal from your stack of chips.
All things considered, I believe every serious poker player should at least try it.
I tried it. I will not play again. last night i lost to a man who won about 10 hands in row. The worst was he called 2 raises with 2-3o and made a wheel. I think he knew what cards were coming.
I limped from UTG with Qh,Jh. Everyone folded to the BB who checked his option. The flop came Ah,4c,2h. The BB bet out, I folded.
Was this a bad fold?
This was not a good fold.
Heads up, this is a huge draw. The Ah is already out there, so you are drawing to the 2nd nut flush, and heads up, it's doubtful that your opponent has a suited king.
Also, the BB did not raise before the flop, so unless he was slowplaying a big hand, he most likely has A-little, or a smaller flush draw.
I would have raised the flop.
Max
Understand that had I raised pre-flop, I may have played this hand quite differently.
If I KNEW he would check the turn, I would have called. But when my opponent bet, I was getting 3:1 on a 4.2:1 shot. (I couldn't be sure there would be any implied odds, because he may have been bluffing at the A since my limp made it unlikely I had one).
Now, I know that I am getting close to 2:1 to make my draw by the river. But I can't be sure he won't bet the turn (if he does in fact have a hand). In this case, I figured (incorrectly?) I was only getting 5 to 3 on the flop.
I think my real problem and question here, is that I am not proficient at calculating runner-runner odds. Although, the only runner-runner I could have really felt comfortable with was KT. Is this thinking flawed? Thanks for you input.
I can pinpoint the flaw in your reasoning. You are not considering the chance of winning the pot when you raise (or bet) and your opponent folds at some point. This almost always amounts to the equivalent of several outs, probably even more than the real outs your hand has here. Your opponent does not need an ace to bet here. You made a huge mistake, but fortunately you gave up less than 2.75 big bets. If you're going to fold incorrectly, let it be early rather than late.
-Abdul
Folding is probably the worst of the three plays you could make here.
There are 3.5 small bets in the pot. Let's say you just call, and if you hit a flush on the river your opponent checks and calls your bet. And let's assume your 9 outs are live.
In that case, you are going to win 7.5 small bets one time in three, and lose 1.5 small bets the other two times. Big +EV. It's still plus EV if he doesn't call on the end. And, you may get a free card on the turn (although you probably shouldn't take it), or you may hit a running two pair or even one pair and it'll be the best hand.
But this is probably not even the best way to play the hand. When you have a big draw and are heads-up, you should consider being agressive, as it markedly improves your chance of winning the pot. Unless you absolutely know your opponent will not bet with less than top pair, and will never release his hand, you should consider raising the flop, turn, or river. If you call the flop and a scare card comes on the turn and he checks, you should bet. If he bets the turn and calls, and a scare card comes on the river (say it brings in a straight draw, or pairs the second or third pair), you should consider betting if checked to you, or raising if he bets. How often you should do this depends on how good your read is on your opponent's ability to release a hand.
Heads-up confrontations when you have big draws are a good time to get creative. Think about what your opponent might be betting, and plan a counter-attack. Even if it doesn't work it'll help you get paid off on future hands when you do have the goods.
Isn't there an excellent chance the BB is bluffing here? Unless he thought it likely that UTG was playing Axs, he would think that River would have raised if he had an ace. He could be relatively sure that the 4 or 2 hadn't hit River either. But he also knows that River knows that he could have anything. If I were in the BB, I would be making this be more often than not.
I have folded in these situations - you have one sb in the pot and can do no better than win what you have to put in on a 35% chance to make your flush. I don't like the odds here good fold.
Just read the other responses - suprise I am in a minority of one. I guess I just don't like to play as much as the others. When I am looking at 2 1/2 sb's in the pot and the prospect of drawing out for a flush to only double my money IF I hit - I say "deal the next hand".
Siding with Rounder. I feel that the others are more trying to win hands than chips. Whoever wins the most pots is almost invariably the biggest loser.
Love.
You wrote:
"I feel that the others are more trying to win hands than chips."
Many of the "others" I am sure are very tight aggresive players with the highest rock equity arround. They are also winning players in middle limit games.
What you don't realize is that the good situations for these bluffs are not that frequent. You still have to play very tight and in no way is it similar to the various maniacs and loose players you seem think it is.
If you won't semi-bluff with a 4-flush, when exactly do you bet? Only when you have a made hand? Pretty easy to read, and I will get my share of made hands too.
D.
So there is zero probability that the opponent will lay down his hand? This is a perfect semi-bluff spot.
Just that fact that everyone folded arround to the BB with no raise makes me think this is a real game where some poker can be played.
D.
You can do no better than win what you've put in, PLUS what he's put in, PLUS the dead blind money, PLUS the extra bet on the river that you get from him if you hit your flush.
I'm assuming you don't play in a lot of tough games?
If you've got a habit of simply releasing your draws when you are bet into heads-up, you'll get slaughtered. If you'll only play back at someone when you have a made hand, you'll get players running at you all night long, because they know that most of the time you won't have a made hand. And the next time you have a made hand and a flush comes in, you may get bluff-raised, because they know you don't have a flush, either.
Big flush draws and straight draws are much prized in this context, because they keep your opponents confused. If I've got a big draw and I'm heads-up, I'll often just tell myself I have top pair - best kicker and play it that way.
The best thing about these hands is they give you the opportunity to be deceptive AND make money. They are 'image' plays that don't cost you a nickel. In fact, these are highly profitable situations to be in, if you can learn to play them correctly.
Chucking a flush draw in this situation is simply very weak poker.
Meaning I can really only double up on anything I put in the pot. Yeah Dan in this situation I usually fold it is not weak, it is smart. If there are more than one caller I am there playing poker.
Don't need any sermons, puleese.
How do you get, "I can only double up"? If you hit your flush and the player calls your bet on the river, you'll win 7.5 small bets, for an investment of 1.5 small bets. Those are 5-1 odds. If he doesn't call your bet on the river when you make your flush, you'll win 5.5 for an investment of 1.5 or 3.67-1. And you're a 1.9 to 1 dog to make your flush by the river.
Those are the worst-case scenarios, assuming you can't ever win with a bluff, and assuming you don't already have the best hand, and assuming that you won't get a free card on the turn, and assuming that you can't win by hitting a pair or a running pair or set.
What is there about this you don't get?
How do you figure I am puting in 1.5 small bets - to win 7.5. Since there are only 2 of us in the hand - awwwww screw it. -
I don't give a shit what you think - just go away.
Oops. Your investment is 3 small bets. Not 1.5. I don't know where my head was at. And I've done this problem dozens of times. Okay, let's try again:
If you call to make the flush, you'll invest 3 small bets. If you make a flush and he calls a bet on the river, you'll win 7.5 small bets (his 4 on the turn and river, plus the 3.5 already in the pot).
So out of 3 times you play this, you'll win 7.5 small bets once, and lose 3 small bets twice, for a total gain of 1.5 small bets, or .5 small bets/hand. (A flush comes in a little more than one time in three, and the real EV slightly higher).
If he doesn't call your bet on the river, ever, then you will lose -.17 small bets/hand. (Again, with a flush draw it's a little better, and you actually about break even)
Even given 2-1 odds (a little worse than the flush draw, a little better than the straight draw), if he will call you down on the river more than 25% of the time, it's profitable to just call the flop and turn and fold on the river if you miss.
But the point of my original message is the same - it's probably better to play agressively in this situation, and folding is probably the worst option, for if you know the player so well that you know he'll fold top pair 75% of the time that you bet the river when a flush shows up, then you should be playing him more agressively.
If I made another simple error in here I may just go shoot myself.
You.ve received many on the point responses so I won't reiterate any of them. I have one thing to add, though, you might want to think about,
With QJs what kind of a flop could you have had other than AKT of your suit would you have been happy to see? This was an excellent flop for your hand, you must learn to recognize this.
I think most of us can play reasonable-starters-fit-or-quit poker. I love this forum because I aspire to more.
Thanks to all who responded. I’m surprised that with the exception of Rounder, everyone else would either have played this hand fast or stuck with the draw. I do realize I COULD have played the hand, the way many said I SHOULD have. In fact, had there been a raise pre-flop, I play it very different.(especially if I had been the raiser) I thought the real question was: Is this draw worth defending in this spot? Obviously, I decided no. Judging by the responses I made an error. I’m glad I posted. My thinking was:
While a flush draw may look enticing, I am STILL an underdog in a pot with no $$$ in it. That said, I may have had as many as 15 outs or more. In addition, my opponent could fold on a later street. This may make my hand worth continuing, but then again, maybe not….
Some of you and especially Dan, seem to rely heavily on collecting a bet when the flush hits. But I think an overlooked factor that no one mentioned, is that it’s much easier to put me on my hand than visa versa. What the hell am I representing when I raise a flop of A,4,2?!! Could I really have a 4 or 2 in my hand? And any hand containing an ace that I would play in that spot, I’m most likely to RAISE pre-flop. This flop does NOT fit my hand. And the BB knows this! Now what are the implied odds? Let’s see…. A tight/aggressive player is still in the pot. He doesn’t have an A,4 or 2, yet he bets when the flush gets there. What could he have? That’s MY point. The implied odds were very uncertain.
On the other side of the coin, the BB in an unraised pot could have ANYTHING…He’s the big blind! Although I realize that some of these hands are not worth considering heads-up... I am drawing very thin to AQ, and to a lesser degree AJ, any A/2 pair, KQ, and to a lesser degree KJ, any set,(which reduce my flush outs) a higher flush draw,(which reduce my flush outs to zero) 35 for a made straight, 42, as well as other hands, AA, QQ, JJ, etc. And I’m still a dog to hit my draw in a pot with NO money in it! This is just the way I looked at it. I concede that I may be very wrong which is why I posted to get opinions. Thanks again!
With an A42 flop you should be able to have A4s, 44, 22, or a flush draw. If there were a lot of callers in the hand, you could even show 35s on occassion.
I didn't *rely on the bet on the river, I simply pointed out that if you're so sure that he won't call a bet on the river that the play is -EV, then you can gain the EV back through bluffs.
If it were me, I'd call and bet ready to come out swinging on the turn if a 3, 5, A, 4, or 2 lands on the turn, and of course if my flush does. Your opponent is in the big blind - he could easily have bet a draw or a small pair with a straight draw, like 43. If one of these scary cards lands on the turn and he checks to you, you should probably bet. On the other hand, if the board pairs on the turn and he bets into you, now you can re-evaluate calling. Perhaps it would be correct to fold your flush draw then.
In tough games, these types of moves pay for themselves just in future action alone. Let's say this bluff fails, and you show your hand and lose. Well, the next time you flop a straight or have 44 on an A34 flop you may gain back more bets in calls than this whole play cost you. You have to look at the big picture.
Dan: Thanks for all your input.
I still say that 3.5:1 is not worth trying to catch a 4.2:1 on the turn, and if you figure to put in $40 (1BB) on the turn, either to call a bet or semi-bluff yourself, you are then getting 5:3 on the flop respectively, which is not enough for a 2:1 shot by the river. However, when you factor in that my Q or J MAY have been outs, he MAY have been bluffing, he MAY have paid me off if I hit, you are probably correct that I undervalued these things.
SNIP-You have to look at the big picture.
I agree. I AM known to mix it up, and play a hand/draw fast once in a while, so getting action is not much of a problem for me. But I am also thought of as tight, which means I can "pick up" more than my fair share. This makes for a lot of profit in tough games.
SNIP-With an A42 flop you should be able to have A4s, 44, 22, or a flush draw. If there were a lot of callers in the hand, you could even show 35s on occassion.
I'm pretty sure in one of your responses you questioned whether I'm familiar with tough games. Are YOU? Do you play A4s,44,22,35s UTG in tough games? If so, how many times a month do you replenish your bankroll?
Unless DS,RZ,MM,JB care to add anything, I think my post has gotten all the insight it's going to. Thanks again for yours.
River, you hang in there - just cuz they say it doesn't make it right. A hand like this with no money in the pot and you on a speculative draw - no contest - an easy fold. I've done it many times and will continue to do it and make money doing it.
But I like the way these guys are thinking. It gives me confidence they will be there on the river saying "I didn't hit" see you at the cage.
"These guys" (I assume you mean the other posters who try to do stupid things like apply math and logic to poker) if they ever got you heads up in game, could steal every pot from you when you don't hit the flop. Since that would be around 70% of the time, they would be seeing you at the cage-most likely with your chips. I suppose you play in a game where the players don't pay much attention to rock type play. That's fine, but mid and upper limit games are populated by people who catch on very easily to someone who is a "folder" and simply bet into you a lot heads up. You can bleed a lot of chips this way. I know I did when I started playing 10-20 and 15-30 and wondering how come the flop kept hitting my heads-up opponents more than it was hitting me. It wasn't until later that I realized that I was getting semibluffed a lot and adjusted my play.
Hey - I am just not interested in drawing to an empty pot (the math just isn't there in this case). If I bleed a few sb in a session it is just fine with me.
I'll get involved in bigger things if you don't mind and for your information I'm the one with the chips at the cage.
Some of you really don't get do you.
If drawing to the flush is the only issue here, the poster wouldn't have been asking whether or not the hand was playable. Anybody can see that for the draw to the flush alone to be worth it you would need two callers. The other posters are talking about the additional outs the poster may have, depending on how the BB plays and whether or not the Q's and J's are good, and whether or not the BB is going to call the made flush on the river.
Now truth be told, I am not ENTIRELY convinced one should play in this situation, depending on what sort of read I had on the BB, or what type of read I thought the BB had on me. But you don't do any of this. Instead, you just come along and say, "The flush draw odds aren't there. Fold." Whoopty doo. I think the poster could have done that math by himself. He was looking for additional insights on whether or not to play the hand.
Also, your snide insinuations that you are the only one here playing solid, winning poker and the rest of the posters are a bunch of gambling morons are wearing a little thin. Anyone can come on here and claim they "stack the chips". It doesn't make it true, and more importantly, it doesn't mean they can provide any useful poker insights.
hetron,
As everybody else does you do not wish to comprehend Rounder's style. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but can't you at least get what he is all about?
You wrote,"Instead, you just come along and say, "The flush draw odds aren't there. Fold." Whoopty doo. I think the poster could have done that math by himself. He was looking for additional insights on whether or not to play the hand."
The point is even if the flush odds were there Rounder would fold. He's not about odds, he's about money. Think about him whatever you like, he really couldn't care less. Why all you guys waste your time trying to convince him of stuff is way beyond me.
Sammy
To tell you the truth, I know exactly where he is coming from. He claims to play a low variance, positive EV game. If it works for him, I can't argue. But he also makes insinuations that are just plain untrue. One is that the other posters are playing a "gambling" style, which is providing him with "fish" to exploit. I severely doubt that. Furthermore, he seems to equate poor playing with chasing flush or straight draws. While this may be true, often times it is quite profitable to play flush or straight draws. The difference is in knowing when or when NOT to play them. That is what the posters in here try to do based on math.
You wrote "he's not about odds, he's about money." What exactly does that mean? We are all about money. We all have different strategies. Insisting your strategy is better without providing a full explanation of it makes me think a person is all about another thing- ego.
I've seen your name on many posts but I don't know how long you've been reading the forum. When I said Rounder isn't about odds he's about money was my way of trying to explain, not agree with, just explain that Rounder will not waste his 1.75 bets to possibly win 4.5 in a heads up situation where he'll win 4 times and lose 7 times earning him a net win of 1.5 bets or thereabouts ( I made up the numbers to make the point, they are probably not accurate but I think you get the idea). He also isn't going to chase a gutshot of 11-1 when the pot is laying him 13-1. He's not interested. Yes, he should, we all know he should, he even knows and understands the math of it, but he doesn't want to wait a gazillion years for that bet to start paying off. (his words not mine) He wants to be in big pots when he is ahead, not when he has the best draw, but when he has a good draw, middle pair with top kicker and a backdoor something to fall back on. Without all that he'll save his money for the next hand. By the way Badger explained it very well when he pointed out Rounder's approach wasn't necessarily low variance, it was more low immediate risk with a higher risk of ruin on the backend. Please understand that the most knowledgable people on this forum have been whacking away at Rounder since I started lurking around 5 months ago and they haven't made a dent.
He isn't changing, you're wasting your breath.
Sammy
I guess I missed Badger's comments to rounder. Badger is usually pretty on point with his comments. I used to post a little here last year but stopped for a couple of months due to lack of internet access. It doesn't really bother me that rounder insists he is right. It is that he insists the others are wrong and that playing in the way they suggest will cause you to lose your money. But like you said, if all these other people have tried to reason with him, who am I to think I will succeed where others have failed?
From a pot-odds standpoint, it's almost always correct to draw for the flush heads-up. The situation described was the worst possible (only 2 callers, one was the big blind, only .5 small bets dead in the pot), but even then you only need a call on the river when you make a flush about 25% of the time to make drawing to the flush profitable. And this ignores those times when you'll get a free card on the turn, or back into a hand. Just the added outs of drawing to a runner-runner 2 pair, straight, or trips is enough to make the call +EV, even if you never get paid off on the river.
If the situation were slightly different and there were three callers before the flop, then a bet and a fold so you were now heads-up and contemplating a call, it would always be profitable to call.
Why is it that you guys insist on labeling Rounder and myself as 'weak folders' just because we would choose not to play in this particular situation?
This is NOT the case....
What's more likely to happen with people like you, who think you have figured out that we are weak and fold everytime the flop does not hit us, is that we would then be able to steal you blind and/or trap you till your hair bleeds! See ya at the cage....
I don't necessarily think this hand should be played in every situation. I think it depends on the read of the big blind (the hands he would bet out with), and how likely he is to fold, etc. But rounder (whose post I was replying to) said this was an "easy fold". As the other posters have shown, it is FAR from an easy fold. If your Qs and Js are good, and the BB will call a flush on the river, it may not be a good fold at all.
I don't know how tight you play heads up. But most good mid and upper limit players realize that you will have top pair or better on the flop a minority of the time, thus you are forced to semi-bluff a lot in heads up situations. There is no way you are going to trap a decent player if you fold every time you don't have a big made hand on the flop. If you realize this already, great. If you play in a game where this situation rarely comes up, fine. But just to say "no flush draw odds. fold" is overly simplistic.
I completely agree with you here. I just felt there was much misunderstanding going on and that people were assuming that just because one would fold here, it means they are incapable of creative play heads-up.
You seem to be one of the few who understood the essence of my post. Of course I knew the math on the draw. Of course I knew I could have raised as a semi-bluff. Of course I knew that I could bet/raise a scare card on a later street. I was just looking for additional insights to the hand. That's all. And I aprreciate yours. Thanks. Take care.
I suppose you play in a game where the players don't pay much attention to rock type play.
By rounders own admission, these are the kind of games he plays in. For him there is probably a lot better places to make money than heads up with a "gamble".
- Andrew
I'm pretty sure in one of your responses you questioned whether I'm familiar with tough games. Are YOU? Do you play A4s,44,22,35s UTG in tough games? If so, how many times a month do you replenish your bankroll?
Depends on how tough the games are. Honestly, I had forgotten that you were UTG. But still, you need to play some hands like this on occasion in tough games precisely because it's important that your opponents never be able to completely rule out a hand. My thinking is that if the game is so tough that I can't play a pocket pair from most positions then I probably shouldn't be there. I wouldn't play the 53s UTG, unless the game was very loose and totally passive, and even then not much. But I like pocket pairs - they have high implied odds, are generally easy to play, and they offer lots of deception. The only time I'll chuck them is in a game that it typically 2-3 handed and raised every round. But as I said, I should be looking for easier pickin's in that case.
But don't overestimate how much playing these marginal hands costs you - if it's wrong to play them out of position, the error is never more than a small fraction of a bet, and you often gain that back later on by extra action on your legit hands.
Honestly, I can't bring myself to play this stuff UTG, but one of the players I know who has consistently won 2 bb/hr or more over the last four years plays hands like that all the time. He just plays them very well, and makes the point that those decisions don't come up all that often, and when they do he's often correct anyway because the pot winds up with enough callers to make the hand break-even or better. And trust me, this guy is tough to play against.
A very tight player raised UTG. (I played about 50 hours with this player and he only has raised from early with AA-JJ, AK) Everyone folded to me in the BB and I called with Ad,Ah. The flop came Qs,Jh,Ts. I checked he bet, I folded.
1). Was this a bad fold?
2). What if he would raise with a hand like AQ or AJs?
3). What if one of my aces were a spade?
(after I mucked he showed me the As,Ks)
Takes a good player to fold a good hand. Don't let anyone tell you differently. You knew your player and it worked out for you. A while back I was flamed big time for folding QQ in the face of a tight tight player raising UTG (only AA,KK would call for this move I know this player very well) - some said I should call even if she showed me the AA.
That said I would have a hard time folding AA here the AQ AJ - are both possibilities and I probably go down in flames but I can't criticize you for your fold.
Change games. Ill let Rounder elaborate.
Maybe a silly question but why didn't you re raise? You mentioned that he only raises on AA - JJ and AK. So, of the 5 hands he could have, you have the better of it 4 of the times. I thought AA plays well heads up.
I don't get your point. I am beat by ALL of these hands except KK and a split with AA! The flop was QJT...
I had KQo in the blind in an 8-handed, single blind, 6-12 HE game. A strong/aggressive player opened the pot with a raise from one off the button. The button folded, and I called. (I believe I should have raised.) The flop came 5-5-J. Had I raised preflop (and not been reraised), a bet here would have had a good chance of taking the pot (if my opponent missed). Since I hadn't raised, I decided to check-call, planning to bluff if the turn card was smaller than a J. Well, another J came on the turn! Since I felt this player would call me down if he had an ace, I checked. My opponent paused for several seconds, looked at me, and bet. Had he bet more quickly, I may have called him down with my king-high; instead, I folded. What do you think?
I think you saved $12
You MISSED the flop big time - you should have dumped there. You saved money by folding on the turn - not a weenie play at all.
If you want to bluff you have to start at the get-go of a hand. If you raise pre flop, with this flop you can come out shooting and expect to win it many times. But you were at a disadvantage with the preflop call. No biggie.
Even though you didn't do this, if you bluff at the flop and get a caller -- not a raiser -- and the top card on the board pairs with the turn card, you should be more inclined to bluff again.
Wish you never put this one in your book. Most reliable bluff I know of in hold'em.
Maybe Nomad didn't do this but perhaps his opp has read your stuff.
'
Can anyone suggest a book on holdem. I've already read the Sklansky/Malmuth titles but am looking for another quality book with a different perspective. P.S. I am relatively new to poker. Thanks for the info!
Improve Your Poker by Ciffone. Mostly holdem.
Winning Low Limit holdem by Lee Jones is the place to start if you are struggling in lower limits or you haven't played in the casino much at all.
I assume you have HFAP 21st century, and the two poker essay books from 2+2. Theory of poker of course too.
There really aren't too many books.
D.
Joe there are several good low-limit books on hold-em you might look into including Lee Jones book Low Limit Holdem or Lou Kreiger's book Holdem Excellence. If you are just starting to play I would recommend that in addition to the books you consider buying the computer program Turbo Texas Holdem. I found the program coupled with the books to provide an excellent way to get an understanding of the principles you are learning with out exposing your wallet. Obviously nothing can replace live play but you may be able to limit the cost of that experience. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you at the tables.
Joe, I think Lee Jones Winning Low Limit Holdem is the starting point for Low Limit. I also agree that Bob Ciaffone's Improve Your Poker, which deals mostly but not all with holdem. I think Turbo Texas Holdem is good practice for reading the board and reading hands. I read both of Lou Krieger's books, but don't think they add much. I've never returned a book until I returned Krieger's second book "More Holdem Excellence" to Borders. They carry a fair amount of poker books and have a 30 day return policy. I purchased the 21st century HPAP there and plan to hang on to it- after I rebind it! Good luck!
Is TTH really worth the 100 bucks I have to spend to get it? I've heard it's a great program but damn, it's $100 bucks when you add S&H. I don't even spend that much on my wife's aniversary present. I'm not a hold'em expert and can stand for much improvement, will I get this investment back at the tables?
all comments welcome
Considering how quickly you can drop a 100 at a live game I think its an excellent investment.
Even on a bad night it takes me several hours to drop $100 dollars, maybe I'm too tight.
If you are a beginner, the short answer is yes. If you aren't a beginner, it may not be worth it. "World Series of Poker Adventure" is also pretty good to practice against, and you can play 7-stud too. Also, you could try the play money games on Paradise Poker.
Is there a multiplayer hold'em computer game on the maarket. I would love to be able to play a game with friends from all over the country including some of you guys. I suggested this option as well as a mix of live/A.I. to Wilson's software but they just flat blew me off. I think it would be very beneficial to a computer game to be able to play live players on the net. Yahoo poker sux as we all know, and it takes forever bet. hands.
Anyone know of a MP game?
I own ALL the windows Wilson Software products and couple of the DOS ones. I had never played in a casino so I bought the programs (and the a bunch of books (S&M, Caro, Super System, etc.) and learned to play and had a positive cash flow relatively quickly. Wilson's software (and probably ALL software) is most valuable when learning a new game. Once you become proficient I find software to have a detrimental effect on my skills. Computer players do not play like like their flesh and blood bretheren, computer players cannot be read like their ten dimensional counterparts, nor do CPs "change their spots" or go on tilt or have bad days like people. After I became proficient in live games continued use of the software caused me to "unlearn" valuable table skills and go in with new bad habits. I only use the software now to briefly brush up when I'm about to go to the casino and haven't played in a while. This is NOT a knock against Wilson Software, which has saved me THOUSANDS in "tuituion". And Bob Wilson gives the BEST customer support I've ever experienced. However, software is only a booster rocket to be disengaged after climbing past the basics.
Try Hoyle Casino for windows. It allows you to hook up to the net and play live poker (for fake money). Just don't consider the competion to be any good unless you set up a private room and let only people you know to be sane players in the game. The norm is people to see any type of drawing hand to the end even for multiple raises.
Doc...
Go to Paradise Poker and download thier software. It is a pretty small download, and you can play for free (for fake money). It is pretty decent, and is good for practice on the basics, like hand reading, calculating odds on the spot. Unfortunately, when you are playing for fake money, it is hard to play good, because playing good is usually a boring grind, and not really worth it if you aren't making any money for your efforts. But if you really want to practice, I think Online may be a good place for you.
BTW...I have never played online for real money, so I won't offer advice on whether that is a good idea, but playing for play money will probably haelp your game a bit.
mike
The link to Paradise Poker is at the bottom left of your screen in the "Advertisers" section
Try IRC poker. Go to www.gocee.com/poker and click on "playing on the web". IRC has many different games with decent skill levels.
SuperSystem is one of the greats that I believe you should read. Bobby Baldwins section on limit hold em contains several universal truths about limit poker and will let you look at things from a different perspective.
Many times I'll sit at a table and not get a playable hand for two or three circuits. At the lower limits I realize that many of the players aren't even aware I've been mucking hand after hand, but there are a few that must. Therefore, would it be a better move to raise in early position with something like 89s, or should I wait for an "according to 2+2" starter to cement the image before trying to exploit the situation? My thoughts are if I'm fortunate enough to get a favorable flop with a Group 4 or 5 hand raised in early position then I'll get callers the rest of the day. Of course, if my first hand to go to showdown is AQs then I'll have an opportunity to win many smaller pots uncontested. Comments?
I'm not sure there's such a thing as "Rock Equity" in low-limit. I've sat at 4-8 mucking my cards for more than an hour on more than one occasion and when I did finally come in, the action plentiful. I don't think the average low-limit player believes that noticing how others tend to play has any value at all. They're just playing their cards whether good or bad.
But a couple of Lee Jones' comments I think are significant:
1) Wait for premium hands. When you get them you'll be amazed at the action you receive even though you play about 1 hand an hour.
2) You only have to play a little tighter than your competition to get the money.
These two comments seemingly oppose each other. The second one is more fun, but also more suseptable to tragic sessions.
It makes perfect sense to me.
Interesting you brought this up because I would like to discuss a situation that occured to me the other night. First let me say that mucking hand after hand can easily be interpeted as being dealt bad hands all night i.e 39, J6, K5, so it doesn't reinforce your image in any way to the other players. But what happened to me the other night was fascinating.
I sat down at a 5-10 game where I didn't know any of the players. I hadn't called a hand and I was UTG for the first time with KT off. The game was loose and semi-aggressive. I decided to muck the hand and when I threw them in, they hit the dealers hand and were exposed. Well, you should have heard the ooh's and aah's from the other players, "You don't play KT ", I smiled and made a witty remark and left it at that. About 20 minutes later I was UTG with AA and I raised, I was called by 4 players as well as both blinds making it 7 to see the flop. The flop came Kh,10h,6s. The blinds check to me, I bet, and would you believe it no one called! I was stunned, no flush, no straight draws, not even a K out there. As the last player folded he said, "you probably floped a set" This bizarre situation continued for the next four hours, raising my cards and rarely being chased past the turn. Now I did lose some hands but in about 70 to 80% of the hands I was in,the other players folded. I even started to explote the situtation by stealing pots whenever I was in the right position.
So, it seemed to me that on this day, I must have accidently created an image for myself by having my cards exposed early in the game, thus reinforcing in the minds of the other players what type of hands I might or might not play in a given situation or position.
Thus I feel, the first hand your opponents see from you should be a strong hand if you are trying to create any sort of image, first impressions seem to stick in the minds of the other players.
Not one player in ten will notice that you have been mucking hand after hand. Not one player in twenty will adjust his play when you finally DO enter a pot. The general rule of not trying to outwit idiots applies here--just wait for your hand, play it, take the pot, go back to sleep. Limit HoldEm is an exercise in applied boredom; you need exercise no skill whatsoever beyond realizing that K5 offsuit is NOT a good hand. You will get action on your good hands no matter WHAT you do--after all these players came to GAMBLE! Oooh, I called a raise with 93 offsuit and a 3 came on the flop!! Maybe a 9...or another 3!! will come on the turn...guess I'd better call these three raises! (etc.) Your strategem is actually not so bad, but I wouldn't put it in MY personal bag of tricks because it would be too easy to use it to break discipline if the cards are running badly (hey, 10-9 offsuit! Maybe I'll play it, and it'll help my "image"! Minus $60 later...).
these are good online poker hands.....First you guys (not you in particular)say that the bozos are all lousy to call with crap. then you guys advocate 2-3o as an occasional proper play. Not every one is a fish, and not all the superior players play good cards.
I'm a low limit player. When a player sits down to my right and doesn't play a hand for 3 rounds and suddenly opens with a raise, I'll usually give him credit for a hand and muck something like AQ. But if he's stuck and goes several rounds without a raise and suddenly comes out with one, I'll usually attribute it more to frustration and will be inclined to 3-bet with AJ or maybe AT. Obviously, you'll often know they're frustrated beforehand and will be sort of waiting for them to fire away after a few players have dropped. Overall, what to do depends more on where he's raising from than how long he's gone without raising.
Chris,
you advocate mucking A-Q, but will raise with A-J? I'm confused. I thought at low limit one had to show down the best hand to win. Shouldn't it matter how many players are in the pot? Are you taking shots at people, or being wise? What book did you read that in?
I think the best book written on low-limit play is no foldem holdem.
(Sorry to be so late in responding but I just noticed your post)
The different plays (mucking AQ, raising with AJ) are different because you are probably up against different hands. Calling with AQ against someone whose likely hands are AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT or AK is a terrible move. Just calling a steamer when you have AJ and letting the others in cheap is usually not optimal, but of course you want some reasonable chance of getting him head-up. True, you have to show down the best hand in a lot of low limit pots, but that's not the case for every hand or every game.
Good luck with Scherer's advice. Tom Weidman gave it a savage review on r.g.p. I don't go around popping them with 97o, ever (well, okay, not anymore), and especially not when they're just going to call with every T8. And I really don't think that you want them to attack your blind. And I think he's got the image idea backwards (how are you going to win with 97 if they think you're a goofball?). But there are some good tidbits, and I like the way he writes.
First of all it doesn't bother me anymore that people are e-mailing ,"to not respond ". That's great as there is some people who are over posting here.
The problem is that people such as Jim Brier, whose advice is mostly sound, is responding to, too many posts and giving some bad advice simply because he isn't taking the time to analyze situations thouroughly.
I mention this because I saw this happen when SKP and Dan Hanson first started posting here. They had something to say about every thread, and many times the advice was just plain..... well, I won't say it. If you don't believe me go through the archives and read some of their old stuff, it's quantity not quality.
More recently they have both slowed down and are more selective, and it shows. Now even SKP is in a magazine. Good for him! I still don't agree with everything he says, but it appears to be more thought out than before.
So please Jim and others, don't fall into the trap. I know I'm just one poster here, but I have over 25 years playing experience(winning experience) and I know that you others have similar. Don't disgrace yourselves with petty arguments with eacother over minutia etc. that is non poker related. seeya
Al,
I'm certainly no expert, but have found Jim's posts to be very well thought out and extremely helpful. He has profound knowledge of the game as well as a very profitable record. He is the kind of man who is willing to help where it is asked for. I have talked to him on the phone extensively so I speak with some authority although he needs no one to defend him.
I for one am grateful that he, and others ( yourself included) take the time to post here.
Based on your experience and success, I'll look foreward to reading your posts in the future. I'm sure others will as well. Some of us need all the help we can get.
Lou
i think Jims posts are for the most part great as well. But there have some where he totally didn't read the situation well before he responded. I know this comes from over posting rather than a lack of knowledge. Further I'm not trying to tute my own horn rather than make others aware of what happens when information overload sets in . seeya
So, Lou, tell me, what do you think of Jim?
Vince.
I'm not quite sure what motivated you to post this, but from posts you made about cliques on your Level 3 problem I'd say you were a tad bitter. Be that as it may you do bring up an interesting point. You used Jim, Dan and skp as examples and I'll add 1 more, badger. These people are not just giving of themselves to help others, although I'm sure they would if asked, they get much in return due to the give and take nature of this forum. Even a world champion like badger admitted that thrashing out the fundamentals helps him think about hands from a diffeent perspective at times. That's what this place does, gives you another perspective. When guys like Dan, Jim, John, Rick, skp, Vince, david, Abdul, Izmet (okay, they're two different people) go back and forth on a topic as seemingly straight forward as to what to do with AQ UTG we all benefit, including them. These are the cream of the cream and what luck it is for guys like me to be able to pick their brains and get a sense of what they're thinking about. Overposting?? Impossible. In this case it's a quantity of quality that makes it all work.
======
the Hold'em Forum is where Jim Brier, skp, and Dan H. primarily post. It's unlikely that, if placed in the other topics forum, it would receive the type of attention it deserves.
-Sincerely, Don't Be So Anal
Occasionally the champion of organizational clarity and consistency needs a break. My apologies for not being as omnipresent as I should be.
However, I must agree with Anal. This post is appropriate because of the characteristics of its subject -- Jim. Jim Brier is primarily a poster on the Hold'em Forum. Therefore it is appropriately placed here (note that I have not endorsed the substantive opinion of the original post).
I hope someone pointed out that if you don't want to read what someone else posts it is very easy to ignore it. I hope Jim Brier keeps posting as often as he feels like posting. I enjoy and learn from Jim's analysis. I believe others do as well. I don't read every post by Jim either. Ditto for others and yes I am glad to see Vince onboard again and I hope Rounder posts again sometime soon.
Your post is wrong,perhaps it is you who ar over posting.You suggest that the other posters have 25 yrs experience,many of us are just learning the game.Analysis by Jim,and Dan not to mention several others is invaluable.I appreciate the time they take to provide their insights,why anyone would want to put a negative spin on this is beyond me.Its all good.
but what if the advice isn't correct? You new players are exactly the ones that need protection. Because of the clique nature of the postings and the in abiltiy of those posters to accept that there is other points of view, you new players are not benifiting the way you think you are.
If you decide that a handful of posters are the "cream", without really knowing about them other than the onsite promoting of these people, then you are in for trouble.
There is subtle promotion going on here in order to get you to pick up Poker Digest, for one thing. I won't get into it further other than to say that I totally have the newer players best interest at heart. This is why I continually challenge these guys when I feel their advice is not up to par, since they are very highly regarded and touted as the cream. If they are the cream, then they better act like it.
Al,
You wrote
"Because of the clique nature of the postings and the in abiltiy of those posters to accept that there is other points of view,"
Other points of view?
You ask 1 question you get a different answer from every single one of the "cream".
If that's not other points of view I don't know what is.
There is tremendous comaraderie among what I would call the elite of this forum but regardless of how much they respect each other they don't hesitate for a second to call their cliquemates on a point if they think they've erred. We beginners benefit a great deal from that as do those posting.
First of all, with the exception of SKP who I have met in person exactly 4 times, I do not know any of these members of the 'clique', and have not even corresponded in private mail with them.
Second, those people you mentioned seem to disagree with each other as much as with anyone else, except in matters where there really are clearcut 'correct' strategies or hard mathematical facts. The reason Rounder keeps getting 'ganged up' on, is because he keeps repeating 'facts' that are clearly, objectively wrong.
Third, none of the people mentioned are shy about admitting when they are wrong. I just posted a message last night in which a brain fart caused me to make a rather gross mathematical error. I responded to myself with the heading "Oops. Kick me."
Fourth, I'm flattered to be considered part of a group that includes the rest of the people you mentioned, but I wouldn't presume to put myself at that level. I'm still learning the game like everyone else. However, I post a lot of messages because the best way to learn is to write - it forces you to clarify your thinking and analyze all the little nuances that might escape you if you just read the stuff. I have steered a lot of people to this forum, and I ALWAYS tell them to get involved and post, and not just read.
I agree and disagree.
I agree that when a more experienced player posts a question more thought is needed. However, I have never read a 'Jim Briar post' which was not both well thought out and insightful.
Also, you have to understand that many who read this forem are unclear on even the most basic concepts. Even a quick glance and response from the likes of Jim, Rounder, Dan, et al. can be very helpful to the inexperienced player.
you're right to add him to the list of "Chronic Over Posters". Holy $hit!, he respondes to practically Every Single Thread! He says he's going to take a break from posting, but it WON'T last, it never does-- he's addicted.
Randy
Please understand I am an insomanic sleep maybe 2-3 hours a night so at 3am I find myself reading this damn board. I am trying to quit. I quit smoking cold turkey 17 years ago and I can lick the 2+2 habit.
But please understand I post my best advice, strategy that works for me and I have had many a newby thank me for what I have advised.
Hope I have never led anyone astray.
12 steps:
(1)Admit you have an addiction to posting.
(2)Sell your computer(and not to your wife or kids).
(3)GET A JOB!
(4)Stop wearing woman's clothing [oops, wrong group]
(5)Intense Drug Therapy (any drug of choice will do).
(6)GET A JOB!
(7)Ah screw it, make it 6 steps.
Step one - admit to a higher power. Yes, there is a poker God.
I agree with the others but getting a job. Not a good Idea.
here's my question for you, al. when you listed the posters in the clique, i couldn't help but notice that my name was absent. you don't think i am in the cool crowd? well, i am!!! need i remind you that i was termed a superstar? next time you are bitter at the "big names" make sure you vent at me!
scott
.
noise
Al, I have an idea about your observations. I believe that you should join in more often and correct errors that you feel are made by myself and others. If I say something that you feel is wrong, that let us have the debate and everyone benefits. I would welcome specific constructive criticism, especially from someone with your experience.
I made a mistake by mentioning any names, especially your Jim, because I really like almost all of your postings, and noboby is perfect.
IT seems to me though that the clique I mentiuoned only seem to post to each others posts solely (excluding Jim who responds to everyone) and they go off on tangents over things that don't relate to the original posts etc., and they kiss eachother's ass.
Dan, I'm not attacking you or skp at all, in fact as I mentioned it's almost like someone else is now posting. If I had a problem with things you were posting I would write about it. At the same time I am very leary of some of the postersconsidered to be the creme of the crop. I know that this puts me in an unfavorable posisition, but I simply call it as I see it. I think too many of them are simply trying to make names for themselves or preserve reputations and the advice is mediocore. This is not noise, as with everything else, may the buyer beware. seeya
Al, no apology is necessary. I do not believe there is a clique on this forum at all. I have never met any of the regular posters on this forum. I believe that some posters are more aggressive than others and have a lot of opinions about this simple but beautifully complex game. After spending 1000+ hours per year at the tables it is hard not to have some feelings about it. Unfortunately in our game, you cannot really discuss strategy and tactics with your opponents so an outlet is needed. This forum provides that outlet.
ok, now we're getting somewhere. here is the alleged clique:
"abdul, Feeney, Brier, skp, Hanson, Sklansky, Malmuth , even Carson, Niebielio(whatever)"
you have now ammended your colmpaint (your quality complaint not your overposting complaint) to exclude jim, dan, and skp. this leaves abdul, john, david, mason, gary, and rick. i guess you're right. mason and gary are always kissing up to each other. and john and abdul never disagree. more specifically, who has a reputation to protect? just the authors as far as i can tell. are you claiming that their advice is mediocre?
i am sorry that noone responded to your post, but i thought that it was pretty clear. you represented a slowplay. a good play and a good post. esp if some people saw it who hadn't seen that play before. i just didn't have anything to say.
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
Looks like you forgot your smiley :) again scott.
:o
- Andrew
Al, the best service you can do for everyone in this forum when you see some advice that is mediocre, is to respond to the message and add your thoughts. No matter who's right, everyone including the original poster and you, benefit from that.
What we don't benefit from are attempts to censor people who are honestly trying to engage in quality debate. So what if some of those debators don't have the right answers? That's the way they and everyone else will learn.
If I've learned anything from being on the internet for years, it's that quality debate is extremely rare. This board has managed to maintain an extremely high signal-to-noise ratio, and that's a rarity. I would never tell someone who is posting honest questions or attempts at answers to ever stop - they are rare beasts.
okay, i stand corrected. Ill leave it there
Early position, 10 handed, 5-10. Players 1 and 2 fold. I bet with 3s,3d. Four callers, BB raises. All but 1 call including me.
Five players. Flop is 3s, Ks, 3c. I bet and it gets capped before the BB. BB folds.
Four players. Turn is As. I check (with intent of raising) but everyone else checks.
Still Four players + me. River is a 10h. I bet. everyone folds. What happened???
One player comments, "Aces-up, eh? I had Kings".
What did I do wrong (bet the turn?)? I never showed the quads.
I would not have bet the flop. You know with all that pre-flop raising that someone else would do it for you. Not betting here just disquises your hand a little more. I agree with your not betting the turn. I also agree with your bet on the river. Just one of those things, I guess. Good Luck! Black Jack
It's hard to figure what the re-raiser had on the flop (K-Q?) and almost impossible to figure what the capper had. It's also hard to play flopped quads, it happens so rarely.
Even more rare is having the pot capped when you have quads! Hard to figure anything at that pont. The only thing I would say is that you can sometimes turn a big pot into a monster pot by betting an apparent flush on the turn when you can beat a flush. But I too would have thought the turn card had to help someone, so I don't think it would be fair to say you did anything wrong. Bad luck no one caught a flush.
I like your check on the turn. It should have made money. Bad luck that it didn't. How many of the players in this game were slack-jawed and drooling? All of them?
Ratso, I would have CHECKED (and called) on the flop, and bet on the turn and river. But anyway YOU won. Great you bet on the end, nothing worse than having QUADS, you check on the river and they ALL check,then you have to turn them over!
Although this is a hold'em site I recently flopped quad 8s in an 9 handed Omaha (hi) game $30-60. I was in the SB, checked after the flop came 8h 8s Kh. Six players played on the flop and it was capped $120, all I could do was call with QUAD 8s. Turn a Jh, I checked again, bet, raise, re-raise, re-raise CAP..I called again. The river came a Qd, Now I bet and had four callers, BUT all I could do on the river was call, it was CAPPED for a third time.The four players had Ks full,Qs full, Ace flush and KQ heart flush (they both thought flush beat a full, normally does in a 7s up game).
Why is it that A2s thru A5s are not ranked higher than A6s thru A8s? Aren't these hands stronger due to their straight potential? Also, shouldn't A2 thru A5 be in at least group 8 as they have straight potential?
It seems like A-little (less then 6) would have enough value to make it into the hand groupings. J8 is there and J7s is there.
It also seems like A9 and A9s can be dangerous to play. If the flop comes x-y-A with x < 9 and y > 9 or 9-x-y with 9 < x < y < A or even 9-x-A with 9 < x < A you've a hand that can easily be quite costly.
I don't mean to dis the hand rankings. I think they're GREAT. But I think my intuition might be leading me down the path of error here.
Thanks
The straight potential of A2 thru A5 is a negligible factor because: 1. The straight these hands most often make, a wheel, requires three SPECIFIC cards. Thus, it's relatively rare. 2. Any straight these hands make, wheel or not, will never be the nut straight. You could flop your wheel and lose to something like 67. Therefore, the greater high-card power of A6-A9 outweighs the feeble value of the possible straights from A2-A5. The danger you mention with hands like A9 is quite real, and is the reason these hands are not ranked any higher than they are.
The values of A2s to A8s follow kind of a roller coaster ride. A2s is definitely the worst, and A8s is definitely the best, but in between it's all jumbled and squished together. To a first approximation, you can move A6s down between A2s and A3s, and then leave the rest in order.
Abdulian hand rankings put A3 through A6 at about the S&M hand rankings of K3s, K2s, T7s, and Q8s, which are actually above S&M's rank of A9! However, Abdulian hand rankings are intended for opening, and so we're talking about opening on the button here, where indeed aces are strong. S&M hand rankings are more general purpose. I don't think it's a problem for S&M's rankings to not include A2-A5, because you really do not want to be calling with these hands on the button after limpers. I'm pretty sure HfAP mentions somewhere that you can open on the button with any ace.
A2 and A2s really are significantly weaker than A3/A6 and A3s/A6s. This is because kickers are important for things other than the normal use of kickers, and when A2 flops or turns a straight, it's very vulnerable to getting beat by a higher staight.
S&M rank A9s below JT 76s 97s, and I already mentioned their low ranking of A9. Abdulian rankings put A9s way up with 77, KJs, QJs, and AJ, about where S&M's AQ resides! A9s is garbage in a raised heads up pot (unless your opponent is the big blind or stupid), but gold against a blind or after limpers. A9 is only playable as a late position opener or in late position against very loose limpers or sometimes in the blinds.
Note that I'm not nitpicking rankings, but just pointing out the general concepts that should sharpen your intuition. To summarize:
A3-A5 are on par with A6-A7, because straight potential offsets weaker kickers.
A2 really is much weaker than A3-A7.
A3-A7 (offsuit) are valuable for opening on the button, but not on the button after limpers.
The values of A9s and A9 are situation-dependent.
-Abdul
I am in a lose 3/6 game.....dealt A 8 suited...is it correct to always play with 5 callers or more....do you fold if there is a raise? stay on the flop with either 4 flush or 2 pair A'S AND 8'S fold all others?
Actually, I'd almost feel better flopping an 8 than an Ace with this hand. I would feel I had more outs (another 8 plus three Aces, 5 outs) than if I flopped an Ace (possible the three 8s are my only outs). If there's any action I have to fold an Ace-only flop. Keep in mind that A-8 suited only wins 5% more pots than A-8 offsuit (19-1 against making a flush when you start with suited cards). This is a marginal hand at best because you so rarely flop playing power; you flop chasing hands instead.
I agree with the above except to contend that the difference between A8s and A8 is significant.
A8s is an okay hand: play it early when you expect 5-7 players without a raise and pretty much always in the middle/late after limpers unless the game is tough. It's just not a big money maker. You should routinely play this hand from any position in most low stakes spread limit games.
A8 isn't much good for anything outside of shorthanded situations. Maybe on the button against a bunch of beatable limpers, but you won't find anyone arguing hard for this.
The idea that A8s only wins 5% more pots than A8 is incorrect and a bit misguided. It's incorrect because A8s will win pots that A8 will never see simply because it can stick around after the flop more often, as when you are drawing to a flush and spike the winning ace or when you get a free showdown or when you realize a bet on the end can pick up the pot. It's misguided because the number of winning pots has nothing to do with it: A8s will make you money and A8, if routinely played, will cost you a lot of money.
If you know there will be (or there already are) 5 players in the hand in an unraised pot, you have to see the flop with A8s. This is a low limit game and if you can't see the flop with this hand then what kind of hands are you playing. One small bet is definitely worth it to see if you catch the nut flush draw. In a 3-6 game your opponents are probably playing with even worse starting requirements. Of course, if an A falls and there is any kind of action you must dump it.
Yes it is correct to limp in with A-8 suited with several other limpers as long as you do not have to call a raise. If the pot is raised ahead of you, you should fold rather than call 2 bets cold. Of course you stay on the flop with a flush draw or two pair. You should also stay with top pair if they are 8s with your top kicker and frequently raise. Whether you stay on other flop holdings depends on the texture of the board and the betting action so there is no simple answer.
Please note Chris Alger's excellent observations about the playability of Ace-8 suited versus Ace-8 offsuit.
Played at HG last night and wrote down some hands early in my session: 3-6 HE
1)
I sit down and instantly get a hand as the button is one to my left. I'm dealt AQo. When the action gets to me 3 have limped in and I still don't have chips -- I motion to call (I don't like raising with hands like this because I think I need a favorable flop in low limit, so I prefer to see the flop cheaply). Button calls as does the blind. Flop comes AKK. It's checked to a middle position limper who bets. I'm next and I raise. My thinking is that I want to see where I stand and possibly buy the button or even take the pot right then. Button calls, fold, fold, fold, fold, call by the initial bettor. Turn is blank, action is checked to me and I check. Button checks. People look at me funny. River is blank. initial bettor bets and I call. She shows K9 and I muck without showing (people look at me funny again). Was this hand played correctly?
2)
I'm dealt JJ in BB. 4th to act raises. A couple of callers and I call. 4 see a flop of AKx with 2 hearts. It's one bet to me. I fold. Initial raiser has 99 and loses to TT. Was I correct to fold in the face of an early raise pre-flop and the flop of AKx when it's one bet to me?
Thanks
1) You have to raise with AQo in this position to get as many small bets in the pot as possible when you likely have the best hand. Your raise on the flop was good and you definitely should have bet the turn, if it's checkraised I would probably fold. If it's called and checked on the river then I would check it down as you're likely only to be called by a better hand.
2) It was a good fold.
On both of these questions, as Roy Cooke would put it, "it depends" (on the players). In the absence of such knowledge...(1) A pre flop raise would be warranted if a raise could get the blinds out. If so, raise, if not just call. AQo plays best against a small(er) field. Isolate if possible, but what you don't want to do is build a big pot that keeps draws/2nd pair/3rd pair in. (2) Without knowing the players - and if they would damn such torpedoes (A,K) - a fold is definitely in order. Normally you can safely put one of them on an A or K making your hand a two outer or back door straight - and even a jack on the turn or river could make someone a straight.
Much has been written on this forum lately about raising preflop for reasons other than limiting the field. With AQo raise to magnify the mistakes( credit to Jim Brier) of those who have entered the fray with substandard hands.
1) I am OK with the limp, assuming the game is fairly loose and unlikley to do anything but build the pot. And that the limpers are not playing any two cards. A raise is also good.
I like the way you played the hand the rest of the way.
2) Correct.
On the first hand you should raise with AQ offsuit in the cutoff seat when 3 limpers come in. With no one raising you probably have the best playing hand and should force the button and blinds to face an increased wager if they choose to take a flop. On the flop your raise is good because unless someone has a King you have the best hand. When the button cold-calls your raise, your concern should heighten. Unless he is a complete looney tune, he could easily have a King. Your check on the turn is excellent given the button cold-caller. The button checking denies a King. Except for the failure to raise pre-flop, you played correctly on this first hand.
Your fold on the flop given two over cards and the presence of a pre-flop raiser is absolutely correct.
In the previous hand that John posted:
1) John knew his opponent did not have a J.
2) Opponent new that John knew that he did not have a Jack. Since opponent knew that John knew this, opponent would find representing trips a reasonable play.
3) John knew that opponent knew that he, John, knew that opponent did not have a Jack. Since John knew all of this he knew it was reasonable for his opponent to represent having trips but not having them.
I honestly believe that at some level John was thinking this way. Whether it is right to check and call or bet and call a raise is open to debate for sure. In light of this is at all possible that John actually did induce a bluff raise?
In light of this is at all possible that John actually did induce a bluff raise?
Yes, of course John induced a bluff raise. He played in a way that begged for a bluff raise, and he got it. This is the main reason it would be such a sin to lay down the hand to the raise. If you play straightfowardly against thinking opponents, then you can try to make some good laydowns. If you play tricky, you have to keep in mind that you could have tricked your opponent, and reading his hand will be harder, not easier.
Regardless of whether Feeney was thinking at level 3, it sounds like he'll misplay it next time.
-Abdul
I do think the issue of whether or not John was thinking at level 3 is important here. From John's description I believe that his opponent was thinking at least at level 2.
Well, I see Abdul is still tilting a little over something. Discussion of this hand has for some reason moved him to name-call and take pointless little jabs. That's too bad because it seems to have caused him to miss some key points.
Maybe the least important point for the discussion is how I would play the next time in a similar situation. Anyway… it would depend on whether the situation was analogous to the one I posted, or was like the actual situation I played. (It can be difficult accurately to capture all the relevant elements in writing and I failed with regard to my statements about image.) But if it were like the situation I played, and I found myself facing the same decision of whether or not to call the raise on the end, I'd call. I certainly never said otherwise. Abdul missed that. Most likely, however, I would not find myself facing that decision, because I would check instead of betting. If I erred in this hand it was in betting. But to go one more step, if I had more information, and it suggested that the opponent were likely *enough* to bluff-raise, then yes, I would bet to try to induce a bluff-raise. To have such a read on an opponent is rare though, and the check-call would usually be the prudent way to go. (Whether or not this opponent was that likely to bluff-raise here, or I just caught a rare bluff-raise from him I don't know. But Abdul is off base to suggest that lots of players would just routinely bluff-raise here as a result of how I played the hand. Some would of course, but I've played enough hands the same way I did here, and seen others do so many, many times without seeing the opponent raise on the river very often at all. David's point about how my play could signal a much stronger hand than what I had suggests why this is.) At any rate, I'm glad Abdul so passionately supports how I did play the hand on the river. ;-)
As for the levels of thinking, I was indeed aware that this guy might think that I thought he was on a bluff on the turn and that I had therefore tried to resteal from him. So I knew he might be trying to resteal on the river. I knew that my play on the turn might have led him to think that way. (I just disagree with Abdul about the frequency with which players make the bluff-raise on the end. But I was certainly aware that he might be doing this.) But my decision to call was probably more heavily influenced by my read of his hand. It was tough to put him on many hands that made sense given the action and what I'd seen of his play so far - other than a bluff, that is.
As an aside, I'm still a bit amazed that given the board of J-5-3-6-3, and having been check-raised on the turn and bet into on the river, Abdul says that:
If I were in the opponent's shoes, I would be value-raising on the river with hands that KJ beats…
The opponent almost surely didn't have a jack in his hand. So Abdul would value raise with, say, A6s or maybe 22 or ace-high?? I still hope he'll will explain *that* one.
But if it were like the situation I played, and I found myself facing the same decision of whether or not to call the raise on the end, I'd call. I certainly never said otherwise. Abdul missed that.
I can perhaps be forgiven for getting the impression that you would fold when you wrote:
"You see, I think DS and RZ are *very right* in their analyses. And if they'd been there advising me to fold, I would have folded."
I understand now that you were actually saying that they misinterpreted the situation, but I don't feel that they did. I don't think the advice was good when facing competent opponents, nor aggressive opponents, and they should have assumed he was fairly competent and extremely aggressive. Also, a very tight image attracts tons of bluff raises; I see this when Mason plays, and no offense whatsoever is intended by this comment.
The opponent almost surely didn't have a jack in his hand. So Abdul would value raise with, say, A6s or maybe 22 or ace-high?? I still hope he'll will explain *that* one.
In the opponent's shoes, I would value raise with QJ and JT, but certainly nothing much weaker. (It's hard to imagine how I could hold QJ or JT, so it would make the raise all the more confusing and valuable. :) 65s and 77-TT are possible candidates for a raise, but risky. If given my incomplete information about Feeney I thought there was a 50% chance that Feeney would fold a jack if he held a jack, it would probably make sense to raise with those hands, without even knowing whether it was a bluff or value raise.
Discussion of this hand has for some reason moved him to name-call and take pointless little jabs.
You have to admit that the nose fits, but it seems to bother you. Seriously, I thought it was funny, but you don't, and I had already stopped calling you that, so that's the end of it. You just seem to take authors' words on blind faith, while discounting others, and I just encourage you to consider all information and come to your own conclusions.
I don't think checking and calling is the best play on the river, and so you'll make a mistake on the river the next time by my judgment. It's not 1/20th as big a mistake as betting and mucking to a raise, however, so if you were at all influenced by the fold-to-the-raise advice, it would probably indeed be better if you just check and call in almost every situation.
I've seen a 3-bet cold bluff on the river in LA 40-80. I've seen dozens of 3-bet cold bluffs on the turn in LA 40-80. (Not semibluffs - 3-bets with two unconnected undercards and zero outs to top pair. These sometimes get shown after the opponent mucks.) I've seen many bluff raises on the river in LA 40-80, of course. And how many more did I not see, because they were successful? These players put tons of moves on, especially if you beg them to via slowplaying or having a tight image. They're not as good as Vegas pros, but they're more aggressive. The time to make good laydowns is not on the river versus LA 40-80 semi-pros. It would also be unwise on the river against near optimal players, in my opinion.
-Abdul
Now, to answer the original question, as I recall the levels go:
Level one: What you think your opponent has. Level two: What you think your opponent thinks you have. Level three: What you think your opponent thinks you think he has.
So the question is, was John thinking of what his opponent thought John thought his opponent held?
I think John thought his opponent thought John thought his opponent could plausibly have a 3, even though I think his opponent could not plausibly have a 3. So yes, there was some level three going on, I think.
John's statements were not quite at that depth:
So I figured this guy to be a move maker, the raise just looked suspicious to me given the board and his previous actions, and I called... I'm thinking that TA may indeed have been playing against my image, but that his way of thinking about it was just that you can sometimes get a tight player to lay down a hand... My "feel" for the situation was that this guy was not beyond a move on the river.
Level one: You view your opponent as aggressive. Level two: You think your opponent views you as weak-tight. Level three: You think your opponent knows that you think he views you as weak-tight and you view him as aggressive.
Level three thinking here would tend to argue against paying off your opponent. If he knows that you think he might put a move on you, then he would be less inclined to put a move on you. John is saying that he thought his opponent was thinking at level one (viewing John as weak-tight), so John only went to level two, and rightfully so.
-Abdul
I agree with both parts of your analysis, I think...
You write:
I can perhaps be forgiven for getting the impression that you would fold when you wrote:
"You see, I think DS and RZ are *very right* in their analyses. And if they'd been there advising me to fold, I would have folded."
You can be forgiven, but not on the basis of that sentence. You left out my sentence immediately before that one:
Had I left out the image comments would a fold still have been warranted?
Obviously I was saying I thought they were right in their analysis given the information I had presented, and had already pointed out in the same post that I felt I had provided some misleading information which may have influenced their analyses. Ray even said:
no one in their right mind would raise you here without being able to beat a monster. remember you gave the parameters for how they judge you.
So my comments about my image did figure into his analysis.
My comment about how I'd respond if they had been there advising me was simply to say that I felt they were analyzing the situation correctly given the information presented, and that I respect their abilities enough that if they had been there, advising a fold, which might suggest the situation was a little different from how I had seen it at the time, I'd have gone with their judgment. With all due respect, you'd be well advised to do the same.
I understand now that you were actually saying that they misinterpreted the situation, but I don't feel that they did.
I hope I've shown that it was I who misrepresented the situation. It's close to what Gary Carson said in his post, with the exception being that I do think I had a reasonably accurate feel for my image at the time of the hand (which is one reason I called). But I did not reconstruct it accurately or thoroughly enough when I tried to recreate the situation in my original post. But maybe you're saying that the guy would often have bluff-raised on the river even if he saw me as a tight nut peddler (the image I think I conveyed in the post) who would never check-raise bluff or semi-bluff on the turn, who if he did check-raise would only do so with a hand too strong even to consider folding to a raise on the river. It is of course possible that he would do this, just as an impulsive overplaying of his hand. But with that as the only possibility folding is not nearly as bad an option as you make it out to be.
Also, a very tight image attracts tons of bluff raises; I see this when Mason plays, and no offense whatsoever is intended by this comment.
Yes, this is what I said in one of my posts - that if the guy was responding to my tight image it was probably only in the sense that he figured that as a tight player I might be raised off my hand. And I take no offense and doubt Mason would either. I've never known a winning player who didn't have a tight image - including some who try not to. If you'd implied some other kind of image, then I might take offense. :)
You write that with a board of J-5-3-6-3, after being check-raised on the turn and bet into on the river:
In the opponent's shoes, I would value raise with QJ and JT… (It's hard to imagine how I could hold QJ or JT…)… 65s and 77-TT are possible candidates for a raise, but risky
This still kind of amazes me. First, as you suggest, any jack was near impossible for my opponent here. That leaves 65s (also impossible) and 77-TT (also impossible). That leaves nothing - except the hands like A6s or 22 that I mentioned. But even if we go ahead and talk about a hand I didn't play, your raise with QJ or TT, etc. still amazes me. You could value raise these hands if you have x-ray vision and can put your opponent confidently on a 6 or a 5, but the range of possible hands suggested by the check-raise on the turn (including sets, two pair, or a straight, as well as a bluff) precludes that in real life. It's almost like you're advocating the play of a near maniac. It really is if you would actually value raise with any of the hands less than KJ that my opponent could reasonably have. But maybe that's how thin you try to stretch your value raises. I wish you well with it, but I don't think anyone succeeds in stretching them that thinly on any kind of routine basis.
If given my incomplete information about Feeney I thought there was a 50% chance that Feeney would fold a jack if he held a jack, it would probably make sense to raise with those hands, without even knowing whether it was a bluff or value raise.
Okay. That's simply like saying, "If I know a player is relatively likely to make a tough laydown, then I should often raise him." Of course the problem is that while a good player is capable of tough laydowns, if he's quite good he'll know when you might be trying to take advantage of that and will then be more likely to call.
Quoting my observation that:
Discussion of this hand has for some reason moved him to name-call and take pointless little jabs.,
You write:
You have to admit that the nose fits, but it seems to bother you.
It bothers me because it's "noise", a waste of time, a distraction. And you should be above it. It also bothers me a very tiny bit because, like nearly any fully functioning human being I don't particularly enjoy being called childish names. But it's just so silly that it's easy to quickly write off. It does, however, suggest some hostility toward me. That's slightly upsetting because I don't know what I did to trigger it, and don't feel I deserve it. Moreover, FWIW, it lowers my regard for you as a person. And I'd rather hold you in higher regard.
Seriously, I thought it was funny, but you don't, and I had already stopped calling you that, so that's the end of it.
Your comment that …it sounds like he'll misplay it next time, was obviously an unnecessary dig too. You and anyone reading it know that. In any case, that it is in the past should not prevent examining what irked you and triggered such stuff, and offering an apology.
You just seem to take authors' words on blind faith, while discounting others, and I just encourage you to consider all information and come to your own conclusions.
That I have often agreed with Sklansky and Malmuth while disagreeing with you does not imply blind faith. I can see how you would think it does, as you undoubtedly think you've been right in most of those disagreements. Perhaps you'd like to see me support your side in those things more often. Well then, BE RIGHT MORE OFTEN! ;-) But seriously, in a number of instances, after weighing the arguments and considering my own opinion (often formed independent of any reading of or contact with David or Mason) I have simply concluded that I agreed with those guys. That is not to say that I disagree with most of what you write. I don't. But when you get into the tricky issues over which you disagree with them, I've usually found their arguments more compelling. Of course it's true that in many instances I went into it already familiar with the underlying reasoning for and already holding the same opinion they expressed.
Abdul, I think you're smart guy, but I sometimes wonder if your investment in being independent, a maverick if you will, may actually cost you. Perhaps in many areas the wheel has already been invented. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that and using it.
I've seen a 3-bet cold bluff on the river in LA 40-80. I've seen dozens of 3-bet cold bluffs on the turn in LA 40-80…
I've seen lots of stuff too. But as I said I've seen many hands played on the flop and turn as I played this one, and they've encountered raises on the river infrequently. But my (recent) experience in L.A. poker is very limited. As I expect to be there about once a week in the coming months, maybe I'll find the move making to go beyond what I've seen there so far or here in San Diego. I'll report back.
Tom, I don't believe that in a full tabled limit hold-em game there is a lot of money to be made by deciding whether or not to make a marginally correct or incorrect call on the end. All of this multi-level thinking and image stuff would be better suited to a pot limit game or a no limit game. How far wrong can anyone be in this situation by simply calling? I think we are splitting hairs here over a fraction of bet.
The real debate should take place on the flop and on the turn where a discussion concerning the check-raise strategy should be conducted. You guys are focusing on the wrong thing.
I understand and for the most part I agree. I am not bringing this up because I think it will make a big difference to your bottom line. I just bring this up because I find the situation that John was in on the river to be very interesting. When I used the word important I was using it in determining the most profitable play on the river based on all of the action through the turn. For instance perhaps the following is true:
1) Against a level 1 player bet and fold if raised. Level 1 only tries to read your hand.
2) Against a level 2 player check and call. Level 2 tries to read your hand and thinks about what you think they have.
3) Against a level 3 player bet and call if raised. Level 3 tries to read your hand, thinks about what you think they have, and thinks about what you think they think they have.
I said perhaps these are right and I only bring them up because I find it to be interesting from a theoretical point of view. Perhaps agains all three levels it is correct to check and call.
One more thing. Perhaps at $30-60, $40-80 and above it is important to your bottom line. I don't know because admittedly I don't play $40-80.
I agree, Jim, that the very last decision on the end was not a big deal. But discussion of the overall approach going *into* the river has been warranted IMO. Bet-fold, bet-and-call-the-raise, check-call (or even check-raise--fold (threw that one in for Abdul;) or call?
As for the flop and turn, one thing I'll add is simply that I didn't mean to give any impression that I support *routinely* checking twice then raising. But it has its place as do almost all manner of ways of playing hands at one time or another.(For an example of such a play with a different purpose see, e.g., p. 235 of HPFAP-21.) In this instance, I tried it as a quick way of nudging my image from tight/passive toward tight/unpredictable/aggressive. I don't know if that's how it was seen. As Tom and others have pointed out it may have induced the bluff-raise. But not long after, the game got short-handed and experienced some player turn over, pretty much obscuring whatever effect this one hand had on how others viewed me. It didn't seem to hurt anyway.
Is there a multiplayer hold'em computer game on the maarket? I would love to be able to play a game with friends from all over the country including some of you guys. I suggested this option as well as a mix of live/A.I. to Wilson's software but they just flat blew me off. I think it would be very beneficial to a computer game to be able to play live players on the net. Yahoo poker sux as we all know, and it takes forever bet. hands.
Anyone know of a MP game?
There are plenty of options.
Probably the best option is IRC poker. Other options include free play at Paradise Poker. If these free options don't satisfy you, I think Sklansky's Poker Night also has multi-player options as well.
- Andrew
I was trying to persuade Bob Wilson to include net connectivity into his excellent Turbo programs some time ago, but he had his reasons not to do it for now. I'm sure he could be persuaded, though, if enough people apply some pressure on him via email.
I think this would be a great addition, as one could play poker over the Net with a friends and fill the seats with computer profiles if necessary.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I'm a new poster but have been enjoying this forum for a few months, and would be delighted to get the insightful responses that seem to be almost standard here!
Here's a hand I played in a pretty loose and aggressive 6-handed game:
I get KJo on the button. UTG calls, next player, sane, tricky and aggressive (STA), raises, and I reraise, with the idea to limit the pot to at most the three of us, and assuming that STA could have raised with almost anything but the weakest hands (he is sane after all). Blinds fold, UTG and STA call.
Flop is TJ2 rainbow. UTG checks, STA bets, I raise, UTG folds, STA calls.
Turn is an A, I don't really like that card. STA bets, I raise mainly because of my assumption he does not actually have an A, and still could be holding almost anything. But then STA reraises and that makes me think he does have an A. I call.
River is another A. Now I think it's less likely he has an A. STA bets, I raise, STA reraises, I call, although being pretty much convinced I am beaten.
STA shows A5s. Indeed.
My questions are:
1) With what type of hands would STA's play actually have been correct? Was it correct for A5s?
2) Was I too agressive preflop? on the turn? On the river? I would say no, yes, yes, but that may depend on the answer to 1).
3) If this play was too aggressive for a 6-handed table, would it have been ok for, say, a 3-handed table?
4) Any other comments about my muddled thinking are welcome!
Steven
KJo is not a good hand. even against a maniac (which both you and this "sane" player appear to be.) i would fold it facing an non steal raise. even shorthanded.
also your turn raise is very bad. tons of raising hands have an A. i just call down from here. and i expect to lose.
scott
Same as in the thread with the guy who raised with KK with xyJJ on the turn and then called the 3-bet, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?! If you're going to raise there, it should be because you're willing to fold to a three bet. If you don't want to fold to a three bet, then don't raise. Passively calling down your opponent is an option, probably the preferred one, here.
Same thing on the river. Your opponent raised preflop. He probably does have an ace just based on that. He confirmed that fact on the flop and turn. Don't give him a chance to 3-bet you on the river, especially if you feel that you have to pay it off.
Preflop I don't like your 3-bet. It would be perfect if there was not the limper in the pot. The limper protects the pot a bit. Even though you think the raiser is overaggressive, I would expect to see a quasi-legitimate hand there, like a minimum of A5s. His raise is reasonable, because he basically knows the limper does not have an ace or a pair (unless he is planning a limp-reraise.) It's a gutsy borderline play, but I like it if the limper plays weak after the flop. Raising also helps eliminate any bigger aces behind and can buy the button.
I suggest folding KJ here preflop.
I'm surprised he continued on the flop. He is likely in trouble against a 3-bettor, having at most 3 outs against a bigger ace or a medium pair. I think betting and folding to a raise is his best option on the flop, though he could also consider a check-raise or check-fold.
-Abdul
You both played it too loose. As already mentioned you probably shouldn't have called the raise pre-flop,
But I really like your aggressiveness. Although I wouldn't have played in this spot, the fact that you re-raised with it instead of just calling is a good sign, not the sign of a lunatic.
You just need to be holding better cards when you decide to come in behind a raise, but don't change the aggressiveness.
On the turn, the reason you might want to just call when you think the other player is bluffing is so you can get 2 bets from him instead of one. If he didn't have an ace when you raised, he probably would have folded(but who knows), but if you just call, then he might bet into you again on the river,... and if he has the ace, you lose less.
Against a pre flop raise, you still need to have a very good hand to re-raise even against a loose raiser. goodluck, seeya
I think you WAY over played your hand here! KJ is not a hand you want to 3-bet a sane early position player who just raised an UTG caller. I will raise a weak player or someone who might be on a steal, but that's about it. Although, in a short handed game, depending on it's mood, some may try to steal and isolate from anywhere. So while I question your 3-bet here, but I'm not saying it's incorrect.
You were right to raise the flop. On the turn when you make this type of raise, it's usually because your'e willing to call the hand down, so you get your two bets in right away and see if your opponent can play back. If he does, you should usually lay the hand down right there. He's telling you your'e beat! If you're NOT willing to lay it down (you think he's bluffing) than your'e better off the just call the hand down.
When he bets the river you have an easy call. You've made the pot so big you HAVE to call. But RAISE?!!! Why on earth would you subject yourself to a raise here? Very bad play IMHO.
Pre-flop you should fold when faced with a legitimate raise from an early position player after someone limps in under the gun. The raiser could easily have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK,AQ,AJ suited, or KQ suited. KJ offsuit is severely crippled against most of these hands and you are in mortal danger of developing an expensive second best hand. Re-raising is very bad poker since you are making a major commitment of bets here with a grossly inferior hand. Keep in mind that tricky players get good cards as well as the rest of us and they will bet and raise with them too.
On the flop, your raise with top pair/excellent kicker is correct since you want to see where the pre-flop raiser is at and you might have the best hand. When the Ace comes off and he bets into you after you have 3 bet pre-flop and then he lead into you on the flop, a fold is AUTOMATIC. You could be dead to a Jack. It is insane for you to continue on at this point.
Your whole line of play after this was terrible poker.
Now for your questions:
1. STA's raise pre-flop with Ace-little suited from early position with only a single limper is not good poker. A good player would be raising pre-flop with the kinds of hands I itemized earlier in this post. Even limping in is marginal but okay if it is a loose passive game where he can be confident it won't get raised pre-flop.
2. You were insanely aggressive on all streets.
3. In a shorthanded game, especially 3 handed, then your play pre-flop is good. It was still too aggressive post-flop.
Raising to isolate, raising because you have better position, etc. should be done with good cards. King-Jack offsuit is a troublesome hand, barely worth a call in some cases. You need to read some hold-em books like HPFAP or Lee Jones book " Winning Low Limit Hold-em".
Everyone else has said a lot about the technical aspect of this situation. I just want to add a little about the player you choose to get involved with in a pot.
If you describe him as TRICKY, that means that you cannot value bet him with confidence at the end. I would hesitate to get involved with him in a pot unless I have a premium hand in that spot.
I would also consider my very own image before I 3 bet with a payoff hand like that.
I won't comment on your play up to the turn because it seems debatably correct for this circumstance. However when he leads into you on the turn you should really put him on an ace. Raising him here is suboptimal because he is really aggressive meaning that he will three bet you with most hands that can beat you and because he might bluff the river if you just call on the turn. I also don't like raising him on the turn and then folding if he three bets you because you have maby outs to beat even a hand like A10 (any Q or J).
From the description of this hand the opponent sounds more like a maniac then a tricky player. No sane opponent would bet into this flop against a three bettor then call the three bettors raise with A5. Sounds like a very profitable game to me.
Oh I said I wouldn't mentioned it but I would have probably just called pre-flop because he isn't going to be intimidated by your three bet and because he could have a better hand then you. I think that playing this hand is profitable because if you hit the flop you are probably going to get lots of action.
I think your preflop reraise would have been a reasonable, aggressive play in a 5-handed game (or less)--provided the UTG limper was a weak/loose player.
As for the rest of your play...well, I pretty much agree with the concensus.
I agree it was played maniacally. I should have titled the post 'thoughts of a maniac'. I mainly wanted to know when that type of aggressiveness would be (kind of) correct, and the responses just told me that. Thx!
BTW, this was played on the internet and it didn't cost me any real money. The 'sane' opponent STA is a very good player who sometimes uses a different handle to try out insane tactics. Since he was wearing his insane hat at that point, I thought he might have been bluffing, but your advice was still correct for that case, and useful in any case.
I think you should have pointed out that it was not for money in the first post.
This is because without money (or some form of risk) any card game is not truly poker.
You probably would not have received as detailed posts as you did. The comments would have been restricted to "you both played like maniacs" and left at that.
I would not have read this thread had I known of the "no money" detail.
Regards Mike N
Sorry about that, Mike!
It was not on purpose that I did not mention that the hand was played on the internet. But with hindsight I am glad I didn't, since I, too, want to know how to play in a real poker game with real money and did not want the simple reply: 'you played like maniacs'! Next time I'll be more careful.
Hope that explains it a bit!
Steven
It does make a lot more sense that this wasn't being hand wasn't being played for money. Just keep in mind that your raise on the river could never have been correct since you weren't going to scare out any hand that could beat you (an A) and your opponent was representing a much bigger hand then he had like something like A10.
Also playing without money is simply not good practice and it could even be potentially destructive to your game because it convinces you that people in real games play like your opponent did.
Shawn Keller
I was playing in a loose/passive 3-6 game yesterday afternoon. Many players seeing the flop, little raising before the flop, and when there was, players would call relectantly, assuming the raiser had something. Whether or not there was a raise, the flop would more often than not be checked around. Players would dump on the turn. Aside from playing good starting hands, I also tried raising with Ax suited BTF from anywhere. My thinking was the best time to get money into this pot, with 6 (usually 8) players willing to place two bets, was BTF. If the flop missed, all I cost myself was an extra small bet (assuming I would normally limp in for one in this game, and there was little fear of a reraise--unless someone had AA or KK) and I gained 5-7 if I hit a flop with a four-flush (which, if bet, would cause 3-4 players to fold.) Then there was the implide odds making the flush if the flop hit me. These pre-flop raises also gained me a certain amount of respect and control of the game. (As a matter of fact, I used this game to practice check-raising and picking situations to raise when I normally would call. This aggressive play rattle them--they were used to only occasionaly raising and check-raising sent them through the roof.) I had a great session, pulling down $200. But the question is, was I lucky in raising with Ax suited before the flop against passive players, or is this something to be avoided? Thanks.
Ax suited is the kind of hand that plays well against many players - thanks to implied odds. It is in the same category as suited connectors and small pairs. If you're in late position, there is no raiser, and there are a lot of people already in, it is certainly o.k. to raise with this hand with the intent of making the pot bigger. You're likely to get paid big time if you connect. If you pair the Ace on the flop, your kicker is very small, and you don't have any good draws, be very careful - you're the one who could end up paying big time.
I think it depends on what the x is. I would raise from any middle or late position if no one had raised and I would raise if I thought I could dump players yet to speak.
Raising with A-little suited is a bad idea regardless of how many players limp in. You are actually lowering your implied odds by raising with this hand because the pot you win when you do win will not be twice as large just because you doubled your pre-flop investment. In addition, there is always the possibility of a re-raise which you will be obliged to call thereby costing you 3 bets to take a flop. In addition, by making the pot larger you actually put yourself in many marginal and difficult situations post-flop. For example, suppose you miss your flush draw but an Ace flops giving you top pair but a weak kicker? Given the large pot, you may have difficulty getting away from the hand. Yet this can easily be a trap holding since you can be faced with very few outs but a large pot. Or suppose you flop bottom pair and a backdoor flush draw? Again, because of the large pot you may be drawn into trying to see the turn.
I'm confused about this as well. It seems to me that if raising with AXs is correct it's best purpose is to tie players on to the pot and have them face off against each other while you draw to the nuts.
This strategy doesn't sound like it would work in the game you describe. On the other hand, consider what you wrote: "Whether or not there was a raise, the flop would more often than not be checked around. Players would dump on the turn." This is a pretty good game and unless (or perhaps until) it will change the pattern you want to be involved and raising with Axs and medium/small pairs.
Thanks for all the advice so far. Yes, I realized that flopping an ace would be trouble. Luckly, most of these players were either checkers or callers. When I hit an ace and thought I was in trouble, I could check with reasonable assurance that it would checked around. If someone bet, it ment they had an ace. One advantange of the pre-flop raise in this game was it made everyone skittish, and unwilling to come out betting unless they had a strong hand. This gave me a lot of free cards. By the posts, I can see where this type of play will cost me in the long run. It seems like it is probably better to use it for deception once in a while, but get in cheap mostly. Yes?
x
Regardless of whether you raise or not preflop with Ax suited, the chances of making a flush with any two suited cards is around 6%, 1 out of 16.
Now you must ask yourself if you can outplay the field you are up against enough to give up that kind of action. Keep in mind that flopping an ace to your hand is trouble.
Raising preflop against a weak field may get you a lot of free turn cards but is it worth it with Ax suited. I would prefer to play the hand unraised preflop and wait for a favorable situation on the flop before I commit a lot of chips to this holding.
Good luck.
Specs - I play in 3-6 and 4-8 hold'em games that are often loose and passive. When there are a lot of pre-flop callers and very little raising, just like your game, there are 3 hand types that I like the most: AXs, suited connectors, and all pairs. But if the game gets just a little bit more aggressive, with a couple of players who raise more often, the first of these groups that I stop playing is the AXs. Your deliberate raising with this one (as expressed in the other posts) definitely has a negative EV. The suited connectors and the small pairs can take a raise (with 5+ people in) with much less loss of EV. In fact, David, in one of the books, uses 87s as an example where you can mix up your play by raising, when you are sure you have enough callers, while basically "breaking even" in EV.
Here's my simplistic reasoning. You will make your flush about 5% of the time, and except for long-shot miracles of two pair, trips, or a full house, that is all AXs is good for. Flopping an Ace can lose you a lot of money. The suited connectors, on the other hand, have twice as much chance of making you a winning hand - a flush or a straight (I know, you don't win with all of them ...); and the generally accepted number for your chances of winning with a small pair is about 10% (you flop a set about 12% of the time but you don't win them all).
So, your idea of adding aggression would be accomplished better if you did the same thing, but with pairs and/or suited connectors instead of with AXs.
Dick
$5-$10 I'm 1 right of button with 8c8s. I call after 3 limp and button raises. Blinds fold the rest call 5 see the flop of 2c 3h 4h. Middle position player bets.
I have to say I'm not liking my hand very much. Yes I have an overpair to the board but, hell, who doesn't? I have a preflop raiser behind me so even if I'm not drawing dead any overcard hits and I'm toast. There's a two flush, possible straight, a 5 gives any ace a straight and a guy betting into the preflop raiser, not even waiting to checkraise (Jim, were you at the Taj this morning?). On the other hand I could very easily have the best hand right now. Button could have raised with a big ace or KQs or the like. MPP could be betting a flush draw. So, I raise. All call. So, with that info I feel a bit better that I'm not dead yet.
Turn card is a 7c adding another flush draw to the mix.
Checked to me I bet, Button raises, EP folds MPP reraises and I fold. Button calls.
River was the 6h. MPP bets button called.
Comments?
I think you played correctly. You limped in with you pocket Eights and called a raise from behind. On the flop you raised with your over pair as you should and got called in a few spots. On the turn you took another stab with what could still be the best hand. After getting raised and re-raised a fold is clear.
Sammy, did you get to see what the button had for his actions? I can't come up with a hand that makes sense. I suppose he could have raised pre-flop with a big pair and waited for the bigger bets on the turn before raising, but that looks risky with a coordinated flop and a flush draw.
Did MPP show down a straight or trip 7s, or did he also do something off the wall? I have a lot of problems putting players on hands when their actions seem inconsistent.
Fat-Charlie
Mp held A5o Button had QQ
At 5-10 putting someone on a hand is a stroke of luck.
I see what you mean. A-5o was aggressive on the button and REALLY nailed the flop. I guess his plays made sense. MPP is still waiting for the lunch truck. BTW: nice fold.
Fat-Charlie
Here is a hand from LA 40-80 several years ago. The pot was played between David (a professional who plays a non-S&M style) and Mad Dog (an extremely aggressive player famous for cold 3-bet bluffs on the turn, now departed.)
I don't remember the exact details, but David 4-bets preflop and through the intense action on the flop and turn, he makes it clear (to me anyway) that he has a big set. Mad Dog has position. On the river, the board is AK5JQ. Now David bets. Mad Dog raises. David calls. Mad Dog mucks.
I asked David about it after the hand. David said he had a set of kings. David knew that Mad Dog could not possibly put David on a ten for the straight, whereas David thought Mad Dog thought David thought Mad Dog could conceivably have a ten. Therefore, David thought Mad Dog would bluff raise him and donate two big bets. Also, in case Mad Dog might check down a hand like AJ (two pair), David wanted to make sure he at least got a call from him. Good play.
-Abdul
Cool!
Wasn't it possible that Mad Dog actually did have the 10? I guess David's estimate of that liklihood still allowed for the profitable bet-callraise on the end.
D.
I played against Mad Dog a number of times. Now I do know *he* was aggressive enough that that bet to induce a bluff raise was probably warranted. Overall, I used to check-call a lot against him. Otherwise it would be playing double the limit.
Come to think of it, I think David's hand was a set of queens, so the cards must have come more like AQ5KJ. And yes, Mad Dog really could have had a ten, or AA or KK.
-Abdul
I don't see the delema: if the player will bluff-raise way too often and more often then bluff-bet, then every sensible player will routinely be betting in to him with any hand at all. This should be the routine strategy long before this hand came up.
Its a bonus that he'll check a calling hand. Routine bet.
You don't need level 3 here (hero doesn't have a 10 but MD might...) but you do a little better with it.
- Louie
Yes, it should be routine strategy versus any 40-80 caliber opponent, not just the insanely aggressive ones, which was kind of the point.
-Abdul
In his recent article, skp outlined 8 situations where you might want to raise with a good draw when the guy to your right bets rather than just calling. Before delving into a few of the situations where I think raising is problematic, there are a couple of points I would like to make. First of all, in all of these situations you have a good draw with two cards to come. While I usually prefer calling to raising, it must be kept in mind that overall raising can never be too far wrong in most cases. I believe that the situations that skp has outlined in his excellent article are really factors that would lean you towards raising as opposed to calling. Secondly, the possibility of a re-raise from some other opponent or perhaps the original bettor is not considered. If you are re-raised than you are obliged to call so in many cases you may be paying 3 or more bets to take a card off rather than 1. This is seldom taken into consideration in the analyses that I see by many fine posters on this forum where they recommend raising for reasons other than value. I will post one situation now and if there is a substantial interest I can post other "skp problems" later in the week.
"Situation #4: You raise to knock out an opponent who could pick up a redraw to beat you on the river should you go on to hit the turn. Assume you hold 87 in a multi-way pot that is raised (or perhaps 3 bet) pre-flop. The flop is 10,9,5 of various suits. Your raise can get the pre-flop raiser with AQ to fold. Given the size of the pot you want anyone with a Queen to be out on the flop should you go on to catch a Jack on the turn."
Assuming with a probability of 1.0 that pre-flop raiser has specifically Ace-Queen, the probability of a Jack showing up on the turn is 4 cards out of 45 cards once your cards, your opponent's cards, and the flop are taken into account. Then on the river your opponent has to catch a King or an Eight for a straight which is 8 cards out of 44 cards. The combined probability of both these events happening is about 1.6% [(4/45)*(8/44)]. The pot would have to have over 60 bets in it to make it cost effective (1 bet/1.6%). This would simply never happen. The pot would actually have to be much larger because the pre-flop raiser will not have a Queen anywhere close to 100% of the time.
What does everyone else think?
Yesterday`s Sunday afternoon HE home game. I have KJo---10 players-- Betting is capped before flop---3 players see flop, one is all in Lots of money in pot,some players folded after second raise. Flop KKX --- We capped bet again. TurnJ We capped bet again. I put my enemy on AA The all in player I didn`t pay much attention to There was a flush possiably now. Only one card in deck that would beet me I thought. River card, A --- I new I was beat then I called. Enemy had AK --- I was still beat. All in had flush. I had broken back rest of day. Finally only finished #30.00 loss for day. MILT.
Interesting response to Jim's first post. . .
As for your losing hand: If this is the first time KJo has been a second best hand for you, consider yourself lucky. Get used to it. KJ is notorious for making second best.
shooter
I don't like to dish out bad beat stories but you have no appreciation for the poker gods fury. For example last night in the 30-60 at bay 101 (6 handed) I raise UTG with AA it looks like a steam raise because I just got oversetted heads up last time. Three players call behind me SB calls and the maniacal BB 3 bets it with A3 off suit like he has been doing all night. I cap it and we take the pot 5 handed. The flop comes 842 two clubs. MR. gutshot bets into me and I raise everyone calls. Wouldn't you know a 5 slides off on the turn, gutshot boy checks I bet 2 calls he raises.... I have to call and a blank comes on the river giving him a pot of over 2K (I think). Of course he loses it all back and more in the next few hours just not to me :(.
Shawn Keller
The points you make are, as usual, excellent. I'd like to pose something from a low limit experience, although I'm not sure if low lomit players was skp's intended audience. From my experience you are not going to get AQ out with a raise on the flop. Practically all will wait for the turn to blank before they will consider folding for one or even two bets. Add to that the inherent danger of a KQ being out there. Why is skp so worried about protecting himself against the dangers of going for the ignorant end of a straight? After all he is talking about RAISING an earlier position bettor isn't he? Maybe one holding KQ or even QJs? Yes, I understand there's a lot of money in the pot and we all have heard from David you must then do whatever you can to win it, but at what cost? If this flop is multihanded and three bet isn't it quite likely there are a helluva lot better hands looking at this board than 87s? Jim, do you want to put more money than necessary into this pot to seee the turn card? Could get quite expensive with a set, straight draw, and an overpair out there already. I feel raising at this point can only add insult to injury. Especially if the board pairs on the river after a six came on the turn.
Jim, just got back into town after a weekend getaway. I will post a more detailed response but my reasoning will be along these lines:
A Queen, Jack, 8 or 7 appearing on the turn will seriously devalue your hand. The chances of your hand getting devalued is much gretaer if you just call on the flop. Also, one has to take into account the fact that the turn card is going to put a 2 flush out there way more often than not which gives further redraws that you have to fend off on the river. Once again, a raise on the flop makes it easier to win the pot should you go on to hit on the river.
Anyway, gotta run. Will post in detail later.
I was waiting for someone to start a thread regarding this article before I jumped in.
The problem is that based on this article, you should almost always raise! There are very few flops or situations that occur where there isn't some sort of the danger he spells out in his article.
You simply can't prevent certain things from happening and you don't always have the information to make the decisions listed.
On the positive side this article will help players at least think more about the situation they are in when drawing. seeya
But skp, all those redraws cannot be out against you at one time. If you want to set aside your AQ example and replace it with another one that is fine but you will still have the same problem. The likelihood of your raise driving out a specific redraw that would go on to beat you by catching on both the turn and the river is so small that the pot would never be big enough.
Right, the example is bogus and harmful.
If you have QJ on a flop of T95, then I can see that you might like to knock out the preflop raiser, who might have AK, AQ, AJ, or KQ, because your overcard outs are much more likely to be good without him in the pot. However, if you are facing a lot of opponents with this hand and flop, you should focus on trying to keep everyone in for as many bets as possible.
Another spot I see for this type of play is when you have overcards that you are not sure are best, like KJ, in a many way pot that got raised preflop. Now you might consider trying to drive out a preflop raiser and as many other players as possible, to maximize the chance that if you hit an overcard it will be good. It's risky, mind you, and it will backfire if there are too many players involved, but when pots get large you should do some risky things.
-Abdul
You are correct Abdul and in skp's article he discusses those situations where you have over cards which give you additional outs making the raise an even stronger play plus driving out the pre-flop raiser.
Would simply be raising with a small fourflush when the pot is large to knock out a singleton of that suit.
That's an interesting example for a guy like me, a just out of the gate student.
Wouldn't you always want to have additional outs before attempting a play such as this and/or believe that you might be able to take the pot right then?
Say you limp in late position with 97h and 8 players see the flop come
1) 2h5hQs
2) 2h5h7s
3) ThJhAs
It's a bet to you and 4 players have called one bet from early position. What do you do?
Michael, we have to be careful here. If 8 players take a flop and then 4 or 5 others want to see the turn, it is quite likely that someone is on a bigger flush draw than yours. Raising here, especially with the non-nut flush draw would be foolhardy. In skp's article he provides flush draw examples but in most cases they are the nut flush draw. Huge difference in my opinion.
Yes, I see that Jim. But my response was in response to DS's "Less Debatable Example" where he suggests betting your small 4-flush in attempt to get high single cards of your suit to fold. The thinking must be that if you hit your flush on the turn, you don't want any of these hands hanging around.
My question assumes that you'll only be in that situation if you limp in late position with a drawing hand such as 97s. For me this would be a tricky situation. With my flop examples, I'm hoping to better understand in what situations you will raise. I think I'll modify the tail end of my question and say "it's checked to a late position player who bets, with which flops should you raise?"
Based on your original question my answer would be don't raise with any of them except that with #2 you might briefly consider it since you have top pair in addition to your flush draw. The problem is that none of your draws are to the nuts and it is quite likely that you are up against another flush draw as well with so many players interested in seeing the turn at least as your original question was worded. Now if they all check to a late position player who bets then this is a different problem because no one has shown an interest in the flop. I would probably raise with #2 because of the top pair. The other flops look too dangerous and the risk of a re-raise is great.
Less debatable perhaps...but not undebatable. Assuming one opponent is holding a larger card of your suit, the chance he will make a bigger flush is only .027 (8/46*7/45). Given that your raise may thin the field (reducing your implied odds) while failing to rid the field of all larger cards of your suit, how big does the pot need to be for this play to increase your EV?
Jim,
Where can I find skp's column? Does he go by the name SKP?
Thanks, Carl
Carl, his article will show up in the next issue of poker digest. I believe that if you E-Mail him directly he will provide it to you.
Although most of the money and, I suppose, the better players are in higher limit games, the games I frequent make statements like "drive out the early position raiser" sound absurd.
Most of the time a raise encourages people to come in or call in LL games. Most of the competitors are gamblers who are playing Hold 'em as though it were a slot machine and the idea that with a board of T9x any of them with KQ would fold for a raise or two is unthinkable - in fact they will often re-raise if they have the added "out" of a possible runner-runner flush.
If the math in these examples puts you in a position to raise then perhaps you should re-examine the premises? In the example someone is raising with a gut shot on the theory that somebody with a better hand will fold. Wow!
Love.
"In the example someone is raising with a gut shot on the theory that somebody with a better hand will fold. Wow!"
I think we crossed signals somewhere. The raiser has an open-ender and he is trying to get a nothing hand to fold.
That example in HEFAP in the "when pots get big" section has always puzzled me because it seems like at least one player is virtually always going to have an ace and all you are going to accomplish is getting raised and maybe three bet. It seems that you should try to draw as cheaply as possible because you already have such a small chance of making your straight and because if you runner runner two pair or trips it doesn't seem that you would of been able to bet a better hand out that couldn't of called the flop. Maybe your bet (and a raise or two from the real hands) could scare out a 78 (which probably isn't in this pot) that would have one the pot when you river 2 pair but the chance of all of these things occur in tandem is so remote that it doesn't seem profitable.
I definitely argee with the philosophy of bet when you have to call but it doesn't seem profitable if you are very likely to be raised.
Shawn Keller
I thought that skp's article was very insightful but I though that many of his examples were not realistic for tight players. For example how do you get stuck in a mid limit game with 78s for three bets in what would appear to be early position??? I don't think I will ever have to worry about drawing to the ignorant end of the straight in this large a pot (at least not from early position).
Shawn Keller
You may have been caught on the installment plan. You limp in and someone raises from behind so you are obliged to call for one more bet. Then someone else behind you decides to re-raise and everyone calls.
Jim,
Thanks for an insightful critique. Now, if I can only get Mr. Jalib to offer a less scathing review…However, I guess that thanks to him, I have got a title to my post that would make Rick proud.
GENERAL COMMENTS RE: THE ARTICLE
The first thing that one should realize is that the suggestions in the article are not to be applied indiscriminately. As I said in a post below, the ideas in the article are far from being unassailable and are certainly not meant to serve as cookbook recipes for each and every time one faces the various situations I speak of.
In the introduction to the article, I state that these are situations where "you may wish to consider raising a bettor to your right with a drawing hand despite the fact that it may limit the field." I don't say nor do I mean to say that you should always raise. As well, in the summary part of the article, I allude to the fact that "there are exceptions to the exceptions that may well lead you back to the general rule [i.e., just calling]"; this is a further indication that the suggestions in the article are not to operate as a "how to manual" every time you are faced with the situation in question.
Al Raiseya (who has been my most vocal critic since day 1) hits the nail on the head: The article is meant to get people thinking about factors that normally would not have even occurred to them when holding a draw and facing a bet from their immediate right. The "action plan" is not to be taken as gospel but is to be used as a guideline.
GENERAL COMMENTS RE: SITUATION NO. 4
In my opinion, situations 3, 4 and 6 are the most situation-specific examples and thus the most controversial. In your post above, you have quoted a portion of what I said in situation No. 4; however, you have left out an important aspect. My lead-in to situation no. 4 was that "the concept here is somewhat related to the concept in situation no. 3." The reason why that quote is important is that the discussion under situation No. 3 sets out various caveats and provides that the advice given can only be correct IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. Given my lead-in to situation no. 4, the same caveats obviously apply to it.
Shawn Keller raises a good preliminary point. He asks "how can a good player ever get stuck holding 87 suited in a pot that has been 3-betted preflop." You answered correctly that sometimes you get involved via the instalment plan. However, there is another reason. Many players WILL call 3 bets cold in a multiway pot with 8s7s. While this in itself is poor poker, the fact is that I see this play made all the time by otherwise good players. The article is not written to school the expert 30-60 Bellagio player such as yourself or Mr. Jalib. After all, what the hell do I know that you guys don't - I mean I know my place in the poker hierarchy. The article is written with the general poker playing population in mind including your not-so-expert 30-60 Bellagio player. Many of them will find themselves in a pot with 87 suited when the preflop betting has gone three bets or capped.
This dovetails with the following query regarding situation no. 4 posed by Sammy B. and Shawn: "In any event, why would you raise in EARLY position with 87 on a flop of 10,9,5?" Well, there is nothing in the article about what position you are in. You could well be in late position. For example, UTG raises preflop and 4 or 5 players coldcall. The yahoo to your right then 3 bets it. Our hero then calls with 87 suited (once again, I know that you - as a solid player- would not pay 3 bets cold with this hand. However, the fact is that many players would). Now, on the flop, UTG checks his AQ. The 3 bettor bets and hero raises. In other words, situation no. 4 was not meant to convey that you must necessarily be in early position. I don't rule it out either but your position (i.e. in relation to the button) is one of the factors to consider in deciding whether to make the raise. Obviously, you are better off raising from late position as it increases the chances of getting a free card should you elect to take it on the turn.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS RE: SITUATION NO. 4
The example is really an application of the principles emerging from S&M's discussion in the chapter "When the Pot gets Big" (pages 167-169 of the 21st Century edition). Here's what they say at pages 167-169:
"When the pots get big, this fact should dominate your approach to playing the hand. Basically your number one priority is to win it. Not to win more money, but to win the pot….It's so important to increase your chances to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat…If the pot is big enough and you know that you are going to call anyway, you have to bet it. You do this not just because there is a slight chance that you might win if you bet, but also because betting gets out those hands that will cost you the pot a small percentage of the time when your hand improves. Remember, you were going to call anyway."
The above quotes from S&M are in relation to the hand that has been oft-discussed here: The hero is urged to bet with 10s9s from early position on a flop of Ad7c6h (the "S&M example").
Admittedly, the S&M example differs from mine in many respects including:
a. The S&M example talks of a 'bet' while I speak of a 'raise'.
b. In the S&M example, if you don't get raised after you bet, you have got yourself a few ostensible outs on the turn i.e. the 3 Aces while you probably don't have any in my example.
c. In the S&M example, you may win by just pairing on the turn or river while it is less likely that can happen here in my situation no. 4 (although not impossible).
d. There is a slight chance that the bet on the flop in the S&M example can get you the pot unchallenged. The chances of the raise in my example winning it right there are clearly even less.
Despite the differences, the concept (i.e., win the pot - not extra bets) was the driving force behind situation no. 4.
In your post, you state that the pot has to have 60sb to make this a worthwhile raise. I disagree. The flop is a rainbow one. About 75% of the time, the turn card is going to put a 2 flush out there. How many times have you seen posters here advising readers to keep in mind the importance of a backdoor flush draw (which can turn an easy fold into an easy call). Well, this is now the flip side of the equation. A raise on the flop makes it less likely that a hand like AQ AND a hand with a backdoor flush draw (eg. Ad2d) will call. To take an example, let's say the turn card is the Jd and it now puts 2 diamonds on the board. If there had been no raise on the flop (which of course makes it more likely that both AQ and Ad2d would call), there will be 15 bad river cards for you in the deck (14 if you held the 8d). Had you raised, it is likely that one of these hands (i.e. Ad2d or AQ) would fold. This reduces the number of bad cards on the river down to the 7 to 9 range. Note: I have not factored in full house draws because they exist in either scenario.
In other words, what I am saying is that given the size of the pot (and given that you are going to call all bets on the flop no matter what), you certainly gain if you reduce the number of bad river cards down to 7 (from 15).
Lastly, in many games, you get a feel for a hand and determine that the pot is going to be raised by someone in any event. However, it may only get raised when some of the hands that you are trying to knock out are already in for one bet which means that they likely will not fold for a raise. In this case, you may as well be the one who raises. Not only does it disguise your hand, it also confronts some of the key hands you are trying to knock out with the prospects of calling 2 bets cold with a possibility of a reraise behind.
I should say that I had considered using as an example David's suggestion of raising with a baby flush to knock out a singleton of that suit. However, I thought that it might invite some additional problems (i.e. the increased likelihood of a bigger flush draw lurking in the weeds when there is a lot of action on the flop).
My apologies for the long post. I did not have time to make it short!
I will be away from the Forum until Thursday. I will respond to any comments then. If anything above is "bogus and harmful", I offer my apologies in advance and I am sure that I will be corrected.
Thanks for the comprehensive response. I now understand your position better.
i was just wandering is it better to reraise a late position raiser when in the SB with AQo or take a look at the flop and risk letting the BB in?
If you think they are trying to steal the blinds, you have to reraise. but remember your out of position for the rest of the hand.
If someone in the cutoff or on the button opens the pot with a raise then it is imperative that you re-raise since they usually will be on a steal and you need to punish them for raising especially if they are the type to steal with a little suited connector like 8-7 suited. In addition, you want to make the big blind pay two bets to take a flop since you probably have the best playing hand in this situation. Now if the raise comes from someone in early position or even from middle position I would be reluctant to raise since it is more likely they will have a real hand. Of course, re-raising is unthinkable if someone has limped in from early or middle position and then the pot gets raised. This is because it is quite likely the raiser has a real hand so calling is best here.
I'm Assuming your unfamilar with the raiser's play/raising standards...The question is do you want to be able to win the pot when you _don't_ hit the flop? Reraise. (1) You can possibly win (by CR or betting out) when you don't hit the flop, (2) by reraising you're establishing an aggressive image which will pay future dividends, (4) you have more latitude for variation when you _do_ hit the flop, (4) you're unequivocally stating you won't be pushed around when in the blinds (this will cause someone to think twice before trying to steal with trash, a major benefit when you have something much less than AQ and would have to rationally fold to a raise). If you don't reraise here, when would you?
I would reraise. I expect on average to get more than my fair share of the pre-flop pot. Further restricting the number of oponents can only help AQo.
Piers
Who raised? Against the typical player you should reraise. Against a grandmother who you did not even notice was in the game, call if you dare!
I'm playing 3-6 HE at HG yesterday. There's an older gentleman (must have been close to 70) who doesn't have a clue. I'm there for 6 hours and watch him go through 5 racks of chips. Each time he buys a rack he manages to build it up to 2 racks and then he goes broke and re-buys. Anyway, early in the session I notice that he's tucking his cards under his rack and when he does so he's flashing them about 70% of the time. Sometimes I could tell rank and suit of both cards! Well, for some reason I just don't like seeing people do STUPID things -- so when several players are away from the table I quietly bring it to his attention. At first he acts surprised and thanks me with a tone of "I don't need/want any advice from a whippersnapper like you" and then he says "well, that's to your advantage, isn't it?" I say emphatically, "ABSOLUTELY". This exchange has little impact on his procedure -- he still flashes his cards.
My question is -- what do you guys think about how to handle these situations? I mean, I'm a big advocate of being honest throughout life. But I realize poker is a part of life where honesty might necessarily need to be discarded and replaced with deceit. I realize this is the type of question there isn't a correct answer and each person must make up their own mind. But I just would like to know the viewpoint from seasoned perspectives.
Another aspect that arrises from this problem is that the more observant players at the table who see his cards now know what cards I DON'T have which is to my dis-advantage. This is magnified those times that I don't catch a glimpse of his cards when other players do.
Thanks for any comments,
-Michael
I play in ahome game where quite a few of the players flash their cards.I have stopped telling them to be careful,because whenever I have told them about it they get pissed off and take it as some sort of insult.
Are you sure he wasn't flashing to someone else. Who was he losing to?
I know lots of players that would take full advnatage of this situation and never give it a thought, but i couldn't. maybe the old guy needed a more dramatic demonstration of his problem. Perhaps saying something like, " I can't believe you're raising me with Ks9c!!" He might get pissed but he might get the message and then only lose three racks a night. And as you said, it would help if your opps didn't know you couldn't have the card you neede.
Yeah, I thought of saying something just like that -- but I feared that may startle him. And you just don't know how someone may react. I wouldn't want to give him a heart attack. I could just see his eyes get wide open, he turns flush white, and then collapses.
I would feel just aweful not to mention I wouldn't be able to get any more of his chips!
Michael, you need to inform the dealer that the player is flashing his cards. The dealer will instruct the player to discontinue the practice. If it continues than the player will be instructed to show his cards to everyone.
tell him. maybe remind him. don't pester him. if he knows he's flashing the cards, just use the information. you do not have an ethical oblugation to turn away or ignore it, like i think you might do in a home game with an absolutely new player. you should let him know at least once, though. and never more than twice.
scott
If someone flashes their cards to me, I will tell them. If they do it again, I'll tell them again. If they continue, well, c'est la vie.
nt
I found your comment on deceit interesting. Bluffing and other misleading plays should not be considered deceit, because they are within the rules of the game.
As far as your behavior goes, you were perfectly ethical. Your opponent who did nothing to correct the problem when you informed him of it was clearly in the wrong, because it is his responsibility to protect his hand.
You did the right thing by telling him. He didn't listen, so enjoy the donation. When you cash out at the end of the night, tell him 'nice playing with you', and next time you see him playing and there's a seat next to him open, sit down.
A tell is defined as "any habit or behavior that gives other players more information about your hand than they would have simply from your play". Some are subtle. His aren't. You capitalize on both kinds, and that's how you win.
shooter
Playing a little 20-40 at planet poker a couple of nites ago. About 4-5 weak not-to-aggressive players in the game, all the rest average. Middle position limps and a weak player on the button makes it $40 (earlier in the game he bluff raised the river with QJo from mid late and a board off 10-6-2 turn 9 river 9, me right behind with QQ and having just cracked him on the turn). Me in the SB with 10hJh, what to do?
I think it depends on the ability of the middle player. His presence protects the pot and makes it more likely that the weakie has a better hand, not to mention that he has position on you. Your hand plays best against a large field with good implied odds, neither of which you will have if you call multiple bets.
If the middle player is any good, a re-raise would be a mistake. I would probably call the raise and check-fold the flop if it missed me.
Fold. You should call in the BB. Was it a trick question?
The problem is not only the raiser, but the limper too. You are probably dominated, except if the raiser is fond of raising with pocket deuces (I know a couple of those) and such, and the limper likes to play a lot. Now if there were two limpers, a case could be made to call here for the implied odds and trying to flop a good draw.
Calling raises with JT suited or not is a risky business. Not suited and you're in trouble even in BB against a tighter raise. Be aware that JTo is dumpable on the button for one bet if there is a tightish limper around (against fun limpers it's close, so if you have to, you can join the party but mustn't rule out the hangover afterwards).
However, in idiot family pots, you should join the fun and reraise with JTs (but flat call or dump JTo and give a dealer the look for dealing trash). According to great Abdul Ibn Mallmudh Al Feenya M'hall Jalib, you should push your tiny edge here to provide cover for reraising with JJ or better (88 or better in multiway loose pots) from the blinds. If you are a believer, that is. Else, join the infidels and flat call.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
From your small blind you have a clear fold here. When someone raises after another player voluntarily limps in, the raise is frequently legitimate. This hand wants lots of players and an unraised pot not a raised pot with a small number of players. If you were in your big blind, I think you can call because you are already half-way in.
For what it is worth, there is a little rule of thumb that Bob Ciaffone sometimes uses with his students when deciding whether or not to call a raise out of your small blind. If you had the button, would you call two bets cold? If not, then if we assume that having the button is worth a half bet more than being in the small blind it is probably not a good idea to call out of your small blind either. Think about it.
Wow; I'm the only one that wants to 3-bet your creme-de-la-creme draw-hand against someone who can easily have a worse hand than you AND is intimidated since you've been beating him senseless lately?
For straight hand value I believe you are in some trouble (I don't think you will win one third of hot/cold showdowns) but can make it up by betting any draw you flop aggressively. If you have given up the initiative based on this one raise and will really need to make the best hand to win, then fold.
- Louie
On both of these plays I'm on the button. The game is loose/passive 3-6 with no idiots (may be a couple of borderline, but no maniacs).
I have 97s and limp in. 8 players see the flop for one bet. It comes AoQs3o. It's checked to me, I check. Turn is Ao. It's checked to me, I bet. I get six folds and the guy next to me calls. River is 5o. Checked to me, I bet. He calls and I have to turn over my 97s. He had Q3c.
I have A4o. 9 players in for 1 bet. Flop comes 48Q 2 hearts. checked to a late position player who bets. I raise. All fold but three (including the guy sitting next to me from last hand). Turn comes 9o. Chcked to me, I bet. Fold, guy next to me calls. River comes 4o. Checked to me, I bet. He calls and shows 89.
Were either of these plays reasonable ... I was running quite well and I think that may have clouded my better judgement. It was beautiful on the first play watching everyone fold in succession. But when that last guy called, the beauty ended. I knew the only way at that point to take the money was to bet the river - but I lost. The second one I think I was just LUCKY.
On the 2nd hand, just because it was checked to a late position player after the flop and he bet out do you automatically think it was a bluff? I think your raise with the baby pair was wrong here. If it was a loose passive low limit game then you knew you would get callers after your raise, especially with 9 players still in. I wouldn't have even seen this flop. If an A falls then you're usually still a loser here. I don't think your bet on the turn has any real chance of getting everybody to fold either in this type of game, and it's obvious that this is just about your only chance of picking it up. Luckily, your 4 hit and the story has a happy ending, but this might entice you to play like this again.
Thanks kid. That's sort of what I thought. I think I began to play looser because I had been running well throughout the session and I was 5 hours into it already.
But at this table I had already been called cagey. And players thanked me on several occasions when I raised. They felt good about releasing their hands. So my table image was good. I had already bluffed my way into more than one pot, may be even 3. One of them was large (~$80). My final opponent in both I detailed was one of the borderline maniacs. He was up BIG early, but eventually left the table broke. I realize I'm giving you more information than I gave in my original post now, so you may have commented differently had you known this too.
Was this game played on planet earth?? On the first hand an Ace and a Queen flop with 8 limpers and no one had an Ace?? Another Ace turns up and again everyone checks to you. I agree with a bet here. You will frequently win without a fight. You get one caller. The river is a blank. He checks, you bet and you get called. He flopped two pair and checked both the flop and the turn. Of course on the turn, his second pair is overcoated by the open pair of Aces. How could he not bet the flop?? Maybe he was hoping to check-raise. You played fine.
On the second hand you should fold pre-flop with Ace-four offsuit despite having the button and 8 other limpers. On the flop, your raise with bottom pair and an Ace overcard is bad poker. You have a weak hand and should just take off a card as cheaply as possible. At best you are playing 5 outs. Your bet on the turn is also bad since the Nine did not help your hand. I guess you are semi-bluffing here. On the river you caught a miracle card and won.
Thanks Jim. I feel better about it -- I want to actively keep myself in check. I want my play to consitently reflect the type of game I'm in and not be swayed by how I'm doing at any particular moment in the game.
Yes, it was played on planet earth in a real casino against real opponents. But I think I'm mistaken on the flop. I do know it was AoQsXo. Still though, he flopped high middle pair one off the button with 7 other players in and it's checked to him. He should have bet just to get raised to flush out the A. Had he bet the flop, I would have folded. So he would have had the button at least. And at this point he was up about $150. So he was hot and perceived as hot, so all the other players would have lkely folded to him too.
Playing A4o on the button after limpers is a *horrible* play! You should fast for two weeks, ask your God forgiveness and sacrifice a lamb for his kindness of bringing that four on the river.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
What the hell did the lamb do wrong??!!
Played A3o.
Most of the other advise in this thread is good. A couple additional comments:
Hand 1: I hate bluffing into a full field, getting 1 caller and having to bluff again. I usually like to only bluff once, but if you bluff the turn and get called by a loose-passive player, you'll have to bluff the river to try to get KJ/KT/JT to fold (or god knows what else, this is 3-6 after all), and there are a fair number of loose-passive players that would call with king-high on the river. When the pot is only 8 small bets and you have to risk 2 small bets with the bluff on the turn into 7 opponents, (and might have to bluff again on the river), I usually wouldn't bother with the bluff. Then again, it's rare for me to play with a pot like that because I almost always raise when I decide to play on the button after a ton of limpers.
Hand 2: As has been mentioned, A4o stinks after a ton of limpers--there is a huge chance that better aces are out there. On the flop, I think a raise is just a waste of money into a huge field. Even if you have a "tough, winning player" image, people will often call with middle pair and pocket pairs even if they think you have a queen or an overpair. You also stand little chance of driving gutshots out because loose-passive players will often call 2 cold with a gutshot.
-Sean
So I sit down at a 3-6 game, all fresh and awake and ready for action. I go through some hands trying to observe the opponents. Do they raise? Do they call too often? There are 9 of them so I've got to start keeping track of who's who. Now the cards have come for the next hand. OK, what position am I in? Are these cards good enough for that position? What about a raise? Or maybe I have to call a raise...what the heck, I might reraise! But what will the opponents do? Who just raised me? Is that one of the aggressive players? Who can tell? It's only been one round since I've sat down. So I can't put them on any hands yet...or can I? And what if I just call the raise, am I going to have to put more in from a raise somewhere else? Well...how much is in the pot? OK, assuming they all call, do I have the right odds? Man, what does that raiser have anyway? Hey, was that a tell?
(editor's note: This is the point where big chunks of gray matter start erupting from Dan's head, spewing across the green felt).
So they call the floorperson over. Apparently I've stopped moving, blinking, or even breathing. The brush comes over and tries to scoop up my brain fragments and put them back into my cranium as best he can. "It's like Humpty Dumpty," he mutters.
The others at the table are laughing at me. "Stop thinking so hard," they chant. "Any two cards can win."
I don't have the resources to argue with them, my brain is too scrambled.
This is the point where I stop thinking all together because I have no idea how to conserve my energy and focus on the most important things at the table.
Anyone have a suggestion or two?
Dan
I find in a casino low limit game, thinking two hard (stressing yourself out) can severely limit your ability to make the correct play and will often give away your hand. Plus your table image is shot - you look too stressed out to be a relaxed winner.
Generally, when I'm not thinking clearly and relaxed, I take a break, have a cigarette outside (regardless of whether smoking is permitted inside) and just zone out. Come back to the table and try to focus again without overly stressing - fold hands where you begin to feel overwhelmed. You'll play them wrong anyway if you're in the wrong state of mind.
When I first sit down with unfimilar players the first things I try to note about each player are: 1. How many hands is s/he playing? (As the game progresses you can piece the piece together the reasons, e.g. tight, running cold or on tilt, loose, running hot etc.) 2. What does s/he raise (and NOT raise with)? He raised with KTo (in late pos), she smooth called with QQ in mid pos). (Most is important is the WHAT. As the game progresses you can fill in the position and the "with ___ callers". 3. What does s/he go (or _call_) to the river with? (Only the nuts, 2nd pair, third pair, a low flush draw, etc.)
The most important - at least initial thing - it the WHAT. What cards? Refine this as your experience and attention span permits with the when (position) and how ("with ___ prior callers"). As a general technique of observation which will facilitate all of this you should at the end of the LAST hand be able replay each players actions on each betting round. Do this for a while and things begin to become second nature.
There's a blizzard of noise in any game, but it shouldn't overwhelm you. You cull bits of data as if you were creating a mosaic, necessarily haphazardly, looking for the good stuff, knowing you won't be allowed to finish.
You bring to the table a set of assumptions about how others tend to play and let particular patterns come into focus, very quickly at first, as the game progresses. It's not like you have a mental checklist of 9 things you need to know as soon as possible about each player. It's an ongoing effort to build a database, mostly stuff within "ranges" of things. But you should also look for specific things, like whether they limp-raise early and what they'll 3-bet with. You play "guess the hand" a lot and make occasional rifleshot predictions. You understand that being wrong is good, not some sort of setback, even if it costs you money.
As you gather information you also think about what you're going to do with it. That's only two activities, not enought to fry your brain. Keep it simple. But if you can only do this for a couple of hours then quit playing after a couple of hours.
Like almost everyone, I think in terms of weak/strong, tight/loose, passive/aggressive, straightforward/deceptive, and I try to put players in these categories. Some of the more important general questions I ask are: Who can lay down a hand? Who's suffering? Who's tricky? Who likes to call? What do they think of me?
wait for a type 1 hand and bet the shit out of it irrespective of position. raise pre-flop and if you improve on the flop keep raising. go to the river raising like a nut. that will show them and you'll win a lot of money
Yeah, it sure will show the table what a tough guy you are to blindly cap the pot with your trips, only to get run over by a flush or full house. They'll never doubt you again. You'll OWN them.
wake up.
anon, the guy above you is trying to be funny. you know what he is trying to say in his name but he is right in his play. dont be so qiick to criticise him. he has a valid point.
thanks you carlo
Stereotypes.....we think that you are cautious at casino poker....more reckless online...and probably a slight winner. What is your SD and expectation in Colorado? I have to admit that I was the one that posted you couldn't beat blackhawk. I was just kidding and didn't want you to think that I was suggesting that you are one of the weak , passive players that are referred to in everybody's posts. I'm Charlie Ibbots, by the way. I am very familiar with Central City and Blackhawk.
Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand but I kept running totals from when I first started playing hold 'em regularly in Sept. 96 until April 99, when I decided I wasn't taking it seriously enough to justify inputting results into a spreadsheet. My hourly at 2-5 was just over $6 with a standard deviation between $80 and $90 (wierdly, it seemd to be getting higher over time). My experience in live structured games below 20-40 has been better. My small tournament hourly is much higher but probably less than 150 hours so I never calculated std. deviation for that (25% in the money last time I looked -- I keep this stuff on the home computer). I started keeping records again last August, when I thought the numbers were probably getting better.
Online I'm up more per hour after only 200 hours than I can expect to be in the long run so who knows?
As for the statement "we think that you are cautious at casino poker....more reckless online," I think the consensus, if one exists, is the opposite: I tend to overplay the 2-5 game but am a bit more cautious with real money on the table. But I'm not sure which "we" you are referring to given that I have no idea who the hell you are. (If you're interested in something other than creepy anonymous flames you can email me privately).
Another Dan Osman was a climber who was in the news about a year ago, he died jumping off a cliff, attached to over a thousand feet of climbing rope, it snapped and he fell to his death. He was also famous for "free soloing" (climbing without a rope). Just in case you wanted to know.
My question is this - how should I play in a shorthanded home game where all the players except myself are old friends who play together regularly? I find myself at times feeling colluded against (as if it's me against everyone else at the table) and put on tilt. It's usually a 3-6 or a 4-8, no rake, and lots of loose and aggressive play - should be profitable for me, but somehow I find myself not winning regularly. Any advice?
I recommend you avoid home games that are shorthanded. There are several problems:
1. You are putting up a lot more blinds over the course of an hour. This means you have to loosen up quite a bit otherwise you will get "anted to death" to use a 7 card stud term.
2. Having to play more hands means that your play pre-flop play starts to look like what your weaker playing opponents come in on so your pre-flop edge gets reduced.
3. There is a lot more raising in a shorthanded game. This means that you are betting, calling, and raising with hands that may not be that much better than your opponents. This leads to larger bankroll swings.
4. Like you say the possibility of cheating and player collusion is very real in a game like this. The problem is that you can never be sure when funny things happen if they happened randomly.
Jim, what if I do find myself in a 4 to 6 handed home game? Do I still call Hold'em as my game for dealer's choice? These guys know NOTHING about Hold'em, but they are fair poker players otherwise. The problem is they soon see "that any two cards can win" and start calling the game themselves. Is it better to just stick with 5card draw when its my choice and not expose them to HE and give them ideas? I try to sit 2 to the left of the player who hates the game and will not call it, thus saving me from playing the BB.
Shooter,
In my short-handed regular wed. home game, I'm pretty much the only one that deals hold'em, and that gives me a huge advantage. With the other guys dealing mostly stud, I always have position over them when it is my deal, and they only sometimes have position on me when it is their deal. We also play pot-limit with an ante rather than using a blind, so sticking the guy two to my left with a blind isn't a problem.
Mike
Lucky I was assuming that the guys know how to play hold-em. Now in your case, I agree with Mike Blair and would deal hold-em every time since I would always have the button plus I am playing against novices as far as hold-em is concerned.
Jim, I feel your points 1-3 are non issues here, as they apply equally to any player at the table and therefore provide no player an added edge. Shorthanded games are the most profitable poker situations, if you are the best player at the table. Many, many games are played per hour, many, many mistakes are made by bad players and many, many chips tend to travel one way.
Point no. 4 is a concern here, it can happen anywhere.
But you can count on this: where the opponents know each other well, your edge is seriously reduced in this implicit collusion situation.
Imagine the following situation: You flop J82 to your A8 and someone bets his 97. The next player knows this guy like the palm of his hand, seriously doubts his sincerity and raises with his A2. You have to fold the best hand.
I've seen these kind of things happen at the last year's tournament in Nova Gorica, Slovenia, where European creme-de-la-creme was gathered. My Italian fish buddies busted some big names at the $15-30 cash game and the champs stared in disbelief how could they lose in a game where every pot is 8-handed. It went like Lorenzo raises UTG, Dottore reraises with his ATs as he knows the guy will raise with any pair, deuces included, Professore calls with KTo and the German champs folds his JJ.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I agree with point 4. It is very difficult to detect collusion in a short-handed game because people will often be raising or re-raising with very little on a steal or re-steal attempt. But, in low-limit games like the home game in question, I don't worry too much about collusion because I'm putting very little at risk.
Point 3 is probably accurate, but variance is only a problem if your bankroll can't sustain it.
While statements 1 and 2 are also accurate, I disagree that they are "problems" per se. You do need to make adjustments from a full table game (although opening from 1 off the button and on the button in a shorthanded game aren't terribly different from the same in a full table game, many people rarely play in a game tight enough that everyone folds to them in late position, and the inability to open optimally in late position is magnified short-handed since you'll get blinded away more quickly, as you note), but it's only a problem if the player in question finds him or herself unable to adjust.
One more comment on point 2, while your preflop edge could be reduced, since you will be dealt a higher percentage of playable hands in a shorthanded game, if you can outplay your opponents postflop, you will have more opportunities to exercise that postflop edge.
-Sean
people might give more respect to your posts if you made even a hint of sense (ie examples)
I'm sorry that my use of standard English components like "punctuation" and "capitalization" have confused you to the point that you've accused me of not making sense. I've been busy since the holidays and haven't posted here or to RGP in a while, but I don't recall being accused of a lack or clarity before. Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you didn't understand? I thought everything I said was so simple as to be obvious.
-Sean
?
I disagree somewhat with Jim on this one. As far as the home game having a higher probability of cheating, i agree.
I disagree that short handed games should be avoided. You have to make significant adjustments to your game. One of the most drastic changes will be in the form of starting hand requirements.
If you are a good hold'em player, you should be looking at every hand you are dealt and considering the variables that come into play in deciding whether to play a hand. If you anticape many callers, hands like suited cards and connectors go up in value, and when you expect to have fewer callers (or to be heads-up) certain other hands go up in value (big cards).
So, when playing short-handed, you are usually going to be looking for big card value in most of the hands you play. This will also allow you to play more hands, which is another reason why I prefer short-handed games. If you are a good player, you can win as much or more in a short handed game as you can in a full game, and have more fun (because you get to play more) while you do it.
The important thing to remember is to adjust your game accordingly. If you play the same in a short game as you do in a full game,Jim is right, the "ante" will eat you up. I used to look for only full games, now I look for short games, because they have been more profitable , and I have more fun.
hope this helps, mike
I posted a similar thread in the beginners questions area. My questions are:
What book would be the best read for short-handed holdem? Are there any books that strictly deal with Short-handed play? Is the section in HPFAP the best text dealing with SH play?
Also, would someone care to elaborate on exactly how to "adjust" your game for short handed play. (ie Starting Hands, Pre/Post flop play)
thanks, low roller
The section in HPFAP-21 is the best on the subject. There isn't too much else on short-handed play in other books either. There's an essay on it in Ciaffone's _Improve Your Poker_ which is probably decent, but which I don't remember well. There's a little section on it in the new Hold 'em book by McEvoy and Cloutier, but I looked it over and there wasn't much to it. (You might look for an essay or two on short-handed play in the book by yours truly when it comes out.)
I'm a big advocate of learning to play short-handed for a number of reasons. One is simply that a few players willing to play short can hold a game together or start a new game. The result is more games, and games that go more consistently. This attracts more players to the cardroom and just makes everyone happy. :^) On the other hand, you do need to be game selective unless you're VERY good at short handed play. But in my experience, it can easily be enough in a 3-handed game just to have one of your opps be a relatively bad short-handed player. My advice would be to read the HPFAP section, play some, then come back with specific questions.
"Loose Agressive" is a fairly close description of the correct way to play short-handed holdem. One of the problems good players often get into against maniacs is that they continue to play their normal game when it's short-handed and the maniac's play actually becomes correct.
This is not to say that you should avoid the game, but you have to learn to be more agressive and play looser. Your edge comes from being able to read your opponents better than they can read you, and from making better tactical decisions before and after the flop. For example, a player who is better at extracting value bets on the river than his opponent has a huge advantage in a short-handed game. If you are even a little bit better than your opponents at this, it can translate into a lot of money per hour.
8/16 Hold’em at the Bellagio. Early Sunday Morning. 4 handed. Two Locals, a Loose Tourist, and I.
I’m Under the Gun with Qc,Jc. I raise and the Button Reraises. (The Button is a Local who probably thinks I’m just another Tourist. I think he probably does play slightly better than I do. I also think he will play more hands and play more aggressive with them since I’m an unknown and the Game is Short Handed.) The blinds fold, and I just call.
Flop: Qd, 4h, 7s
I check and call his bet. My thinking here is that he will bet again on the Turn no matter what comes. I don’t really want to raise, because he will either fold with nothing, or reraise me with A,K; Q better kicker; or High Pocket pair. If I just call he will probably bet something as bad an K,J on the turn to get me to fold.
The Turn is a 2s. I check and he bets just like I thought he would.
The River is the Ad. A bad card. I’m not certain how to play here, but again I’m hoping my submisivness has given him the confidence to Bluff without an Ace. It hasn’t, I check and he checks behind me. I show the pair of Queen’s and he turns over X,X. My raise pre-flop had made the Ace a very scary card for him, and he did have a hand that could risk a showdown IMO.
With what I knew about the player, I don’t think I could have played much better. Some questions I do have are: If he did bet the Ace on the end Should I have called. If the ace came on the turn, should I have checked, and called if bet?
Comments?
Thanks, CV
You have a very strong hand for a shorthanded game. You can either play back at him on the flop, then bet the turn or call the flop bet and checkraise on the turn if you're sure he'll bet when a blank hits. When the ace falls I'd check and call.
Now we can see what the clique thinks. :-) Just kidding guys and Al.
In this shorthanded game, which I think should be avoided, I like your raise and call of the re-raise. At this point there is $60 in the pot.
On the flop, I would rather bet out and avoid the check-raise. The pot is significant and I don't want to hand out free cards unless I am 100% certain my opponent will bet. However, since he was the pre-flop re-raiser there is a good chance he will bet so your check-raise is not bad. When your opponent bets there is now $68 in the pot and I think you should raise and give him a chance to fold. If he calls he might have a better hand than you otherwise why let a guy with middle or bottom pair get a cheap shot at his 5 outer?
On the turn, you check and he continues betting. You of course call and have decided that inducing him to continue betting is your best play at this point. I like raising here since he might call with $92 in the pot to try and hit his 5 outer since you are telling him that he is probably beat. The problem with your play of just calling is that he may not bet the river.
If he bets the Ace on the end, I would call every time for $16 when there is $124 in the pot.
I think these little dilemmas are best avoided by simply betting your hand starting on the flop.
5 outer?? the flop was q-7-4. name a plausible 5 outer. i guess 76s and 87s are maybes. but still this guy had less than 5 outs.
scott
Check-raising in short-handed games is very important. You just can't let your opponent believe that he can step out and bet every time you check. You have to mix it up. As Louis said in his 'great post' below, overall game considerations outweigh individial EV decisions in this case.
i don't know why jim keeps mentioning his 5 outer. i will lay 30-1 that the bellagio preflop 3-bettor oon the button is not on a 5 outer. he is either leading, on AK, or drawing to 3 or less outs. with this in mind, i like a bet call on the flop a lot. your likely best and he will play back with much worse cards in a shorthanded game. the reason i wouldn't reraise is that AK will take a card of anyway. i check raise the turn blank, even though i may be losing some bets when he folds but would have bluffed the river. i just think that with most hands he could have he will call either to cacth a card or your bluff. then when the A falls, i check call. you should have been more aggressive minded early in the hand. and rarely fold heads up on the river. if he bets the A, it is a clear call.
scott
scott
scott, the 5 outer comes from the case where your opponent has something like Ace-Four suited or Ace-Seven suited so he has two outs to hit trips and three more outs to hit a second pair with his side card. It is a common situation when someone has bottom pair or middle pair on the flop.
jim, i know where the 5 outs come from. i would say that a hand with no pair and one or even no overcards is far more likely on this flop. AJ, AT, JT, KT, etc. or a wired pair below queens. i do agree that A4 and A7 are possible, though. and i overlooked them. given that the A missed, we now know it is even less likely he was on a 5 out draw.
scott
scott I think it is a bad idea to be turning over the initiative on the hand to a lone opponent or giving out free cards when you have a good hand and there is a substantial pot out there to protect. You guys need to be getting into the habit of betting your hand more and confronting your opponent with a decision about whether or not he wants to continue instead of trying to finagle an extra bet or two by assuming your opponent will bet your hand for you.
but he wants to bet the hand for me. why not let him? actually, i loose games where i have been playing recently (in la for example) i agree totally. but in a shorthanded vegas game i am dure you have to be able to keep your opp from getting a read on you.
we both think he should bet the flop. but after he gets raised, do you agree with the call to check raise the turn? i am not risking any freecards because the only hands he may lay down to a reraise are drawing to 3 or less outs. and i would rather win a bb or 2 or 3 from these hands than win the pot that 8% of the time the draw comes through.
scott
Maybe you are right here except that I have seen too many situations where I bet the flop, get raised, and smooth call. Then I check the turn assuming my opponent will bet but instead he checks. I now have missed a double bet on the turn. He may check the turn for a lot of reasons. He may decide that he doesn't have the best hand and wants a free card, he may decide that he won't be able to bet you out of the hand so he checks it down hoping to get lucky, or a scare card comes on the turn so he doesn't bet.
If the player bets when the ace hits on the end you are getting close to 8-to-1 on your call. To fold you need to be very sure that you are beat.
In many cases when you raise before the flop and an ace hits on the end you can be this sure. This is when you know the reraiser has a very legitimate three bet hand to start with. However, you are not in this situation since your raise came from a steal position even though you were under the gun because the game is short handed. Hence, the reraise could easily be a resteal. This means the reraiser should have a much wider range of hands than a legitimate three better normally would. You should call almost every time in this spot unless you have other reason to believe that there is no way you would be bluffed.
I have some problems with my heads-up game lately, but I do know this:
An ace on the board is most often as scary to your opponent as it is to you. The best time to bet (semi-bluff) a draw heads-up is when an ace (or otherwise scary card like pair-the-board) hits, for example. As you probably read on this forum, you can almost pretend the top card (ace) isn't there, even more so, you should often play "your" ace on the board aggressively. Against the right type of opponents, of course.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
The idea of ignoring the top card occurs when there is a raise before the flop and you defend against it (usually from a blind). Now when the flop comes you can ignore the top card.
This situation is very different in that there is a raiser and a reraiser. Now even though the pot is a little bigger, ignoring that top card if you were the original raiser can be a mistake since (1) it is more likely to hit your opponent, and (2) he is more likely to have started with a better hand than you.
[adding to what Mason said...]
and (3) [Assuming an ace comes on the turn...] You've got a hand that you really do not want to lay down - second pair, good kicker, heads up. It's also now only vulnerable to one more overcard, a king. Check, hope to induce a bluff, and call.
Don't be scared by the 3-bet preflop. I advise always 3-betting (to get rid of the blinds) if you're going to play in your opponent's spot here, so basically all you know is that your opponent has a playable hand. He probably has 55/JTs/QJ or better, but he could be as weak as 33/87s/JT. By your description it sounds to me like he had KK or KQ, but he likely didn't need such a strong hand to 3-bet you.
-Abdul
Chris,
This time I read the "clique's" answers first and realize I don't even have two cents worth adding. However, I do have a question.
What sort of chips does this game use? In California, it would be played with $2 chips. Are they doing this in Las Vegas or are they still using a combination of $5 and $1 chips.
Regards,
Rick in the "clique" (I think)
5's and 1's. The dealers are a lot better at making change now. Doesn't seem to bother the game much anymore, and I didn't see any of the mistakes like I saw last year at this time.
The 8/16 game was always good. The only problem I had was that there was usually only 2 tables going.
CV
Except against maniacs you CANNOT win short handed playing top-pair poker. Your primary mission in a 4-handed game is to win pots without a pair. To accomplish that mission you MUST play your top-pairs aggressively to add credibility to the not-so-top-pair hands you must also play aggressively. This mission greatly out-weighs maximizing EV on any one particular hand such as this one.
Since I would check-raise with any draw or any flopped pair or any weak flop, I wouldn't hesitate to check-raise with top pair. If I were inclinded to routinely wait for the turn to get steal-aggressive I would wait for the turn with my pair of Queens.
Unless of course this game is about to break and you won't be playing short handed against these guys in the near future. Then your +EV analysis is relatively important. Or unless of course you're playing against brain-dead types who don't notice that you slow-play good hands and bet aggressively weak hands or can't adjust their play based on your play.
- Louie
PS: Drop this "Under-the-gun" notion in short handed play. You were in second-to-last steal position.
I wish I wrote it.
The issue I have is that the Button Re-raised. Things would have been different if he had just called. He wasn't making Re-raises constantly, so I had to think he had quality hole cards. His Hole cards were T,T.
Otherwise I agree with Louie's Post.
CV
An actual compliment? Are you ill? Thanks.
But you guys DID write it; I just don't recall from where I plagerized it...
I did forget to mention that Mason hit a crucial point in that the button needn't have a premium hand to 3-bet. If he DOES have such a hand then I'd advise a change of gears and play out-of-position paraniod top-pair-poker as is described in other posts.
- Louie
So in short handed games, the winning player is most often winning the most pots.
As opposed to full games, the winning player(s) is/are winning the biggest pots?
Contention #1: For an aggresive, tricky player a game dwindling from full to short handed offers more profitable opportunites than a shorthanded game that is becoming a full game.
Contention #2: Tight/aggresive play is less profitable short handed.i.e. hand selection, while still important, takes a back seat to reading hands/divining your opponents intentions, deceptive play and maintaining your composure.
I'm especially interested in your opinions Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmuth. I'm often in disagreement with friends about what y'all would recommend in certain situations, esp. in short-handed, aggresive games.
Most players I know that do any thinking about the game away from the game place more emphasis on the tight in your tight/aggresive approach to the game. And there are a few players that think tricky/deceptive play is the key to winning(more often than not they are losing players). I lean toward a wholly relative interpretation to your writings, relative to kind of game, kind of players, tempo of game, table image, etc..Sorry to take the long way round this question.. and it is a general question but . . . Would either of you say that a winning short-handed player (but marginal full table player) has more to learn about the game than a winning full-table player(but marginal short-handed)? Or would the opposite be true?
I ask because at full table my expectation is pretty low -1 to +1 BB an hour with pretty big stack fluctuations(probably 15 BB an hour), while my short handed game is much better, expectation of 5 BB an hour with much smaller stack fluctuations. Shorthanded games can't always be found and, even if they were more prevelant, I'd like to be able to enter a full game with as much confidence and pos. expectation as the short-handed ones.
I did read most of the responses. Personally I think you played this hand well. Although it is good to integrate your stategy so you can win pots without a hand, in this case I believe you played it well. You might have just gone ahead and bet the hand on the river since you would try to bluff on the river anyway often in a short handed game. In a short handed game IMO it is wrong to stick a lot of money in the pot and not get to the showdown. Also you won't win the pot on the flop that often. In this case I believe your thinking was correct.
3-6 HE on Planet Poker: I'm in SB with AdJd, I raised and got 1 caller. (didn't note how many in before raise) Flop Td,x,Qd. I bet and was called all the way. Turn and river were both blanks. Should I have check-folded or check-called on the end instead of betting? I thought it was my only chance to win the pot at that point since I had missed both my draws.
Kate it seems strange to me that players limped in and then you raised from your small blind and only one limper called. Was the situation that one person limped in and everyone folded to you and you raised? If that is the case, your pre-flop raise is correct and it would make sense that you got only one caller. Your aggressive play on the flop and the turn against a lone opponent was correct. He may fold and you have a lot of outs when you are called. On the river, it is problematic and would depend on what I knew about the particular player. You may want to just try and check it down since you can beat Ace-high (unless he had specifically A-K).
Easy flop and turn bets unless check-raising is a realistic option. Theoretically you should bluff on the end some; and I would guess about 1/3 of the time. Realistically its a function of the opponent: How often will this play "chase" a pair to the river and save a bet to the obvious big pair? Some clever players do this all the time and are easy targets for big-card bluffs. Pretty much check against everybody else, since a draw isn't going to call and the pair of Ts probably SHOULD call.
Check-call? The player obviously doesn't have 2-pair going in. Some players will automatically check any one pair on the river. When these players DO bet the chances of a bluff are rediculously high and you should check-call without hesitation: you save a bet when beat (you both check) and win an extra bet when your hand is good.
So .... will THIS opponent fold one pair heads up on the river or automatically check one pair on the river?
- Louie
Jim & Louie, Thanks for your responses. Guess I need to take better notes. My opponent won with KQo. Kate
I have been trying to figure out which situation is more profitable....lets say you hold AK and get a nifty flop like K 7 3 rainbow. Or lets say you hold KK and get a similar flop like Q 7 3 rainbow. I can see some advantages of holding one hand over another and vice versa but overall which is usually a more profitable situation? Also are these two hands generally going to be played the same as the other. (I am not asking "how" to play these hands, rather if they would be played the same in identical situations)
I would say that the AK flop is safer (less hands can run you down because you already "own" part of the flop), but the KK hand is likely to get more action. With the AK you will only get strongly played with if you are beaten (a weaker K will be cautious); with the KK a hand like AQ may very well give you lots of play. Plus, when you make trips with the AK on the turn, the pot is over (you bet; everyone folds), but when you turn a third K to your KK the fact that you made trips is well concealed.
I see two main differences between the play of the two hands. KK gives you the possibility of much more action as your hand is concealed and AQ will raise ya plenty. However, the AK holding is stronger as you don't have to fear overcards. You also have more outs if you happen to be against someone who already has two pair. An additional point is that since the K on board hit you, your opponents really only got a two card flop, whereas with the overpair, there are three cards on board which could improve your opponents hand. (Does this make sense to anyone? Am I thinking about this right?)
If both hands are the best hand on the flop the AK is going to get drawn out on much less often, since an opponent with a K has only 3 outs and A7 has only 2.
KK has a better chance of re-drawing someone who has 2 pair or a set. And as others pointed out the hand is great if YOU make a set.
Without seeing the flop, AK flopping a pair is much better than KK being an over pair; partly due to the above but also there are many more likely straight draws when all 3 cards are less than K (A or K on board are at the low-probability "ends" of making straights).
KK is still better than AK since its going to BE an over pair a lot more often than AK is going to flop a pair.
- Louie
who cares? when do you get to decide between them?
scott
In general I believe the over pair is more profitable although the top pair/top kicker is less likely to get sucked out by a worse hand. The reason the over pair is more profitable is because you will get paid off from top pair all the way to the river and you might even get raised on the flop allowing you to re-raise.
There seems to be a major difference of opinion between players on this forum concerning draws to non-nut flushes. Some posters do not feel comfortable betting, raising, maybe even just calling with anything less than a draw to the nut flush. Other posters are comfortable enough with the non-nut flush draw to play it stongly and if it hits play it like a winner until they run into a bigger hand.
I've only been playing poker seriously for about 2 years. I don't play big limit (4-8 up to 10-20-40) but I will play pot-limit and no-limit (buy-in for around $1,500) and in both games I can remember my flush being beaten by a bigger flush just a couple of times. In fact, other than making my flush on the turn and having to dump when it's bet and raised before it gets to me on the river when the river card is the fourth of my suit on the board, there's been exactly two times a bigger flush beat my small flush and one of those times it was the big blind with Qxs.
So my question is: Have I been lucky not running into bigger flushes? Or is it correct to play your four flush like it's going to be a winner if the flush comes in? If the former is true, why play suited connectors below JQs? If the later is true what are the proper calling/raising/coldcalling requirements?
Basically, I'm calling early with JQs and above, Raising with AQs and above, dumping (most of the time) J10s and below. Middle position calling with 910s and above, raising with AJs and above, folding the rest. Late position with no raise and 4 or more callers I'm calling down to 45s. The above assumes a full table, short handed I'm liable to raise with 24s (or even J7o) (geez, I know that's got you salivating) but only under the right circumstances.
Anyway curious as to what better players think of these flush situations because they often come up.
chris
In my experience I have found that losing flush over flush is indeed a rare occurance. So rare that in over 1500 hours last year I can only remember it happening a few times. Because of this I play all flush draws as if they will be winners if made. You should be aware, however, that anything but the nut flush should be played very aggressively before the river to avoid making it cheap for anyone to outdraw you (catching the fourth to a suit). Your starting hand requirements are'nt bad except for playing QJs up front. This is one of those hands that creates kicker problems and it plays much better in the back. Let me first wipe the drool off my keyboard before I address your final comment. You MUST NOT PLAY SHORTHANDED until you grasp this concept - 24 is a horrible hand in a full game. In a shorthanded game it is suicide!!! Playing this piece of garbage in any situation other than the big blind in an unraised pot will cost you money. Even J7 is an underdog to any two RANDOM CARDS! When playing short you want to play hands that can win the pot if you DON'T IMPROVE. This includes pairs, Ax, and Kxs. MIKE MINETTI
Thank you for your comments, Mike.
Actually I prefer to play short handed. And, of course, hand selection is all relative. If most or even half of the hands are going to the river I wouldn't play 24 (suited or not), wouldn't play j7 either. But in a short handed game I'm coming in for a raise or re-raise or I'm not playing. I might limp with AA, KK, (maybe QQ) but only if the blinds are stupid or weak players that won't notice a limp = superpremium hand.
As far as calling with QJs early in a full game I'm not going to get excited about flopping top pair here. Flopping top pair doesn't equate with winning the pot in my mind, whether or not it's raised preflop.
chris
Mike I guess you and I have different experiences on flushes. In a full tabled limit hold-em game it is very common for one flush to lose to a higher flush in a typical 8 hour playing session. Having a flush headed by an Ace or a King is a significant consideration.
Jim, you're right - our experiences have been different. I sometimes go months without this happening. I am not talking about when there are four to a flush on board-just three. I am curious now. Have I just run unbelievably good in this situation. Would appreciate any comments. How often do the rest of you run into flush over flush? Mike Minetti
I am at poker tables 60-70 hours a week and see this very rarely. Flush over flush does happen but I'd guess it happens just a little more frequently than I see set over set.
Today is Thursday, January 27 and I played in a 10 hour session of $20-$40 yesterday in Lake Charles. Twice I saw one flush lose to a bigger flush when only three of the suit were on the board. In the first, the loser had the 9d8d and lost to the KdQd when two Diamonds flopped and the third Diamond came on the river. The second time, the big blind got a free play with the Jh6h and beat a guy who limped in with 5h4h when two Hearts flopped and a third Heart came on the turn.
Maybe it depends upon the game. Where I play guys like to come in on suited cards.
If your 2 flush-over-flush situations in a 10 hour session is on par with the normal rate of that occurance, that only equates to 1 loss per 50 hours per person. Given that you, I, and most other posters here wouldn't play as many suited hands as many of our opponents, our actual rate of losing with a small flush should be even lower.
I lost with a flopped flush of J9s to a flopped flush of KTs (with an ace on board) the other day in a $20-40 game, and that was my first loss with a smaller flush in at least 100 hours. (I played J9s in mid position after a loose limper and a tight limper, which is debateable, so perhaps with more solid play my streak would be intact. More importantly, Mr. KTs was solid and reasonably tight, and I went 1 raise too many, costing myself $200 instead of the $160 it should have. Live and learn.)
-Sean
In a ten-handed game where all players play any two suited cards, then the chance of two or more players having a flush when there are 3 flush cards on the board is about 24%. That sounds like a lot, but in the real world, when you consider the subset of suited cards that wouldn't be played (7-2s, etc), then you can reduce that number by a LOT. How much depends on the looseness of your game. Also, if your flush is middle-sized (say 78s), then when that 24% of the time happens you'll have the bigger flush half the time anyway.
In a sane game where people will only play perhaps 1/4 of the suited cards they get, you can see that it's pretty rare to lose flush-over-flush when there's only three flush cards on the board. In a normal game, you might lose flush-over-flush with a hand like 78s perhaps 5% of the time ( a little higher than the math above would suggest, because the number of playable suited hands containing cards higher than an 8 is greater than the number of playable hands containing a card lower than a 7).
The big danger to a small flush is when there is a 4-flush on the board. Starting from having 2 suited cards on the flop, you will wind up with a 4-flush on board only about 2% of the time.
So... The big threat to a small flush is when you flop three cards of the same suit. In this case, you'll wind up with at least four to flush on board about 28% of the time.
For the bigger picture, you can look at the total number of 5-card boards that you can wind up with (2,118,760). Of those, 122,265 will wind up with three cards to your suit, 12,870 will have four to your suit, and 462 will have five to your suit.
So, starting with two suited cards you'll make a flush about 6.5% of the time. And of all the flushes you make, about 11% will be with four or five flush cards on the board. How many of those you lose depends on the nature of the game and the size of your starting cards.
To me, the problem with starting with small suited connectors is not the danger of losing flush-over-flush. The problem is that they are small cards, and don't often win with a pair and are vulnerable even when they make two pair or trips, and these types of flops are much more likely.
Chris,
Maybe I’ve run into more than my share of “overflushes” but I play mid limit in Los Angeles where you often have several players at the table playing Ax, Kx, Qx and even Jx suited in any position. So I am a little cautious when playing small flush draws. However, I would never go so far as some that advocate tossing away middle suited connectors or single gap hands even in back against several opponents in an unraised pot.
When I play small, connected cards in a multi-way pot such as 76 suited I would much rather make straights than make a flush. So I tend to rate a 76 offsuit to be about 60% of the value of a 76 suited. This number is sort of pulled out of my rear end and I would welcome any constructive flames on this.
BTW, big suited cards are a different beast compared to their unsuited counterparts. Short handed they have similar value but in multi-way, heavy action pots being suited really matters.
A few years back when I had more time I started to construct a table based on the assumption that my opponents would play any two suited cards. I wanted to determine the likelihood of various higher flushes being out when a player made his flush based on the top card of the flush draw along with the number of opponents. I figured it would give me a sense of the relative value of the “flushing” aspect of a hand. I never completed it nor was I sure of the math. I suspect some of the posters out in 2+2 land have done such an analysis.
In general, you should be able to sense when the play of the hand indicates other flush draws are out. If the player is one who plays any two suited, then having the above information might help quite a bit.
I’m too tired to add much more but am looking forward to other replies.
Regards,
Rick
I cannot speak for big bet poker (pot limit and no limit) but I can tell you in an 8-10 handed limit hold-em game with lots of players taking a flop and 4 or more going on to the turn, the likelihood of one flush losing to a higher flush skyrockets. When a two flush flops and several players are willing to call bets and raises to see the turn and go to the river, it is frequently the case that more than one player is on a flush draw. Having the nut flush draw is critical.
We all like to think that when we hit our flush on the river we will win this huge pot and get paid off in multiple spots. Unfortunately, in those situations where the pot is big and gets even bigger after the flop it is frequently because the board is fitting your opponents' hand just like your own hand. People don't play random cards and random probability is not always applicable. This is why pumping a pot on the flop with lots of raises having just a come hand and lots of opponents is usually a bad idea. If you could see the other players' hands you would frequently find you were drawing dead.
I like what Jim says, but I also like what Dan says. I think you have to be very wary when you have medium flush cards and more than four players take the turn. That said, you will almost always have the proper odds to call with the flush draw. It really *is* rare enough that it shouldn't normally be a concern. On the other hand the *last* place you ever want to be is drawing dead.
This really is a case where you have to use some of the other skills besides pure odds to help you out. You have to read the board and see if there are other draws which people might be calling with. Are there a lot of high cards so that people will be calling with 2nd pair, 3rd pair and broadway gutshots, or is it a bunch of unconnected 2 suited rags? In the later case I might consdier folding something like 87s with a weak flush draw, no gutshot, five other players, and real aggression.
But I'm not going to make this fold regularly, and I'm not going to fold it against 3 or less players.
- Andrew
One of the things that makes small flush draws less valuable than the raw numbers would indicate is that when you are second best you often have to pay a lot of money. On the other hand, if no one else has a flush you may not get much action when your flush hits. Also, Ace-high flush draws (and to some extend King high) often get action from players who are drawing dead with a lone king or queen in their hand when a 3-flush develops on the flop or turn. The small flush gets that action to, but it's action that it doesn't want. So in terms of money odds, the small flush draw is somewhat worse than numeric odds of winding up flush-over-flush would indicate.
I agree 100%. Maybe the reason I don't seem to have this flush over flush problem is because I am capable of laying down a weak flush draw when it is clear that I'm probably drawing dead. Mike Minetti
This hand was over a week ago but it keeps creeping into my thoughts because I feel like I misplayed the hand.
5-10-20 game. I'm in the big blind with A5s(spades). Folded around to cut off who raises, little blind calls and I call.
Flop is 2s 8s 10d. Little blind checks, I bet, late position raiser calls, little blind calls.
Turn is Ad. Little blind checks, I bet, late position raiser folds, little blind calls.
River is Kd. Little blind checks, I bet, Little blind raises. Little blind is moderately capable player who respects my play(but not too much). I think about folding but call. My thinking is that if little blind had a straight or flush he'd bet in case I checked it down. If he had two pair he'd check and call because of the straight/flush possibilities. I figured aces were good so I guess you'd call the river bet a value bet. I turned over my Ace and little blind mucked. My question is how often do you lay this down if ever? How often do you check the river instead of betting?
I should probably thank Mr. Ciaffone here because I might've laid this down if it hadn't been for "Improve Your Poker."
chris
Hardly ever. If your opponent could beat Aces he probably would have raised on the turn. In a limit game the pot is usually too large at the end to fold for a single bet when you have a decent holding against one opponent.
With regard to betting versus checking, in this case I would usually bet because I will get called by someone with a Ten or a King. I bet when I feel the likelihood of me getting called by a worse hand is greater than getting raised by a better one.
The cutoff is a big favoite to bet the flop no matter what; and if so you should check-raise with your solid draw just like you would if you had AT.
I don't see how the SB could reasonably suspect you of a straight or flush; but he could easily have one (good raise bluff). If he DID make a strong hand then he should check-raise since you are likely to check or fold a small pair anyway, and will bet most hands you can call with.
As Jim said, rarely fold top pair heads up. One of the "rarely's" is against players that never check-raise bluff on the river.
- Louie
Without having read the other responses, I would almost never fold the river in this case because there are just too many bets in the pot. In games where opponents are capable of this type of check-raise bluff on the end, you sometimes just have to grit your teeth and call. Sometimes you will lose but the times you call should more than make up for the times you are actually beaten.
Since you had such a weak ace, I think you have a marginal value bet here. I think checking the river would not be such a bad idea.
Dave in Cali
In this situation it sounds like you and the small blind are familiar with each other. Therefore he probably put you on a hand like either a busted flush draw (which you did have) or even a ten. If he was drawing with overcards and felt you had a ten if he hit his king on the river he might try this play.
I’ve been playing in some very loose aggressive games (15/30 so cal) I keep getting lost in some hands. On the turn I have a set the 3rd flush card or the 3rd straight card comes 4 people in the pot what do I do. I might have an over pair without the flush card. How do I play these hands. The pots are to big to risk giving the free card, but I keep getting raised. In HPFAP it suggest to bet hands with no outs, but to check hands with outs like 2 pair. When the pot gets huge does this rule apply.
With a set you should continue betting because there is a strong possibility you have the best hand and even if you don't you have 10 outs to the best hand.
With an over pair on the turn I would usually bet and if I get raised I will frequently just fold against a large number of opponents. Keep in mind that you could be drawing dead and even in those cases where you are not, the field has a lot of redraws against you specifically if the fourth suited card shows up on the river.
Jim,
"With an over pair on the turn I would usually bet and if I get raised I will frequently just fold against a large number of opponents."
Maybe in the southeast this is a good idea but in loose aggressive SoCal you often have to fasten your seatbelt and hang on unless the board is very scary in multiple ways and you have several opponents to boot.
Regards,
Rick
Dreamer,
I think the HPFAP advice applies more to head up situations. In the multi-way pots, you want to make them pay. However, they often will bet the hand for you so checking is not that bad.
Regards,
Rick
As Jim said the set is well worth a bet.
NitPick: Which "free" cards are you conserned about giving when you have a set against 4 players? Perhaps against the player with the stiff Ten will fold and there are no other big ones out? Or the one-card under gut-shot in the hands of a disciplined player? Otherwise, anybody drawing to beat you is going to call anyway; gut-shot or otherwise. Betting a set earns money but usually doesn't save the pot. Now betting your top pair CAN easily save you a pot since opponents will often fold hands drawing to beat you.
There is no shame in mindlessly flailing away with good hands and then paying them all off in these loose aggressive games. Do so routinely, fold those rare times you are sure.
- Louie
How many people here play 2-3o, ever?Have you won with it?Do you call raises with it? Do you think its good for $150.00?well,it is at Paradise Poker.
I play Trey-Deuce offsuit if I get a free play in my big blind.
Howdy partner,
They call me bookworm. I too, play paradise poker. While 2-3o will win the occasional humungous pot and be very deceptive in a raised pot it's a leak in your game. It's a long shot that requires a very large pot to make it a profitable call. You must hit 2 or 3 perfect cards to have a chance to win. It's true your victories will be more sweet, but mine will be more fulfilling. Hope to see you at the table.
good luck until then, Bookworm
I don't play it..just got beat by it.I had A's up. the guy who won the poet won about 9 pots in a row. His starting hand selection was very bad per usual book information. Nevertheless, he couldn't lose. 2-3o took the cake..and I quit after that. Jim Brier plays 2-3o for free? Well i guess flopping a set or 2 pair is possible. a free look can't hurt anyone. This guy made a wheel on the turn. The pot was raised to him pre-flop. I'm beginning to think that the books are just gibberish.
Of course it all depends on the book. To give you a blackjack analogy:
the book play with 33 is to split against dealer's 2-7 and hit all others. You can routinely see splits against a ten because these people have come to play and splitting is fun. Once in a while they catch sevens and eights and win 4 bets on the double downs. But it's a god awful play. Basically you're taking one bad hand 33 vs 10 and turning it into 2 bad hands (3 vs 10) X 2.
When you see someone playing and calling raises with 32o remember his name and always go on the waiting list at his table. You'll be glad you did, as long as you adhere to the gibberish in the 2+2 books.
When you see someone playing and calling raises with 32o remember his name and always go on the waiting list at his table.
Of course a player who calls raises with 32o is probably a mega-fish, but assuming their post-flop play is equal, I'd rather go on the waiting list at the table with the guy who'll re-raise with T9o. In other words, I'd rather chase a maniac from table to table than a loose-passive player.
-Sean
I don't agree. maniacs make it difficult to get the proper odds preflop to play your strong drawing hands. Give me a guy who will donate to the cause when I've got the goods.
Me too Sammy...give me the calling station anytime.
Funny that someone brings up 23o- who's up for a bad beat story?
Sunday night, I had 23o in the Big Blind, and the flop came 233, I get into raising war with a weak and normally passive player on the flop. Holding the nuts, I keep firing until he just calls. The turn is a queen, and he goes all-in with one or two bets and then shows me pocket queens....damn the 23o ;)
mike
I'm not really sure what you mean by "having the proper odds preflop to play your strong drawing hands." I assume you're referring to hands that want to see the flop for only 1 bet, but any hand that wants to see the flop cheaply is marginal by definition so you're not giving much up by mucking them. In a game with multiway pots, I consider suited paint and big offsuit aces to be strong drawing hands, and I am more than happy to play these hands for 2 or 3 bets.
I also probably was misleading by using the term "maniac," but someone using T9o as his/her minimum raising/3-betting hand is probably only raising with about 30-40% of their hands, so you'll still get to see the flop cheaply often enough. I'd still call that person a maniac, but the more common definition of maniac is someone who raises with the vast majority of their hands and plays incredibly aggressively post-flop. I'm referring to a fish who raises and 3-bets with a lot of hands, but plays similarly post-flop as Mr. 32o.
-Sean
John,
He's just following the advice of Johnny Hale and the 30 Cadillac Game in Card Player 1/21/00.
Paul
Actually, I made quads with 23 on Paradise just yesterday.
Unfortunately, I was doing some predawn paperwork and clicked the "check in turn/fold" option when I saw my junky BB hand and returned to my memo. When I next looked up my hand was still there, two deuces were on the board, and a message was on my screen telling me that I had been timed out. $30 main. Oh well.
Except that now I guess 'm an all-in cheat.
A live one at the Bellagio 8/16 was winning some big pots with 2,3. He'd play it every time and he called raises with it. If he Flopped a 2 or 3 he would raise like it was the Nuts. I got to see him show it down twice in a 4 hour period, both times he had sucked out two pair with it.
I think the game must be rigged. ;^)
CV
I'll start palying it then...I didn't realize that so many of 2+2 players thought this was a premium holding. What fun it must be to win with! You guys are just too good for me. Maybe I'll be able to siz like that guy too!
In a thread on RGP "Laying Down a Set" a few weeks ago Abdul raised UTG with 77.
Later in the thread he says.
" . . . but it's an S&M myth that medium pairs are weak hands that should muck or limp when opening. In fact, they are weak hands that should normally muck or raise when opening. . . . . As I said in another post, 77 is the weakest pair I would play under the gun in this type of game (30-60)."
I would be very interested in hearing non S&M, non Abdulian thoughts on this topic.
In the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio I would limp in under the gun with 77, 88, or 99. I would raise with a bigger pocket pair and fold a smaller pocket pair. In the $15-$30 game or a lower game I will limp in under the gun with pocket Sixes. I am assuming that in all cases we are talking about a 10 handed game.
I cannot bring myself to raise with medium pocket pairs under the gun because the risk of a re-raise is too great and I am out of position for the rest of the hand.
I would raise with these pairs only occassionally for deceptive purposes. Why else would one raise with them? _Unless_ you have a dominant table image and control that would cause a better hand(s) to fold this raise lowers your EV, lowering your implied odds while raising your cost.
Call with medium pairs when you can expect lots of loose calls behind you or when the players are so weak tight that you can routinely steal on the turn when they check the flop.
I'd guess these hands are worth a raise against semi-tight semi-bad players which you dominate and control. Easy fold in a table of Sklansky's, Malmuth's, Zee's, and LaPore's.
- Louie
From the perspective of a lower limit player (10-20 and below) I will usually play medium pairs utg, but I will usually limp (raising with JJ and up). Keep in mind that I try to avoid tight games full of S&Ms. The games I tend to play in are loose with 4-8 players typical for any given flop. In these games I think you should limp and see the flop for cheap. You make lots of $$ when you hit a set but there is no stealing on the turn. Therefore you should see the flop cheaply, fold if you miss, and pump it up those times you hit a set.
Dave in Cali
"The games I tend to play in are loose with 4-8 players"
Then do you *expect* to get raised from a late position player if you limp UTG?
Are you hoping that your implied odds will catch up in the end if you hit the flop? (when it's raised)
Will this be profitable over time?
I think it may if you do get in cheap (1 bet). But when it gets raised I would expect a bit of a dip in EV.
MJ
you have a point, sometimes it gets raised and you probably lose some EV when this happens. But for the most part, there are not that many raises in these passive low limit games. If there is a frequent raiser or several decent players in the game, then I will tighten up a bit in early position. Otherwise, you usually still have 4-8 players BTF regardless of whether it gets raised, so it is not that big of a deal. Keep in mind that playing hands like 98s or 55 in early position is extremely game dependent and should not be done in a tight or aggressive game.
Dave in Cali
I normally make this play in a 20-40 Hold-em game for a profit. In games that are fairly tight this play can work quite well. If you get three bet you know you are probably beaten. A cold call from someone other than the blinds probably means a big ace. So if the flop is 10 high or under I play it for the best hand. When face cards and aces hit it usually best to get out cheap. I wouldn't however try this with less than 7-7.
Loose somewhat passive 15-30 HE game. Haven't won a pot in 1st hour and pick up pocket Jacks in early position with no one entered. I usually like to invest as little pre-flop but decide to raise. To my delight everyone folds except the blinds( Very few give up their blinds in this game of all pros). Flop is Q-4-3 rainbow. Both blinds check and I bet. I think I have the best hand but there's no way to know...Both blinds would just call with a Queen and bad kicker and wait til the turn to check-raise or bet two-pair. Theu turn is a King. Both blinds check and I check. Was this a mistake? I didn't bet because I thought I was beaten in at least one place and I did not think a bet would move them out. I also thought that if my turn bet didn't work I would have enough committed to bluffing on the end(Right/Wrong) Anyway, the river brought a 3 making the final board Q-4-3-K-3. the small blind bet and the big blind called...I mucked... I'll post the results later but my question is how many of you would have fired on the turn and checked the river, how many would bet the turn and the river and who would do what I did? Thanks in advance.
RAZOR
If they truly defend tenaciously you probably still have the better hand. But if they defend selectively you probably don't.
Bet if they'll fold a pair of Queens. Otherwise if they had enough to call the flop they still have enough so betting doesn't help much. Checking the turn is inducing a bluff and you should call the river against aggressive tenacious opponents.
Over-call? Well of course THIS time since its obvious you mucked the best hand or you wouldn't be posting. It looks pretty close unless the BB is "tight" and isn't going to call with a small pair.
- Louie
Louie,
I just read your short-handed post and this game last night actually turned into a 3 handed game when I made all my money back plus some...I'm getting more accustomed to short-handed play. I was up about $400 when I had Ak and flopped AA9, unfortunately the flush came and I lost to K4...Oh well.
BTW I didn't muck the best hand and that's not why I post(To tell a bunch of people I dont' know that I mucked a winner and for comfort).
RAZOR
Sorry: But there are lots of players who experience serious doubt when they lose a hand; either paying it off or folding a winner. Most "play-this-hand" posts seem to be of this nature. I didn't mean to suggest you were looking for comfort; not that you'd get any here anyway.
Louie,
No big deal. I don't get upset over silly stuff like that anyway but just wanted to let you know...Anyway, I had pocket Jacks, the small blind won the pot with 32(suited or not I don't remember)and the BB had Pocket 10's. He should have probably bet the flop, I raise and win the showdown at the end but I didn't lay down a winner. I'm glad the BB called the river or I would have had a tough decision but I probably would have layed it down regardless.
Regards,
Razor
Either TT made a brilliant bluff call or is brain dead, since the chances of the solid raiser behind him not being able to beat TT when KQ are on the board is pretty small...
The Latter
I would have bet the Turn. These guys have to Put you on AK AQ KK AA QQ. If you get called on the Turn just show down the River. If you get checkraised on the Turn, Fold. The reason I'd fold for a checkraise on the Turn is that the check raiser has to think you have at least a calling hand and plans to make you pay.
One thing that you may need to think about is that if the turn card made a 4 flush possible someone may be getting tricky with a small pair plus 4 flush or a straight flush draw. I guess it depends on the players, but its a semi-bluff I make everytime. Its probably still best to fold.
They will probably check to you on the end if you bet the turn. Since you didn't bet you might have induced a Bluff. The cold caller makes me think the fold is still the best play.
Comments? Louie?
CV
Pre-flop, you should definitely raise in early position with your pocket Jacks. You probably have the best hand and should charge others extra money to take a flop. In addition, a game with a lot of pros will be a tight, aggressive game not a loose, passive game. A loose, passive game is a great game to be playing in. When the blinds call, they will usually have some semblance of a hand since they are paying money to take a flop against an early position player marked with a good hand (you in this case) plus they are out of position.
On the flop, of course you bet with your pocket Jacks despite the Queen over card when both blinds check to you. Incidently, if I were in the blinds and I had a Queen I would be most likely betting into you to see where you were at. You might be hard pressed to call with just over cards or a lower pocket pair than Queens but it would depend on the player. When the King shows up on the turn and they both check again, you indeed have a dilemma. There are now two over cards to you pair on the board and most likely one of the two blinds who called your flop bet as well as your pre-flop raise probably has a better hand. If one or both stayed all this way with just a King, it is unlikely they will fold now on the turn when their miracle card shows up because you bet after they checked. I would assume I was playing a two outer at this point and would probably check like you did. To bet would be an attempt to buy the pot with a worse hand and I don't think it would work against two players. It might against one. On the river, I would fold after the river is bet like you did.
I would play this hand the way you did and I would have had no reservations whatsoever about raising pre-flop.
In 15-30 format the small blind calls liberally and the big blind calls with most anything at 5-1. The are not drawing to overcards, perhaps one overcard between them but don't assume that.
I like to think I'd bet the turn, the king is an ugly card to someone with second pair or a bad queen. When you bet the turn you'll get checked to most of the time and can just show it down except for the few hands where a jack pops off, then you can bet. When you check the turn you're prime for a hijacking and will look like a wimp unless you call the river.
I had to re-read my post where i stated all pros. I forget sometimes that no one knows me or my humor. There was actually only 1 pro in the game and the rest were not anything special..Sorry about the mix-up. I know pocket Jacks is a good hand but I just usually do not raise pre-flop and if someone would have already entered the pot I wouldn't have. I know the addage make them pay to draw at you but I save that addage for after the flop.
Regards,
Razor
The problem Razor is that you learn very little about their hand when they get a free flop. It is a lot more revealing when they have to play to pay since players don't play random cards.
I would bet the turn and fold if check-raised, normally. A good rule of thumb is if you don't like your hand, bet. An exception would be against a player who frequently (but not too frequently) check-raise bluffs. Another exception would be when your hand is not vulnerable.
Here your hand is vulnerable because 1) there is one more overcard that could come on the river, 2) an ace, jack, ten, or nine could complete a straight for someone who called on the flop with a backdoor flush draw or an ace, and 3) you're facing two opponents and a trey could come on the river to give someone trips, or one could make two pair or something when they would have folded had you bet the turn. If instead the board were xyAK, you were facing one opponent, and you had QQ, then you should definitely give free card and try to induce a bluff on the river.
Your situation an example of where you bet even though you figure to be a dog if called, and you probably even figure to lose money on the bet on average (ignoring the pot). It's just that you lose less money this way than by checking, and you still win overall due to the chance of winning the pot.
If you do check the turn, one of the few benefits is that you can lay down on the river rather than overcall, but it's not a laydown that you can feel great about (e.g., what if the first player is bluffing and the second is calling with a small pair?), so it's best to just avoid this situation by betting on the turn.
-Abdul
I agree with Mr Jalib here. You are representing a queen or better on the flop. You need to follow through on the turn and if raised exit the pot.
Think of it this way. If you did have a queen on the flop, would you be checking when the overcard came on the turn? You shouldn't be, and here you are representing queens or better.
You need to get past that first level and start thinking about what they think you have. seeya
I also agree with Mr. Jalib. It just doesn't look like the King could have helped anyone; either they already had you beat or you still have them.
I'd bet the turn and suffer the consequences. If I check the turn, they'll know I don't have a king and probably not a good queen and at least one will bet on the river with pretty much anything meaning that I should probably call but since either could easily beat me I won't know where I'm at and ... it's just a harder decision on the river than it is if I get check-raised on the turn (usually muck). In an easier game I'd check.
On the river that's a tough overcall but I like the size of the pot here and these guys could easily be playing worse than JJ.
Bet the turn. You raised pre-flop, and a lot of players will call with just about anything if a pre-flop raiser bets a board without an ace or a king on it. The king is a scary, scary card for your opponents. If you didn't have a hand on the flop, you surely have one now. You may have even had someone with a queen in there waiting to check-raise the turn, and who will now fold. If one of them has a king and checked, you're probably going to be check-raised when you bet and you can get off the hand.
If you check the turn you are committed to calling a single bet on the river, so why not bet the turn? If someone calls and checks the river, you can check behind them. Still only one bet, and you give yourself the maximum chance to win the pot.
If your hand had more outs, (say you had AK with a queen high flop), then checking becomes more correct because you hate to bet, get checkraised, and have to release the equity your 5-out hand represents. But with only 2 outs to improve, betting becomes more correct. If you're checkraised, you can fold without giving up much.
Dan,
I'm curious as to what kind of hands you put these blinds on? Regardless of razor's sarcastic "all pros" comment, it's still a 15-30 game, not 2-4 and they're calling a raise from someone UTG not from a late position steal seat. I would like to have seen a few hands these guys had played on the button calling 2 bets cold. My reference is to Jim's post about Ciaffone saying that if the button is worth 1/2 bet then calling a legitimate raise in the small blind has to be the same as cold calling 2 bets on the button. In this hand I think if you weren't dead when the queen fell, you sure are when the king hits, and an ace could still hit on the river. Like Rounder says, I'll save my money for the next hand. Deal!!
A lot of players at the 15-30 level, even good players, will call raises out of the blinds with hands like 89s, 56s, 97s, Q9, etc.
Does this game have a $5 small blind or $10? With a $5 small blind I would expect a pretty good hand from the small blind, but you never know. A common leak from otherwise good players is to play too loose in the small blind.
Anyway, the correct question is not, "What hands could they have had before the flop", but "What hands could they have that they would just check and call this flop with?" Either a monster or not much, probably.
I'm surprised no one has discussed the river in more detail. I would definately bet the turn AND follow through on the river. The king is a scare card and this is your chance to a) get them off a queen that has you beat and b) get them off any hand that still has outs. If you get check-raised - dump it. If you get called in one spot, bet the river. The caller most likely has a queen and is trying to hit a 5 outer. If he doesn't connect he will probably lay it down. If you get called in both spots I would still bet the river if there was a flush draw out there. In fact this could win you the pot if the SB has a queen and the BB is on a draw. It will be extremely difficult for the SB to call your river bet with a player yet to act. The key to this strategy is your table image. This play will not work if you haven't won a pot in an hour. It also would not be advisable against calling stations. You should not only be aware of your opponents, but also of their image of you. Because table image is so important, I sometimes will transfer from a better game just to "start over". Mike Minetti
8/16 at the Bellagio. I'm in 3rd position with KdQd, UTG solid local Raises. #2 position Folds. I call and 6 players see the Flop.
Flop: Ad Qs 7c
Blinds Check UTG Bets. Pot is offering 13 to 1. My Effective Odds are around 9 to 1 at best and 6 to 1 at worst. I don't think I have the best hand and I do think the only way I can win is to catch a Q on the turn or a Running Flush.
I make the call. 2 other players call. the Turn is the 5d. UTG bets I call SB calls.
The River is the 4d. SB bets?! UTG calls. I raise SB calls, UTG calls.
SB had the JdTd. UTG had AsQc
I haven't done the math yet but I think the call on the Flop was profitable before I saw everyone's hole cards.
CV
This hand beautifully illustrates why King-Queen suited or unsuited is such a problem hand against a solid early position raiser. Even when you catch a piece of the flop you are usually in serious trouble. I would cold-call the raise only because I was suited.
When 6 players take a flop and then the UTG raiser bets there is $104 in the pot and it costs you $8 to call. At best you have runner-runner Diamonds and perhaps 2 outs with a Queen. A King is probably not an out since I doubt a solid player would lead into 5 opponents with pocket Tens or Jacks. He might have Ace-Jack suited but this remote. Roy Cooke would assess this situation as having 3 outs since he would add one out for runner-runner despite having to pay a double bet on the turn to pursue the draw. I don't think the pot is going to get quite big enough to justify paying $8 now and another $16 on the turn. I would not think this pot would get to be over $200 in most cases under typical scenarios where most of the field drops out on the flop, maybe one or two players go to river, and when you hit you get maybe one caller. I would have folded on the flop.
How do you figure 6-1 at worst? You're second to act, with two people to act behind you, and the two blinds yet to act. If any one of them raises, there's a good chance the UTG player will re-raise.
Anyway, winning with one queen or a running flush is probably correct, but there is a chance that your opponent has AQ, AA, or QQ (not unlikely given an UTG raise), and you are drawing to running queens, or running kings or a running flush or a running one-card straight. Also, the two people behind you called an UTG raise cold as well, so unless they are complete fish I would worry about them quite a lot.
I'd fold on the flop, unless I knew the UTG raiser well enough to think that he may be betting something like JJ, in which case I'd raise. But I'd mostly just fold and wait for a better situation.
Dan says:"How do you figure 6-1 at worst? You're second to act, with two people to act behind you, and the two blinds yet to act. If any one of them raises, there's a good chance the UTG player will re-raise."
I thought the texture of the Flop was good enough to risk a call in my position. There wasn't a Two Flush and only a gutshot straight draw possible. Since the Pre-Flop wasn't three bet I felt pretty sure that there would be no raise from behind me. The game wasn't aggressive.
CV
Preflop, fold.
Given that you misplayed preflop by not folding, raise on the flop.
Given that you misplayed on the flop by not raising, raise on the turn.
You played the nuts on the river extraordinarily well.
-Abdul
I got to admit Folding was one of my main options. The pot was just too big. To many people cold called. Raising wasn't on the top of the list, and I'll tell you why. That damn Ace on the board and the Solid Player betting. I was pretty sure he had a least a pair of aces. I couldn't raise. I was basicly on the Draw. If I raised out the other players then my implied odds got squashed. I was probably taking the worst of it on the Flop to get a perfect card. A Queen or Diamond. Of course if that didn't come then I was gone.
On the Turn again I didn't want to raise because again I screw my implied odds. I didn't want to knock out gut shots, Ace weak kicker, or Bottom pair hoping to trip-up. They were my bread and butter. If I had an Ace and a backdoor draw then things would be different, I'd want them out!
How big does the pot need to be to make my play correct if ever?
CV
CV
Chris wrote:
I'm in 3rd position with KdQd, UTG solid local Raises. #2 position Folds. I call...
I replied:
Preflop, fold.
Chris replied:
I got to admit Folding was one of my main options. The pot was just too big.
Heh. "I had to call. The pot was just too big. The pot was 3.5 small bets and only 2 small bets to call!!!"
If you mean you expected the pot to get big, then maybe, but usually it would be very risky to cold call early with that. (Just one player behind might call, or it could come back reraised and rereraised.)
-Abdul
n
Chris - why don't you want to knock out ace-x? Furthermore, I can't believe Abdul is the only poster in the bunch who addresses the obvious. Your call pre-flop was horrible. Any solid player cannot have a hand worse than yours. Pick a better spot. Mike Minetti
What makes you think I can knock out Axs? They know the Pot is Big too. I'll probably just make the Pot bigger and get Re-Raised by the original bettor.
CV
Chris, in your post at 4:57 you stated you DIDN'T want to knock out Ax. Maybe just an oversight. Mike
Mike,
Once the Pre-Flop Raiser Bet the Flop and pretty much told me he had at least an Ace good Kicker. I had it in my mind that the only way I was going to win was to catch a Running Flush or Spiking a Queen. Since that was my goal I gain nothing by knocking out the other one pair hands. I want hands like AK AJ AT to call all the way because if I make Trip Queens or better then there is no way they can beat me other than Spiking an Ace after I Spike the Queen and thats only going to happen 2 times in a Thousand hands (I think).
The only other problem I run into is that if my Trip Queens make someone a Full House, or my Flush card pairs the Board and makes a Full House. The only Flush card that can do that is the 7d.
CV
Are you raising the flop because of the possibility that the UTG player does not have an Ace?
Given Chris's condition that he absolutely knows the player in front has at least an ace, would you still recommend raising?
My call was that in this situation the first option would be to fold, but if I was going to stay with the hand then raising is certainly better than calling.
Right, I'm hoping the preflop raiser has KK, JJ, TT, 99, KJs, KTs, JTs, QJs, KQ, or similar. The pot is very large, so I'm just taking a low probability shot at winning it here. I'm hoping to drive out any weak aces behind, and to get heads up with the preflop raiser, whom I hopefully either beat now or will terrorize out of the pot now or on the turn. A victory with the third best hand (e.g., KK in the hands of the raiser who folds by the turn and Ax in the hands of the big blind who folds to two cold on the flop) would be very sweet.
On the turn I was thinking it was 3-way, but I see now that it's 4-way, though I don't know whether the fourth player is the big blind or a late position player. And yeah, as Brett suggests, a raise even 3-way is probably getting too frisky. However, heads up I wouldn't hesitate to raise and then check it down if I don't improve.
-Abdul
I think you played the hand pretty well. Calling the raise before the flop is not that bad if the game is good, because you can expect more callers behind you. The more callers, the less important your position is.
The call on the flop not that bad. What you are really scared of, which you already know, is a raise behind you.
Abdul, I think your play is way too fancy here. FPS syndrome, as properly coined by Caro, I believe.
Raise on the flop, to protect what? The raise on the turn is only enhanced if you have any chance of winning the pot. He doesn't. Youre right, he did play good on the river.
CV,
I'll answer before having my thoughts disrupted by reading the responses on Abdul, Dan, and Jim. Hopefully I will not embarrass myself :-).
I don't like the cold call from early middle position of a solid UTG raiser. It turned out you got plenty of action behind you (which helps for your flush but may hurt you when you flop an average hand such as pair/kicker). If the game was very passive it wasn't so bad a call. However, I generally hate to be in the middle with what may be a hand that is dominated by the early position bettor and reraised by someone behind you with no assurance of the multi-way action you need on your flush flops.
After the flop if you were in back and knew the action in front of you then a call is not that bad. But from the middle I believe it was an easy fold. I'll let others elaborate when it comes to the math.
On the turn a raise should have been considered. To others the baby would look like a blank and a solid player would lay down some hands you can't beat right now such as KK. But calling was at least OK.
Regards,
Rick
Don't fold 1 pair getting 13:1. Easy call. With a bigger pot easy raise with your likely 2nd best hand.
Bad call B4 the flop against these solid UTG raisers except that you expect lots of brain-dead action behind you.
- Louie
I don't think it's as easy as saying, "Don't fold with one pair getting 13:1".
Chris described the raiser as a 'solid' player. You can expect that the hands he would show you here are AA, AK, KK, AQ, QQ, JJ, maybe TT... Throw in a few other wildcards like a deception raise with something like TJs if you want. The point is that Chris is certain he's up against at least an Ace. If that's the case, then what can the UTG raiser have? The possibilities are AA, AK, AQ, QQ. Just which one of those hands do you want to draw against with KQ?
If the game is very tight, then the range of raising hands the 'solid' player might have is a little wider, but I'd still have to factor a pretty high probability that my one-pair hand is actually a 2 or 3 outer at best, and at worst I'm drawing nearly dead.
Well said. OK, "Don't fold one pair getting 18:1"... :)
Your sound arguments highlight the notion of "trouble hands" and encourages questioning the original call before the flop.
- Louie
I'm gone before the flop. Against solid early posisition raisers , one of the cards in my hand has to be an ACE. the others have to Kings, Queens, Jacks, with side cards less than a King, SUITED. Then I will decide whether to re-raise. This is a fold pre-flop, suited or not imo.
When someone else is doing the raising other than me, then I'm going to have a big hand if I come in, unless he/she is a known loosey. seeya
big Al do you raise again against loosy goosy? I do. I like what big Al say here.
KQ early, suited or not, is a trouble hand. I never play the hand from your position. The UTG raise makes your call that much more incorrect. Chasing with your hand post flop is just throwing bad money after good. The fact is you got lucky and are trying to justify to yourself that this was a valid play and the odds were in your favor. They weren't.
Odds of Hitting a Running Flush or Spiking a Queen
Catch a Queen on the Turn (2/47)~ 4%
Catch a Diamond then a Queen (10*2)/(47*46)~ 1% (is this correct?)
Catch a Running Flush (10*9)/(47*46)~ 4%
Miss on the Turn (35/47)~ 74%
Catch a Diamond then Miss on the River (10*35)/(47*46)~ 17%
On average I plan on winning $184 per pot 9 times for +1656
I lose $8 74 times I miss the Turn for –592
I lose $24 17 times I miss the River for –408
That comes out to ~+6.50 per Hand. Not bad! Of course I may spike a Queen and it may not be good or I may get raised on the Turn, but I really don’t think playing from the Flop on is wrong. Where I may need to evaluate my play is Calling a solid player pre-Flop with KQs. Since the game was good I don’t think my play was that bad, but bad is bad and I may need to start throwing it away in this situation.
CV
Now downgrade your results with the possibility that you are up against AQ, QQ, or AA, or that that you'll be trapped for multiple raises to draw. Also downgrade it with the possibility that you'll hit a queen and lose to a straight. Or that you'll hit a queen and an Ace will come on the river. Or that you'll make a running flush on a card that pairs the board and you lose to a full house.
If you KNOW you are up against at least an Ace, I think the best action is a fold.
All you guys just say I think I'd play, or I'd think I'd fold. I ran the numbers and found that it looks like the best move was to play. Its close, but I didn't write this post because I knew I made the right play.
Now without even looking at how I got the numbers you just say Fold? Even when it looks like the Pot is big enough to call? How often does the Board go Runner Runner Q, A? If an Ace came on the Turn I could just Fold. No Problem. It couldn't be a Diamond or Queen.
Later, CV
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it. The UTG preflop raiser is characterized as a solid player. On the river he calls the SB's river bet (probably o.k. but not automatic) but then he overcalls your raise after the SB calls. That doesn't seem like solid play to me.
Just because a player has solid starters doesn't mean he's a solid player. If he typically calls when thesedraws get there in a multiway pot I don't see how you can call him solid.
Comments?
chris
Excellant post Chris! Chris V. has made a mistake in calling this player solid. This is a very questionable overcall.
I've played a total of 199 hours. I'm up a total of $80. This figure includes collections and tokes, and excludes food and tipping. I've played approximately:
2-4HE 22%
3-6HE 33%
4-8HE 20%
6-12HE 22.5%
9-18HE .5%
7CS 2%
All HE has been collection (when you have the button you pay a drop to the house which does not count as a blind).
As I've played more and more and thought more and more, it's become apparent that collections are KILLING me. I'd be much better off if the house took a rake instead. If I play 15-30 it'll be a time pay. Am I ready given these pay statistics or should I continue to grind it out in the lower limits? If these casinos took a rake instead I figure I'd be up over $1000. Afterall I've played over 7000 hands -- this equates to more than $2000 in collections.
Thanks,
-Michael
While I agree that the lower limit games (i.e.- anything lower than $10-$20) are brutal because of the high rake/collection, I don't think you have won enough money over 200 hours of play to demonstrate that you play well enough to move to the higher limits. Being up $80 for 200 hours of play means you are essentially a break-even player who does well enough to just over come the rake. I think you need to stay at the lower limits for a longer period for two reasons: 1) Prove to yourself that you play well enough to soundly beat the game, and 2) Amass a bankroll of at least a couple of grand so you can play $10-$20 and know that you can always drop down to replenish your bankroll if you are unsuccessful at the higher limit.
I agree with Jim. Lower limit games do have advantages, Money management is important, I track my session(wins/loses),rather then hours played verses money won or lost.
If $80 includes dealers tips and you routinely eat out anyway; well OK +$80. Otherwise if you win 2 pots an hour and tip 50c/pot and pay an average of $1/hour for food and coffee then you are really stuck $318. If you tip $1 and eat more realistically, then you're actually stuck about $700. I don't know if I'm right but its ESSENTIAL you be honest with yourself.
To Jim's great response I add: consider playing TTH at home for lots of hours until you can confidently beat its best line up. Then never play again and hit the casinos.
- Louie
First, I agree with the notion that you have to include ALL your expenses in your assessment of your play. If I go to play poker and buy an expensive meal while I am there, well, it counts as $$ spent out of my poker winnings. Tips, Tokes, Food, collections, rake, it all counts towards how much you are winning or losing. If you go play poker but routinely buy two servings of expensive sushi every time you play, you are essentially taking $$ out of your poker bankroll. So, you must be honest with yourself and include all of these expenses when determining your profits or losses.
Second, play TTH against the tough or aggressive lineups and you will learn how to fold things like AJo UTG when most of us are tempted to call. You can practice playing in fairly tough games first before you move up to the 15-30 limits where you can get a better deal on the rake. You can set the rake or time charge on TTH to match whatever conditions you are going to have to deal with in the casino.
Dave in Cali
Thanks Dave. I don't like counting meals because food is an expense that I have to incur regardless of whether I play poker or not. It is not an expese that results from poker. In addition the cost of food at the casinos is so low that it competes with eating at home and is certainly less than going to a restaurant.
I do have TTH and play it quite often, but I haven't done anything with the lineup. I left it at the default settings and have adjusted the game type that I play from time to time. I play mostly 6-12 against the computer. I play 1-4-8-8 for a week or so before I go to Vegas.
the advice here is GREAT. Thanks again.
Thanks Louie. I'm being honest with myself. The food is irrelevant to my pocketbook. I only laid out my criteria for counting how I'm doing so that you guys would understand where the +80 comes from (it includes poker only including tipping and excludes every expense other than actually playing poker).
I always tip $1 when I tip. I rarely tip when I am stuck. I always tip when I am up. I have a great job that I love. I own a home and rental property that has positive cash flow. And I'm not one who enjoys living high on the hog. So paying for food is of no consequnce. But I do love poker AND I do hate losing money.
sounds like you are doing fine with computing your expenses for food, but just don't take chips off the table when it comes time to eat. I bring an extra 5 or 10$ with me when I play if I intend to eat and i don't put it on the table or count it as part of my session bankroll.
Also, perhaps you should reconsider your tipping scheme. When I win a small pot I will often tip only a half dollar (pots under 20$). When the pot is decent size I tip 1$. If it is an especially big pot or the dealer is doing an especially good job, I will occasionally tip more than 1$. I agree that you should not tip away your profits, especially in low limit games with small pots (i.e. 1-3 stud). However, the dealers are working for tips and they shouldn't have to wait for winning players to make a living. I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong but I just think it is good karma to tip on every pot you win, regardless of your current standings. (not for pots less than 10$ or stolen blinds though).
Dave in Cali
Thanks Dave. I respect and like your stance. Just FYI - I do diligently seperate food from poker. When I pay with chips I adjust my buy-in. I try not to pay with chips.
I agree that good dealers should get tips even when I'm stuck. But as I've became more aware at the poker table, I've noticed good dealers are few and far in between. Two nights ago I had a dealer who had two friends at the table that she was talking with (in a language other than English). She dealt me 99 and then said, "oops mis-deal". Then a couple of people threw in their cards and then she says, "oh, it's not a mid-deal". Then everyone threw in their cards. I threw mine in face-up. She says, "oohhhh and smiles" like her smile was an apology or something. I don't know what she was thinking. I said, "that may not have happened had you not been talking with your friends".
Another dealer says, "they change the rules everyday day here". He says it like he's now exempt from enforcing or knowing the rules. Well that's a crock. Dealers get paid VERY WELL and it's a job whose requirements are EASY to fulfill. If the rules change everyday, then check the rules everyday. Study them at night. Make damn sure you're able to make the right call at the table!
Mind you - I think it's easy for bad dealers to fulfill the minimum requirements for being a dealer. Good dealers are alert and stay acutely aware of each hand. They make good decisions and tell players not to expose their cards. They pitch well (no front running or whatever it's called when a player sees opponenets cards as they are dealt) and watch for anglers. Those dealers deserve the tips.
-Michael
You have a point about the ease of fulfilling the job of dealer. While it takes some skills, it is not so difficult that it should be a problem for an average person to do a good job. I give tips to any dealer who is honestly trying to do a good job, even if he or she is not the most jazzy or quickest dealer ever.
However, the one instance you described is a different story. First off, I have never been in a cardroom where anyone was allowed to speak any language other than english at the table, ESPECIALLY THE DEALERS! When this dealer started this type of BS the tips would stop coming from me and the floor person would probably be notified (especially about the english thing). An occasional misdeal is expected and it doesn't matter what you had. But a dealer who is just not doing their job doesn't deserve tips and won't get them from me.
By the way your post generated good discussion.
Dave in Cali
in my opinion you should play high enough to pay a regular time collection. That means 10-20 on up here in ca. or DON"T PLAY! I believe it is impossible to beat the large rakes that are in the lower limit games up to 9-18.
If you are a begginer, then I would play the lowest rake game you can find ,and read all the books, try to talk with better players who play higher up etc., so you can start to play 10-20 or higher as soon as possible.
Much of poker is about discipline, and how you handle yourself at the table. Learn these and move up.
It very hard to say what's "clear" after only 200 hours. If you want to reduce the cost of poker try low limit on-line (5% rake) for a few hundred more hours and gradually shift into the higher live games. The food's cheaper too.
One thing to consider is that a button collection that is dropped is the same as paying time. You will pay so much per half hour to play, depending on the speed of the dealer. The advantage is if you have a slow dealer you'll get less hands, but pay less accordingly. In a time set-up you still pay the same. The disadvantage is that you generaly will be paying more per hand than the guys at the higher tables, which is harder to overcome. The worst that I see is the 3.00 button drop at the 1-5 stud games. Ludicrous. I think in the lower limits it is much better to have the pot raked. Then if you have to sit out for hours because of the garabage your dealt, it doesn't cost you.
I've bounced around a lot from 2-4 up to 15-30. The low-limit rake is ridiculous, but my thinking is that if you can manage to be successful at the lower limits it is wiser to eat the cost of the rake and log a lot of hours cheaply rather than to step up to the higher limits and take a beating. If you don't have enough experience to play at a higher level you'll lose your roll a lot quicker than that rake will eat it up... You may as well get the experience without big losses.
Supes
I don't like the idea of on-line poker. What's to stop 5 guys from getting together in the same game and sharing there cards with each other to extort money from you?
Of course 5 guys can collude against you on-line, just like 5 guys can collude against you in a live game, but the fact of the matter is that collusion in low limit poker is so rare it qualifies as an urban myth, like alligators in the sewers. Ask people that play on-line how much collusion they see and I'll guarantee that the answer will be none or almost none.
More to the point, and somewhat surprisingly, it's probably harder to succeed at colluding on-line than it is in a live game.
On or off-line, collusion is easy to spot: two aggressive players with others in the hand and one of the aggressives tending not to make to the showdown with a holding that makes sense. The players notice it and complain via email. The on-line "house" has a record of each hand, looks at the action, draws the painfully obvious conclusion and kicks the cheaters (whose money they are typically holding, BTW), out of the game forever. Of course, the cheaters can always go to another on-line provider, but it seems to me that they'd be better advised to go to their local card room where no one can prove a thing.
Also, you have the choice of playing an online game that includes two people from the same town (the screen identifies everyone's locality). If they're capping it up, you might want to look elsewhere (Paradise alone typically runs 30-40 tables). But since everyone else in the game will be accusing them of colluding and complaining to the house, you'll more likely going to encounter a couple of maniac pals like one sees every now and then in a cardroom.
I'm not suggesting that on-line games are risk-free, only that evidence of significant collusion doesn't exist.
Of course, the hypothetical possibility of cheating might bother you so much that you don't care whether or not it actually occurs. But if you're paying more than $10 an hour in rakes/collections and tokes, you have a 100% probability of paying a lot more to play than you would in 5%/$3 rake games, which I thought was your gripe.
(I apologize to all for these "on-line" posts being on the wrong forum.)
some..about the same jamming as a casino....Online bad beats more common.
Thanks Chris for the education. Your post makes sense. I may try some on-line hold'em in the near furutre.
-Michael
Twice I was dealt AJ suited twice the pot was capped. First time I am UTG, second time I am the button. Both times an Ace hits the flop, I play my hand slow (just calling all the way). Am I in error, I think, I should have played the button more aggresive.Or for that matter should I have been aggresive in both positions. Both flops had NO flush possiblities.
You don't say the type of game you were in, but unless you know all the raisers to be complete maniacs, I think you should have mucked both hands. Even if the raisers are knowwn to be maniacs, you're still probably a big underdog with AJs before the capped flop and even after the the flop unless you flop the world.
Stephen C.
Ace-Jack suited looks pretty but it is a shaky holding in a capped pot. You need to read the "Wild Games" section of HPFAP-New Edition for a discussion on the kinds of hands you need to be playing in these kinds of games (AA,KK,QQ,AK suited). Raising under the gun is okay and it is probably okay to call a double raise back to you if that caps it because you are already half-way in. However, if you called 4 bets cold from the button with Ace-Jack suited then your play was bad. You should fold this hand even on the button rather than call 3 or 4 bets cold.
Jim, you must play in a very high limit. I would play this hand in limits as high as 10-20, though I would say that one would have to be able to toss this hand if the action to him is heavy. Don't you think?
I usually play $20-$40 and frequently $10-$20-$40 which is a higher limit than $10-$20. In capped pots, I have found that unless a get a flush (~20:1 against assuming I get to go all the way to the river) or a straight (don't know odds but much worse since a King, Queen, and Ten have to appear) I end up with a second best hand. Between the raiser, the re-raiser, and the capper someone has a better Ace.
At the higher limits sure, you can assume a better A. In loose 4-8 games, where this hand was played, the coconuts are re-raising with suited Q's and pocket 8's. Unless a rock is in there cold calling, AJs is a big A.
Well, Spitball perhaps I am a little out of touch. But let me ask you this: When these guys happen to have AA,KK,QQ,JJ, AK, or AQ they bet and raise with these hands like the rest of us right??
Of course they do but when they also raise with 95s out of the big blind one tends not to give them credit for any kind of hand, ie, they are much more likely to have garbage when they three-bet then have a legit hand. When this is the case, legit hands, like AJs, go way up in value. Especially on the button. From where I sat, Greg played his hand strong, correctly assessed the play on the turn, and stacked a very large pot. Against that field, mostly loose, weak, and full of bluster, his play will show a big plus long term. spitball
A major factor has to be How Many hands are in the pot. It seems to me that AJ suited, with 5 or 7 callers, would be just the kind of pot you want to play AJs in. If you hit your flush or straight draw(w/o flush pot.) with your pair of Jacks or pair of Aces, you're in business, if not, check and fold. Am I crazy for thinking this way?
The problem here is that the betting is capped before the flop. A-J suited is good if there are several limpers and you get in for one or two bets. There is likely too much power out there if the pot is capped, unless you are in with a bunch of maniacs that cap all the time.
Grinder in a capped pot your only out is a flush, or more remotely a straight, because it is too easy for someone to have a better Ace or an over pair to your Jack making it almost impossible to win with top pair or top pair/top kicker. Furthermore, it is costing you too much money upfront to chase draws.
In the first hand you were in the SB and the player driving the bets (UTG)is notoriously weak. I think you check-raise the flop after only one person (another weak player)calls UTG's lead bet. My thinking is, you know that UTG has a big pocket pair by his pre-flop betting and he is six times more likely to be playing K's than A's. Because there was no raise of UTG's bet, a check-raise should allow you to take control of subsequent betting. In the second hand, you called all the way on the button and other than possibly raising the flop you had little room to stick-handle. If I remember correctly, you only called two bets cold with AJs on the button and it was then capped around to you so you were only putting in the final two bets, from the button, into a huge pot. Folding would be a big error. spitball
In the S&M books, they advise to seriously consider raising whenever you are tempted to call. In fact, they often advise raise or fold. Does the fact that my game is loose passive, LL HE change this advice?
The fact is that in LL games a bet will almost never thin the field but a raise does have a chance of accomplishing that objective. Always be aware though that even a double raise will not kick out a lot of these loose LL clowns. Be aware of them and who they are and just realize that they are there for the ride and wont give up their hand, period. In my opinion your LL raises are mostly designed to get more money in a pot you expect to win, reduce opponents pot odds so that their calls become (if not already) incorrect or at least less profitable, and also to try to get free cards - a lot of LL opponents are timid and will definetely check to the raiser, just know who this will and wont work against. I believe this is what it all comes down to in terms of LL raising. Raise for value and for pot odds manipulation and to get free cards. Of course there is more but these are probably the most important things to know about raising in LL games. I really wonder how people can complain about an ultra loose and passive game.....Isn't it poker Utopia to have players play terrible against you???
In my limited playing experience (2 years of 20 - 40 hours a week)it is true that folding or raising are often better than calling. I do think that too many players emphasize (and utilize) the latter way more often than the former. In a typical low limit game you have to be realistic about the relative strength of your hand. Flopping top pair with second best kicker is nothing to get excited about. For instance, you call 3 limpers on the button with KJo, both blinds call and the flop comes Js 10d 6s. The BB bets out and all 3 limpers call. Here do you fold or raise. Most players advocate raising. I say fold. Why? Well in a 3-6 game I've only put in 3 bucks. Why would I risk 6 more when it's far from clear if I'm best right now and the chance of being best at the river is not too good. Any A or spade kills my hand. A K,Q,9,8,or7 could kill my hand and I wouldn't know until showdown. A diamond, even a jack of diamonds, gives somebody another way to beat me on the river. In these loose games, even loose-aggresive games, you want to flop monster hands (trips, top two pair, top and bottom two pair, flushes and straights) otherwise you're not that far ahead. Shorthanded is a different animal. A full game of loose players will kill over and over again your top pair/good to excellent kicker.
Big pairs, Big Suited aces, Big suited connectors, and (in late position) medium to small suited connectors and smaller pairs (personally I never play pairs below 55 in these games) are your starters. It's pretty faithful to Lee Jones advice. Boring as hell and you still have large stack fluctuations but it gives you more than a fighting chance against the rest of the table (the posse, as I call'em).
BTW, this strategy will probably get you slayed at any table above 5-10.
chris
p.s. This very tight approach is for multiway pots and assumes passive/unimaginative players. Against a fool with more chips than talent you adjust. After you've won the retirees and tourist money you can get it down to 4 or 5 players and open up that bottle of whup ass in your back pocket.
I think the biggest problem that us low limit players have is the feeling of good hands getting cracked almost constantly. Well just remember all those times that your good hands dont get cracked....Think about it, you probably have won some monster pots that you would almost never win in a tighter and or tougher game. Just remember that those beats get more then made up for when your hands do indeed hold up like they "should". Remember use your raises to get freebies for yourself and also to punish your opponents.
Much debate has transpired on this forum about the ability to beat the hyper-loose game. Rounder, for one, -- and I am beginning to agree with him -- believes it cannot be done.
From what I have seen, Yahoo.games' Poker has all of the ugly characteristics of the hyper-loose game. Agree? If so, has anyone had any long-term success in that game? Although it is frustratingly slow it might provide a glimpse as to a good player's ability to win long-term in such a game.
Comments?
How would you play in a straight $16 game with only $1 and $2 blinds with no checking and also no raising; either put your $16 in or fold? It'd be easy, right? You don't really have to put players on hands; just flop a good hand and take your chances and let the odds in the showdown sort it all out.
Play that way in a hyper loose 1-4-8-8 game since these games are virtually identical.
- Louie
These loose games are very beatable. Most players, however, don't change their strategy to play in these hyper-loose conditions. I frequently play in a very loose $4-$8 hold-em game and find that you must be able to lay down queens, kings, and aces quite frequently. These hands need to flop a set or hit an unrelated board flop and hope noone has flopped a set. Hands like even 10 jack offsuit perform much better in games like these. The trick is to release your hand on the flop if you don't flop much. Don't chase these players otherwise you will just become one of them.
I've never played the Yahoo game, but I have played at Paradise Poker online and I do beat that game, easily. When I first started playing the play money game I played almost every hand, and it was fun for a while. However, I quickly lost my 2000 play dollars. Now days I play at work, I play very tight (relatively speaking) because I'm usually trying to do some actual work and don't want to be bothered with trash hands. I play solid starting hands, and usually fold if I don't have 2 pair or better if there is a threatening board. Anyway I'm up 3000 play dollars in 3 weeks time (approx. 65 hours)
Since no one else probably actually did this or will admit to it I will.
About 2 years ago I beat that Yahoo game easily, I was just learning to play at the time. I then discovered IRC-poker, the right books, TTH, this site, live action, 6-12 etc.
For 9 months now I have been successful at the mid-limits ( hope I am not just running good ).
D.
I think Louis is right. My experience in crazy games in Blackhawk (1 $2.00 blind)indicates that the 2-5 games are show down. The 3-5 games (with 2 blinds=8 up front) play better, more like 5-10 since the p[ots are almost always raised, more wierd hands fold.
Rake issues aside, there's no such thing as an unbeatable loose game.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
and cheating. and a game where they shoot you if you win.
scott
Super loose games are very beatable -- way more so than the rock gardens (though the variance tends to be higher). A few thoughts...
First of all, the Yahoo game might be a good example (and even practice) for the loose/aggressive games. Those players will play absolutely any two cards and will call (and even ram and jam) with bottom pair. Are these games beatable? Well, I might just be lucky, but under the name Montana_Magic_2 I turned $1000 into over $20,000 in about three months. How? I just sat there and waited for monsters and then ram and jammed with the rest of them. It's even easier on the computer because I can do all my other work (or read the news, etc) while I wait for pocket rockets, etc.
The problem in the loose games that I have seen for good players is that you sit there for an hour and see 53o take down a huge pot, and the J6 and then K2. And you start to get ancy. Then you pick up K9o and you decide to play it (and then the pot gets capped) and you flop nothing and now you've frittered away $16.
Discipline is the key. You want to see the flop cheaply with drawing hands and make them pay to see the flop when you have a monster. And K/J is not a monster. Nor is A/9. Monsters are AA,KK, QQ. Abdul and Izmet have said this over and over (check out the page on how to beat the loose games).
Fancy play is also extremely dangerous in these games. Take slowplaying. In many games you might slowplay a strong flopped hand -- but you can't afford to do this in a super-loose game unless you have flopped the stone-cold nuts. EXAMPLE 1: Player one in early position holds AK and the flop comes AK3. He checks and it gets bet from late position and he just calls. 7 players call just one bet for the next card. It's a 6. He bets and called twice and raised and he re-raises and the 3 players call. The river brings an unlikely 2 for a straight and he loses. If he had played it faster, however, the person holding 54 almost certainly would have folded (especially to 2 bets cold) on the flop.
The only time I slowplay is when I flop the nut-full house or higher (and if the action heats up, I start firing). Because they'll call with middle pair (or worse) when you flop a straight. And you would rather win a little pot than get sucked out on (and anything less than the flush is vulnerable).
These games are definitely lucrative -- and sometimes very fun. Yes, sometimes a huge pots slips away from you because they hit runner-runner. But if they have to hit runner-runner to beat you then you will get there money in the long-run.
B.D.
P.S. If you play where I play, one final piece of advice, "Remember, any two cards can win." Oh, and yes, sometimes the carrots eat the rabbits.
Loose Low Limit game with one or 2 new players sitting down every 45 min or so......
If I find my self on the flop needing only one card to the nut straight or the nut flush I will bet out or raise almost all the time. I will usualy not re-raise unless I also have top pair as well. If my card does not come on the turn I will just check/call and see what the river brings. If the river hits giving me the nuts I will go for a check-raise (as long as I am up against players who haven't seen me pull this play recently, otherwise I will bet). If I make a set I will just bet out and/or raise.
What do you guys think of this flop strategy? Turn? River?
In the above I am assuming I just limped in. If I showed aggression pre-flop (AKs), does it change my strategy post flop(betting/raising the turn even if it misses?)
Playing AKs for the straight has to be an inside straight. You actually have only 4 outs, your card times the 4 suits. If someone else holds that rank card also, this leaves you with less outs to make the straight. Consider that someone may have flopped a straight already, so be careful with raises on the gut shot come. Top pair in this situation helps and should be bet. A raises may tell you if there is already a completed straight or a set out. Pairing your other card making you two pair may also make you loser if someone needs that card to complete the Broadway. Having the nut flush draw as well changes things and is worth a bet and perhaps raises (depending on position), you have added 8 outs. An inside straght only, needs 10-11 bets in the pot just to be good call. If you get the second pair on the turn, then you have also increased your outs by 4 as in drawing to a full house. If you have two pair the inside staight draw and the nut flush draw you are a favorite to win the hand and bets and raises to build the pot or OK. Don't blame me when you miss everything and your pair or two doesn't hold up. Thats HE. I don't see how you could turn a set while not starting with a pair. Three of a kind with top kicker is a good hand but if there are all big cards someone else's two pair may have improved and you may be drawing dead to your kicker. Spend some time thinking about this one in that there are many possible hands out against you and you may not want to bet and raise with impunity.
Straight draws are tough to complete and raising with them (especially if you have AK because that means its a gutshot draw) out of position is a bad idea. If you catch a flop with AK that gives you a straight draw and no pair you are in the danger zone. Lots of hands connect with these types of flops and building them a pot with hands that have minimal outs is self destructive. Also, why do you check raise the river? A check raise shows strength and you will rarely get three bet in that situation if the other player holds a strong hand also. If you lead at the river you take away your opponents chance to check a weak hand and if your opponent has a strong holding he may raise you letting you three bet the pot.
2-4 game (I'm still learning how to play good poker)
In the cut off with QQ.
Seat 4 and 5 limp. I Raise. BB calls. Seat 4 and 5 call. 4 players see the flop.
Flop is Jc 2h 3s
Checked to me. I bet. BB and seat 4 call. Seat 5 raises. This player has been pushing people out of pots since I sat down. I've seen him raise with nothing, but he might have slowed played a set so I call. All call.
Turn is 8d
Checked to me again so I bet again. BB and 4 call. 5 raises again. At this point I'm pretty sure 5 has nothing because after he successfully check raised me on the flop, why wouldn't he bet out on the turn if he had a hand? All call.
River is 4h
Checked to me. I bet. BB raises and it's folded to me. I call.
Comments?
Pre-flop you have a premium hand with your pocket Queens and were correct in raising.
On the flop you bet your over pair when it is checked to you. When raised you should re-raise. Don't put players on sets because they check-raise. Sets are very hard to come by. He most likely has a top pair of Jacks maybe with a good kicker and is simply check-raising because he thinks his hand is good. You should re-raise. The board is raggedy and rainbow so your opponents are probably not on straight or flush draws but have lower pairs than yours.
On the turn you are correct in betting when it is checked to you since the turn card looks like a blank. Your decision to call the check-raise at this point rather than re-raise maybe prudent.
On the river, all three opponents check. I would bet because anyone with a straight or even two pair would probably have bet and you will get called by someone with a top pair of Jacks. When raised a call is automatic. There is too much money in the pot and these novice players are too unpredictable to even consider folding.
All of Jim's advice is correct, but I'd be surprised if you won the pot. Yet the call on the river that Jim advises is absolutely correct, because of the pot odds you're getting.
Your right.
The Big Blind turned over 5h 6h for the straight. A reraise on the flop may have caused him to fold.
It's possible a re-raise on the flop would have got him out, but not for sure. He's got 4 outs for the straight, which figures to win him a lot of money if he hits because a 4 will look like a blank, plus a backdoor flush draw. Still, you should have re-raised on the flop to give yourself every chance to protect your hand, especially with Queens, since an Ace or a King on the turn or river could beat you.
Anyway, bad beat when he hits his inside draw, but it happens, especially in low limit.
Jim's advice is correct and you should have reraised the flop, but at $2-4, my guess is that most players who called 1 bet with a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw would also call 2 more cold. When I played those limits I rarely saw players call 1 bet but fold to 2 more. But while you might have had little chance of driving out your opponent, you should still reraise to punish the fish who'll call several bets with their thin draws.
-Sean
reraise flop. if 5 reraises, call. call him down on the turn and river, unless maybe if an A or a K comes. reraise the turn. he thinks you're just betting for fun. call the bb. he wouldn't have been in to catch the straight/two pair if you'd been raising.
scott
I haven't been able to shake this hand for a few days now so maybe I need some other viewpoints. Even though it was a small pot and I booked a big win that nite this hand still bugs me.
5-10 HE, me running over the game, I raise with A-Ko in mid position after one very weak limper. SB, a very tight player, re-raises and we see the flop 3 handed. Flop 10-7-3 rainbow. SB makes a big show of checking (which I take to mean he's trapping), weak player has $5 left and checks. I would normally bet in this situation but I felt that the SB had a big hand so I check.
Turn brings another rag checked to me and I decide to check. I now know that I have the SB beat, but I also know that the other player will call with any 2 cards. (I realize that not betting here is a mistake).
River is a rag. To my surprise SB bets. This is a player who makes a move on one pot a month, but I am 100% sure that I have him beat. The weak player starts to call, pulls his chips back but the dealer informs him that he must now call (the correct ruling- he actually dropped a couple of his chips on the table).
Now I have a dilemna. I can call and only lose $5 when I take the sidepot, or is my hand strong enough to beat both? The WP can't have much considering his betting action. No point in raising because SB won't call me. What to do? I'll post the results tomorrow.
At this point there is $60 in the main pot and $5 in the side pot. It costs you $10 to play. You can beat Ace-high (or tie if small blind also has slick). If you know with 100% certainity that you can beat the small blind than a raise is automatic here. You get $5 for free! It is ridiculous not to raise and take the side pot since you say you know you have him beat. If the small blind won't call you than your raise automatically gets you $5!!
This whole dilemma was created because you failed to bet your hand after both opponents checked to you. You should bet the flop. The small blind could have been re-raising with A-K suited and now fold when you bet. Bet the flop and find out where you stand. If you get checked raised then fold. If you get called then see the turn and await developments.
I agree with Jim for the most part. However, raising on the end does not pick up $5 for free. He breaks even and then has to beat the all in player. (5 of the $20 raise you propose he makes goes into the main, and he gets a total of $20 back. Still the right play I believe though.)
Winger wrote: "SB makes a big show of checking. ...So I check.)
In Bob Ciafone's book 'Improve Your Poker', page 69(The Truth About Tells). Bob relates a story where a player allowed himself to be deterred from his normal play because of a tell(just like the one you described).
I'm not going to write the whole thing, but the bottom line of what he writes applies to you in that, you allowed the guy in the small blind to talk you out of making what would have been your normal play. "So when some guy opens his yapper, realize that he is simply trying to stop you from making your normal play." And why shouldn't he? He has nothing to lose."
"Note that if the small blind would have really had the hand you feared he had, all he had to was keep a poker face and let you bet. Don't you think he knew this?"
Continued Success, Martin D
xx
Thanks to everyone who responded. You have helped settle the hand in my mind. It turns out that I decided that the pot was not big enough to call and I folded. SB took the pot with A-J, no pair.
I'm playing in a pretty good 9-handed 39-60 holdem game at bay 101. A player I didn't have a good read on (AP) limps in UTG and a loose passive player (LP) limps in next. I raise with AQo and the player to left right goes all in for 20$. Now it folds to AP and he makes it three bets. I had been at the table for about 2 hours (which means I should really have a solid read on the guy even though I had never played with him before) and I hadn't seen him sandbag yet so I wasn't exactly sure what to put him on. LP and I call and the flop comes 248 all clubs. AP bets LP calls and I have the Q of clubs so I call, I considered raising but I thought I could easily get three bet so I just called. The turn card was a king and to my surprise AP checked. LP also checked and I checked as well. Again I don't know if this was right but from playing with AP I thought that he would just check and call with a hand like QQ in that spot and I thought he might be going for a checkraise with AK (I had seen him do this once before). Also I didn't want to pay two big bets for my non-nut flush draw.
On the river another king comes (no club) and AP now bets. LP folds and I eventually fold. I hadn't seen him bluff on any previous hands and I thought that the chance of him bluffing here would be decreased by the fact that the all in player had him beat for sure. AP shamefully shows his 910 of hearts and the other player wins the side pot with K2.
So did I play this hand wrong? I think that maybe I should have bet the turn (and then just showed down on the river), I definitely think that betting the turn is better then checking the turn and calling the river.
Any comments appreciated,
Shawn Keller
You could have won this hand but I don't think the risk was worth the reward. By the way the whole subject of how to play when there is someone all in, is something we haven't addressed too much. That is because it can be quite complicated yet it occurs infrequently in most games and is thus not worth my time to examine in detail. Perhaps, however one, of you young Turks might find the subject interesting enough to write a guest essay about it.
AP's preflop reraise would cause me to suspect he was trying to get head-up with you (for the side-pot)holding a pocket-pair. If I felt AP was capable of folding a medium pocket-pair on the turn in this situation, I may have bet (with the intention of putting no further money in the pot).
Of course, whether to call on the river (after checking the turn) hinges on your estimate of the likelihood AP is bluffing. I believe the side pot contained 6 big bets, with slightly over 2 big bets in the main pot. With these odds, AP's check on the turn would probably make me suspicious enough to call.
MJS
I don't think I mentioned this in the post but I am almost positive that AP wouldn't lay down a hand on the turn that I couldn't beat.
Shawn
OK tell me what you would have done...
Im delt AKo on the button in a very loose 4-8 game. There are 5 callers to me and I raise...all call. One of the players When mucking his cards flashes a J of clubs I see it but say nothing.
Flop is JJJ.
It is checked around and I bet...3 callers.
Turn 7d
A live one opens to me. I raise. he calls We are now head up. This guy could be playing anything...He has been staying to the end with junk all night.
The river is a Ts He bets...I raise, he re-raises...I now think that he may have me beat with a 7 or T. I just call.
He turns over A9...I win a nice pot...
My question here is, Does It sound like I played this right...I had a good read on this player...I figured if he had a pair from the get go that Id seen him raising pre-flop and on the turn....So I made him pay for a draw.
Jayman
In hindsight, according to the fundemental theorem of poker, you played it perfect. If you had known what his cards were, you would have done exactly the same. However, since it would have been just as easy for him to have a pair, I would have not raised at the end, and just called instead. -D
I think you over played your hand on the turn and river. I would have just called on the turn and just called on the river. You could easily be playing 6 outs.
I have been playing $2-$4 low limit Hold'Em at the Hollywood Park Casino. My question is, is it possible to beat this game in the long run? I ask because, at Hollywood Park, the house doesn't take a rake out of each pot, but rather, whoever has the button has to pay $2.50. I play the game relatively well, or at least, much better than most of the other low limit players. Every night my chips are either slowly dwindled away by the blinds and button fee or I get enough bad beats to screw me pretty badly. I am incredibly frustrated and am wondering if I'm playing a game that is statistically impossible to beat, given the button fee.
Your assumption is pretty much correct. Think about that $2.50 in terms of potsize, and you'll see how thats an incredible percentage to overcome. -D
I believe that you have overrated your play. If you cannot overcome the rake and blinds and still at least be a break even player your game needs work. At the limit you play there are so many bad players that you should be able to at least break even. You could never make a living playing that limit obviously but beating the rake is possible. It's just that you could have so much more profit if the collection wasn't taken. Work on your game and get up above the 10-20 level as soon as possible to help alleviate that pressure.
10-20 is world's away from 2-4. Move up to a 4-8 or 5-10 game before you jump to 10-20. Ideally move to a 3-tiered game like 3-6-12 or 5-10-20. These games are loose and have many, many multiway pots. Draws are king in these games and the double double bet on the river makes it worth while to draw with many loose, passive players. The draw back to the double bet is that some players play more deceptively early in the hands in order to get paid off more on the river, but over all the double bet on the end is an advantage to a good player with sound judgement.
No matter how serious a player you are it's difficult to put your best foot forward in a game that doesn't matter to you, either financially or competitively. I know that in a game I play with college pals I'm there for fun and they're not dedicated players so I goof off too much and play differently (a little looser, a lot more aggresive)than when I'm playing 10-20-40 and I'm a little intimidated by the stakes. Because of the stakes at the higher levels I play my best game at those levels. But because the stakes are a little rich for me I only play at that level once a month or once every other month. (if you are really attached to money you probably shouldn't play above your station, personally it doesn't break my heart or hurt my pride if I get broke once in a while).
I'd suggest moving up, even if you can beat the 2-4 game (which you should be able to do), why would you want to. You'll learn more(most importantly), win more (possibly), and have more fun (definately) at a higher table.
chris
Gary Sweet makes a very good point. Perhaps you could post a few hands for discussion so you can ascertain whether or not your game is as strong as you think it is. With the overhead at 2-4 it doesn't take much of a leak to change a winner into a loser.
Gary and Sammy are right. :)
Let's not forget you are paying about 2-3 big bets per hour. You need to win this much and cover tips just to break even!! I make over 1 bet/hr at the medium limits(15-30 to 30-60) and I wouldn't bet on myself to beat THIS game.
About six months ago I moved up from 2-4 to 3-6. It sounds small (and in many real ways, it is), but as Rick points out, 3-6 is more aggressive. I find the players in 3-6 have a little more respect for good play. Again, only a little more, but enough where I feel my book learnin' is able to be put in practice. Study, keep on your game, don't be suckered into playing garbage even when you see it taking down pots at the river. Low limit is beatable if you are selective about the hands you play, and because one or two large pots can give you a good win for the night even after being down a rack. Still, I'm looking foward to moving up as soon as the bankroll allows.
Frustrated,
Keep in mind all the Los Angeles county casinos must take the collection up front as a matter of law. When it opened, Hollywood Park Casino did attempt to at least make the collection live but was overruled by the local sheriff. If this law gets changed, I would hope HPC is at the forefront.
Anyway, 2/4 can be beat but only for a very small amount IMHO (burger wages). This game is very loose and passive so it provides little training for moving up. The 3/6 game collection is $3 and the game is almost as loose but more aggressive. It can be beat for about $8 an hour if you are a top player. The 6/12 holdem collection is $3 at Hollywood Park and $4 at the Bike and Commerce. It is a slightly tougher game than the 3/6 but the best players can make over $15 per hour.
My advice is to make sure you are at least break-even at 2/4. Then save up and play a little higher. You will need to develop new skills though. IMHO, this form of collection is bad for business but it is the law (for now anyway). But the collection keeps the game unnaturally loose and will hinder your development as a player.
I work the floor at Hollywood Park on day shift on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. Please come by and say hi if you are there during my shift (10:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m.).
Regards,
Rick
I have been talking with a friend about the play of a hand in a 20-40HE game. He feels I got lucky and am trying to justify my overplaying the hand. I beleive my reasons are valid. You be the judge. (there's a sidebet on this so please be honest).
I am the in the big blind with A5c. 4th position who I know to be a tight player limps in. 6th position makes it $40 to go. He also is a tight player who I have watched make some pretty big laydowns in the past. My instincts at this point put him on QQ or KK. (I don't put him on AA because the limper is a tight player who I imediately put on a big ace likely A-Q anything bigger would have been a raise anything smaller a probable fold). The small blind calls, a loose player who protects most of the time, I call, and the limper calls. Disregard my play before the flop I've already conceded it was a bad call play after the flop is where the arguement lies.
We take the flop four handed and get a 8d-8c-3c flop. We all check to the raiser who bets. Small blind then folds. I check raise to drive the probable bigger ace out giving me another chance to win and set up a bluff on future rounds. 4th position calls to my dismay and the preflop raiser 3 bets the flop falling into my trap. The turn brings a 5h. We both check to the raiser who bets I check raise without hesitation (planning from the flop to make this play) 4th position folds and the raiser thinks for about 45 seconds to a minute and decides to call. The river comes the 6c and I complete my flush. He shows me QQ and throws it in the muck. I believe my knowledge of the players in this situation dictated I play the hand the way I did. Am I wrong? I was half a count away from winning on the turn but will have to wait awhile now before using that move in the game again. Not that the situation comes up all that often.
I don't think your pre-flop call is bad at all. You made more than I would have on this hand. I think you overplayed it and to prove my point you got called. The only way you're stacking chips is if the river brings a club, ace, or king(maybe). You got lucky. Mike Minetti
No, you are wrong. On the flop you are not the favorite to win. There is only a 31% chance of you making your flush with two cards left, and that is assuming you have 9 outs to make your flush. A flush card could possibly give one or both your opponents a full house, or after making your flush, a miracle card could still make a full house for them. There is no good reason to drive the other player out, the possible extra two outs are just not worth the price, and it didn't even work. There's no good reason to checkraise on the turn.
If you're positive in your assumption that he's got a high pair, a check and call is warranted on the flop, otherwise a raise might be in order. The turn could be bet into, otherwise its another check and call. And the river should be bet into. That is at least what I would consider the proper play. -D
As long as you were determined to throw money at the problem I feel you should have bet out on the turn and represent an eight. By checking the turn after checkraising the flop it looks like you could have been angling for a free card and were on a draw. I think this weakened your position. The AQ probably was folding anyway without improving on the turn card. Yes, you overplayed it, and as for getting lucky, well, did you win more on this hand than the side bet is for? If you did, well, that's pretty lucky.
Does anyone think a smooth call on the flop, check raise the turn and bet the river regardless of what comes would have been good. Depending on your opponent, you might even check-raise the river when the club hits. This, to me, most effectively represents an 8. And it would get most other club flush draws that happened to pair up out at the river.
When I'm in overaggressive mode, I can sense, if I screw up early in a hand by overbetting, that tough opponents will call me down because something just doesn't jibe about my play. You give up a lot when this happens.
chris
chris,
If you are the type not to bet trips out of the blind on the flop then this way seems just about as good. But my point is that you should often bet trips into a late raiser along with a lot of other hands.
Regards,
Rick
If I'm not mistaken the pot was 3 way, not a multiway pot (4 or more). Deception is key in shorthanded pots. You might want to bet trips on the flop. You might not want to. Check-calling the flop and check-raising the turn is the cheapest and most effective way to play this hand, IMO. Because if you check the turn planning to check-raise and your opponent doesn't bet, you get to draw at your flush for free. When you check-raise or bet the flop you open yourself up to a 3 bet. Are you going to take it to 4? That much action on the flop and your opponent is calling youdown almost for sure. If that happens you're going to have to show down a winner. That ensures that you wont win this pot unless you make your hand. And that cuts down your overall chances of taking the pot.
I'm sure there are other ways to play this hand. Given that it was a short handed pot, the texture of the flop and the nature of the hand (Ac5C), along with the turn card 5(extra outs), I thought check-call the flop, check-raise the turn and (if called) bet the river unless the club makes it and check the river with the intention of raising was the best play.
chris
Rick,
I agree that you should frequently bet trips on the flop. My point is that if you actually had an 8 you're probably going to bet the flop or check-call the flop and check-raise the turn for 2 bb. The least likely thing you're going to do with an 8 is check-raise the flop to get 2 sb. The original poster was trying to represent an 8, I didn't think he did that effectively.
You're right. With 2 clubs on the flop, most people with an 8 aren't going to screw around trying to check-raise with 3 opponents, any of themcould be on the flush draw. But if you were going to check-raise I think it'd be on the turn for two reeasons: 1) to get more money in while you're the favorite 2)to cut the effective odds of flush draws caught in the middle. Even if you convinced your opponent you had an 8, if he knows you're capable of multi-dimensional play he'll call for all the times you don't have an 8. i.e. if you play every hand like this you're going to have a table full of callers at the river every time.
Which kind of defeats the point of the play, doesn't it?
chris
I'm going to go the other way and say that some of your play was questionable, but not bad, though there are multiple ways to play this hand. Knowledge of your players is key here, and I'm not sure if you came up with these reads after the fact or before, as they are very accurate, but I will take them in good faith. With three players in your call is ok, though there might be a slight chance of reraise by the first limper (if this is a player not likely to limp reraise the call is A-OK.) On the flop, chances of an 8 or a 3 out there are small, except for the small blind. When the small blind folds, the chance goes down to virtually zero. Check raise is an ok play here, because the tight limper must figure his no pair is in big trouble here against both a possible pocket pair and trips. Even if he calls, it doesnt hurt you that badly because it boosts your pot odds for the flush.
On the turn, the check-raise is iffy, but not horrible. If the tight limper stays in, you are paying $80 to win $500, still giving you odds for hitting your flush, though you are certainly increasing your variance. If he folds as he did, you can safely assume your A is good, and another 5 is good, giving you at least 4 more outs (assume limper DID have a big A). This gives you a 13 outer, so your odds are good enough to have just one caller. Add this in to the chance of BOTH players folding on the turn, I think your play can certainly be justified.
Gary,
First, I would not have taken the flop. You need at least one more caller against tough opponents who don't pay off flush draws and/or make you pay to get there. But I digress.
You wrote: "We take the flop four handed and get a 8d-8c-3c flop. We all check to the raiser who bets. Small blind then folds. I check raise to drive the probable bigger ace out giving me another chance to win and set up a bluff on future rounds."
I like the check raise at this point. Your opponents cannot disregard an eight in your hand although many would figure you might wait until later to come out of the woods (which is why it is good to often bet your trips here!).
" 4th position calls to my dismay and the preflop raiser 3 bets the flop falling into my trap." The turn brings a 5h. We both check to the raiser who bets I check raise without hesitation (planning from the flop to make this play)"
As long as they don't think you are a maniac this play has a lot of promise. Note that if it gets checked through you get a free shot at your flush. If you miss you can bet the river if a baby comes and you may get a better ace to lay down their hand (since they will often fear you had trip eight's or a small overpair).
" 4th position folds and the raiser thinks for about 45 seconds to a minute and decides to call. The river comes the 6c and I complete my flush. He shows me QQ and throws it in the muck."
This guy has the "thinking too much" tell (unless it is certain poker author who often waits this long to decide on his move). I hope you planned on betting the river no matter what came.
" I believe my knowledge of the players in this situation dictated I play the hand the way I did. Am I wrong? I was half a count away from winning on the turn but will have to wait awhile now before using that move in the game again. Not that the situation comes up all that often."
You can always use the ability to think well at the table. Except for the pre flop call, I like your play under the circumstances. Make your friend pay :-).
Regards,
Rick
I take it you bet the river and he reluctantly paid it off?
What's the problem? You don't need to look at your cards when playing against players who often lay down big pairs when "obviously" beaten. The main reason NOT to bluff is to disguise the times you do, hehehe.
Even if this is a sane player, its tough to argue about a semi-bluff with a flush draw and an overcard that turns into a small pair.
You both are right. Your play was so obviously correct I'll call it routine. While you got "unlucky" that he found a reason to call the turn, your friend is right that you got "lucky" on the river, hitting one of your 13 or so outs.
Would your friend have called you "lucky" if you just called and made it? Tell him there is LESS shame in raising (with a good chance to bluff) and hitting than in calling and hitting. I don't know if that't true, but its vague enough that he can't argue with it.
- Louie
I must say, I don't see how you can call the play of this hand routine at all. In fact, the whole scenario doesn't make sense to me. Lets start at the flop.
Pre-flop raiser bets. You check-raise, and the the tight early limper calls the double bet!! You say this player would have raised a hand stronger than AQ, and would have folded a lesser hand. So, you are telling me this guy doesn't have the balls to raise with AQ, nor the balls to call pre-flop with, say, AJ or KQ, or whatever, but he does have the balls to call a double bet on the flop when the board is 8d8c3c. And he can't have AcQc, cuz you already have the ace. Then .... we get to the pre-flop raiser, who is allegedly capable of big laydowns. Yet, when faced with a scary board (and one that can't possibly hit him), and faced with a check-raise AND a tight, tight player who calls two bets cold, this supposed wimp three bets you!!! Again, old tighty calls. What trap?? The play of the hand and the perception you had of the players is not adding up.
Turn comes a blank, though it pairs your kicker, giving you possibly two more outs. Action is check, check, and you check raise. The fact that the raiser had to think so long, gives some credence to your suggestion he is capable of big lay downs. However, you have now made the pot so big, I don't think there was a chance in hell he was going to fold. Thus, I wouldn't have tried the check-raise.
I vote with your buddy. Nice River!
PRC
It doesn't take cahoonas to call UTG with KQo or AJo vrs aggressive better players; it takes foolishness. Weak-tight paranoid players who play these hands are dead meat except against weak-loose players. The turn 5 gives a possible 4 outs since now you beat AQ if you catch an Ace.
883 is not a scary board to QQ vrs another couple tight players. The chances UTG having an 8 is real small; he's either got a medium pair or a face-card flush draw. Both of these UTG hands give merit to hero's raise.
A flop check-raise by SB is supposed to mean some sort of pair hoping raiser and UTG have no pair. The 3-bet is reasonable since SB is unlikely to have started with an 8 (he'll fold 98o and probably 87s) and if he did he's unlikely to raise with it, hehehe. I would 3-bet. I didn't mention it before but the flop raise by hero looks suspicious and is, I suspect, the real reason Mr. Laydown actually paid it off.
This lack of bluff-continuity is the only reason I don't like the turn raise. But since lots of people (oddly) don't notice, it often doesn't matter.
- Louie
I was careful to not specify the suit of KQ or AJ, figuring if they were suited they were close in value to AQo. Also, according to the original post, Early Tight Player (ETP) was in 4th position, which is two off the big blind at best, and four off at worst depending on what poster means by 4th position. I don't see how you put him UTG. But, that isn't the main part of my post.
Mainly, I just have a really hard time figuring out what type of hand this guy could have giving hero's description of him. Remember, he raises any hand above AQ, and folds anything below. That is a pretty tight range of calling hands: according to HFAP it would be TT, 99, KQs-JTs, KJs, AJs, AQ, & AQs?. Note there are only two pairs and the rest are suited. Which of these hands does ETP call two bets cold on the flop????????????
Note, that if these really were the correct range of hands, AND hero's sense that Late Position Raiser (LPR) had a big pocket pair, there are only two hands he wants him to fold to all his raising: AJ & AQ. Folding these hands gives the hero a whopping two extra outs, since his Ace might be good, plus hero benefits in case a Tc or 9c gives hero the flush but ETP a boat. If he holds one of the other hands, hero loses money when he hits his hand and ETP pays him off.
Agreed on the purpose of the check-raise. When it is cold called by ETP and three bet LPR, I think we have found out that there is definitely at least one over pair out there. I think you either drop the bluff at this point (checking and calling); or 4 bet the flop and/or bet out on the turn. I would pick the former.
You are right on the board not scaring QQ's. My thought was that the composition of the board and the betting/calling patterns of his opponents should scare the QQ's if he really is capable of a tough lay down. It should at least scare him into calling. A 3 bet for him seems out of character. Plus, given his alleged nature, his 3 bet screams big pocket pair, which is exactly what our hero thinks he has. Capable of tough lay downs or not, how many players have you seen that are capable of laying down QQ's to a board of 8835, after 3 betting the flop & betting the turn? I'll admit to not having played much 20-40, but I still can't think it happens often enough to justify a 2nd check-raise on the turn. I would guess 99.5% of "tough laydown players" would be content to check and call it to the river, rather than lay it down.
Finally, the proof is in the pudding. Despite throwing all but the kitchen sink at him (I guess your 4 bet of flop, and bet on the turn would be that kitchen sink), Mr. Big Laydown didn't lay it down. I wouldn't have either.
PRC
My main point here is that the hand is worth a call so a bluff raise only costs one bet. It wouldn't work one time in 8 (or whatever) against you or me or hero and certainly not against looser opponents.
But hero and i believe it will against THIS guy and you believe it will not. This appears to be the critical point of our disagreement.
- Louie
That is close to our disagreement, but not quite it. I apologize for not being more clear, and actually we might not have a disagreement at all. In hero's 1st paragraph he writes:
"I have been talking with a friend about the play of a hand in a 20-40HE game. He feels I got lucky and am trying to justify my overplaying the hand. I believe my reasons are valid. You be the judge. (there's a sidebet on this so please be honest)."
Like hero's friend, I think hero is trying to justify overplaying the hand by fudging the characteristics of his opponent. In other words, given the actual play of the hand, I don't believe the limper is one who will raise with anything above AQ and fold anything else; and I don't believe the raiser is all that capable of big laydowns.
I don't have much of a problem with the flop check raise. But I would have given it up after Mr. Laydown 3 bet it, and Mr. Tight-tight called 'em all; preferring to check-call until I improve. I'd agree that the second best option would have been to re-raise flop and/or bet out on the turn.
As always, I really appreciate your thoughts, and really don't think we are that far different concerning play of the hand. For most hand analysis, I will take the poster's player characteristics as a given. However, this poster was asking for more than just a valuation of the play; the bet was whether he was justified in playing a hand a certain way. In this case, I think player personalities are fair game even with the limited information.
PRC
I count you are getting 9:1 to call the turn so its a good call with your 13 or so outs. Since your call is in the pot you are risking just one more bet to bluff and win the 10 that's now in there.
Your bluff counts only those times when you were going to miss, so it looks like you are risking 1 to win about 7 bets in EV (your call has already earned 3 EV). Since by your description this player is going to fold lots more often than one time in 8 (confirmed by his 45 second pause) .... good raise.
What's the problem? It appears to be in your friend's subjective ATTITUDE about raising with the worst hand.
- Louie
Yes, yes ... "7", "3", "8" are just round guesses on my part.
I haven't read the other posts yet. The tight player seems to have had a pretty good read on the hand. He had you to protect his hand for him by driving out other hands. You also increased your equity by making your lone Ace good (there was only 1 or 2 aces left in the deck however.
On the turn the tight player figures you have either an overpair (most likely kings) or a club draw. He's willing to pay to find out. Once the club comes he make a great laydown depriving you of 1 BB.
Had the club not come, you would have bet and he would gain the extra bet.
The tight player played very well and made the correct decision at each point (except preflop where he could arguably have raised).
The results are not truly indicative of who played correctly.
Regards
Also, by raising you actually increased the price you paid in comparison to the pot (for when you hit the flush and weren't beat by a full house).
Sorry, I just can't see the good side here.
Mike N
I have read the other responses and have determined that at 20-40 some of my comments are not applicable.
I still feel that the tight player played correctly for the most part. He could have re-raised preflop.
He also could have reraised the turn to protect against the semi-bluff.
In my game this would just not work. It is only 5-10 however and not comparable to 20-40.
Regards Mike N
Gary,
It seems to me that you realized after calling pre-flop with A5u, that you made a mistake. Some people think that playing that in your situation was OK, I wouldn't have.
Now, if your goal was to drive the pre-flop raiser out of the pot while hoping to hit your flush, then I believe you did right by check-raising twice. A check-raise is a strong play alone, but back-back check raises is very strong. If your opponent was going to fold he would have. Your opponent made his mind up on the turn to call call you on the river, regardless. He wanted to see what you had.
Another play would have been to bet the flop, then re-raise him when he raised you. Bet the turn and hope he folded. This would have been less expensive then consecutive check-raises.
A few months ago I made what in hindsight was a bonehead laydown.20-40 HE@ Mirage. A player I had never seen before who was playing very tight limped UTG and after it was passed to me I raised on the button with KK. The SB three bet it, BB folds, and Mr. limper four bets it!! I thought for all of two seconds before saying goodbye to my cowboys. How do you think I felt when the board came nondescript and the betting went check-check check-check bet-fold. I never found out what they had but it seemed pretty clear I threw away the winner. Anyway, my question is this - given what I knew about the stranger(who by the way only played one more hand that session in over an hour)and the SB who was not an overly aggressive player,was my laydown correct/horrible/somewhere in between? This is the only time in 21 years of limit play I have mucked KK pre-flop and I suspect it will be a LONG time before it happens again. Mike Minetti
I'm not so sure you mucked the winner. Couldn't the small blind have AA? He 3 bet out of the blind. It doesn't sound like the original limper would've 3 bet if SB had just cold called your raise, so his 4 bet sounds more like a spontaneous reaction than a plan of attack.
The main thing is that you mucked when you thought you had a loser (no matter how strong it was) and you refused to play when confused/unsure/whatever. I don't think that this is that bad. Maybe you did throw away a winner, overall winning players sometimes do chuck the best hand. Calling stations never throw away winners. Probably better to be grouped withthe former rather than the latter.
I don't know if you laid down the winner but I think you made the right move for you. It's always better to play from strength and trust you instincts. Who cares if you threw away the best hand? 2 small bets, instead of what could've been at least 2 more small bets preflop, 2 or 3 small bets on the flop, and 2 big bets if you revert to a calling strategy. The risk reward ratio isn't clearly good here. One early limper and a raise from the SB sounds like SB has either JJ,QQ,AKs or AQs, AK or AA. If he has AA, you're a dog. If he has a big ace it sounds like the deck is ace rich with all those passers. The orig. limper I'd put on big suited but not too good. QJs, KJs, KQs,something like that or middle pair like 66 - TT. After calling preflop you're committed to the river if an A doesn't hit the flop, and with your doubts about the hand it doesn't sound like you would've played it that strongly. I assume that the original limper assumed that you were going to re-raise the SB re-raise so he went ahead and did it himself, hoping to show some strength.
All that being said, I've never thrown away KK preflop.
Chris
chris,
I don't know about you but I don't get KK all that often that I'm going to be looking to save a few bets with it. I want to be in there with raisers and reraisers with the betting capped. If AA is out there so be it, but I'm definitely want to see an ace on the flop before I kiss the cowboys goodbye. There are just too many hands and reasons that stuff gets capped preflop that it's foolish to think KK is not good. If the flop has no ace, and is otherwise not scary I want to get reraised before I'll think about backing off.
dont feel bad mike i was playing in a loose 5-10 holdem game and a woman who was on her way somewhere else probably a higher game, was doing alot of betting. so me in mid position waited for the action to get to me, and saw two big K's. so i called the three bets to me, and saw the flop come 10, 9, 4. i bet she raised everyone else folded, i called. next card was 3. no flush possibilities so i bet again and again she raised me. again i called. last card 2. high pair would win. i checked and she came out betting again. well mike to end this story correctly i would have been reraising her raising making her think i was stealing, but i didnt i laid them down convinced that she had A's. well she showed me her J's and i realized at that moment that she never would have been blasting away with A's because she would have already known she was way ahead. so i realized that at this level. this play didnt cost me too much, just a 200 pot. and that when i play higher limits these types of poor decisions wont happen. therefore i thank you kind lady for teaching me to be a much better player. hopefully i will get to play with her soon thanks for hearing my tale
maybe i drank so much i blacked out, but i don't remember writing this. maybe it is some other scott, in which case i just have to say that i have dibs on this name. include your initatial or capitalize the first t (scoTt) or something.
i never would have folded. folding preflop may not be a mistake in some cases. folding an overpair to a board without flush or realistic straight possibilities for one bet heads up on the river is ALWAYS a mistake. never ever ever against any player make that fold.
scott
I've pitched KK three times before the flop, but none of those mucks really 'count' since the game I did it in was a small 2-5 game. When the old Chinese lady on your right makes it seventeen to go after the two WWI vets in early position made it 7 and 12 respectively, it's pretty easy to know where you stand.
Mike,
Let's say you "knew" one of your opponents had aces (and let us say the other did not have a king). Wouldn't it be worth taking the flop in order to destroy aces when you flop a set of kings?
Regards,
Rick
Rick, I sometimes call two bets cold multiway after limping with a pair for precisely this reason. I probably should have done the same thing in this case. Funny thing though - if the betting had gone differently I would have been patting myself on the back for making a great laydown. You are probably right that my implied odds(it was only one big bet to me) were probably good enough to continue given the fact that my hand still had a small chance to be the best pre-flop. Mike Minetti
I have only been playing limit hold'em for four years, but I still have yet to lose to pocket aces when i held pocket kings. In fact, I have only seen it happen twice (one time in a pot limit game where both players moved in before the flop.) And I have had my KK raise 3 bet and capped to me numerous times. In any limit game, if I have the No. 2 best starting hand possible, I will pay to see the No. 1 every time. Fortunately, I have not seen it yet.
God, it's been such a long time since I had KK's. Bet it all the way and don't be scared if it's capped everytime.
I think you made a huge mistake. Even if you knew with certainty that sb or utg had AA, you still should call. There is already 11 small bets in the pot and it is costing you 2 more small bets to see the flop with no possibility of a reraise, excellent position, and 7.5 to 1 odds of flopping a set. This is reason enough to call preflop, and raise the flop unless an ace flops, if you get reraised at that point, then and only then should you proceed with caution. I'm sure you'll never make that mistake again.
It's hard to understand why you would do this. You already put in two bets. Even if the worst was true - he had AA, might you not beat him anyway? In fact, if you really know a person has AA before the flop, (e.g he exposes them) would not this information make it possible to play almost any hand against him?
Thanks for all of your posts! Abdul your post was very thorough and your point is well taken. Whoever asked about the blinds, they were 10 & 15. Whoever said bet the turn and the river I don't agree.
A lot of players said bet and dump it if raised. I thought about that but there's another 30 of mine in the pot if I get raised. If I want to spend 30 and see if I have the best hand I can check as I did in last position and then call on the river. Like I said, I thought I had the best hand but with calling stations it's sometimes hard to know. Anyway, the small blind had 23(suited or not I don't remember)and the BB called the river with pocket 10's.
The final board was Q-4-3-K-3. If the BB folds I might have called but when the SB bet I pretty much knew he had a trey. I'm glad the BB called.
Thanks again for your posts!
Regards,
RAZOR
RAZOR,
I was in my lurk mode on this one (and who needs me when you have Abdul, Dan Hanson, Louie, Jim, CV, et al). Since it is a new morning I'll throw in two cents anyway.
The turn bet depends on a lot of factors other then math or matters that can easily be stated in a post. In general, I like to bet against more predictable or loose opponents and check against less tricky/aggressive opponents on the turn. I would fold if I were check raised on the turn. If called in two places on the turn, I would check it down on the river (unless I hit a jack). Once I checked the turn, I would generally call the river against a single bettor but generally not overcall a bettor and a caller.
One thing is certain; these opponents played poorly throughout. And it would be hard to "know" the SB had a three but I would think that against a bet and a call you are a huge dog on the river. However, being more aggressive on the turn is the stronger overall play although it would have cost you more this time.
Regards,
Rick
Razor, the reason for following through on the river is because, if called, you are probably up against a queen. This is a call that most players will make, figuring they have 5 outs. Since you cannot beat a queen you shouldn't bet the turn UNLESS you are willing to back it up and fire on the end. By the way, an average opponent is MUCH MORE LIKELY to lay down a hand of this type on the river, NOT the turn. Mike Minetti
I wrote: I would bet the turn and fold if check-raised, normally. A good rule of thumb is if you don't like your hand, bet. ... [An] exception would be when your hand is not vulnerable. Here your hand is vulnerable because ... you're facing two opponents and a trey could come on the river to give someone trips ... when they would have folded had you bet the turn.
Razor then wrote: A lot of players said bet and dump it if raised. I thought about that but there's another 30 of mine in the pot if I get raised. If I want to spend 30 and see if I have the best hand I can check as I did in last position and then call on the river. ... Anyway, the small blind had 23(suited or not I don't remember)and the BB called the river with pocket 10's. [Final board was Q-4-3-K-3.]
shad a*FO a8iasfoasfhyyq 89r asr89uyasrar y
Ouch, I just hit my head against the keyboard.
Mike Minetti writes: Since you cannot beat a queen you shouldn't bet the turn UNLESS you are willing to back it up and fire on the end [with position after the blinds check to you.]
u9utw4tu9tu t9e9u46qtu94u9qa4y u9gt
Ouch, I just hit my head against the keyboard again.
-Abdul
3-6 loose passive game. Little raising BTF, flop often checked around if it doesn't hit anyone. I'm on the button with Jd9d. 4 players limp in to me, I call, blinds call. Flop is AJ2 rainbow. It is checked around to me, I bet, 2 players fold. 5 of us see the turn for 1 small bet. Turn is A. Again checked around to me. I check. River is third A. Check, bet, fold, I call, fold, checker raises, 1st caller folds. From what little I've seen of the check-raiser, if he had an Ace, he would have come out betting on the flop. I didn't have him slowplaying on the turn. I'm figuring us both holding a J and chopping this pot with full houses. I call. He shows a J; we chop. He later says if I re-raised, he would have mucked, fearing I had an Ace (since I was showing strength betting on the flop.) Was a call correct here, or should I have gone for a re-raise? When a chop seems likely, is it best to leave it up to the other player to call your raises, giving them a chance to drop? I admit in the heat of battle, I was thinking, "Let's just get this over with" and "In the unlikey event he has an A, I'm not giving him another big bet." My opinion is that I had a read on this player, and wimped out the end. Comments?
I think that you should be more concerned with the fact that you didn't bet the turn.
Shawn
Specs,
If you are sure you have at least half the pot won and there is ANY chance that the other player thinks you have him beat--keep raising!! You are only expending a little energy in these situations, and any small chance that you might win the whole pot is worth reaching for those chips and throwing them in there. On my last Vegas trip a guy razzed me for raising a full house on board when I had nothing just to try to get him and his buddies out. I told to watch out because I'll always raise my full house. Aggressively competing for the pot is good poker.
KJS
Even if you knew nothing about the player, give your opponent an ace and think about what happened in the hand. He checks with top pair on the flop and merely calls. Then, he checks with trips on the turn and, when it gets checked around, he decides to slowplay his quads on the river hoping that someone else bets.
OK, given that we can now rule out an ace, I say pump him for all the money you can. As long as you're past the rake limit, you're not losing any money by trying this play.
On another note, don't feel bad when he tells you that he would have folded to "your ace." I basically ignore any "woulda's" from my opponent after the hand is over. In reality, you have no idea what he would have done and letting him tell you what you don't want to hear only makes you second guess your decisions while you're at the table.
I like raising or re-raising in these situations, if I am *sure* that I will chop the pot with someone. The way the hand played out, I think you could be *sure* that your opponent did not hold an Ace. On more than one occasion, I have gotten a weaker player to fold, when a chop would have been likly.
If you re-raised, he said he'd muck. He would have looked at you at the end and said, "Quads, huh?" You give a non-committal smile, and say "Good Read." He says "I had the boat. Good thing I saved a bet."
AHHH>... Xanadu....
Tim
I remember a time when I tried a semi-bluff bet, and then a full-on bluff bet on the turn and river respectively, heads up against an opponent. The flop was AK4 rainbow and I had the J10s. The turn was an 8 and I really don't remember the river, but it didn't help me. Anyway, the guy called my turn bet and river bet and showed down a pair of 4s and another rag to beat me. I wanted to choke him! Did he just not see the high cards on board, or was there a huge neon sign above my head blazing "he doesn't have anything! Call!"
Anywho, the post isn't about my bad beat. But I wanted to share the story for a reason. If I had shown down an ace my opponent would have mucked his hand and who knows? I might have given him credit for anything up to KQs. But he didn't muck his hand. He turned over his crap and his crap beat my nothing and he carried the pot over to his side.
Here's my point. You get the bad beat because every time your opponent plays absolute crap and mucks it at showdown instead of showing it, only your opponent realizes just how badly he was beaten. The only times he turns his pile of garbage over is when he got lucky enough to have the cards hit exactly as he needed them to.
So you notice your bad beats not just because you lost a lot of money, but because, for once, you get to see your opponent's hand. The times he mucks you can speculate all you want to, but you don't really know for sure if your flush beat his trips...or beat his bottom pair with a worthless kicker.
Anyone else care to comment on this?
Dan
What you say is obviuosly true. However, I wouldn't classify the hand you described as a bad beat. You attempted to bluff someone who is either a fellow moron or who has no regard for the money involved or both.
As far as not being aware of the "crap" people are playing, I guess that depends on the game and the limit. I tend to play in low limit games and am always aware of the "crap" people play. I'm sure you have heard it before but if you didn't have people playing incorrectly, there wouldn't be any action or potential for profit.
I think what tends to set people off is a series of hands where they are drawn out on by low probability holdings of their opponents. The trick is to deal with this short term adversity in a professional manner and try not to discourage such play.
One of the few things that I find disturbing is when somebody gets unlucky and makes it their goal in life to educate the masses about what an incredibly bad play someone made to draw out on them. It becomes a tough decision at that point as to who is the bigger fool.
Playing low limit poker is like walking through a mine field. Sometimes you get very unlucky. You must keep in mind that if you are in a loose game with lots of callers, collectively the sum of their outs often times makes the field a favorite against you. What you perceive as a bad beat to someone is just the result of one person's "outs" getting there versus another's.
The bottom line is good players don't let the excursions to the fringe of the bell curve affect their play. It's part of the game.
I don't know why this post ended up being a sermon. Sorry about that.
It must have been a good one, because my kids fell asleep. :-)
There is a fishy technique to optomistic poker playing and it goes like this: I will assume my opponent has a hand I can beat. I will fold when I can't beat anything unless that's a good time to bluff.
Imagine how many chips you'd lose playing this way? It's huge. Bless these players, every one. They pay my rent.
Maybe he snapped off your bluff because you have a million tells. Maybe you had been bluffing all night. Maybe it wasn't a "bad beat" but was instead a good play. Or this scenario...you usually raise before the flop with a big king or big ace before the flop. IF you didn't raise that time and your opponent picked up on your habit you are dead. It's hard to put you on a pocket pair because you should be scared of the overcards instead of betting the whole way. The only hand that might make sense is pocket 4's and he's got one in his hole. Don't make assumptions about players before you criticize your own play.
I just wanted to clarify something here. The hand I described wasn't specifically a "bad beat." The fact is that, even for 3-6, I really didn't lose a lot on the hand. Basically I didn't even have a hand that was worth being beaten. I accepted that a pair would beat me and tried, given the state of the board, to bluff anyway.
Overall, I'm not bitter about losing a hand I probably had no right to be in in the first place...but it got me thinking about some of the fishy hands that other players show down versus the unknown hands that those players muck. This leads to another question: how many low limit players do we put on a flush draw when really they've got bottom pair and are chasing trips? And if they muck their busted hand, how can we ever tell?
Dan
Dan, I think you are on to something here. A while back My KK got beat on the river by 23o making two pair. I did not say anything, rather I was happy that this player cold called my UTG raise (in a killed pot) with 23o and then took it all the way to the river with bottom pair no kicker. Yes, it hurt to lose the pot, but I still want him to make that call every single time. I will take my bad beats because as you say, they will usually just fold that crap when you show down your good hand. Then they will occasionally show down the two pair of crapola they hit on the river and you will lose but it will still be OK anyway because that's exactly what you want them to be chasing you with....
Dave in Cali
I wouldn't be too upset. I'm sure your opponent is a consistent loser who loves to gamble and chase. He probably was chasing for 2-pair or a set, and figured "f*&k it" and called you to see what you had.
I just smile when that sort of thing happens and give as much credit to the player as I can without being to obvious that I don't mean it. You want him to play that way!
-- When you suspect and opponent is playing crap like that to the end, then ask to see a few of his hands.
First of all, know your opponent. Your post didn't say anything about what you knew about him. And in my very loose 3-6 and 4-8 hold'em games, I always assume someone is a "caller" until I have seen him do otherwise. In other words, your attempted bluff may not have been a good play. A bluff that is very effective in Mason's 30-60 game would be a big mistake in my game. Know your opponent.
About calling to the end with crap, Lou Kreiger had a Card Player column a while back titled "An Unremarkable Hand" or something close to that, in which he pressed his opponent all the way to a river call, and then saw his opponent's hand, which was somwthing like bottom pair. He spent the article reflecting on the same things the other posters here have been saying ... we often forget that this is our real bread and butter, poor players going way too far with their hands and paying us off most of the time.
Dick
Reminder! Everyone should send in their picture to my gallery of 2+2 posters, which is at Dick's Poker Page. E-mail to me or send a regular photo to my snail mail address found at my contacts page. ...Dick
According to Sklansky's Basic Theorem of Poker, you gain when your opponent does something he would not if he knew what you held, etc . . . It sounds like your opponent read you correctly.
This guy's pair of 4's had you beat man! Your J10s was nothing to brag about after that overcard rainbow flop! Why were you not worried about the other guy having an Ace, or a King?
If you had played your hands face up, would you expect him to play any differently?
Dan, the idea of "the field" having enough outs to make you a dog in many situations is interesting. I was thinking this over the past month or so in explaining the fact that pocket As or Ks were holding up about 20% of the time. No one caller is making a correct move, however, if you think of them as all being on a team against you, then you do indeed become a dog because only one of them has to hit their draw.
On another note, your play is not a total loss. If you throw in your bluff with a laugh, say "you caught me", etc., you will get called down more often in the future with your power hands.
the best of it.
I think a lot of people missed the point of my post. It obviously means I didn't explain it properly. I didn't tell the story to get sympathy for getting beat. Heck, I had nothing! I wanted the pot, but I deserved to get beat. I didn't tell the story so that others could wonder with me why he was holding on through the river with a pair of 4s. There are loads of bad players in the world and I'll bet that, based on my play of this hand I could rank right up there.
I told the story because it got me thinking about a general concept. If I actually had a pair of kings, or a pair of aces, I would have shown them down and he would have mucked. I could have put him on a slightly lesser pair, or the same pair with a worse kicker. But I never would have known! He would have mucked and, while I get the pot, I'm still left wondering exactly what he goes to the river with. Bad players play bad cards all the time, and muck them when they get beat. We only notice that their crap pulled in the pile because that's the only time they turn their cards over: when they've won! The rest of the time is guestimation.
Dan
Wondering what people thought about the play discussed in Roy Cooke's Jan. 25 Card Player Column ... where he called two raises cold from the small blind with 87s.
He got lucky and won a huge pot, but it seems to me that in the long run this play has got to be bad.
How many of you would have payed to play this hand? I don't think I would.
"Call two raises cold" and *way* out of position with 87s
Not me.
Best of it !!
MJ
Roy's article is an example of never giving up an edge. While calling may bets with 87s isn't always fun, with a lot of callers and a 2/3 blind, for every dollar he puts in preflop, he's going to get more than a dollar back when everything is said and done.
Roy predicted that he'd be getting 7.4:1 calling odds with 6 opponents, which is an overlay for 87s. In fact he got 7.14:1 odds in a field of 5, which is a much bigger overlay.
But you are right, he did get lucky when he won the pot, but in the long run the play is still correct.
I should also note, that the bigger the pot, the easier it is to play these kinds of hands because you are going to get closer to your full drawing value. That is to say that as the pot gets larger and larger, the game is better and better approximated by no-fold'em simulations. For the curious 87s is a 4.3:1 dog against five random opponents in no-fold'em hold'em. Against five non-random opponents in a raised pot, 87s is probably closer to a 4:1 dog.
- Andrew
cooke was, i am sure, playing at 30-60, or thereabouts. people do not raise, call raises, three bet, or call reraises with random hands. the position of the raisers would matter a lot to me. if it was utg and 2cnd utg and there were 3 or 4 cold calls, i'd call and be cautious with the flush and and the 9TJ straight. no one has the cards you need, and they probably have the cards that each other need.
but if it was 4 limpers, loose aggressive player in the cutoff raises, and the solid player on the button raises, i would definitely fold.
scott
scott,
Of course people don't play with random hands. I leave it to you to figure out why this is to your advantage and not to your detriment.
- Andrew
everything cuts both ways, andrew. nothing is simple. fair share wins are not enough to cover even preflop strategy. effects of non random hands:
you get more action, overpairs will stay with redraw outs against your 2 pair, 2 overcards and a gutshot will stay against your straight even facing 2 bets, the increased odds of people have big cards that are suited hurts your flush, if you catch trips with an overcard you could be drawing dead to the last 7/8, a low straight that holds up will get tons of action from big pairs etc (i think the action is worth mentioning twice), the cards here are so non random that the bunching effect is not negligble and the low cards you need are much more likely to come, if there is even a 1 in 40 chance of being able to steal on a rags flop rerpresenting 2 pair then that is a nonnegligble benifit, and i am sure there are more.
so, some are pro and some are con. super concepts like fair share wins blind people from these finer aspects, that are more important in some situations. my general question to you is how does fair share wins against random hands add any information to this situation?
scott
scott,
If there's one thing I'm not going to do it's get into an analytical debate with you about fair share. Suffice it to say, you are correct that fair share is almost never a true representation of how hands do in actual play.
However, in the hands of a competent player, certain types of hands do better than fair share, whereas other types of hands do worse than fair share. Once you know which side of that particular coin you are on you can make informed decisions based on fair share information.
- Andrew
certain hands in certain situations. you never give any thought to anything but your hand and the number of callers. look at all the factors i laid out. how do they fit into your conception of the hand? how do you know increased action and your cards being live out weighs the increased redraws and higher chance of flush over flush?
scott
scott,
The issue of redraws is a strawman, you can't argue against using showdown poker numbers by saying that the conditions encourage more people to stay to the river.
- Andrew
showdown numbers against RANDOM HANDS. give two people overpairs and the rest big suited cards from AKs, AQs, AJs, KQs, QJs, JTs. how are the showdown numbers now against 6 opp?
i know showdown numbers make 87s look worse than it is. because 87s is easy to play, esp if you know you need at least 2 pair. but random hands are so far removed from this situation, i don't see how you can bring them up.
scott
scott writes:
i don't see how you can bring them up.
Ok.
- Andrew
87 suited is a good multiway hand which I have regularly called with many times for several raises ONCE many players have ALREADY entered the pot. Also, while making the decision to play it in such a situation, I always made sure that a reraise behind me would not force many of those same callers to fold thus turning the pot from one that is multiway (good for my 87 suited) to one that is shorthanded (bad for my 87 suited as the favorable implied odds is now diminished). I also don't mind making this play because I am playing 15-30 with a 30-60 bankroll and am therefore not too worried about the swings that this volatile play tends to produce for my bankroll. The main thing to watch for when considering playing this hand and others like it (JT suited down to 45 suited ) in a situation similar to what Cooke describes is how a reraise behind you could potentially turn what currently is a multiway pot into a shorthanded, or worse, a heads up pot. THE ESSENCE OF WINNING POKER TACTICS IS THE ACT OF CONSISTENTLY MATCHING YOUR HAND WITH THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL GENERATE FOR THAT HAND A LONG TERM EDGE. A multiway hand will give you that long term edge only if you consistently play it in a multiway environment. A heads up or shorthanded hand will give you that long term edge only when you consistently play it in a heads up shorthanded environment. Of course, there are a few hands (AKs, AQs, AJs, KQs) that play well in both environments. These are the hands you randomize your play with by sometimes playing them as if they were multiway hands and by sometimes playing them as if they were heads up shorthanded hands.
One of my favorite plays is calling a raise in a many-way pot with something like 86s in the small blind (even just a half bet small bet.) It's profitable, and deceptive. However, if you know that the raiser has a big pair, this play will likely be slightly negative, since now one pair is worthless and two pair is vulnerable. So, I would not wade into a 3-bet pot (assuming legitimate 3-bettor) with a hand like 87s in the small blind. 3-bet multiway pots also have a habit of getting capped.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I could easily be wrong about this, but I don't think the presence of overpairs doesn't make suited connectors unprofitable at all. Most of the gross winnings of hands like 87s don't come from one pair and two pair, they come from the straights and flushes and sets and boats. I think you'll *win* with two pair around 8% - 10% of the time that you win, and the total gross due to this winnings will probably be closer to 4% - 7% of your gross winnings. Of course, of those wins, most of them will be with an unpaired board.
What do the sims say about suited connectors when in a field of five with a *certain* overpair?
(one day I'll finish my simulator, really I will)
On the other side of the coin, what do you think about Roy Cooke's play of the hand?
- Andrew
When an overpair is out there and suited connectors cannot win with one pair and are lucky if they survive the river with two, they suddenly find themselves in an implied odds preflop situation. Which means that they *need* to see the flop cheaply. Calling two bets cold just doesn't qualify. Calling one in the big blind is certainly ok. Calling one and a half in the small blind, mebbe. But taking them to the fistfight 3-4 way against a tightass 3-bettor, no way!
We're talking sane games here, of course. In insane family pots you're the fish if you dump'em, unless you *know* it's going to be capped.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
I'm curious, what do you base this on? Again, maybe I'm totally off my rocker here, but I *never* consider a bare one pair a calling hand in a 6-way flop, regardless of whether the pot was raised. I might raise/bet with it if by some miracle it happens to be top pair, but there I am fully semi-bluffing.
How much of the gross earn for XYs is due to one pair and two pair? My guess is between 4-7%. How much of that do you "give up" when you are against a certain pocket pair vs. a possible pocket pair (which the case when you face 4 limpers)? My guess here is less than 1% of your total gross earn.
I just don't think it makes that much of a difference, especially if the game is at all agressive. I sure wouldn't mind if you convinced me otherwise, but your pair and two pair equity is so low that I just don't see an overpair being a huge threat.
If I'm getting 7:1 odds on 6-way action, I'm calling with 87s. Are you Izmet?
- Andrew
I am basing my observations on the fact that suited connectors do very well (win more than their fair share) in multiway unraised pots (where they very probably don't compete against an overpair) to the extent that they can (and should) raise the limpers. However, these cute little creatures do much worse when against the dreaded overpair, so much worse that they must rely on implied odds (which translates to many fish in the pool) if they plan to swim against the stream at all. If so, they *need* to get in as cheap as possible. BTW, I believe this is true for ALL implied odds preflop situations, I don't buy raising 44 after limpers to tie suckers to an overloaded pot that some people recommend.
Sim no.1:
To clarify, I ran a sim with 87s on the button calling behind limpers and six or more players seeing the flop. The field was loose and a couple players were very passive and did not raise with a pocket pair other than AA, so there was some chance that 87s would run against an overpair, but not much. Suited connectors did quite good after 100000 hands, 87s won 17.6% of the hands and earned $6.65 per hand. Note that the win rate is greater than 1/6 here, which means that 87s earned money preflop as well as postflop against five opponents.
Sim no.2:
Compare this to the 13.8% win rate and $4.14 per hand earn when I equipped one of the passive limpers with KK. 87s still did good, but only because the flop was cheap (as KK didn't raise) and there were fish keeping company in the pot, paying off when the flop hit good. In this case, 87s clearly lost money *preflop* (did not win it's fair share), but made up for it later on account of the fish paying off.
Sim no.3:
The third sim I did was exactly the same situation, but I put KK into the hands of a more aggressive profile, who dared to raise with it and 87s called all raises, along with five other optimists. The win rate remained about the same at 13.3% but the connectors *lost* money this time, about $0.31 per hand. It's obvious they lost the edge preflop. They could still come out ahead, but they'd need a family pot. Suited connectors need fish for the implied odds, or a good price.
Now the lost edge against KK can be obviously attributed to the inability of the suited connectors to win with one or two pair. Yes, I do think this makes much of a difference, especially if the game is aggressive.
Funny thing about suited connectors: they should raise many limpers, but be afraid of a single tight raiser. Two raisers - big trouble!
Am I calling 7 to 1 on 6-way action with 87s? Of course I am. I'm just not that happy about it when I smell the atrocious stench of an overpair...
---
Izmet Fekali - yeah, I know, Abdul found it out first...
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
The sims were all standard $10-20. The results don't make much sense without this info.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
Thanks for the sim results. The sim #3 seems to be the most interesting of the bunch. In effect, it seems to show that calling with 87s is a ~0 ev (- 1/32 sb) play when you are against a known overpair. Of course, any kind of significant rake is going to push that down a bit more, but since the chance of winning is so low this is mitigated somewhat. (If we have a 1 sb rake, then you wind up paying about an extra 1/7 of a small bet for this hand).
This seems to make the call fairly clear in my mind. If it's ~0 ev when the overpair is certain, then it's going to be +ev when there is only an 80% chance that there is an over pair.
- Andrew
Prock writes: This seems to make the call fairly clear in my mind. If it's ~0 ev when the overpair is certain, then it's going to be +ev when there is only an 80% chance that there is an over pair.
...except that in Izmet's sim 87s was putting in an average of maybe 2.5 bets to see the flop (Izmet can look that up if he saved the sim results) and had position, whereas in Roy Cooke's case he was calling 2.66 bets cold right off the bat with a strong possibility for more required before seeing the flop and he was in the small blind position. Position is worth roughly .25 to .33 small bets.
If 87s is not quite holding its own on the extra money going into the pot, which I think is likely the case when in early position versus a 3-bettor, then at some number of raises its implied odds will get blown by the extra bets and it won't be able to call.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Minor nit #1, Cooke called 2 1/3 sb initially, not 2 2/3. Minor nit #2, Cooke was in a 2/3 small blind, not on the button, but you mentioned that. Minor nit #3, it's unclear whether Izmet's simulation filter was 6 opponents total, or 6+ opponents. But like I said, these are minor nits.
I do agree that Cooke may very well have been tilting, and as someone pointed out on RGP, his column uses the phrase "emotionally commited" which is an indication that he may have been tilting.
On the other hand, the fundamental question, which we seem to disagree on, is whether 87s needs to rely on implied odds to be playable. I think it's clear, and I think we agree, that 87s is actually in a reverse implied odds situation here as opposed to an implied odds situation. That is, in the long run 87s is going to lose money after the flop in this situation.
I believe, in my own most stubbornest of fashions, that in this situation, if 87s is going to play in this pot, it is for the overlay it's being offered preflop, not for any of the implied odds that it might get postflop.
Of course, specific table conditions are going to make for deviations from any kind of baseline valuation of the hand in this situation, but I think you are always going to have a statistical ev >= ~0 for a hand like 87s once you get into a pot with 6 opponents and 7:1 odds. If there are times when the statistical ev is predictably less than ~0, then I am probably cutting into my local ev. But since almost everyone seems to think I'll be taking a huge hit here, I might expect that minor ev hit to be made up in image enhancement. (Note, I'm not arguing for making -ev plays to enhance your image.)
Izmet's TTH simulations seem to agree with this, but then maybe I'm not interpreting them correctly. I certainly didn't set them up, and unfortunatly I can't set them up as I don't have said software.
- Andrew
Prock writes:
On the other hand, the fundamental question, which we seem to disagree on, is whether 87s needs to rely on implied odds to be playable. I think it's clear, and I think we agree, that 87s is actually in a reverse implied odds situation here as opposed to an implied odds situation. That is, in the long run 87s is going to lose money after the flop in this situation.
We are not speaking the same language. The issue is whether 87s is making money or losing money on each extra dollar going in before the flop (ignoring the dead money and future expected money.) If it is losing money on each extra dollar, then it cannot call an infinite number of raises to see the flop. In that case I call it an implied odds hand; it wants to see the flop for minimal cost and cannot see the flop for maximal cost; to make its preflop call correct it is relying on additional money going in after the flop and its frequent folding on the flop.
Calling 87s a reverse implied odds hand sounds bizarre to me. Even after the flop, it's almost always in an implied odds situation, because if it hits (a flush or straight), it usually gets in a raise and beats several opponents, whereas if it misses, it just folds. A reverse implied odds hand means the odds the hand is getting are worse than they first appear, because the hand plays so badly and loses the maximum when it is beat and wins the minimum when it is best.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I think we are speaking the same language. There are two ways to look at it. I'm going to phrase this discussion outside the context of 87s to try and make it clearer.
First, let me define what I mean by implied odds and reverse implied odds from a "flop nexus" perspective. If for every unit you put in post flop, you get back more than one unit of post flop action on average you have a hand which gets implied odds.
On the other hand if you get back less than one unit of post flop action for every unit you put in, you have a reverse-implied odds hand. This is not a standard definition of (reverse)implied odds, but I think it is consistent with the other version. Here, I'm not considering the odds for particular subsets of possible hands, but rather all hands produced by all possible boards. Taking a momentary step back into particulars, if you flop a pair with 87s you are in a reverse implied odds situation if you are heads up with an underpair/flush draw. Generalizing again, it is possible to have hands and situations for which your postflop ev is negative, but you still have "defending" odds with respect to the pot equity you built up preflop.
Now, consider the case of no-fold'em poker. Clearly if your hand wins more than it's fair share you should be willing to put in an arbitrary ammount of money preflop. Note, by fair share here, I don't mean against random hands, rather I mean against the distribution of hands which you face for a given situation.
As the size of the preflop pot grows towards infinity, the game approaches that of a showdown contest between all contestants. Actually, there is an effective cuttof point of a potsize which gives odds to the absolute worst hand in the most biased matchup.
Assuming that you have a hand which wins more than it's fair share, you would like to put enough money so that your profit potential would be maximized. Essentially, if you have the best of it, you want to maximize your volume. There are risk of ruin issues here, but absent those, you want to put in as much money as possible.
There are situations in which you will win more than your fair share, but for which certain pot sizes will not overlay the ammount of money you will lose preflop. In these cases, you have to quickly determine whether you can get the preflop overlay large enough to cover future losses, or whether you should fold.
So any analysis boils down to whether
(a) you are going to win more than your fair share preflop
(b) whether you will earn money post flop or not. (reverse)implied odds.
If both (a) and (b) are favorable, you are fine. If (a) can cover (b) or vice versa then you are fine. If you can modify the situation so that one of the previous two statements apply then you are fine. If not then you should fold.
I realize that this is kind of an abstract view. The reason to pick the flop as the nexus point of which to divide the hand is that the values of all hands change so dramatically when the flop comes, that a complete re-evaluation of where you stand needs to be done. How well your hand performs after the flop depends on many factors. In fact, while I present (a) and (b) as independent, they are in fact highly inter-related. Understanding this dependence is paramount, and in fact may be something which I am underestimating (as I tend to play in looser games than you or Roy).
Anyways...
If we could somehow figure out (a) and (b) for this situation, we could probably come to a consensus. As it stands, I think that in this situation (the Roy Cooke column) 87s wins more than it's fair share, and 87s will loose money after the flop in a large preflop scenario. I also believe that if I'm wrong it's by not more than a fraction of a bet (say 1/8 sb) and as such it isn't going to hurt your long term earnings.
- Andrew
Abdul,
I've read your responses and agree with your discussion about implied odds. But I have yet to see an answer to the original caller. Do you make the call from the SB against 2 raisers in this situation? I do.
Vince
In my first response I wrote:
"I would not wade into a 3-bet pot (assuming legitimate 3-bettor) with a hand like 87s in the small blind."
-Abdul
Well Abdul didn't mention this in his reply, and rather than wade thru the remaining string I'll assume that the others don't, but
"Cooke describes is how a reraise behind you could potentially turn what currently is a multiway pot into a shorthanded,"
How do you feel about playing a hand that's a dog but with lots of dead money in the pot? This is a basic premise of 7-card stud. Granted the individualized improvement variance is lower, but enough dead money keeps buying you real-estate on the favorite/dog continuum. This motif also often comes up even without any consideration for implied odds in NL HE tourneys with a few tables left. If you can count on a big stack reraise behind you to flush out limpers/moderately interested combatants, you can take the worst of it oddswise 2 and 3 handed. Alternatively, you can be the big stack taking the worst of it with those hands, but most people already realize that. In summary, I like dead money.
JG
Jim B said it best. Why pay big money up front for this type of hand. scott and Jim have done the math for this and shown that 3 bets with this type of holding is -EV.
For 2/3 of a bet then sure.
MJ
Well I've seen other math which shows that the opposite is true. But then, who's a mathematician around here anyways?
- Andrew
roy cooke can beat the pants off of most everyone here. He writes humbly about his game. He shares honestly. I 've learned much from Roy Cooke.
There's only one word for Cooke's action: Tilt! He's expecting it to get capped. He's reading the other players for overpairs. Horrible poker, through and through.
This is a perfect example of my big beef against Cooke. one out of ten columns is results-orientated poor poker passed off as expert play. He should be ashamed.
Rounder, Gary Carson and others who say they win at low limit holdem - I cry Bullshit.
I've observed that dealers are easily running about 20 hands an hour. With a $4 rake per hand ($1/$3 for jackpot/rake, but sometimes less rake) this is $60 hour or more. Add to that the tokes to the dealer - say .50 a pot (not everyone tokes always). This adds up to $70 / hour off the table and out of player's reach.
Now if 9 people sit down to a 3/6 holdem game, each with a $100 buy in, in 8 hours the rake and tokes have taken $70 from 8 of those 9 players. Kinda hard to see where the profit is going to come from isn't it?
The rake is probably the best argument there is for a player switching from 3/6 to 10/20.
2
You can take it from one moron to another that you can beat low limit holdem.
I play mostly 4-8. I don't win very many hands per hour - 2/hr. I also don't play very many hands per hour - 6/hr.
If you are playing more than this many hands per hour, you are exposing yourself to the rake too often and playing too many marginal hands.
If you don't believe me, that's your prerogative.
Your math is a bit off anyway.
First of all, you assume that there's only 20 hands per hour. There is probably more than that. You'll probably complain about this point saying "oh great, then they make even more money." But if you look at it that way, your perpective is skewed. More hands mean more chances to get a good hand and more chances to win money.
Secondly, the rake never touches you unless you win the hand.
Third, those tokes are optional. Granted, I do toke, but you can't complain that money volentarily given away is "out of everyone's reach."
Fourth, if you can't win at 3-6 or 4-8, I'm going to love hearing your posts from the 10-20 level. Here's a suggested subject line "Anyone got another grand to lend me?"
Fifth, if this was a bogus post to begin with, I just wasted 5 minutes of my life.
Dan
So Dan, where is my math off as you said? My statement of '20 hands per hour or more' is not math, it's an observation. ('Math' is when you add / sub numbers.) My math is correct (and simple) given the assumption of 20 hands.
'Secondly, the rake never touches you unless you win the hand.'
Well great then, just don't win any pots and the rake won't hurt.
If your opponent loses money to the house, that is less money that you can win from him - right?
Tokes: Optional or not, THE MONEY IS NOT WON BY PLAYERS!
Dan; The essential point of my post, which I think you missed, is that a large percent of player's money leaves the table and cannot be won. This basic fact works against all players, good and bad.
Furthermore, you can't spell worth a damn.
Another observation: After watching the regulars down at the casino for several months, it is apparent that NO ONE is walking away from these tables a regular winner.
Biguns,
You are right, you can't win money that's not on the table. But in most places when a player busts out, a new one takes his place. As long as theirs money on the table, then there is money to win.
It shouldn't matter to you how much others lose to the rake/toke as long as they are there playing. Stay tight, toke sensibly, and don't go on tilt and you can make money.
- Andrew
Thanks for your reply. It seems like a thoughtful one with good advice.
I still say the rake is devastating. And it is not just hurting our opponents - it's hurting us in the same way!
I've heard the advice many times about playing tight. Now in a low limit game this often translates into playing few hands relative to the others. But when you do this it is observed (low limit players are loose, not blind) and then you do not get the action with your big hands. This loss of action is VERY devastating and absolutely insurmountable. That is, if you can't change the fact that you get no action you'd better leave.
Some say to this that you should play a hand or two to advertise that you are in fact gambling like the rest of 'em. The problem here: You play crappy cards against a table full of loose players and you are not likely to get a chance to show your cards because you'll lose! Unless you play them to the river and show 'em. Who can afford that kind of advertisement?
You're kidding right? I've played in low limit games where a good player who's catching shitty cards will fold every hand 2 hours and the hand he came in on with a 3-bet got 6 callers. Most low limit players are NOT observant and will call all raises pre-flop if they have already thrown in one bet. Playing post-flop is another matter but with a big pot like that one (6 handed with 3 bets each BTF) they will be staying if they have any shot to win that pot. If they were as good as you claim they are they would move up limits. It's the natural progression of things.
The only time you could possibly care how much money is on the table is if your opponent is all in against you. Otherwise, the fact that there are rakes consistently taken of the money they throw across the table is irrelevant. You only care about the rake on the pot you win. Play tight and aggressive, you'll win huge pots and that 2.50 will look like nothing. Hell, tip the dealer two dollars since it's the only hand you've played in 1 hour. The fact is you just picked up a fifty dollar pot at a 2-4 table after the rake and the toke.
When your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions based on those assumptions are also wrong. It’s that simple. “Given that there are 20 hands an hour…” “Given that the sun revolves around the Earth….” Need we hear any more from either of these two arguments?
But you’re right about one thing: your conclusions weren’t math based. They relied upon personal observation. Here’s a personal observation: I’ve seen 32 offsuit pull in a pot. I’m sure most people on this forum have. Based upon that fact, maybe I should start playing it.
As for tokes, the fact is that your money is your money. My money is my money. As my money, I have a right to spend it however I choose to. That I choose to tip the dealer or that I choose to get up and order a slice of pizza shouldn’t concern you. In neither scenario was it your money, and in neither instance was that money ever going to find its way into your pocket.
A comment you made in another post: low limit players are loose, not blind. Well, as a matter of fact, many of them are. They play their cards, not the opponents’. But you’re right, some of them will see you as a tight player. So my question to you is, what do you think is going to change at 10-20? Will your opponents suddenly stop playing loose? Will you play suddenly abandon the strategies you’ve employed at 2-4 and 3-6 and start playing K7 offsuit in early position? Of course not. You’ll wait for the right hand and play it the best you can. But how much action can you expect to get at 10-20? After all, the opponents aren’t blind, are they? Maybe 30-60 is where they stop paying attention…
The point you’re trying to make, that the rake in proportion to the limit is unacceptably high, is a valid one. If you want to move up to try and beat the rake I say go for it. But if you’re not ready for it, remember that lower stakes also means lower loses.
Dan
ps Here’s a bit of math for you. In my original 153 word post, I misspelled 2 words for an error rate of .01307, or 1.3%. That’s actually pretty high for me, but overall, not too bad. The first word, perspective, was a simple typographical error. It happens. The second word, voluntarily, I just didn’t bother to spell check. Sue me.
"Secondly, the rake never touches you unless you win the hand. "
It lessens the amount of money that you can win from other people.
Here in So. CAl the problem in beating the LL games are the blinds as well as the button fee, usually $3 in a 3-6 or 4-8 game. This $3 plus the blinds is murder!!!!!
Your math is screwed up.
Hold'em is more like 35 hands an hour - $3 rake, $1 jack pot drom and a $1 toke - $5 x 35 that is $175 or so off the table per hour.
Making my 4-8 to 10-20 winning record amazing.
I really don't give a shit if you think it is BS or not who the hell are you and what prompted this post anyway I haven't posted here for days and you have to bash me out of a clear blue sky.
Just checked my 2000 performance - playing 4-8, 5-10 & 10-20 I am up $112 per hour you do the math on how many big bets that is. It boils down to being selective about the tables I play at and leaving a winner. I play semi-tight semi-aggressive except when I don't. I am sure I am in store for a down turn as this rate is very high but LL games are beatable. If you are not beating them take a good look at YOUR game not mine OK.
Back to lurk mode until some jerk calls me a liar again.
Rounder,
I really wish you'd continue to post here, alot of your advice I've found to be right on the money. I know you're still prevelant in the General Theory and Tournament forums, but to be honest, your postings were among the few i actually read on the holdem board. Who cares if some know-it-talls think you overpost, at least you're actually contributing REAL WORLD information. Tell it how it is.
BB
Rounder;
You're 'analysis' of my math is just more evidence that you don't have the common (math) sense to be a winning poker player. The 'math' you displayed is THE SAME AS MINE - you just assume a different number for hands per hour, and you seem to assume everyone tokes.
In my original post I stated 20 hands OR MORE. Isn't 35 more than 20? Anyway, the higher the hands/hour the more rake and so all the more to my point.
You cannot assume whatever money is left over after the HIGH rake is going to go to the 'good' players. Obviously, in most games there are going to be lots of pots going to poor players as well - that's standard deviation, and common sense. That's why I can't believe those that claim they beat these games regularly.
(We've all watched 'very poor' players run up huge stacks on occasion. Then in the next session some other 'lousy' player does.)
Rounder, I still say your are pulling our collective leg. With the regularity at which you seem to monitor these threads, I'm inclined to believe you spend most of your time with a bag of potato chips in front of your PC, rather than milking us 'poor poker players'.
You are right that the rake at $3-6 is significantly higher than at higher limits. I also agree that the rake is probably the best argument for moving up.
However, you are wrong that low-limit games are always unbeatable. Yes, there are some 3-6 games with a $5 rake and a $1 drop in which everyone tokes $1, and I would argue that even Sklansky might have trouble beating that game. But, the kind of game you describe (10% rake capped at $4 with a .50 cent toke) isn't necessarily unbeatable. Being able to beat a $3-6 game for $6 or $7 per hour is the mathematical equivalent of beating a $10-20 game for $40 per hour with the same rake. (I.e. take the exact same game with the exact same size pots won, but change the ratio of the rake: size of the best.) If a $10-20 game was as soft as a typical $3-6 game (i.e. with the exact same lineup who played exactly the same way), I would bet that most good players could beat the game for 4 small bets an hour.
-Sean
Playing at low limits requires almost a completely different mindset then playing at higher limits. You must play only premium hands to limit "rake exposure", as well as "tipping" exposure, since the more pots you take down the more often you (should) tip the dealer. While you can often give people credit for certain tendencies (ie whether or not they will bluff at the end with the busted draw)you often can not deduce what a raise means because they may be holding any two cards. Thus if your big hands are getting cracked frequently, you can go through large amounts of time where you are not winning and barely playing any hands, hardly doing much for your image at an "action table". Also, many card rooms feature players at the middle limits who play on a fairly regular basis. 3-6 players (at least in AC) tend to be more variable. Furthermore, their playing styles tend to be more variable, and tend to float in and out of games faster (big turnover). This makes it more difficult for the aspiring winning player as you have to constantly get new reads on players.
This being said, the wealth of beginning or just plain bad players in low limit poker I think keeps you ahead of the rake. I notice that at a low limit table a majority of players will lose 100% of their buy-in, and often times will lose it very quickly. If they are losing it at a faster rate then the rake is taking off in an hour, SOMEBODY at the table should be able to achieve a positive expectation. Losing players can lose at a rate of 2-3 big bets an hour. Seven or eight of these players losing at a rate faster than the rake can take off should be sufficient in providing positive EV for a tight player at the table.
Actually, your original post didn't have OR MORE in it. It assumed around 20 hands per hour.
But here's a little math for you:
Let's assume you're in a 3-6 game playing 50% of the hands. You put in, on average, $20 per hand. Now let's also assume that the other 9 players are doing the same. Every hand you play then will have, on average, 5 players in it and $100 in the pot. Now let's assume that you're an average player and so is everyone else at the table. You're gonna win 1/5th of the time. So you put in $100 over 5 hands, and when you win, you get $100 back. Now we subtract the rake of $3.50, the jackpot of $1, and your obligitory toke of .50. That's $5. You just got back $95 on your $100 investment.
By god you're right. You can't win at 3-6.
But before we give up yet, let's consider another scenario. Let's assume that you're not playing in 50% of the hands. Let's assume you only play in hands where, given your position and your two starting cards, you're at a significant advantage to win the pot. Let's assume that you think about what cards the opponents are playing, and not invest as much money in the pots where you're beaten, and add as much as you can to the pots that you win. Let's assume that your strategy isn't merely to win the most pots, but to get the most money from the pots you win. It's an awful lot of assumptions, I know. But what is the end result? You're not playing average cards, you're playing above average cards. You're not being an average player, you're playing above average. You're not contributing to an average number of pots, you're playing way way way below average. The end result is that you win money.
By the way, the reason that crap scoops up the pile sometimes is because those were the only cards out there to play with! Someone had to win the pot, right?It doesn't make it correct to play, but let them have their fun. If I'm not in the hand, I really don't care who wins. I'll laugh and compliment a big winner when he shows down 8-3 offsuit.
Dan
Sure they do, a lot of people even scroll down this far to look for new messages.
The following hand occured in a small blind/deep stack pot limit hold'em game adn raised a verys interesting debate about a borderline call that I made on the turn.
I'm in the big blind with Ac2c and have about $2000 in front of me. An early player with about $1000 limps for $5 and is raised by a tight middle position player, who has well over $3000. He is old called by another tightish player in late position. The SB folds and I call the $25.
The flop is Qc9c4h.
The first player checks and the initial raiser bets the pot ($105). The late position guy calls and I also call. The arly player folds.
The turn is the Ace of spades.
The raiser bets the pot, $420 and the other guy drops.
I was initially planning to give the hand up if he bet the pot on the turn and I missed due to poor pot odds. But now that the turn card was an Ace, and he bet out anyway, I felt my implied odds had increased enough to justify a call.
I'll post my reasoning separately.
My rationale for the call was based on my read of this player and that fact that if he is betting into the Ace, he probably has a set of Queens or a set of nines, and has AQ as a minimum. Here is why I called:
1) The fact that the turn was an Ace assures me of one more "clean" out, since only the 4 of clubs will now pair the board. So I figure to be a 4.7 to one dog and the pot is only laying me 2 to 1.
2) If he does indeed have set, I figure he's probably going to pay me off on the river if I hit, giving me another $1260 of implied equity (a pot-sized bet on the river).
3) I might get to show my bare Ace down for free on the outside chance that he has Kings.
Results-
The river was a brick and he checked behind me and showed a set of nines for the winner. I guess we'll never know whther he would have called if a flush card dropped, but I think he would have since I could have been bluffing a busted JT straight draw or stupidly betting something like AQ for value.
I also think his checking the set was weak0thight play, as many players might pay off a decent bet with something like AKc given the siz of the pot, but that is another story.
If he's sure to pay you off you are getting only 5:1; and that's the best you can hope to do. But since you fear he WON'T pay off the obvious flush and with a set cannot be bluffed if the flush doesn't get there; I'd say calling was a bad idea.
I have to admit my 1st reaction was to raise all-in to get him to lay down is obvious pair of Aces; but your observation about the strength of his hand would make me look pretty foolish. Again.
You are MUCH better off with a straight draw since your expectation on the river is so much higher AND you can often bluff when the flush "obviously" gets there.
What a silly check on his part, unless he figured you would only call the turn with a draw or set of Aces.
- Louie
I was recently reading an old Card Player magazine with the Phil Hellmuth article talking about the Lakers hand. He mentions that in early position he raises with an 8-10 offsuit and is subsequently reraised by Jerry Buss a few positions later with a K-10 offsuit.
My question to the regular posters is this...with all of the talk about mucking hands as good as AJs after 2 raises, etc...how do you explain supposedly good players making this type of play. Hellmuth's postmortem on the hand does imply he was out of his mind, but shouldn't Buss have simply folded? I don't really think so, but many of the posters (J. Brier and Rounder are 2 of the tighter players in my opinion, and would therefore really appreciate your insight specifically) would routinely muck the K-10.
I feel like I'm an up and coming young player and I don't really feel like Buss would have been wrong in calling, although a reraise is a little aggressive for my taste. Given that people often raise with what I consider marginal hands, how can you automatically respect a raise just because it is a raise?
All responses are eagerly awaited...thanks Mike
I'm going to try to explain why I think this hand happened, not as to whether anyone played correctly or not.
My understanding is that Phil Helmuth, while having an incredible tournament record, has not done very well in the side games. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that without the INTENSITY of a tournament, he begins to play wildly, perhaps out of boredom. I believe that he would be the first to tell you this and in no way am I being critical of his knowledge of poker.
As for Mr. Buss, even though I understand that he is a very intelligent man, and plays some serious poker for very high limits, it is probably all relative. By that I mean it is still a social game to him, and the money at stake, while huge to most of us, is not that significant to him. (I want to point out that this is purely speculation on my part. I do not speak for Jerry Buss.)
So perhaps we have a situation where one player is playing wildly, and the other is someone who on the one hand plays a lot of poker and is knowledgeable about the game, but who still views it as a social get-together. Assuming that I'm right, I could see Mr. Buss thinking something like "I'm sick of this kid raising all the time, I think I'll re-pop him with this king-ten and see what happens.
I agree 100% with Mason. Just a quick note, Mike. In this spot you have 3 options with the K10. Your best choice is to fold. The raiser might not have much but then neither do you! The second best choice in my opinion is to raise. You certainly don't want let anyone in behind you with A10, AJ, AQ, KQ, KJ, or even a medium pair(are you starting to see why the best option is to fold). The worst thing you can do is call. Calling will invite the above hands to take a look at the flop. You could very easily wind up with the worst hand in the worst position. The more hours you put in at the tables the more you will realize that K10 is not a very good hand. Take care. Mike Minetti
There is a long thread on RGP where many "notable" players ae miking excused for Phile bad behavior at the WSOP (1999) and in general bashing players for plays that bad beat him. In general criticism of a top player who acts badly.
Now Mason is making excuses for his (so called) bad play - hell I don't know if playing 8-10 in that spot in that game is a bad play so many things could have entered it to Phils strategy. Phil might have wanted to set up a bluff, maybe on tilt (which I hear is common for him) maybe 8-10 is a hand we all should be playing UTG and we are all wrong and Phiil is right - who cares.
There are a lot of things great players do that average players don't understand or can't replicate - in otherwords don't translate to print very well. That is why you can only get about 75% of what you will ultimately need to be really good player out of a book or magazine.
I agree with Mason on this except with one minor adjustment. I think Buss may have made Helmuth as an "overaggressive" player that is constantly out of line. Consequently his thought was the next time I have a half decent hand against him I'll try and isolate and see what happens. If I am right then whether or not poker is just a "social event" for Buss wouldn't matter. I believe many advanced players would make this move against a wild aggressive type. Phil Helmuth or not.
Vince
I appreciate the poster's confusion because everyone knows that KT is the paradigmatic marginally playable hand that turns to complete trash after a raise. (Or worse, a raise and a call).
However ... If Phil is raising with T8 he's probably doing so with about 25-30% of his hands. Now assuming that the posts below are right and that Phil was on Jerry's right and the blinds were to Jerry's immediate left, if Jerry doesn't raise with KTo he's limiting his play to at least the top 10% of his hands. Given his positional advantage, the likelihood of making the blinds dead money and the advantage of possibly slowing Phil down, it seems to me that not raising here with KT he'd be surrendering an overlay.
tight players get pushed around lots by players like Helmuth, Buss, ones you say, other pushy types. Part of their game, take it away you beat 'em. don't you lose. Nice if all players easy to read and docile but this not happening.
lobo, what's up with the syntax.
Buss and Hellmuth were in a game at pretty big stakes. Because the stakes were big it probably wasn't a table of ten people. I'd be surprised if there were any more than 5 players at that table. Does anyone know if this is true?
Because it was short handed preflop hand values are relative. Hellmuth had probably been raising a lot, Buss probably figured his hand as better than Hellmuth's so he re-raised. This "move", if you want to call it that, isn't so unusual in short handed play. Sklansky and Malmuth have addressed short handed play and they make it clear that short handed play is a very different animal than a full ring game. Situations in a full ring game can be more specifically addressed than situations in short handed play. Sklansky and Malmuth can't give much specific advice on short handed play because all short handed play is greatly influenced by who's playing.
People are already too dependent on these "father figures." Sklansky and Malmuth write books as guidelines. Poker is a people game. Independent evaluation and good judgement must be part of your formula for success. Sklansky says so right in the introduction. Don't have my copy on me but it says something to the effect of "reading this book and rereading this book must be combined with lots of hours at the table and lots of thought about what happened at the table away from the table." A year or two of poker and a couple of readings and rereadings of HPFAP does not necessarily make a successful and dangerous player. A formulaic approach to the game will help you at first but then you've got to integrate your own style and your opponents styles into your approach or you're bound to get stuck, money wise and learning the game wise.
any opinions?
chris
Chris, I am working on my syntax. Much better no? Nice post.
From my relatively new to the game low limit experience I can tell you that for all intents and purposes the textbooks are the reality. You have to know the rules before you can break them. Players such as those mentioned are playing at a different level than beginners, to the point that they're playing a different game. They are playing the people, then they're playing their situation based on the last three hours or last three years against those people and then they'll take a peek at their holding. Any two cards can win and although this is just speculation on my part, if you play perfectly post flop and know your opponents well then you can probaly play any two cards preflop and still have an advantage as long as your opponents don't catch on. My advice, stick to the 2+2 guidelines. Muck KQo, QJo, KJo, KTo against any reasonable early pos raise. You'll save a ton of money.
I should have changed the subject of my first message, but figured I'd mention separately, that Phil was 1 or 2 off the button, not in early postion, in case anyone wouldn't have read my first reply otherwise.
Coincidentally I read that article yesterday as well. Part of the problem is that you described the hand incorrectly. Phil was not in early position, he was 1 or 2 off the button. (Remember that the game was 6-handed, so there is no "early position" for purposes of the discussion.) Buss was on the button with KTo.
Most of the discussion about folding good hands to raises revolves facing a tight, early position raise. Not only was Hellmuth raising in late position, he admits to having been on tilt, so his raise was even looser than a typical open-raise in late position. When on the button facing a loose raise, heads up, you should almost always 3-bet to drive out the blinds. I don't know what exactly Phil was typically raising with, but even if T8o was his minimum raising hand, making KTo your minimum 3-betting hand is probably close to optimal, if not optimal.
BTW, be wary of receiving insight from people who don't even understand elementary hold'em concepts.
-Sean
Just to throw in my two cents, I routinely muck K10 for a raise. I muck it in early and sometimes middle position whether there is a raise or not. If a tight player limps in early position this might be a clue for me to ditch K10 as well.
However, there are some clarifiers here. If a tight player raises in early position, it would be suicidal for Anyone to call with K10. As Rounder pointed out, it often makes a great second best hand.
Now if I knew some loose cannon on tilt was routinely raising with T8o, then reraising would not be such a bad play. Also, I have played in some games where a maniac is raising about 80% of the time BTF, and here again it might be conceivable to call a raise with K10 or even reraise to isolate.
The main thing to consider is that K10 is not a very good starting hand and one should play it sparingly based on the situation and the players involved. Don't be afraid to just toss it in the muck ... you may save yourself some serious $$.
Just because Phil and Buss are making these crazy plays does not mean that the rest of us should ignore the advice which is found "in the books".
Dave in Cali
Now if I knew some loose cannon on tilt was routinely raising with T8o, then reraising would not be such a bad play. Also, I have played in some games where a maniac is raising about 80% of the time BTF, and here again it might be conceivable to call a raise with K10 or even reraise to isolate.
I agree with your entire post, but wanted to clarify to novices that if you're going to reraise with KTo to isolate a maniac, you must be in late position, preferably on the button. Some people make the mistake of re-raising a maniac with any hand likely to be favored over a maniac, but good players will notice you're reraising with cheese, and call 3 cold or 4-bet with hands they normally wouldn't. I think a good rule of thumb is to re-raise with any hand you'd normally open-raise with in that position.
-Sean
As is all poker questions the answer should be depends.
I will routinely muck KT in tournament play in early and middle but might raise with it on the button with a couple of limpers - depends.
In ring games I may call with it in early and middel position but muck it to a couple of raises - depends.
KT is a hard hand to win with even if you hit the flop hard say QTT you are vulnerable to the AT which most ring players will play to a cap then slow play on flop and turn specially if someone else is betting it for them. If you hit 2 pair on the flop there is a great chance you will lose to a straight happens all the time.
I'd rather play A5s than KTs - I would play this hand very carefully it is often 2 or 3rd best which can cost you a lot of money.
well i think they were playing 4 or 5 handed.
brad
Mike C.,
This is a fun thread so I'll tell an old Phil Helmuth story. In 1989 I played in a $1000 buy-in Diamond Jim Brady Limit Holdem Tournament at the Bike. We get down to the final four tables and the final three are going to be paid (the top 27 players). Phil is sitting on my left with only an average amount of chips but he is in his "winning is the only acceptable outcome mode" (he actually said this on TV at the big Trump Taj Tournament a few years back). There are about thirty players left so some of us mere mortal players are just hanging on (including me).
I'm in the SB with king four offsuit. The SB was 2/3 of the big blind. It gets folded around to me so I call knowing Phil is in his attack mode and will raise. Phil raises; I call with my hand that is half-decent head up. The flop was K 8 2 or something similar (the king I am certain of). I check knowing Phil will auto bet. I call. The turn is a blank. I check knowing Phil will auto bet. I call. The river is a four. I check knowing I can get in a check raise. Phil bets. I check raise. Phil must have called since I had to show my hand. He mucks his hand and really lays into me but I take his diatribe in silence.
By the way, after my last check raise I had enough to call a reraise with a few chips left over. Had I lost I would have then gone silent and hoped that someone else got blinded out so I would have at least finished in the money.
Next hand Phil is in the SB and Lou Spitzer (sp?) is in the BB. Lou is a classy older gentleman player from the Pacific Northwest who I haven't heard from lately (If anyone knows how he is doing let me know. Lou was very nice to me). Anyway, Phil is now on total tilt and raises. Lou rerasies. The rest of the details I don't remember but Lou got in many raises and won the hand with one pair of kings and he held king small offsuit (a hand similar to mine). Phil is now totally crippled and lays into Spitzer. The conversation went something like this:
Phil: "How could you reraise with that?"
Lou: "Because you are raising on everything kid."
Phil: "That was a terrible play."
Lou: "It is all relative kid."
Phil: "I can't believe you played like that. I'll bust you."
Lou: "Seems I got the chips kid."
Phil: "@#%$(#%*@#$"
Anyway, Phil hung on for a few more hands but soon went all in and ended up busting out of the tournament 28th (one out of the money). Sorry Phil.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I got to play Jerry Buss for several hours at the Hall of Fame Tournament at Binion's later that year and would like to say he is a total class act. And I was a lifelong Celtics fan and Laker hater up to that point.
While I don't know one way or another whether Helmuth is a good ring game player, I am going to go out on a limb and assume that he can play, based on his tournament results.
If he indeed has a reputation for being a loony ring game player, that reputation certainly gets enhanced by conversations like these. A cynic might even wonder whether an internationally-known poker player who writes an article about raising with 8-10o in a 400-800 game is doing so to burnish that reputation. When a "character" like Mike Caro does it, he is a "mad genius." When an SOB like Helmuth does it he's an idiot. I wonder.
Phil Hellmuth is a great player. He will take some super marginal starting cards against players he believes are weak. He counts on being able to know where he is at and on being able to outplay these weak players. In tournaments he can get away with this arrogance better than in ring games. In the high limit games he plays in, his assessment that he is the better player *always*, is his Achilles Heel. When you are only a whisper better, you can't keep going in with way the worst of it. His habit of doing this has kept many players somewhat more solvent. He is welcome in many games.
To Big John
Is Helmuth welcome in many games because he is well respected, good for the game, etc. or because others feel they will beat him, (due to his achilles heel)?
If the latter is the case, then wouldn't this disqualify him from being in the "great player" category at these higher limits?
I am just wondering.
I was disappointed in watching his tirade in the WSOP. This type of crying is not appropriate at any limit.
Good observation BJ. But this is not an uncommon trait amongst better players when faced with an unknown player (to deviate from the book). This happens in lower limits as well. They will sometimes play position ONLY to run over weaker players. One must punish this behavior or at least take a stand with some marginal holdings before one can be respected enough to avoid being played this way. K,10 is a stretch by any standard if not short handed, but I'm sure both had equal difficulty reading each other. If you fold to an early raise no one gets hurt (especially you). If you know the raiser to be on tilt or tiltable maybe that changes things for you. But just because he's on tilt doesn't mean he can't catch AA,KK,AK or some other legitimate raising hand.
After thought: If Phil hits with 9,6,7, or J,9,7 etc, who's gonna put him there ? He might take AA,KK or a set to the bank, which is what we all want to do. If Q,J,9 comes, then Jerry's gonna have a lot of fun, and Phil had better recognise.
When I first arrived in Vegas I heard that Doyle B. or Johnny M. could and would play any two cards. I didn't understand at first, now I do. They are not playing any two, they are playing YOU
I only wish it would have been me. I would of kicked his but from LV to NY if he spoke to me like that.
I'd say he is welcome first because he brings large sums of cash to the game. Second, because he is prone to go off for a large number quickly in the right circumstances. Third, because with him in the game it is easier to attract new players. Fourth, because people are fond of him and enjoy playing with him.
The mark of greatness in a poker player is determined by the heights he is capable of ascending. At his best, Phil Hellmuth is a great poker player. Unfortunately for Phil and the entire Hellmuth family, Phil doesn't always play at or near his highest level. Some of us would gladly take his "off" playing days though if we could substitute our own emotional control for his.
I've played many hundreds of hours of $60-$120 with Phil Helmuth. His "A" game is extremely good, I think. I have to qualify that with "I think," because I've almost never seen him playing his "A" game. He is normally on tilt and in loose-aggressive mode, but again I think this is an emotional problem and not a fundamental problem in his strategy. In a tournament, this behavior either gets him eliminated, at which point cannot blow off any more chips, or else it puts him one step closer to winning the tournament. Nobody seems to deny that Phil is a great tournament player.
Other famous tournament players and WSOP winners are also loose-aggressive fish in ring games. It's a style that obviously wins tournaments, but it doesn't win limit ring games. Tournament poker and ring game poker are two different beasts.
-Abdul
Sure, I'd 3-bet Phil's late raise with KT. In late position facing a maniac, you should reraise with hands like KT and 87s (and anything else that you're going to play), simply because the maniac likely has garbage and your weak hand will play so much better heads up than 3-way. However, you can't really condemn Phil for raising with T8 even a few off the button. Maybe he saw that the big blind was ready to fold or something. You cannot draw conclusions from one hand. However, I've watched him play thousands of hands, so I'm allowed to draw conclusions.
-Abdul
I am rather new to Hold Em, and when I play with my friends we usually play deep stack pot limit. I wonder how 3/6 limit works. Are you only allowed to raise exactly 3 at a time (first two rounds) and then exactly 6 at a time?
I am sorry if this question is too basic to be posted here, but I am soon arranging a small Hold Em tourney and I want to know exactly how the raising rules are. (We will probably play 3/6 limit.)
Thanks,
Jonas Ödman Stockholm, Sweden
That's right. the bets must be exactly 3 on the first two rounds and exactly 6 on the last two. No more no less.
Thank you!
/Jonas
If you look in the archives from about 6 months ago (give or take) i made a post entitled something like "home tournament structure" which has a detailed structure for a mixed game home tournament. This system has been tried three times and worked well, you could easily adapt the ideas from it to your own tournament.
Dave in Cali
Tomorrow I plan to play the Grand-Biloxi's Friday Hold-em tournament ($5 entry fee). First 1 1/2 hours, $20 unlimited re-buys for $500tc if you are under $700tc, then a $50 add-on at the break ($3500tc).
Generally 55-75 players, and top 10 are in the money for a minimum of $75. I have made the final table 3 of the 6 times I've played, cashing the $75 twice and splitting 1st-4th once. So I'm looking for help to perhaps get an extra edge.
General questions: How many re-buys should you make? As many as it takes to get to the break? Or just one at the most?
With general playing strategy, I try to play relatively tight, solid poker, but I feel I need to vary my play a little more. For example, perhaps there are some more creative situations where I should raise instead of call or fold; I feel I might be missing these. Or when I should fold instead of staying with the hand.
Finally: Am I looking for too much here in being able to beat these tournaments, and my record is actually okay? Or is it feasible to wish for better?
Thanks for any opinions.
Mark Harman
Mark,
With the re-buys, as others have said, there are different approaches but it's good to have a plan beforehand and stick to it. The add-on sounds good value at least.
6 tournaments is a very small sample to go on, but 3 finals is really good, you must be doing something right to get this far. A lot of the time you can increase your chances of winning by being aggressive while others are trying to sneak into a payoff spot, it comes with practice. But remember, you only need to win 1 in 30 or so (less if you are not rebuying as much as others) to turn a good profit, so be patient.
And finally, if you post on the Tournament Forum you might get more replies (and I might feel like I wasn't the only person on it sometimes :-)).
Andy.
Thanks for the reply.
I tried one post in the tournaments forum, but got little response there, also, to a previous post. I guess my stuff isn't that interesting to others.
Mark
One other thing, though. I started playing in 1993 and seemed to have a knack for the game. I studied a little to correct holes in my game, and have done okay in low-limit ever since.
I wish I could develop a bankroll to test myself in the higher limits and bigger tournaments (bills to pay, unfortunately), but for now I'll have to content myself with the smaller stuff.
Mark
There is probably some math guys out there that can prove that what I'm about to propoase is ridiculous or perhaps it's ridiculous just on the face of it, but it occurred to me so I thought I'd ask.
The flush possibilities of AKs is confined to 1 suit where the flush possibilities of AKo gives you a shot at the nut flush in one suit and the second nut flush in another suit. I'm sure the math doesn't justify it when calculating a four flush on board as opposed to a 3 flush, but we are talking two suits instead of one. That's almost double. Plus, it does give AKo extra outs when one of the suits either flop suited or a 3 flush hits on the turn. Does this make any sense at all?
To prove you are wrong you do not have to be a "math guy". You need only to know elementary probability often taught in high school. There are at least ten million people in this country who know how to count the number of boards that contain three or more of your suit compared to the number of boards that contain four or more of one of your suits. If you will not take the time to learn how to do this yourself, your chances of success as a poker player diminish significantly.
see mike petrov's book about holdem odds.
I have been trying to find this book. Any idea where it is available.
Thanks
The gambler's book club in Las Vegas stocks it and you can also order it through Cardplayer magazine.
Actually, with AKs you have 2 chances of making the nut flush. Figure it out?
vince
Todd,
Are you sure you are not Rounder posting this question incognito? He has promoted a similar idea in order to justify his love of ranks and dismissal of the value of being suited.
I slept very late (for me a ten year record) and haven't had coffee so I won't do the math. But the math will indicate the rarity of four flushes on board compared to three flushes. Even if you have the four flush, think how little action you will get from having the ace high in the suit. And when you have king high, you won't want much action anyway.
Now I better go make more coffee.
Regards,
Rick
I have tried to find this book. Any suggestions where it is available.
Thanks,
.
I love Gambler's Book Club but a lot of this stuff is available at Chuck Weinstock's web site at www.conjelco.com. Since Chuck maintains this web site I think we should support him were we can. Anyway, I checked and pasted in the following from the Conjelco sight.
"Hold'em's Odd(s) Book, Michael Petriv. A primer on calculating Hold'em probability for the layman. Covers every situation for every stage of the game and every type of starting hand in a logical, consistent, and comprehensive manner. Shows the complete methodology for all calculations. A great complement to other Hold'em books. 207p (paper). #P31, $24.95, Internet Price: $22.95. "
As far as I know, Chuck is the only one who gives discounts on poker books other than Amazon and the other mega online booksellers.
Regards,
Rick
.
Interesting theory Rick. But I'm sure you realize that by now Rounder has taken so much abuse he certainly wouldn't post incognito to avoid a little more. (Besides, Rounder admits freely that AKs beats AKo. Okay he says by 3% but he still says AKs is better)
SammyB,
This one I heard at the bar at Crystal Park a couple monts ago so maybe my memory is a little fuzzy. Since he bought the drinks I really don't want to be to hard on him :-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick I think I made the 2 nut flush possibility scenario too.
:-)
It is catching on little by little.
Hope to see you next week.
Rick
Not me but I got them thinking huh!
I love AKs but rate AKo really close or the same in a tournaments as in tournaments drawing is death and It is my policy to dump AK if I don't flop to it. I don't need the added suited aspects of AK to intice me to see another card.
As I have said AKo is just easier to get away from.
Possible boards with 3 or more spades to AKs: 178,365
Possible boards with 4 or more spades to AsKh: 22,770
Possible boards with 4 or more hearts to AsKh: 22,770
please post method if you can.
brad
Chris,
Can you tell me how many possible boards there are over all? I am going to order Petrov's book but in the mean-time I am curious.
It seems that the total number of boards must be:
52!/[5!(52-5)!]=
52!/(5!*47!)=
[(52*51*50*49*48)*47!]/5!*47!=
52*51*50*49*48/5!=
311,875,200/120=2,598,960
Please feel free to criticize my method if I am wrong.
I think it may be more useful to calculate C(50, 5) instead of C(52,5) like you did, since this thread started with "Given you have two cards x and y, what are the probablilities that the board will do a or b?" Using C(50, 5) (How many combinations of 5 objects are there out of 50 unique objects) you get 2,118,768. Which would mean that you will get a flush 8.4% of the time if you have two suited cards, and 2.1% of the time if you have two unsuited cards (Given that Mr. Alger was correct, of course).
Mike
That's right, which of course is also the total universe of 5-card poker hands.
To get the number of boards that will have 3 of the same suit, you just do two combination problems and multiply.
In the case of AKs, for example, first figure out how many combinations of 3 spades you can make out of the remaining 11 spades. The formula is [11 X 10 X 9] / [3 X 2 X 1] = 990/6 = 165.
(To calculate the number of combinations of 3 cards, you multiply 3 numbers in both the numerator and denominator. The numbers you multiply in the numerator begin with the total number of cards from which the combination cards can come, in this case 11 spades, so 11 X 10 X 9. The numbers multiplied in the denominator begin with the number of cards that make up the combination, in this case 3, so 3 X 2 X 1. For combinations of 4, you multiply 4 times, and so forth.)
Then figure out how many 2-card combinations you can make from the remaining 47 cards, using the same formula: [47 X 46] / [2 X 1] = 1,081.
So there are 165 combinations of 3 spades possible, which can be accompanied by 1,081 combinations of two other cards. 165 X 1,081 = 178,365 total boards that have at least 3 spades when the As and Ks are already out.
Petriv's book is very good on this stuff, but I learned it from David Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It." The latter is an excellent collection of essays illustrating various applications of math, statistics and logic to gambling that you should also consider buying.
www.dartmouth.edu/~chance has a lot of online probability and statistics learning aids. In addition Brian Alspach's column in PD is a good resource. He shows you how to solve the kind of question you are proposeing.
Todd:: "The flush possibilities of AKs is confined to 1 suit where the flush possibilities of AKo gives you a shot at the nut flush in one suit and the second nut flush in another suit."
WL: Actually if you carry this to its extreme it is better to not only have two differently suited cards but also two that are far apart in rank so that you can make a high straight *OR* a low straight. Further since you will be playing a T5o in so many cases you will be very deceptive and since most of your opponents are playing high cards there will be more of your cards in the deck giving you a better chance of hitting. When you have perfected this strategy let me know and I'll direct you to my game.
Love.
utg, a real tight player who never bluffs, limps. i have KTs, and call only because i can tell at least 3 people will come in (plus the blinds), and there has been litte raising.
flop K 8 2 rainbow. utg bets out and i fold after a quick think.
comments?
brad
Normally I would raise when I have top pair since I want to make the pre-flop raiser (and anyone else) pay to play if he raised on just over cards. Obviously, in this situation that does not apply. However I would have to be 100% certain that this guy would not lead holding QQ, JJ, TT, or AQ. I don't know anyone that well and some players will follow through with a flop bet holding QQ, JJ, or TT when a King flops even against a large field because of all the money already in the pot rather than just throwing in the towel by checking. Your play is probably correct given that you know your man as well as you say you do.
If you can't feel comfortable playing top pair against someone, you probably shouln't have played the hand. Jim's comments are right on, although I would add that you should have mucked before the flop, since this guy's hand is one that likely has yours in serious trouble.
well, i was basically playing for a flush or T top pair or something. i was sure that under the gun he would have to have at least KQ or KJs , and the reason i thought was i initially was going to raise.
imagine my shock when he turned over KTs.
but i still feel i made the right play against him as he is very tight and a nut player. but he may be loosening up a bit to exploit his image.
brad
I wish I wouldn't have read what you posted. But honestly I would have written this irregardless. It's either a raise or fold situation on the flop. Hopefully you can get it heads up if your raise and play it cheap.
exactly. but i thought it was more likely i couldnt move him off his hand so folded.
brad
You don't have to move him off of it. Just get to the showdown cheaply.
well, if i have to showdown id figure theres no way i can win. but ill have to reevaluate this player.
brad
If there is no way he would be betting less than a K good kicker you definitely made the right play.
Brad,
I'll answer without reading Jim's response (yet) which I expect will be similar. If UTG is tight the value of KT suited is diminished greatly. Even if you expect loose, soft action behind I would not play it.
Your fold had to be correct with loose players yet to act and the player you describe betting out. But I would not have been in that spot in the first place.
Regards,
Rick
OK, you guys are way better poker players than I am, but it seems to me that Brad may have made a mistake.
UTG is a tight player, therefore limp with groups 1-4. Possibly throwing away group 4, and since he's described as tight he probably won't play group 5 at all. He would raise with AA,KK,AK, and probably AKs.
So what could he have? QQ,JJ,TT,99? or AQs,AJs,ATs,KQs,KJs,KTs,QJs,JTs,AT.
He wouldn't have KTo,KXo,Kxs,KJo.
Anyway, it seems there are only 6 possible starting hands that could beat you (3-KQs, 3-KJs, no raise=no KK). And at least 50 that you beat(more if you include more starting hands than I've already speculated that he may start with. And two that tie you(which ironically has the least probability of happenening, and that's what actually happened, go figure)
I'll give way to your guys' experience and knowledge, but it seems to me that Brad had the edge before he folded.
brad,
I'm on a quick break from pruning my wife's roses so don't expect too much math here :-).
I've found a lot of limping these days with decent kings at least in the games I play in. The other problem is that you really don't know what kind of action to expect behind you. Weak, possibly dominated hands play very poorly from the early middle with unkown action yet to come. So I still don't like the call pre flop.
I don't have time to look over all your listed hands but in general you will be playing a hand that is either a slight favorite or a big dog. This is something you want to avoid.
Regards,
Rick
YOu've got a point. However, if the UTG player is your typical rock, he isn't betting any of the other 50 hands. (With the possible exception of QQ,JJ or TT, which Jim Brier addresses earlier in this thread), so you can be almost certain that he's got your hand beat. Further, notice that this is a case where the concept of 'reverse implied odds' applies. If your ahead (and raise), then you'll get no more action from him, since he'll fold. However, if your behind, it's going to cost you anywhere from 2-3 more big bets to show your hand down. In other words, you win 10$ from him if your ahead, but he wins 50$ from you if he's ahead (minus the dead money).
QQ,JJ,TT: That's 18 hands Brad beats, 6 hands he loses to, and 2 hands he ties. It still seems like a fold isn't right. A raise would clear the field, and maybe even fold UTG if he is so tight. A call probably isn't so bad because you have only one overcard to worry about and not many draws if any. Even if you know UTG very well, he could easily have QQ,JJ,TT and bet the flop UTG IMO.
It would be one thing if you were on the button and the field mucked to you. However, when you're second to act, it's not a bad idea to tighten up considerably when you're thinking of calling or raising. I don't know how many times I've raised here, had a couple cold caller behind me, then bet out when the J hits and been raised. Now I've 'got' to call, since I've got a gutter with top pair, while in the meantime the yahoo behind me has slowplayed a set of nines (I'm assuming a fairly good sized pre-flop field here). While you 'may' be ahead on the flop, it certainly isn't a sure thing, and a lot of nasty scenerios can develop on the turn that will cost you a BB or two. Also, if a guy's so tight that he doesn't raise coming in with JJ or QQ, then it's likely that he's also too tight to lead bet when an overcard hits the flop.
You have to do a Bayesian analysis. If only 20% of the hands he could have would have a King in them, but there's only a 10% chance that he would bet out without a King, then he's probably got a King, in which case Brad is beat and made a good fold.
This points out the difficulty of playing against a very tight player, especially when he limps in UTG. I like to position myself in a game downwind from these guys, so I can just stay out of their way when they limp with AKo and KQs.
fold preflop.
scott
whoops. i thought utg raised. in this case, the call is ok if you think you have ok control over utg. and if you have ok control over utg gun, you should have raised the flop.
scott
So, you're in middle position knowing you're beat getting 6:1 with your likely 3 card out (15:1 to hit the turn); the better has every reason to bet the turn and isn't going to be bluffed since his pair is so high... This isn't brain surgery. Anyone who wants to make this call ... (Vince, help me!! stop me!!!)
The player you described is common at lower limits. This particular situation comes up regularly in spread-limit games where the UTG player bets and just PROBABLY has you beat.
As you know, one of the features of a "trouble" hand is its tendancy to make a good-enough 2nd best hand, forcing one to invest future bets as the dog. The value of your piece-of-dung trouble hand goes back up to tolerable when the UTG player (who is sure to have a hand better than yours) isn't going to bluff nor get tricky (that is, he's real predictable); giving you the opportunity to make a don't-blink-an-eye fold when he DOES bet, or a frequent steal when he checks.
- Louie
I don't think the pre-flop call was that bad, since you were suited and expected to get a couple of callers behind you, and maybe both blinds. 6-way action in an unraised pot is fine for a hand like this.
But you hit the worst-possible case for this hand - missed the flush, missed the straight, hit top pair in a probably-dominated position. The pot's small. Good fold. It should be a routine fold against the player you described. Just don't ever let him know it.
This is very important - don't stare longingly at your hand before throwing it away, don't show your neighbor your good fold, don't sigh and kick your feet or do anything else. Pretend you were on 78s and the flop missed you completely, and chuck it quickly and calmly.
Even the inattentive rocks will start getting ideas if you let them know they can push you off a made hand with a single bet on the flop.
That seems like a pretty good flop for your hand. If you can't play that flop, what can you play? Why make the pre flop call?
Brad's fold on the flop was good poker. The Rock limper's hand almost has to win when he bets the flop.
Some large number of posters above have suggested folding pre-flop. What are you thinking ?? The Rock just limped, he didn't raise. I suggest that you are giving results-based advice here.
KTs is a category 4 hand; the combined values of flush, straight, ten-high flop, and cautious play of K-high flop, give this hand real value. Come on, posters, raise your hand if you would fold this pre-flop with no raise. Of course you wouldn't.
The Rock could have JTs; he could have AQo (thereby not dominating YOUR hand this time); he could have a medium pair.
Call Call Call.
Dick
You make a good point Dick but I think it is a marginal call and in some games I would fold KT suited in early position. In this particular case the poster knew he would get multi-handed action and would in all likelihood not pay more than 1 bet to take a flop so limping in is probably okay. Mason Malmuth does this based on his assessment of the Bob Ciaffone quiz (see Essays section). But in tighter, more aggressive games where most pots are getting raised pre-flop and only 2 or 3 players are taking a flop I think folding pre-flop is correct. It is not so much the playing style of the utg limper as it is the type of game you are in.
I think you can go either way with this hand, although your certainly not losing anything by mucking it pre-flop. True, you may flop a flush draw (or some other kind of monster) but since you're in early position it's going to be hard to extract the maximum value for it. The more likely scenerio is that you flop top pair and end up getting in trouble.
Are we talking about "super rock" here? I haven't run into one these types since I can't remember when. I think I am a tight player but not this tight especially when it encourages people to come in behind me and the game is normal. I agree with Dick.
I hadn't read this thread because "10-20 hand" doesn't really stick out at me (BTW, as a suggestion to other posters, you should really use a more descriptive title than "Comments on a hand"), but the "DON'T FOLD PREFLOP" subject in the reply made me assume that this was going to be a "I raised with QQ and a really tight player 3-bet me so I folded" type of hand. To my surprise, I'm reading about a very marginal situation.
Some large number of posters above have suggested folding pre-flop. What are you thinking ??
I'm thinking there are way too many hands he could hold that dominate KTs. I almost always fold KTs after a very tight limper and don't even think twice about it. In this case, if our hero was *certain* that several more people would enter, then KTs isn't that bad, and it's probably playable, but it's still marginal--you give up very little by folding. I would worry about coming in with ATs or KJs against the tight limper, let alone KTs.
The Rock just limped, he didn't raise.
Against a limper described as "real tight," that doesn't matter much. Some rocks don't even raise with AKo, which means you should run away from their limps almost as often as their raises.
The Rock could have JTs; he could have AQo (thereby not dominating YOUR hand this time); he could have a medium pair.
I wouldn't describe anyone who limps with QTs or JTs UTG as "very tight." Yes, there are some situations were you won't be in bad shape, but it's a situation where you're either even (versus a medium pair), a slight dog (versus AQo other overcards that don't dominate you), or a huge dog (versus the many hands that dominate you, AKs/AKo/KQs/ATs/maybe KQo/KJs). Why bother with a marginal hand? Fold and play the next hand.
-Sean
x
There is one time where I am in question of how to utilize game selection. I am sure most of you do or have played at Commerece casino when there are like TONS of 3-6 games going on - especially on Friday and Saturday nights. How is one supposed to know who sucks and who is good at a particular table when there are like hundreds of players you have never even seen before? Do you sit at any table then just leave if the game looks shitty? Is it as simple as this or am I missing something here?
There is (almost) no such thing as a bad 3-6 game (ignoring the rake/time) outside of Nevada.
Watch a few hands.
Folds around to the blinds -> twilight zone
5+ way action to the flop -> good
obvious novice who doesn't know basic rules -> great
capped 5+ way action to the flop -> great
almost no raising postflop -> great
4+ make it to the river -> great
85o calls 2 cold preflop -> great
etc.
Usually I do just sit in a game, though, partially because I usually don't have any choice of tables. If it's not a great game, then I'll put my name on the transfer list and I'll scout the other tables in between hands. I keep my chips in racks, ready to move.
-Abdul
If you see 5 or more players take the flop twice in a row it's almost always good enough.
But isn't seeing 5 players take the flop a tell tell sign that implicit collusion is right around the corner if you sit down? Or do you watch a couple of rounds after the flop and see how far they go with what before you actually sit down?
I sat down at a 3-6 table two nights ago where 8 people saw the flop for 1 bet almost every hand. I won $135 in 1 hour playing tight and aggressive. I couldn't believe it - I played about one hand in 30 minutes and then I am dealt KK in the single blind. It's my option as 8 players put in one bet. I raise and they all just call. K hits the flop, I bet, they all call. A blank hits the turn, I bet, three fold and the rest call. A possible straight hits the river, I check and they all check and I take a $100+ pot. It's incredible. They all just keep re-buying and re-buying.
I think you answered your own question about implicit collusion. True, you're going to get run down more, but where you DO win a pot it will doubtlessly be a monster. The kinds of players who don't do well in these kinds of dream games are the types who have no idea how to adjust. If can tweak (or should I say overhaul) your game against these kinds of players then these real loose games should be a cashcow.
I had one similar hand in a 5-10 game. K-K on big blind. 7 called around, I raised, all called. Ragged flop. I bet, all 7 call. Rag on turn, I bet again but a bit reluctantly. All 7 call! Rag on river. I still bet. ( A bad move?) All 7 call !!! There are 8 of us in the show-down, out of a 9 handed game. I turn my kings immediately and wait to see who beats me. I took the pot. That pot sure made up for a lot of the bad beats suffered with these good starts.
One other very simple game selection technique is to simply look at the players. Are they having a good time? Are there lots of smiles and friendly banter? Or are they a bunch of sullen, rock faced stony crabs? Also, what is the age make up of the table?
The younger the crowd and the more fun they appear to be having, the better for you.
The above has been my experience as well. The other night I moved twice before I found a good table. The first table had too few people seeing the flop. Same with the second, and by the table talk it was clear most knew how to play. The third had 3 drunks who couldn't put money in the pot fast enough. They wanted to gamble, and did. I got beat a couple of times, but a couple of monster pots more than made up for it. They were easy to read (there was a good chance they didn't have a damn thing) as was an old Asian lady, who would only play the nuts. When she bet, I got out, and she took the drunk's money. PS. Abdul, I'm taking your post and printing it out to carry in my wallet as a checklist.
I would like some input from others about how they adjust to a game when it becomes slightly short handed, say maybe 8,7 or 6 handed.
I don't play any diffeently until it falls to 5 or less, then I'll play a bit looser and bet my top pairs weak kickers more agressively and play more big cards like KJ, KT, A9, QJ.
A hand came up the other night that almost sent me over the edge toward tiltintown...After rehashing the "Bad Beat" with a few friends and thinking about the hand I was wondering if it was or not. I have pocket 9's on the button in 5-10-20-HE. One limper calls (A loose player) and I raise. BB calls(Solid Player)and we take a 3 handed flop of 9-5-3 rainbow.(how sweet it is Lord)...BB bets and limper calls(even sweeter)...I raise and both call. Turn card is a jack with 2 hearts. Checked to me and I bet. Both players call. River is a 10h making flush possible. Checked to me and I bet 20. Blind calls and limper makes it 40. I call and Blind folds. Limper has KQo for nut straight. My questions are this:Was it correct for limper to call the blinds bet on the flop? Once he does was it correct to call my raise plus the blinds call of my raise? My turn bet? He had 2 overcards to the board plus a gutshot in his defense. The solid player later snapped that I should have checked the river. I ripped him an ass and told him to quit slow-playing and bet his 2 pair(He had J9)and I'd be dragging the pot but that's another story altogether. Thanks for your comments.
RAZOR
It is a bad beat. Hard to believe the BB didn't check raisethe turn. But that double bb on the river makes people play unusually. Implied odds you might call it. I don't think you should have bet on the river against two opponents. The straight got there but with as little action as there was he probably didn'tthink he was drawing to just a gut shot,he probably thought a Q or K would've been good enough (in this case, good enough for 3rd place)
3 tierbetting is great but you can't open yourself up to those checkraises. With that board, an unlikely straight but an entirely possible flush,it doesn't make sense to bet the river. Your set of 9's is as good as top pair here and what hand worse than top pair is going to call your bet.
chris
I knew the blind had a nine(Probably A9) when he bet the flop and figured him for 9-10 or 9-J at the end. I really wasn't afraid of the flush at the end though it sure was possible. In retrospect, I should have checked the river but any card but the 10 or J makes me a winner and I get another 20 from the blind and his 2 pair and if a King or Queen comes they both pay me off.
RAZOR
No doubt that there are good reasons to bet the river. I tend to be a little more careful on the river in three tier games because normally predictable players get greedy or stupid or both and get fancy on the end. What I'm saying is that in my experience, check-raises are a lot (and I mean a lot) more common in the 3 tiered games. And you have to call because check-raise bluffs are more common as well. People think the double big bet will push you off a hand more easily.
Sometimes the careful way with a scary river card is easier on your mind and the rest of your game than pushing a "value" bet. A lot of people would argue that you made the right play. It sounds like you exposed yourself unnecessarily. Would you have raised if either player bet into you on the river? I doubt it.
chris
I do not believe that the limper should have called on the flop with just over cards in this situation. The reason is that he is being bet bet into and the pre-flop raiser (you in this case) could easily raise after he calls. In addition, his over cards are of dubious value given your pre-flop raise since you could easily have AA,KK,AK, or AQ severely crippling his hand and putting him in mortal danger of developing a second best hand should he catch a pair. The limper's flop play was bad poker.
Normally when I call a bet it is standard operating procedure to call a raise from behind. However in this case his call of your raise was bad because the likelihood of him being dominated by a better has skyrocketed. He cannot view a King or a Queen as a clean out so I believe he should have folded rather than call the raise on the flop despite having already called a bet.
Again, on the turn his over cards are of questionable value given your strong betting up to this point. He should view his situation as having 4 outs. However, at this point there is over $80 in the pot and because of the trappy $5-$10-$20 structure he could easily get a couple of big $20 bets on the end so his call on the turn was correct.
The solid player is not so solid if he thinks you should not bet your set when both opponents check to you on the end and the only thing that beats you is runner-runner possibilities. In addition, he should have been playing his two pair much more aggressively on the turn. In a real game the betting would have been capped on the turn when one guy has the top two pair and another has a set.
Overall, I like your chances in this game.
Hey Razor,
I don't consider it near bad enough to be a bad beat.
This is a bad beat IMHO with similar cards:
You hold 99. Betting capped. Flop comes QQ9. You raise, two others call. Turn is a blank. River is a 'blank' let's say a six. Two players call your raises all the way then one of them turns over Q6o....that player had 3 outs...
or worse: you hold QQ, flop comes Q99. River is a 9, making the other player (holding 92o, hehe) quads.
Both have happened to me. I beat both games anyway...
Mark
Q6 has 7 outs: 1-Queen, 3-6ixes, and 3-blanks.
Louie, Sorry maybe I didn't explain well.
On the flop, first player had 999QQ -- full house. Second player had QQQ96 -- 3 Q's. Second player wins if Q or one of two 6's appears. Oh, right (sorry) one of 3 sixes.
Am I missing something else, blanks don't help player 2, right?
Mark
The blank on the turn could pair up on the river = 3 outs.
Razor,
Why are you concerned about others play and why would you rip into an opponent? All that matters is your play. I'm out the door as we speak so "I'll let others elaborate".
Regards,
Rick
i'd be happy to elaborate. what rick means by "I'm out the door as we speak" is that he is so busy with his very important life that little insignificant people like you and i have to make do with mere glimpses of his genius. but those rare days when he has free time make all the waiting worthwhile.
scott
scott,
My life is not particularly impressive. But human life is important. You may learn that as you get older.
The fact is that I have some very grave and serious responsibilities that I must live up to, whether I like it or not. And someone’s life does depend on the fact that I have and I do. I write on this forum to improve my game for the future, exchange ideas, help others with theirs, and get away from my worries. The simple time consuming pleasures I used to love (a good long novel, a hike in the woods, a decent movie) are no longer available to me because of an extremely high level of stress and anxiety.
After writing a simple post to make a simple point while finishing up my coffee, perhaps I sounded flippant. The reality of my morning is that I spent over an hour in line in traffic court and over two hours in the waiting room of my wife’s Doctor. The rest of the day will be filled with chores. I may get some relief by writing a post or two and yes I will be in a hurry.
To the best of my knowledge, I have not been involved in any of the “flame wars” on this forum or on rgp. I do kid around a bit in some of my posts. Given past events, I really don’t know what prompted you to write the above. I’ll blow it off to youthful indiscretion and forget about it after I send this. In the meantime, I have to finish watering the garden.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I assure you scott in no way meant to trivialize anything about you or your responsibilities. His attempt at humor was when you said for someone to elaborate he chose to elaborate on why you couldn't elaborate instead of on the issue in the post.
Maybe now scott will start using :-).
Rick,
Being the father of 2 and one child maybe undergoing surgery soon I truly understand the frustrations you feel. Sorry you had such a bad day, but again, scott meant no harm.
SammyB
sammy's right. i am very sorry if my post was interpreted in any serious light. i know there are far more important things in life than poker. and i would not judge any set of priorities you decide to follow. i know that you are busy. and, what's more, your post needed no serious elaboration. i was just kidding. again, i am sorry.
scott
scott,
No problem. Believe me, I was having a real bad day! Later I may elaborate on just how bad it was by describing my traffic ticket situation is on the Exchange and get some free legal advice :-). Anyway, I feel like I am entering the beginning of a Victor Hugo novel. But maybe Big John will give me some advice tonight on what to do. He seems to know everything. Then again he may use the information as a psychological ploy to further break my spirit and destroy me in that no limit game tonight.
Regards,
Rick
good. you have no idea how aghast i was reading your message. i am thrilled that we've cleared this up. the last thing i wanted to do was make a hard day worse. i hope things turned out ok. maybe big john took care of everything.
scott
This is a classic example as to why a 3 tiered structure sucks.
Since the play of the overcards was not OBVIOUSLY terrible (even if it was bad for reasons given), I can't call it a "bad beat". Now if he had 82 and caught 6-7 I WOULD consider it a "bad beat" even if it is just as likely as the J-T the KQ needed.
You have no particular reason to suspect anybody just back-door'd a flush or straight and with those overcards you can expect one or two people to pay it off. If you don't want to bet this one then you aren't betting nearly enough on the river.
J9 is a pretty marginal call. It was a pretty bad "just" call on the turn when he caught the perfect Jack. If he's slow-playing then he expects you to bet the river but then expected you to check. He snapped at you after the hand. I recommend you consider re-classifying this player as "weak-cranky-tight".
The real issue here is the after-the-hand stuff. Trust me, if you think you went "over the edge" then you are not on the way to TiltinTown, you have ARRIVED. I can see no benefit to you ripping him back and encouraging him (and the others) to play more reasonably.
One way I get over this angry reaction to unlikely losses is to quickly calculate how much theoretical money these guys lost. On the flop they both need runner-runner and they both caught a "perfect" Jack. On the turn on had 2 outs and the other 4. That's sweet and may be plenty enough for you quickly return to SolidTown after a couple of hands.
- Louie
Now I know I'm bored (but the flu will do that to you)--I'm reading a bad beat thread! The vast majority of low-limit players would have played KQo the exact same way. The more important thing is that there's no such thing as a bad beat in limit poker. Provided that you have a proper buy-in, you can't lose more than a small portion of that with proper play, unless you go all-in on the turn with the nuts against an idiot and get sucked out on by the river. You lost with a set, it happens. Say nice hand, muck, and play the next hand.
BTW, someone who check-calls top 2 on the turn in a triple-limit game where the board has at least 2 obvious draws, and criticizes another player's river bet after the hand, is not a solid player.
-Sean
I will soon play five friends of mine in a Texas Hold Em game. We will start playing 3/6 and then raise the limit as the number of players decreases. We will play until one of us has won everything.
Four of my opps are rather weak players (three are too aggressive and one is too careful). They all want to win, but they just don't really understand the game.
Since most of them will bet too often, I think conservative play will be the winning strategy. What do you think?
Jonas,
I really need more information but I'll make some assumptions for the fun of it.
Let's say this is a once in a lifetime event that won't be repeated and the buy-ins are substantial (I'll pretend they are $1,000). Let's also say the limits double or almost double every time you lose a player or every two hours, whatever comes sooner.
Early on if you are the best by far you essentially want to draw it out as long as possible. This means you do not push thin edges (e.g. call with a small pair hoping to hit a set with only two opponents, call with Ax suited with only two limpers, etc.). However, you must not let this go to far, as aggressive raises to protect your pot equity are still correct. Do not slowplay and do not make marginal value bets. Sacrifice a little of your expectation in order to reduce variance.
As the field narrows you must play well shorthanded while at the same time don't go wild with a small edge one on one. Wait till you have big edges.
Those are my two cents. Now I'm off to court to pay a damn speeding ticket! What ever happened to pay by mail?
Regards,
Rick
"Now I'm off to court to pay a damn speeding ticket! "
And just what kind of "speed" is this ticket for rick? Maybe you haven't heard of "RICO"?
Vince.
I think it's hard to be 'too agressive' in a short-handed holdem game. You've got your hands full if your friends really are agressive. Conservative play in a 2-5 handed game against agressive opponents is going to be big trouble for you. Even if being agressive is the only trick in their bag, it's still a difficult situation. You can't be surrendering your blinds all the time and letting them play theirs. And if you play your blinds with average hands, you'll miss the flop a lot, and the most agressive players will take the money.
When I play passive, conservative players heads-up or shorthanded, I become VERY agressive. Raise any playable hand when I have position. Hammer the blinds. I'm going to win lots of pots without so much as a pair. If you don't do that, you'll get killed.
I would suggest playing no-limit with small blinds. If you have played no limit, you should be able to win, even though someone may suck out on you. If the buy in is really $500 or $1000, then you can just wait around for premium hands, or limp in and take some flops and then outplay your opponents. Your friends may like the no limit style too.
I am playing in a somewhat loose, aggressive ten-handed $20-$40 game. The big blind is in Seat #9. Only #1 limps in and I raise to $40 in #3 having the AdKd. Only the cutoff calls until the action gets back to the big blind who re-raises to $60. #1 calls. Rather than cap it at $80, I just call because the big blind 3 betting could easily mean AA,KK, or another AK all of which cripple my hand. The cutoff calls. There is $250 in the pot and four players.
The flop is: 10s8h4d
The big blind bets $20 and #1 calls. With almost $300 now in the pot, I call for $20 because I have two big over cards plus a backdoor Diamond flush possibility. The cutoff calls. There is $330 in the pot.
The turn is: 8d
The big blind bets $40 and #1 folds. I call with my Ace-high flush draw. The cutoff now raises to $80 and the big blind calls. I call with over $500 in the pot despite the open pair on board. There is $570 in the pot and three players.
The river is: 6d
The big blind checks. I bet $40 having made an Ace-high Diamond flush. The cutoff raises to $80 and the big blind folds. I make a crying call. The cutoff wins holding the 4s4h for a full house. I was drawing dead on the turn.
Comments and criticisms welcome.
This is another one of the unwritten laws in holdem hell.
"Thou shall get there when thou art drawing dead"
Better luck next time
If you believe your AKs had a "crying" call of the 3-bet then you should have folded the flop. Anyway, I play AK like AA and KK so I would have 4-bet it.
The cutoff has no reason to suspect a flush and certainly not a straight from the other two tight raisers, and has good reason to bet his apparent trip 8s; and since you can sandwich the big pair you should have check-raised and lost an additional $40.
- Louie
Good point Louie! This is one spot where perhaps a check-raise is right because my flush is runner-runner and not readily apparent so someone with two pair or trips will likely bet. Since I really was not worried about losing this hand your check-raise idea is a good one. Besides if no one bets on the end it decreases the likelihood that I would get paid off anyway.
Well, Jim, you've been so good to me, I'll take a stab at this. 1. Preflop and on the flop, I like your play. No comment.
2. Did you know what type of player the cutoff was? When the board paired and the otherwise quiet-limping cutoff raises on the turn, I would have been nervous, but of course still called the raise.
3. River play - I don't know if I would have bet this here. Maybe I am too chicken. Maybe I am thinking of 3-6 and wondering what playing 20-40 would be like. hmm.. I assume that you put the cutoff on trip eights? IF I were "convinced" that's what he had, I would have played the same. BUT, his raise on the turn after his quietness would suggest the boat. Again, I am on the fence on this one. I assume you knew this player, which is why you made this play. I can see the value of betting and crying call the raise. I can also see the possible benefit of check-call. All depends on the read, I suppose.
Anyway - touch luck, Jim... Flames anyone? Be gentle, 'twas my first time posting an "analysis." Thanks, Tim
The cutoff is an old guy who plays pretty loose pre-flop (e.g.-calls two bets cold with pocket Fours pre-flop) but who normally has a real hand when he raises on the turn. I figured I would get a call from anyone with two pair or trip Eights which I though would be a lot more likely than someone having a full house.
I'm sure you would have folded the 44 if you were in the cutoff given your great post on implied odds on the Theory Forum. However, loose agressive cutoff either slowplayed it perfectly or was waiting for the turn to see if a King or Ace fell given the 3 bet by the BB. Tough break.
BTW, I believe every one of your posts requesting opinions always find you on the short end. It's depressing. Could you post some interesting hands that you've won once in a while for balance?
I don't know if the hand could have been played any better than you played without hindsight. Obviously you wish you had capped pre-flop forcing the cutoff to call to bets cold with his 44 to see the flop. How long had you been playing at the table (did you have a good read on BB and cutoff)? Would the cutoff be likely to fold in the face of an extra $40? He did only have to call one raise at a time.
Was the cutoff the type of player that would try a raise-bluff? After he saw the betting on the flop and then the 8 falling on the turn, he could have been making this play (seems extra bold to me, but given the situation it may be profitable in the long run).
I think that capping it pre-flop was probably the correct play. The only hand that absolutely strangles yours is AA. This is remote - but certainly possible (your read of BB is very important here I think). But this works only if you believe it will thin the field (get the cutoff out -- your read of cutoff is very significant).
Hope that adds value, I suspect I've said nothing you haven't thought of.
First of all the guy in the cutoff seat was not bluffing or semi-bluffing on the turn. This is easy to figure because of the aciton pre-flop. When the cutoff raises on the turn either the 8 helped him or he had a big hand going in (in this case made a strong hand stronger). If the 8 helped him he had something like 98s or 87s. If he had it going in he has an overpair (not very likely given the action pre-flop and your hand), TT,88,or 44. If a 10d hits you have no betting power either on the end. I would put your chances of winning with the flush draw if you hit at about 50-50. I would have definitely checked the river and probably made a crying call. Even though your opponent knows you had to catch runner-runner to make a flush he could still easily put you on a flush because of the way you played the hand on the flop and the turn.
I think your call on the flop was marginal at best. Two big overcards don't mean anything if you're up against AA, and you've only got one overcard against KK. Worst-case, you're drawing to one out (the running flush). If the big blind has AK, you're drawing to four outs for a split. You still have a player left to act behind you, and a flop that could easily have hit him. And all of your one-pair outs have negative implied odds.
I don't know if I'd fold everytime in this situation, but I do believe it's a very close decision.
Wow. You give this much credit to players? The 3 bettor doesnt have to have a group 1 here. What if he just felt like gambling and pushing another $20 in? You are going to fold after a 3 bettor bets a non-descript flop and not even put in a small bet to see the turn? Personally I tend to give people less credit for their raises then most people here do but I think you would be playing this just a tad too tight.
I agree with Hetron and think you're giving the re-raiser too much credit in a loose-aggressive game. This is the kind of hand in which I would be wary of calling with a bare AK, but the backdoor flush draw pushes it over the edge to a clear-cut call. While the backdoor flush draw is only good for 2 outs, I think it makes up for the possibility of drawing dead or almost dead to AA/KK, (or AT or A8). The pot is laying you 14:1 on the call, the risk of a reraise is probably minimal (see below), and you have 6 outs to a pair and 2 outs to a back door flush draw. Even fudging the top pair outs down significantly makes it worth a call. The 10 remaining diamonds give 10 more turn cards that will allow you to see the river, and sometimes you'll end up spiking an ace or a king to take the pot. Finally, there's still a slim chance your AK is the best hand.
In fact, if the big blind is a relatively loose 3-bettor, I'd often raise the flop, but I tend to play good overcards aggressively.
You still have a player left to act behind you, and a flop that could easily have hit him.
It helps when he's the type of "tricky" player that'll slowplay when the flop hits him, so the flop call will likely only cost 1 bet. I'm not sure if Jim knew that at the time or not.
-Sean
We'll save a seat for you at our next game.
Great. You paying for my plane fare too?
I make Dan a 3-1 favorite vs. Biguns heads up. Any takers?
I believe that the right play on the flop in a situation like this is to either raise it, or fold. Simply back to the basics.NO call ing! Raising would have generated mucho info., imo. The cutoff with a set might have re-raised at that point or maybe the bb. You could have then folded knowing there was some strength out there. There is no way to know how strong the raiser is when the pair comes on the turn. By then it's too late for you. you have to stay. seeya
Preflop: In a loose-aggressive game, I'm probably capping the flop. The only hands you're really in trouble against are AA and KK, but in a loose-aggressive game, I'm not fearing monsters under the bed when I hold AKs. The exception would be if the big blind knows that you're a very tight raiser after 1 early position limper, and would only 3-bet you with his very best hands, but you've said before that you usually seem to play against unobservant opponents who don't even notice how tight you are, so I like capping.
On the river, I think that check-raising or check-calling are first and second best, and betting out and calling a raise is third. Since the cutoff usually raises the turn with a real hand, he's almost guaranteed to bet the river because he won't fear a runner-runner flush. An exception would be if he's a tricky player who likes the "raise the turn/check down the river" play, but I wouldn't consider someone who slowplays bottom set on the flop versus tremendous preflop strength to be tricky; I'd consider him a predictable fish. The reason I don't like betting out and calling a raise is that you gain just as much by check-calling with the winner (assuming the big blind calls, which he is likely to do because he called the turn) as you do by betting out, but if you bet out and call a raise with the loser, and drive out the big blind, you lose an additional big bet with the loser than you would by check-calling
In deciding whether or not to check-call or check-raise, I would use a similar type of analysis that Abdul used in his recent Intelligent Gambler article. I would first would assume that the cut off has a full house/quads or trip 8s, then I would quickly try to guess-timate the combinations of hands he could hold that beat me, and the hands that I could beat. Assuming that you'll always be reraised when beaten, but never re-raised while you're ahead, and that the big blind will never call your check-raise when you're ahead, your potential gain from check-raising is $40 while your potential loss is $80, so you need to be twice as likely to be ahead in order to profitably check-raise.
Assuming he has a full house or trip 8s, the chance that your hand is best is dependent on how many hands he would cold call your tight raise with in late position.
Analyzing the combinations of cards, among the hands that beat you, there's:
88: 1 way
TT: 3 ways (if he wouldn't 3-bet)
44: 3 ways
T8s: 2 ways (if he'd cold call)
This gives between 5 and 9 combinations that beat you. Among the hands you can beat:
A8s: 2 ways
98s: 2 ways
87s: 2 ways
6 total ways, so if these are the only hands he'd call a raise with, check-calling is clearly better.
But, other possibilities are:
K8s, Q8s, and J8s: 2 ways each
A8o: 6 ways.
Now, check-raising is getting close to profitable, and if we include hands like 98o, K8o, and such, a check-raise is certainly better. I wouldn't have time to do these precise calculations at the table, so I would just consider how loose he is preflop. If he's only a bit loose, I'm check-calling, but if he's very loose (and/or would 3-bet with TT), I'm check-raising. (This won't be precise in a loose game, because some "tricky" players like the cutoff will wait until the turn to raise with an overpair, which increases the number of hands he could hold, sometimes the big blind will call the check-raise, and even predictable players will occassionally raise the turn with a straight flush draw when a scare card comes, so J9d isn't out of the question, but it's not a bad back of the hand calculation.)
-Sean
Excellent analysis Sean. If the 3 bet had come from anywhere but the big blind I would have capped but the more I think of it, I should have capped it anyway. I also appreciate your detailed assessment of the play at the river. Based on what you and Louie have responded, I am now convinced I should have gone for a check-raise. The kinds of hands you cite in your assessment that make a check-raise profitable are exactly what these looney tunes come in on regardless of what it costs to take a flop.
Here's a similar hand from a recent $30-$60:
Middle position open-raiser, 3-bettor immediately after, I'm next with AKs and I 4-bet, next player folds, tight player on button cold calls 4(!), small blind 5 bets for the cap(!), big blind calls(!), and original raisers call.
Flop comes jack high rainbow, one of my suit. Checked to me, I figure somebody must have a big pair and I check, button bets, small blind folds(!), big blind folds(!), original raisers call, and I call.
Turn is another of my suit. Checked to the button, he bets, opener folds, next player calls, and I call. I would often make a semibluff with such a hand, but I just can't see the button not having a big pair.
The river brings in my suit for the nuts. First player checks. I think about a check-raise, but the problem is that the button might check down some very strong hands in this spot. It's rarely correct to check the nuts on the river or to check even a mediocre hand in a big pot on the river. I decide it's better to bet and hope the guy to my right overcalls. I bet, and they both call. I turn over the nuts, and the guy on the button looks very ill.
Some may question the 4-bet preflop, but I would 4-bet with any hand that I would play there, which isn't many. If I only 4-bet with big pairs, I'm making it a bit too easy to make laydowns against me. Like Louie, I normally play AK like AA, though I did chicken out in the multiway pot here on the flop.
Dan may question the call on the flop, but I'm getting 33:1 immediate odds, so there's just no question I should call even if I know that my only out is a runner-runner flush. Around 26:1 is the cutoff here for going for a runner-runner flush with no other outs. The possibility that an ace or king might be good for even half the pot makes calling correct even on considerably smaller pots.
Math weenie aside:
To determine whether you should take a card off on the flop, use the formula C*(((P+I)/B)+1) and call if this quantity is greater than 47, where C is the number of effective outs you have (roughly 2 when you're treating this like a one card draw), P is the pot size (33 here), I is the extra implied odds from later action (at least 4, i.e., 2 big bets, here), B is the number of bets you have to call on average by the end when you lose (about 1.4 small bets here, i.e., 1 on the flop and 10/47's of the time an average of about 2 small bets on the turn.) Technically you need to adjust C down and B up a bit for the chance of losing to a full house.
-Abdul
I wouldn't question your call on the flop here at all. Your situation isn't anywhere near the other one, in that your direct odds are twice what they are in the other situation, where they are 13-1 if I recall correctly.
And I *didn't say that I would fold, I just said that the decision is close, and heavily weighted towards your impression of the player who 3-bet out of the blinds. There are lots of players that are simply turning their cards face up when they do that - they either have AA or KK. In that situation, I'd fold. But if it's a player who will routinely 3-bet any hand that he's going to play (and I know lots of those, too), then the call is easy.
The second most important factor in deciding whether to call is knowledge of the last player to act. If he's highly agressive, then you're in big danger of having your odds wrecked by a raise, because he'll raise with a made hand or any kind of a draw, and with a flop like this there's a good chance he has one or the other.
Do you agree with this?
Dan writes:
Do you agree with this? The second most important factor in deciding whether to call is knowledge of the last player to act. If he's highly agressive, then you're in big danger of having your odds wrecked by a raise, because he'll raise with a made hand or any kind of a draw, and with a flop like this there's a good chance he has one or the other.
Of course. Not just the last player to act, but any player left to act. In my situation I was closing the action on the flop, so it was a no brainer. For most pure backdoor draws on the flop, I won't go for it unless I'm closing the action and the pot is in the neighborhood of 22 small bets or 26 if I don't expect to get much action if I hit my hand.
-Abdul
considering that you have little reason to think that anyone would've come in pre-flop with any of the hands that would make a full (TT maybe?)combined with the fact that you could figure that your opponent didn't suspect you of backdooring a flush I probably would've been even more aggressive with the hand. It seems to me like you played the hand very well and this is just one of the times that someone played a questionable hand (the small pair in a 3 bet pot against an early raiser) and it paid off. I would've expected to be up against trip 8s who wasn't buying that I had backdoored the flush
Good Luck at the tables Supes
I'm just a beginner playing low limit for now, but don't you have to worry about a boat as soon as the board pairs? If the blind comes out charging with 44, doesn't that mean that the game is a little more than "somewhat loose"? Sounds like 3-6 more than 20-40.
I look to your responses regularly and respect your comments and ability, but you were playing/chasing a very good second place hand from the turn.
SteveP wrote: I'm just a beginner playing low limit for now, but don't you have to worry about a boat as soon as the board pairs?
You should recognize the possibility of a boat, but shouldn't "worry" about it in hold'em against a small field. The possibility of a boat being out there is dependent on the number of opponents and the texture of the board. Against a ton of opponents when an ace pairs, especially with other high cards on board, you should be more likely to suspect a boat than with a T884 board against few opponents. When the action is on Jim, there are only 2 opponents left, and the big blind is very unlikely to hold a boat because he three-bet preflop. (Unless the BB is an idiot, the only hands he could hold that make a boat/quads are TT and 88, and even those would be a loose 3-bet versus Jim's raise.) The cutoff could have a boat, but trip 8s are much more likely, which, given the large pot, and the chance that the cutoff doesn't have trip 8s and an A or K on the river will be good, makes his turn call correct.
In your low-limit games, you'll often be unable to put someone on a hand or a range of hands, but as a rule of thumb, be more wary when a big card pairs, and be more wary against a large field.
If the blind comes out charging with 44, doesn't that mean that the game is a little more than "somewhat loose"?
The blind didn't reraise with 44, the cutoff called Jim's raise with 44. That's still too loose, especially since Jim is a tight raiser, but not uncommon, even at 20-40. When Jim says "a somewhat loose-aggressive 20-40," I'm thinking that 4 (or maybe 5) people see the flop on average, usually for 2 or more bets, so this hand sounds like a very typical one in his game.
I look to your responses regularly and respect your comments and ability, but you were playing/chasing a very good second place hand from the turn.
That's what Jim means by "I was drawing dead on the turn," in other words, no river card could give him the best hand. To support Mason's goal of keeping this a family board, I'll just say "Stuff happens."
-Sean
Thanks Sean. I appreciate your insight. Being a beginner and first time poster, I am trying to analyze these situations and sometimes have questions. I hope the boards response to my future inquiries are as clearly put and informative as yours.
First of all, I'd like to thank the collective group for helping me with my game. I'm a begining player with probably about 200 hours experience (only the last 100 of which I've recorded), both live and online. Since the beginning of the year I've been primarily playing online. My reasoning for this is primarily the California rake structure for low limit and my limited bankroll considerations. Overall I'm beating the game (but not by much, ~0.9 BB/hr. at 2/4 and 3/6 last 100 hours).
Now to the point of my post. Session length. I find I can only usually commit about 2-3 hours per session on a regular basis, sometimes more but this is the usual amount of time I can find for the game. My question is am I giving up a significant amount of profit my limiting my "time in the game"? (other than exploiting a soft game or weak opponents, for which I usually try to stick around a little longer if time permits.) I'm finding that most of my session gains are small but frequent, offset by an occasional loss (which is usually quite a bit more than my average gain) but when all is said and done I'm still on the positive side (for now).
Also, for statistical record keeping purposes, should I combine some of these "short sessions" into larger chunks? Say, in the event I'm able to play over the course of a day one 3 hour session and another 2 hour session later in the day, should this be recorded as a 5 hour session? Does it really matter? I'm supposing it might when calculating my standard deviation but I haven't gotten there quite yet.
Comments?
I think you are better off playing longer sessions of say 6-8 hours instead of only 2-3 hours because part of your success at the poker table is learning to read your opponents and it takes a couple of hours to do this.
With regard to recording your results, I would keep each session separate and not combine or clump data. I made the mistake of doing this early in my career and I now think you get more meaningful results by avoiding this practice. Try to make your session lengths 6-8 hours sometimes up to 10 if the game is good.
Jim,
There's a unique advantage to playing online that you might not be aware of. You can have an index card on every player you've played against and compile very accurate reads on them. Then when you have a couple of hours to play, many of the players with you will be known to you much moreso than at a public cardroom. For breaking up sessions into chunks of time I use a chess clock to record my elapsed time at the tables. When 8 hours are recorded I start over as if it was a new session. This gives me identical sesion lengths regardless of whether or not I have solid blocks of time to commit.
In the games I play in the whole table will be filled with new players within 3-4 hours.Holly-Park But I somewhat agree with Jim, that atleast 4 hours is good. seeya
Actually, I do both...
I have a database set up with Microsoft Access. I created a form to input all the data, and I then it spits it out into a table for me to analyze. Then I do the math and put all the accumulated data into a different table to keep track of how I am doing as far as Hourly rate/ average session length as it relates to hourly earn, and other data, and I have found it to be very useful.
L0QTiS, as far as you doing .9 BB an hour, that is pretty good. If you can mangage to beat the rake over any sig. amount of time, there is something to be said about that.
I ussually play pretty long sessions, my longest being about 16 hours,plus the tournament I played before I played the live game. The long sessions don't really bother me until I get up from the table, then I feel REALLY tired.
Mike
I cannot really help you with the statistical component at the moment, but I am certain that others will assist you with that.
As far as session length goes, I find myself doing the same bit, although usually 4-5 hours. Like you, my wins are small and frequent and my losses are occassional, but larger than my wins. I posted a thread a while back called "Ruminations on Session Length" and got a lot of great responses. Check the archives.
I've been trying to play longer sessions - up to 10 hours, when time permits. 1.. Stretch your hours slowly - over time. Play 3 hours today, 3.5 tomorrow, 4 the next, etc.
2. Take frequent breaks - This is the key for me. I used to go and sit for 4-5 hours w/o a break. I do NOT do this at my job, why should I at the table? So, now I take a short (5 minute or so) break/hr., and usually a large (.5 - 1 hour) break in the middle of the session. Go outside, walk around. Sit in the lounge, get a bite to eat. This way, I refresh myself and if I'm playing 8 hours, it's really like playing 2 4 hour sessions.
If you have +EV, the longer you stay the more you earn, provided you are playing your best game and playing **alert**. I've noticed in my longer sessions at 3-6, for example, my swings for the session are roughly (warning - small sample) -$100 +$150 or so.
Make sure you love the game, your table selection is good, and the time will fly.... Hope this helps a bit, Thanks Tim
Tim: That's good advice. I find after playing for 4-5 straight hours I start to lose my concentration and start making (more) mistakes. I thought it was just because I'm getting old.
2-3 Hour sessions seems to be a reality for your life-style so that is for sure what you should do. You need a serious commitment to poker before you can change your life around it.
More experienced players gather information about the opponents and often do better later in the session. But they also do worse due to fatigue etc. But since you probably aren't too good at it right now and I suspect there are lots of OTHERs who have short sessions on-line (4 hours from now there is only one other player still playing), don't worry about it.
My records are for each session since I only calculate $/hour and don't care about average $/session. Analyzing how you do per session may help if you ALSO kept say a 1-hour log: you may notice that you are actually losing money after playing for 6 hours or that you most productive time is between 1 and 3 hours.
Since you should tend to quit a bad game and stay in a good one, your wins should be regularly LARGER than your losses. Your relatively large infrequent losses increases the chances that you either tilt or can't tell you are in a terrible game for you. But since you've played so few times it can easily be an anomoly. Do you ever stay to "get my money back" or quit "while I'm ahead"? If so don't admit it here since we'll get REAL sarcastic with you!
.9BB/hour for learned inexperienced players seems very reasonable.
- Louie
When playing on line, I have my watch beep at me on the hour, I then note down how much I have in play.
Piers
I never quit when I'm running bad. I always just attribute running bad to the short teerm luck factor of the game. I can have KK and AK snapped away from me and then watch someone else at the table collect a huge pot with the same hand. And I just don't leave. Is this the correct way to play. Is there no such think as running bad? I mean do you think that since you've had some bad luck for the last 3 hours that your luck is likely not to change and you should walk away? I think this is silly, but is there some factor of this that I'm not considering?
Thanks,
-Michael
Sometimes when you are taking a series of bad beats in a session and losing a lot of money over a short period of time, you may be better off just quitting for the day and trying again some other time. We are not machines but human beings with feelings who react to external stimuli. I don't think you can play your best poker when you start getting systematically sucked out hand after hand plus you become a target for your opponents who see that you are getting seriously stuck.
Brilliantly stated Jim, The problem with running bad is that often you start playing bad and herein lies the problem. Once you cannot attain your best game and start chasing cards or just feel plain irritable, you should quit. If you are running bad but can keep your composure, and patience, then quitting is just a judgment call on your part. Sometimes you start out running bad and win a few pots and regain you poker skills.
The best,
JOE
I have a really hard time leaving when I'm behind too. It's extremely difficult to think of the game as one big session because you don't think that when you're losing; you think "I'm losing."
Cards do not have a memory. Even if you lost the last 10 hands in a row you can still be dealt AA the next time and win...or lose. You can win the next 12 hands in a row. You can lose the next 12 too. The problem isn't the run of the cards, it's your image. If you think "I'm losing." Then you'll play like a loser. Even if you can get over your image, your opponents don't quite as easily. Staying in a game where you're thought of as a loser, and then losing some more, only reinforces your bad image and stregthens your opponents view, which in turn strengthens them.
Getting up and coming back to strangers the next day means that no one knows what your image is. You can recreate it right then and there.
Dan
Excellant post Dan. Another thing you can do is change tables. Those people at table #4 have no idea you just went through $700 in twenty mins on table#6. When I do this I always buy more chips first. One word of caution though: if you are not playing well you SHOULD leave and come back another day. Mike Minetti
Michael, you sound tough...... but are you really. Most of us play worse and other players start to take advantage of us when we are getting good hands snapped.
If you are truly able to apply the attitude that you potray in your post, then I would continue to play if the game is good.
I usually leave if I've been hitting hands that are above average and am getting them snapped. if I'm getting good starting hands but I'm not hitting the flop but the game is good, but that's me. If you can take the pain and still play your A game then stay.
Thanks everyone for the great advice.
Al,
I don't know how tough I am. I'd like to think my mind is strong and that I'm comfortable enough with the principles of short run long run and the perception of lucky and unlucky to not let "running bad" get in the way of making correct decisions. But may be I'm just fooling myself and I'm not that strong. May be I should go home and rest. May be I should think about the hands that got snapped away and see if I could have played better.
I hadn't considered the human aspect. And that's really important I think. I'll probably in the future just take a break when I'm running bad.
"[...]do you think that since you've had some bad luck for the last 3 hours that your luck is likely not to change and you should walk away? I think this is silly, but is there some factor of this that I'm not considering?" Yes. Luck cannot reasonably be discussed except colorfully in retrospect. So hanging on expecting bad luck to change or leaving expecting bad luck to continue is for the religious...But as Jim states the other "factor" is the impact of bad luck on the psyche. I've found this to be true, and a large element of this I beleive, is due to temperment. When I have an expensive run of bad luck I notice I become defensive and tentative. Knowing this allows one to compensate somewhat - except in those borderline situations - the very ones the sum of which often make or break you. When I become tentative it's time to take a long break. With some other players though a run of bad luck seems to have little effect on how they play. Some have calm, staid personalities and remain unperturbed. (And obviously, if bad beats cause anything as dramatic as tilting in a player, it's time to take a break, maybe for the day.)
A second factor to consider is the limit of the game. If I got stuck $2500 in a 30/60 rather than pot limit I'd be more likely to call it a day since I'd probably have to play for a much longer (and draining) period to get unstuck. If I were bruised and playing primarily to get unstuck I'd be looking (for a game) to wait, wait, wait then make a couple big, quick kills and get out, not move a mountain stone by stone.
Sklansky states one should remain in a game as long as it is "good" regardless of whether one is winning or losing, etc. I've always found this concept of defining a "good" game as problematical, if not akin to discussing luck. It is subjective, your net$ is objective. When the two are at odds and you're under heavy fire, which yields? When you're losing (whatever the combination of reasons) one is oftentimes not a good judge as to those ambiguous reasons. The next day things look differently. Detail and nuance become apparent. Maybe it really was not a "good" game. Maybe it was but you weren't in the right state of mind to capitalize. You consistently zigged when you should have zagged.
"Know thyself" - Aristotle. The cards shall forever remain a mystery.
You should consider quitting the game if it is a bad one, not if you are running bad. If running bad is causing you to play badly (you start playing too loose and desperate, hoping to make back your loss) you should quit. I usually take a short break (15 to 30 minutes) when running bad, if when I return to the game, I figure that there are a few suckers sitting down, and I'm not one of them, I'll continue to play, otherwise I'll quit. There will always be a game tomorrow.
I Haven't read the other posts, but I have to share my recent experiences at the tables. In 3 out of my last three playing sessions, I have been stuck more than 35 big bets and come back to pull off a win. Sat. night I was stuck almost 50 and was down to the last 20 buck that I had with me and managed to pull off about a $100 win, so NO I wouldn't advocate leaving because you are stuck...there were some interesting hands that contributed to my late night (early morning) comeback on Sat that I will post later.
mike
I gave a friend the following hold'em quiz:
Your opponent open-raises 3 off the button with two bowed cards. You have a flat AA one off the button and 3-bet. Everyone else folds. The flop comes with a pair of bowed cards. Your opponent bets, you raise, he calls. On the turn the board has two pair of bowed cards. Your opponent checks, you bet, and he raises. What is your best play now?
My friend's response to this question was, "What do you mean, bowed like a sail or bowed end to end?"
I replied, "Huh, what? I don't know that...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUGGHHHHHHH!"
-Abdul
s
Then you are cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril!
-Abdul
I think I might understand why you don't know if your opponent's cards are bowed like a sail or bowed end to end, but shouldn't you know if the cards on the flop and turn are bowed like a sail or bowed end to end? Also, how did we go from a pair of bowed cards on the flop to 2 pair of bowed cards on the turn? Did we add a bowed card somewhere?
-Sean
Sorry, there were three bowed cards on the flop, two of which formed a pair. The remaining bowed card was paired on the turn. The two pair of bowed cards on the board were bowed end to end, I believe.
-Abdul
Cards bowed end to end are a sign of a manic depressive disorder. Cards bowed as a sail are the a sign of schizophenia. Therefore mien a freunde Abdul ze diagnosis for dis probleme bis oblivious. A manic depressive bows his cards when he has big hands where the schizo really doesn't know what he has nor does he know who he is for this session nor does he care. He really doesn't even know which one of him bowed the cards. He just wants to go sailing and doesn't know why he is at the poker table. So the answer is fold your aces because the bowed cards are the nuts in this situation.
Siegfried and Roy err.. I meand Sigmund and Freud...err Dr. Zeus the heck with it, it's Vince.
Nope. Reraise.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet is cast into the Gorge of Eternil Peril!
-Abdul
But you have to admit my reasoning was at least imaginative, if not interesting...
Here's the transcript of my private email to Abdul for your viewing pleasure:
Is someone is cheating, chances are that two ranks are bowed, aces for sure. Your opponent is not the cheater and does not notice the bows.
Let's say aces and kings are marked. The flop comes AAK. You flopped four of a kind. You notice the bows and are smart enough to deduct that yur opponent must be holding pocket kings and has flopped a boat.
You raise him on the flop, representing trips, knowing that he's gonna check-raise you on the turn.
The king turns and your opponent is f****d. You reraise him until he figures it out.
This is the best I can do, but am probably way off target :)))
Pardon my English, but I assumed "bowed" means "bent" here... Wrong?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Right answer, wrong reasoning, Vince, but you may pass.
The opponent has either KK, QQ, JJ, KQ/KQs, KJ/KJs, or QJ/QJs, and the board is KKJJx. You actually don't know that your opponent has you beat at present since you didn't notice if the cards were bowed like a sail or end-to-end, but if you work the math out and assume he's not always going to check-raise you if he holds QQ, then there's a sufficiently large chance that you're beat and drawing either dead or slim for you to fold your AA.
The opponent actually had KJ, by the way. I folded something strong like TT in the big blind, not willing to risk being up against either KK, QQ, or JJ as well as a 3-betting hand. I was chuckling to myself through the whole hand, putting the 3-bettor on AA and realizing from the moment the flop hit that he was likely in huge trouble.
How many of you understand completely? What about Mason and David?
-Abdul
Not only don't I understand completely, but, at the risk of being cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril, I have to admit there are a lot of things I don't understand, and would appreciate help:
1) "Bowed" cards are, I assume, cards that have a curvature to them. I also assume that cards can be bowed so that the top of the curve is lengthwise from the top to the bottom of the card or across the width of the card from side to side (and, I suppose, diagonally from corner to corner). If this is correct, which of these is "like a sail" and which is "end to end"?
2) Which type of bow would be because of someone marking the cards and which cards are most likely to be marked in this way? Are you saying the cheater is bowing all of the face cards? Is this a common occurrence?
3) Since the opponent had bowed cards, and the flop contained bowed cards, we are assuming that the bowed cards on the flop matched the bowed cards in the opponent's hand. I am surprised I have never heard of or read about (although I am only an occasional player) this method of cheating. Those of us who didn't realize we could be cheated in this way deserve clearer information.
4) I saw the movie the Spanish Prisoner which was neither about Spain nor a prisoner, but at least there was some explanation for the title near the end of the movie (great flick by the way, for you Mamet fans). So what is the significance of the African and European swallows?
It's usually better to keep one's mouth shut and let others think you ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt, but in this case, I am intrigued by the thread and therefore remove all doubt and ask for help.
Thanks.
The reference to African or European swallows comes from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." The Knights of the Round Table come upon a guardian of a bridge they must cross, but must answer three questions before they are allowed to cross. Answering a question wrong results being hurled into the Gorge of Eternal Peril.
Some knights make it, thanks to an easy question ("What's your favorite color?"). Others are stumped, and tossed into the Gorge, their screams dying in the dusk.
King Arthur is asked "What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" He responds "Do you mean an African, or a European swallow?" The Bridgekeeper is puzzled: "I don't know the answer to that" and screams "AAAAAAAAAAUUGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!" as he is hurled into the Gorge of Eternal Peril, allowing King Arthur to cross safely.
As Mark Twain once said, you can dissect humor just like you can dissect frogs, but the patient invariably dies on the table.
Thanks.
Andy,
Abdul put us offtrack with the "bowed this way or that" stuff, but here's the deal (I saw something similar once, it had to do with suits): All pictures were being bowed[bent]. That's it in a nutshell. The cards on board could have been KKQQ, KKJJ, or QQJJ [as Abdul's second message points out] wish he had been more clear in the first, since this is so [er] informative -- the lengths they will go to cheat...
[My first impresssion is that the cheater was 'marking' low cards (2,3, 4), to be less obvious, but this makes more sense.]
So the check raiser had KK, QQ, JJ, KQ, KJ, QJ...and is WAY ahead 5/6's of the time.
Thanks Abdul. Moral of the story: Watch the cards carefully, fronts backs sides, etc etc etc
Mark
Abdul,
"How many of you understand completely? "
What I don't understand is how 6 cards or more were bowed in a holdem game. I routinely "police" cards when I'm playing and I'm not alone. A lot of players would not allow this kind of thing to happen. Of course since I don't understand completely perhaps you would care to explain.
Vince.
The cards at Bellagio 30-60 and up are changed only on the half hour, every half hour. There was a time when most decks had most of the face cards bowed, so even if you could get a deck change, the next deck was not likely to be better. It seems to becoming less of a problem as time goes on, and the problem was virtually nonexistent before this period of bowed cards over the last few months.
I never implied the bowing was caused by a cheater. Some players I've talked feel strongly that it is, but I think it is a manufacturing flaw, because a cheater would have to be very busy to bow as many cards as were bowed. If it were caused by a cheater, the cheater would also have to be playing in the top section ($60-$120 and up), because some of the decks we got up there were bowed, and decks touched by the unwashed lower section players are never again given to the top section players. Again, I never said it was caused by a cheater. I suspect the extra paint on the face cards is somehow causing the warping.
-Abdul
Well Abdul, all I can say is "Doctor it's my eyesss"
Vince
I understood what you were asking completely, and knew instantly it was a Bayesian test of how likely he is two have beaten your aces, but the part I don't get is how the tens are bowed and aces aren't.
JG
Neither tens nor aces are bent, just face cards.
-Abdul
..laboring under was that the cards were used decks from the blackjack pit and that they were bent due to checking for insurance in which case tens are just as likely to be bent as paint, tho I was wondering about the aces which begat my remark, tho I think the marks for the new automated checkers might be orthogonal based on the 10/11 value of the cards which probably begat the original querist's remark about the direction of the camber, tho these new machines would theoretically preclude the bending anyway.
JG tentatively casts Abdul's unnamed friend into the gorge
And in a completely unrelated note, for the first time in our marriage Friday night, I sent my wife to go get the videos for the weekend instead of myself, due to a nasty pull of an intercostal that afternoon at the driving range which greatly inhibited me from getting off the couch. What did she bring home with the wide-eyed innocence of someone who had never heard the words "awlreddy gott wun" at a high-school poker game?
You guessed it. Really. Serendipity.
Totally faulty premise. Blackjack uses large paper cards, while poker uses small plastic cards. Bellagio uses autopeek devices on blackjack (to check for a dealer blackjack before the players take cards), and the cards they use for poker do not have the marks on the aces and faces for the autopeek devices. You would be cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril, if you were not already there.
-Abdul
XX
It's really comes down to the way your opponent grips his cards. I suspect you play poker in narcosyndicated commune, which naturally gives rise to violence in the system. So the answer is to simply flash your 2 aces and say, "Patsy, do you really want to play against these?"
Luigi Luomba (the master) Long live the queen
If you're going to steal, at least do it at length so more people can get the joke.
a monty python fan
I play in So. Cal. and there is no rake. There's colleciton (you play, you pay). It doesn't matter if you're winning or losing when you're on the button it's your turn to pay the house. This makes winning in LL in So. Cal. that much harder than where they do have a rake. It smells and it stinks! I'm going to play at paradisepoker.com for the first time tonight where the rake is 10% with a max of $3. The blind structure promotes for multi-way pots (in So. Cal. there's a single big blind). And this will all be in the comfort of my home. I'm tired of getting gouged by the house and dealing with sh***y dealers.
I welcome your comments -
Don't forget to toke the dealer...oops you don't have to do that either!
Play goes a little slow though.
Danny S
I play 3/6 at Hollywood Park here in LA. I am an average player post flop, but I feel I play almost by the book with my starting hands. I am convinced that this game is unbeatable if you are playing against mostly loose players. My reasoning is that unless you hold the nuts or 2nd best hand, there are too many loose players calling everything, even raises, check-raises, EVERYTHING, and with so many hands against you at the showdown I normally lose. Then you add the $3 drop, blinds, and tokes....! I now realize how important table selection is, if only I played often enough to know who I was playing against. Any comments?
The swings are big, but the rake is even bigger. If those games had vegas rakes, you would probably do quite well once you got some playing experience. You are paying more per hour in that game than the 15-30 game. seeya
This topic keeps coming up (see the "bullshit" thread below.) Here's the pooper scooper... When I play $30-$60 at Bellagio, I pay $10 per hour. If I were to pay proportionately the same as your $3 button charge, I would be paying $30 on the button, or about $120 per half hour. Furthermore, instead of tipping $1, I would be tipping $10, perhaps amounting to another $40 per hour to bring it to $160 per hour. That's 2 2/3 big bets per hour. The normally accepted maximum earn is 2 big bets per hour, though very good players playing very weak games can do better IMO. So the button charge makes it all but impossible to beat.
Additionally, unless the players are really awful, the looseness can increase the variance and slow the game down enough to make it not as good as, say, a tight-passive game. In any case, in these jackpot type games, don't expect to win on any one night. Either you hit the jackpot, or you don't.
As soon as you have the basics down and feel competent, I suggest you jump up to $10-$20.
-Abdul
The button drop at these games is ridiculous. Recently, I've been making the hour drive out to San Manuel to play Hold'em without a button drop and have been turning a consistent profit.
Of course, I'm also doing this for *age* reasons, but anyhow, if you're playing low limit, I'd recommend Stud at the LA cardrooms. Or, as everyone else says, move up!
In the shorthanded section of HPFAP 21st a strategy is put forth to defend against someone who always raises at every opportunity. On page 194 the author's explain the reason for devoting so much of their time to defense against this kind of opponent is that it is close to the optimal strategy for heads up play.
"By the way, the reason we have put so much emphasis on this is because betting every single time is pretty close to being the right strategy if you are up against someone who doesn't realize what's happening to them."
*Every single time* Is this literal? Raise from the small blind with 32o, 73o, 82o and such? If called, bet the flop regardless of what falls? I understand the odds you are getting on the raise and the flop bet and how often opp has to defend in order to thwart the strategy, but do you recommend folding any hands in the small blind if you think the strategy will be effective against your opponent?
I don't have HPFAP-21 in front of me but I know that we talk about the following idea in SCSFAP-21.
Suppose you are in a situation where you can steal virtually every time. You should still give up on your very worse hands. The reason for this is that you don't want to teach your opponents that you bet no matter what. This may make them realize that they should start calling more.
So to be a little more specific, if you are in the small blind and only the big blind is left, and he does not call enough so that your raise is automatically profitable no matter what you have, you still may consider throwing hands like 72, 73, 8s, 82, 32, etc. away as long as this situation is going to reoccur frequently as it would in a short handed game.
Hello! This is my first posting here, but it seems like a good idea considering the reputation of some of the posters. Perhaps you could give me some ideas. Here are two hands I played in a local 4-8 game...it was 10 handed and quite a few good players. Any advice on anything
Hand Number 1 - I have QT offsuit in the small blind, and I get in for just 2 dollars.....6 players see the flop. It comes QJT 2 clubs. I bet a few people fold, someone raises and I reraise. He thinks for a while and calls. A 3 of clubs comes on the turn making a flush possible. I bet again and he called. On the river another 3 came. I thought for a while and bet, and he called...turned over the K9 for the straight. I felt after the hand that perhaps I played it too aggressively, but I also think now that if I ever checked he would have bet and I would have been forced to call anyway. Actually it felt as though he played it really passively. Any thoughts? He assumed I had big slick after the hand.
Hand #2- Im sitting in middle position with 2 jacks. 2 people call in front of me and I dont raise. I would have raised probably if there was only one caller. But we get 7 players for the flop. It comes 872 with 2 clubs. Someone in early position bets, someone else calls and then I raise it to 8. There is 2 callers of my raise, and then the original better calls and the guy who called his raise RERAISES. So now I call and so do all the other players. The next card is an offsuit Queen. The raiser on the flop bets and I fold, with 3 people still to act behind me. They all call but it turns out my jacks would have held up. One guy had A8, and the raiser had an 8 of clubs with another club. I really had a feeling I was beaten on the turn, but I folded also because I was first to act, and since the combination of being already beaten, combined with the fact that someone could have a queen and combined with the fact that I could easily be outdrawn anyway, seemed like it made me a big underdog. Was this fold horribly bad?
Here's the thing: the low-limit games are a lot different than the games the authors of 2+2 are generally referring to. On the first hand you have little reason to think you're up against a set or AK cause with any of those hands there probably would've been a raise pre-flop. With the raiser in late position and just calling your reraise I might consider that the player was on a flush draw and was trying a free card play, but with his action on the turn I would've put him off that. The only hand I would've have been worried about was that K-9, but, and this is especially true in the low-limits where people play in a less than reasonable manner sometimes, there are a lot of other hands your opponent could have played that way that you could beat so i personally wouldve played it the same way... of course I tend to lean towards the more aggressive side sometimes, but I think that even if your play wasn't the absolute best, it certainly wasn't bad.
hand #2 Definitely raise with the Jacks pre-flop. True at a low-limit table that may not limit the field but I would definitely try. On the flop the only hand I would've really been worried about was an 8-7 since any higher pocket pairs would probably have raised pre-flop and there's no other reasonable raising hand out there... maybe flush and straight draws? With all those callers in the hand it's likely that a Q was out there somewhere and you may have been beat already by 8-7 or possibly a hidden set so I don't think the fold was unreasonalbe, but at a 4-8 table you can be sure people are playing any flush cards and are going too far with there hands. Also, there were so many people in the hand the pot must have been huge. I probably would've stayed with my Jacks, although I wouldn't have been too excited about them. It's tough to read a low-limit table and I'm sure many of the posters here would disagree with my suggestions on both hands, but at these tables people play weak hands and bluff too much and stay with any hope of a win so with a reasonably strong hand like the JJ I usually take my chances...
Good Luck Supes
I think your suggestions are fine. A couple quick, random comments:
1) In hand 1, you're right that you often shouldn't worry about an AK being out there if there's no raise preflop, but in low-limit, keep in mind that a fair number of players treat AKo as a limping hand, especially after a bunch of limpers. Against all but an *absolute* rock, you should rarely fear a monster before your opponent has shown a significant amount of aggression, but in a low-limit game, I would be quicker to adjust my "AK probably isn't out there" read before I would in a higher-limit game, where a preflop raise is much more likely.
2) I don't think I'd worry that much about a queen being out there. While it's true that plenty of low-limit players would call with any overcards, that flop offered tons of overcard possibilities, and you're only up against 4 callers, two of whom bet/raised the flop (would a queen really help them? Maybe with Q8, but that's not terribly likely). In that situation, the queen doesn't bother me nearly as much as an ace would.
-Sean
Welcome to the forum. One thing that can be tough about a third party analyzing a low-limit hand is that your opponents can vary in skill/style by huge factors, and range from the insanely passive to the maniacally over-aggressive. (That can really happen at any limit, but the variety of the cast of characters seems more extreme in low-limit.) Therefore, I tend not to be a huge fan of these "analyze this hand" type threads, because the right advice can vary tremendously depending on your opponents. (On that note, I encourage people to post something specific in the subject line other than "comments on a hand.")
Hand 1: you have top/bottom pair but the board is sequential. How to proceed often depends on how aggressive this particular opponent is. This guy seems pretty passive, and automatically fears the worst (i.e. putting you on the nut straight because you bet and reraised the flop), so you shouldn't be terribly concerned about him betting if you check when the board gets scary (i.e. a flush card or the board pairs). On the flop, many low-limit players, even inexperienced ones, will make the free card raise with a flush draw or a straight draw (it's one of the more basic techniques that everyone seems to know), so I like your flop reraise. You should probably bet the turn to avoid giving a free card to the straight draw or a lone club. On the river, there's now a possible flush and the board is paired, so the board is looking relatively scary (remember it looks as scary to your opponent as it does to you, unless he has a monster), and I would be fairly certain that this opponent would often check behind you on the river with many hands that can beat you, so perhaps checking the river would be better because it'll save you a bet when you're beaten.
Hand 2: I would probably raise preflop, but I don't know if calling is wrong. On the flop, I wouldn't worry too much about the guy who reraised after calling, because with that many callers of the bet and your raise, he could profitably reraise with many draws like a straight flush draw, a flush draw + a pair, or a flush draw + 2 overcards. I also wouldn't worry about having 4 opponents, because with that flop, it's very easy to people to have straight draws, flush draws, or overcards (many low-limit players will call a bet on the flop, or even 2 bets cold, with overcards.)
I think your fold on the turn was very bad. The pot is relatively large (24 small bets), so you can't give up that easily. My usual play here is to raise the turn, in order to punish all the draws and to force them to call 2 bets cold. If someone reraises, you can probably fold. It's much, much better to cost yourself 2 small bets by calling or 4 small bets by raising (or calling both the turn and the river) than it is to cost yourself 24+ small bets by folding.
-Sean
Ill just comment on the JJ preflop since this seems to come up over and over here and there is NO agreement.
I think just calling preflop with JJ is likely correct. The factor is whether you think there will be quite a few players or not. If you think it will end up being 4 or 5 handed if you should raise then the call is right. If you think it will be limited to 2 others then the raise in required. If it will be a family pot, the raise is also good.
Those of you that want to raise with JJ and play it 4 or 5 handed should explain how they are expecting to win. Most overcards will beat you and you don't have odds to make a set. With the limp, you can win a little easier without the set, and the implied odds are better for when you do make the set.
I believe this is also the advice in HFAP
D.
hey....I just want to say one thing that probably I didnt get across in my initial post. The 4-8 game Im playing in is not what Id consider a typical low-limit game. Ive played in those in Atlantic City and there is no comparison. It was played at the Diamond Club in New York. Most of these players play much higher stakes when the games are available....for instance in AC. Sometimes the games get really loose but this one had quite a few solid players in it. It just so happened that there were a lot of players seeing the flop in these 2 hands I gave, but you can more often expect not more than 4 players to see the flop, and if there is a preflop raise the blinds can be stolen. There were even a few chops! So yes, if it was low limit I probably would not have folded with the two jacks and I would have bet the two pair all the way, and just put it aside to bad fortune when im shown K-9 for the straight at the end.
In a game with solid players, you should be less likely to fold the jacks on the turn because the solid players, if they are truly solid and not weak-tight/tight-passive, will be more likely to utilize tricky moves (like calling and then reraising a very strong draw, as the guy with the flush draw + top pair did), and will be more likely to (correctly) bet a medium strength hand into the overcard, for example, a hand like pocket 9s or 10s. You're right that you're less likely to run into idiots in the game you describe, but you'll be more likely to run into players with tricks up their sleeves, and against these types of players, you shouldn't fear the worst when they bet into an overcard.
-Sean
I haven't been online in a while so no one may still be interested in this thread, but I wanted to respond to this. I know a lot of people tend to play JJ as any small pair, but in a low limit game, which likely has weaker players can't you be pretty sure that the JJ is the best hand? I know that Skansky suggests throwing away this type of hand (he actually uses pocket nines in the example) in HPFAP in loose games, but that also suggests a lot a capping, reraising, and betting with questionable hands. Games at that level seem to be pretty passive for the most part. Also, it's been my experience that even crazy players who will call the blind with ANYTHING will sometimes fold for a raise. Wouldn't the combined chances of the JJ being the best hand and the chance of limiting the field, even if only slightly, warrant a raise in this situation? Then if the flop comes with a lot of high cards or otherwise scary you could safely fold if bet into or play aggressively if the flop comes pretty unitimidating as it did. Thats my thinking anyway... I would like to hear more from Sean as well as David if you guys are still interested in this thread.
In the mean time good luck at the felt Supes
JJ can and should raise profitably regardless of the number of opponents. According to Abdul Ibn S'klanmoodh Ben Turbo Jalib M'hall and his sims, it will win much more than it's fair share.
There are many ways JJ can win even if the overcards hit. It's a power hand, HFAP's advice of limping preflop with it (for other than deceptional purposes) is simply wrong.
If one overcard hits, JJ may be in trouble, but that's still no reason to forego raising, as it still may be the best hand or it can make a better hand fold. With two overcards, you are still shooting for trips or a backdoor straight.
Or you can fold on the flop with minimum investment (one additional small bet preflop is nothing, considering the opponents' destroyed preflop implied odds...) and raise again next time you are dealt a biggish pair.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Since I'm not rich, I hang out only at the low-limit HE tables. I must have a knack for the game, because my winning sessions out-number the losing ones 2-1, and overall I'm ahead in $$ since '96.
The problem comes when the cards run ice-cold (I know, that's a problem for everyone, but my point is...).
Is it possible to win with ice-cold cards? I can do okay with even below-average cards, but are there any plays you can make in low-limit when you keep getting rags?
Still learning, Mark
Dangerous ones.
When you pick up 83o don't think of it as a bad hand think of it as an easy decision. Patience is a virtue. (I'm pretty sure that isn't original)
MUCK - The decks all have 52 cards in them and there are cycles like anything else wait for the good stuff.
It will come it always does.
Whenever someone tells you that you're playing too tight you should probably tighten further. If the cards are "running bad" you must play still tighter. If you move to higher limits this may not be true but in my 65 years' play I always looked back and found that loose=lose most of the time. You'll get more than enough chances to play short cards when they drop the blind on you. Be especially careful when the usual "blind hand" sort of halfway hits.
Love.
As a fellow low limit player, I can tell you what I've experienced. Don't play bad cards. Period. End of Discussion.
Look, there was a recent mention on this board about Doyle Brunson being able to play any 2 cards. The difference is that he's playing with other good, or at least above average players. Against the types at the 2-4 tables (at least the ones I see), fancy plays just don't work. You have to show the best cards to win. Why? You can't bluff someone who doesn't know they're being bluffed. Lee Jones' book explains this well, as do S+M(!?) in their literature.
By the way, anyone have tales to tell about Doyle practicing what he preaches? I'd love to hear some of those hands!
Doyle won back to back WSOP with T-2 need I say more.
period
Doyle is talking about pot-limit or no-limit, usually shorthanded or heads-up. Totally different game. That has about as much relevance to multi-way limit poker as saying you should play 9-6 because it's worth two points in cribbage.
It is amazing that some of the posters here read and post with such diligence but can't/wont/don't put any thought into the nature of thequestion put beforethem. The original poster in this thread put the question: "Is there any way to beat low limit ring games with bad cards?" The obvious answer is no. The only answer is no. You can not win at low limit poker with bad cards. It's difficult enough(in terms,of patience, withstanding bad beats, etc.)to beat with good to excellent cards.
The only game you can beat with bad cards is short-handed hold'em, and in that case it helps if the game is pot-limit/no-limit and you're playing against inferior(to you) players.
chris
I appreciate the responses.
Just lately, I've been running ice-cold and have been on a losing steak. Compounding the problem is when the rare playable hand occurs, the flop never hits.
I know it's one of those things we all endure. It sure does make we wonder if I'll ever get any good. Just venting.
Mark
I believe in gods, the poker gods. I believe in benevolent, helpful gods who only have my best interests at heart. I make routine ritual sacrifices to these gods by throwing unplayable hands on the muck pyre without hesitation, lest they smite me with 1000 more unplayable hands, or worse, have an ace hit the flop every time I have pocket kings. Stay faithful, be of pure mind and spirit and know full well that as you muck so shall you reap more when you hit.
... as you muck so shall you be dealt ...
some of the things i'v seen posted is pay attentin to whats going on around you. who raises with what ,whos winning and why,who always bets etc. Be aware of other aspects of the game other then winning hands. if this is not enough go to a movie.
A recent article describes the following situation:30/60 game,stuck 2500 to bad players,he's in the SB with 8h7h.A player opens,another calls,next raises,next re-raises,next cold calls,its his turn.He goes into the reasons for not playing,mentions what he terms the overated nature of medium suited connectors,and bad position.But than calls anyway!His reasoning is that he was 'Emotionally and analytically commited to hand'.I know that he is a respected player,and I enjoy his writing,however this sounds like chasing/gambling to me.How many of you would play this hand,I would'nt even consider it.The article goes on to mention that he flopped two pair and won the pot,against AA,is this a case of luck overrunning bad poker or am I missing something.
Scroll down a bit to read the "Roy Cooke Jan 25 Column" thread for plenty of discussion about the hand.
-Sean
I am also a beginner in the Poker field. But last year I hit two bad beat jackpots. One for $22,000. and one for $8,000. I saved up lottery tickets and scratch offs worth $3,000. Is there a way to deduct any of my winnings? Thank you
Yes your ATM receipts from casoino atm's may qualify too.
Wow. . .wow. Some of us had to start our poker careers with a minimal bank, slowly work up through the no fold'em ranks, where getting rivered out of three, four pots in a row is the norm. What's it like to have 30 THOUSAND dollars worth of bank thrown at you right off the bat, as a beginner?
wishing for someone to have a royal against MY quads, shooter
...are a tax on people who are bad at math.
The problem is that you must report all gambling winnings. This includes the times you won $5 on your scratch offs. Losses can be deducted separately, and you'll have to lose your standard deduction to do so, paying $1000 or so in extra taxes even if you had a net loss for the year, unless you were already going to itemize. If you're going to try to claim those losing scratch offs, the IRS is going to demand you produce your written log of winning scratch offs. The log must contain the date, time, place of purchase (full address), witnesses, type of the ticket, amount bet and the result. It should preferably be initialed by the 7-Eleven cashier. If you received a receipt, you must also save it. No documentation of wins means no deduction of losses. Basically, you should have asked us last year.
Although you can deduct gambling losses with proper documentation, the gambling winnings go into your gross income. Your bloated gross income can put you into the "filthy rich" category and cause some of your allowable deductions to be reduced. For having a losing year, you could in an extreme case pay tens of thousands of dollars in extra taxes, and the majority of non-home-owning Americans have to pay about $1000 for the right to lose.
-Abdul
A9s in the bb. 10-20 game kind of soft with player 2 hands to my right frquently raiseing the blinds. one limper and raised on button i call (is a call correct?)flop comes 9j2 with 2 hearts. i check limper bets call call. turn j not hearts. check around. (?) river jh.(jjj92 w 3hearts) i check limper bets,call and i call .my 9 good to a flush and A8. they played bad but my position was so bad i had no info. what could i have done differently?
With middle pair excellent kicker I think you can be a bit more agressive on the flop. If you get raised then you know there might be an overpair or a strong jack out there, but by checking you stay in the information twilight zone. You don't know if they're betting a draw, a weak jack or overcards. If you don't get raised then bet the turn as well. Mason recommends this play when you bluff at a flop and the top card pairs then bet it again on the turn. If you still get no action on the turn when the nine falls on the river you know you've got the best hand. Just bet it and hope for a caller or two.
Your call pre-flop is only OK if the limper is not a solid player OR the button is a very aggressive type. If neither of these conditions are present then I would prefer passing. On the flop you should bet out. Middle pair/top kicker figures to be the best three-handed. The jack is a perfect turn card if you led the flop. Even if you were raised by the button you can now lead or check-raise because you are representing a jack. If, however you get raised by the limper on the flop you should probably check-fold the turn as you might be drawing dead. A jack is a very common card among limpers. The most important concept in all of this is that you want to be the aggressor when contesting a pot. There are many overcards that will destroy this hand so it's much better in my opinion to put pressure on your opponants rather than reacting to them. Mike Minetti
I think you played the hand fine. Although a checkraise on the river would have been a good play, you've got to figure you're hand for the best and although you wont get called by the preflop raiser, you probably will by called by the limper (did he have a deuce or a middle/small pocket pair?)
chris
Playing in a loose 20/40 game tight player UTG raised. 3rd and 4th played called I reraised on the button with KK little blind called. Tight player capped the pot. The little blind flashed his cards. I saw an AJ. Flop Q82 rainbow UTH bet 3 and 4 folded. And Ace turned over. I was lost in the hand now. The tight player wouldn’t cap the pot with QQ only AA or KK . What was my play. Two blanks fell. I raised on the river he reraised. What would you do. I called him down. He had AA. Could I have gotten away from this hand if I didn’t see the aces. I would have folded on the turn if no King came because I was sure he had AA.
I like your raise on the flop, to find out where you're at. If he caps, as he did, you get the idea of AA or KK, with this player anyway. I've been in similiar situations, and have learned to realize, that if I put a player on a hand, to disregard the exposed card, unless it proves that the player could not have the hand I'd put him on. Just my opinion tho.
Michael wrote: "I have learned to realize", have you?
I'm not so sure, because if you had, you'd know that Jesus is the way, not which hand you can put someone on in a POKER game. Repent!
The Appostle Paul
If you are SURE he has AA or KK he has you beat 6:1; but after seeing two aces is now 1:1 (to lose:to tie).
I count 21SB when you are faced with the flop bet. You can expect him to put in 4 more so you risk 5 to win 25. That's an easy fold if you are 6:1 dog to just TIE. But at 1:1 you lose 5 once and win 10 once when you tie so its an easy call.
Its all worse if he can have QQ since there is a Q on board.
Now, since he is so easy to read and you have the sense to fold when beaton, his 4-bet was really silly. He's not going to drive 3/4 out and he should just call since he'd just call with most of his other 2-bet hands. Now when he check raises you'd put him on AQ and give him LOTS of action. If it was a low flop and he check-raised you'd put him on JJ/TT and still give action. And if by chance it comes AK7...
- Louie
Here's a situation where I did.I'm in the BB with J5o. Five players limp in including SB. Flop comes J 8s 7s SB bets, I decide to fold. Here's my thinking... Its highly probable someone has a J with a better kicker. There's a flush draw. Someone could already have a straight or two pair, trips, etc. I figured I either raise or fold, so I folded. turns out a six came on the turn a blank on the river. SB won with 87. I like my thinking, but I'd also like input. -D
There are plenty of times where you'll fold top pair. You're thinking is correct about all the possible hands that beat you, made hands and drawing hands that might get there. Sometimes whether to fold or not has a lot to do with position.
If you can't play your hand strongly, you probably shouldn't play it. It's hard to play out of position with a hand this weak. Your opponents could be betting/raising middle pair with a gut shot or a better jack with a flush draw. You have a bet from your right with four more on your left that could or could not call or raise. It's an easy fold. On the other hand if your J5 was suited in spades it'd be an easy raise.
chris
I think this is a good fold. Your pissing in the wind with this hand it is way up hill and I would put this in the routine fold category.
good fold. the pot's not that big anf your in bad position. if it were checked to you, maybe bet. if it were checked to late bettor, raise.
scott
This was a good fold no matter the pot size, a loser is a loser, is a loser.
For once I agree with Rounder, although not for the same reason. The reason I don't like betting out or check-raising a late bettor in this instance is because of the texture of the flop. There's already a possible straight (and the connected board allows various 2 pair combos) and a flush draw, so your implied odds aren't good. I'd almost always check-fold here against that size field.
-Sean
Actually, it was for the same reasons - I just didn't articulate them as I assumed to most they were obvious.
whoops. in my defense, i can only say that i wrote this when i just woke up.
scott
small caps scott,
You got up awful early. I thought you college kids slept til mid afternoon on weekends. Or at least that has been my experience :-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. To Student: As scott and others elaborate, this is an easy fold on the flop. Also, good going today and last night in the 6/12 games. But please don't bet $130 into a $3 pot with a 55 in no limit again (BTW, I found out the guy behind you layed down an 88).
This hand screams "Second Best" KJ AJ QJ are all possiable holdings for the limpers. Your fold was correct.
Best of it !!
MJ
While taking a shot at an out-of-my-league 20-40 game, but doing very well after a couple of hours, I drew J5x in the BB. Three callers - no real "tricksters" -and I see the flop.
Flop: Q85 rainbow. Checked and ready to fold at any action, but none came.
Turn: 2, no flush, no straight likely. Checked and ready to fold again, but no action.
River: J, no flush. I bet - one caller who showed me J10 to take the small pot.
Looking back, I would have had nowhere to go if raised on the river, so betting was a mistake(?), yet this seemed to be one of those pots "no one wanted" and might be there for anyone who bet.
Another possibility would have been to bet on the turn?
Could I have played this better? I'm guessing that checking and calling a single bet on the river would be the best play.
Thanks,
Gordy
I hope you didn't REALLY do this. Doesn't 2 pair beat 1 pair?
Fat-Charlie
A move I made the other day takes the bone-head prize.
I was dealt KK, flop comes 9-J-Q. Turn card a 9. River card a dog. None of the betting suggested a straight.
For some reason, I was thinking I only had one pair (this was after several losing hours), so I folded. A guy holding Q-J took the pot.
Mark
Leave it to a lurker to screw up a simple hand post! Make my hand J6o. Big D's post reminded me of this garbage hand that I tried to ride through a few nights ago. I had some questions in mind about my play after losing the pot, but didn't write down the hand at the time.
In truth, I'm not sure if my hand was J5, J6, etc., just that the board was raggedy except for the Queen on the flop with no flush possible and no likely straight. I made just the pair of Jacks with weak kicker on the river, and lost to a pair of Jacks with a Ten kicker.
Sorry for the typo, and THANKS for your sympathy on the two-pair hand I didn't have! Could I have played the one-pair better?
Gordy
Gordy,
If you did have a J5, I would have bet the turn when the baby blank came.
Regards,
Rick
Good laydown.
If the pot was not raised pre-flop, then there is a decent chance that someone has a jack, as they would be less likely to raise with a jack. IMO, to fold or raise here is correct. If you raise, you will have to d/c your hand if re-raised. If you get heads up with the small blind and he bets, you still must discard. If he checks you would bet and hope he folds.(In this case he surely wouldn't tho.) This is a weak hand, probably best to get out of it.
Michael,
Are you sure Jesus would approve of that advice?
The Appostle John
Yeah, it is often correct to fold top pair, even though it can be a very tough lay down.
Last night I had aces UTG, raised, was re-raised, and I capped before the flop.
The flop came 9-8-6, BB bets out, I raise, all fold to the BB who reraises, I think about it and fold, he shows me 10-7 offsuit. Sometimes you have to give the other guys credit for the best hand and make those tough folds.
Mike
Actually, I called his raise, then folded on the turn.
God I really hate this laptop. I’m halfway through writing this post and brush my hand the wrong way and it erases it all…with no undo button.
Anyway, I just got TTH two nights ago and I’ve been fiddling around with it a bit. I have some questions/concerns that I was hoping you could help me with.
First of all, I think that the advisor program is sometimes giving out faulty advice. What do you guys think? A few examples, all from loose or loose/average lineups.
1) It tells me to raise with A6s in early position 2) I’m SB with K9o and, while probably a mistake, I throw in half a bet to see the flop. Flop comes A96 all one suit, not mine, and advisor tells me to bet into 2 other players. 3) 2 off button, 1 limper so far, raise with 66? 4) Raise 1 off button with no callers so far with KJo to steal 5) First action comes from a raise from middle position. I’m in BB with A6o and it’s folded to me. I want to just let the raiser win the pot right there, but advisor tells me to call the raise.
What do you guys think about these decisions?
Also I have two other questions regarding TTH.
1) How can I get the action even looser than it is without having the players go on “tilt”? These so called loose players actually fold a good majority of the time, especially in the face of a raise. Most 3-6 games I know of have at least 5 people seeing the flop, no matter how much money they need to spend. I want to get some calling stations in there. 2) How can I actually create a new profile without programming in the thousands of decisions that I would make in any given situation? I don’t want to punch it all in, realize that I made a mistake somewhere, and have a simulation go wrong because of it.
I realize this is a rather long post. Some comments on any part of it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Dan
A) Forget about the advice from the advisor.
1) It seems to me that I found a good subset of the low limit players that would mostly call. You can have all one kind of profile if need be. Sorry can't recall details.
2) You save an existing one as a new name and modify it from there.
You got the version 3?
D.
I do have version 3.
I've tried modifying a profile, but it ends up being the same. The profile I picked does too many things I wouldn't do that it ends up being the same. I have to go through and double check to make sure it's making the decisions I would. I understand the necessity of making it so detailed...but it sure is cumbersome.
As for the advisor, I realize that it can't be correct all the time, but what's it there for if it can't advise? Worse yet, what's it there for if it's giving the WRONG advice to begining players? On occasion I'd like to check in and get some reassurance that I'm making the right decision. But if I can't trust my tutor, what then?
Dan
Post deleted at author's request.
Oh...and another problem I'm just noticing. The simulations.
I just asked it to play 300,000 hands, where every single player is simple simon. Simple simon only raises with the nuts, always calls and never folds.
After 15,000 hands, I stopped it to see the progress. Seat 10 had an overwhelming advantage. So I exchanged simple simon in that seat with crusty jack, who will fold every single hand regardless of what it is. Seat 10 still is beating everyone at the table!
How is this possible? How can you win money when you don't play? Are the simulations wrong or am I not programming it correctly?
Dan
Dan doubts the TTH advisor's wisdom:
1) It tells me to raise with A6s in early position
Fold or raise in front is the way to go in tight games, while limping would be a mistake here. Raise is valid, but marginal. A7-AJ will fold and you might steal the blinds. Note that the keywords here are "tight games".
TTH does not change it's advice according to the type of the game (tight/loose/passive/aggressive) and raising up front with A6s is dubious in typical or loose games. I talked to Bob Wilson about this and suggested TTH should change the advisor profile when it finds out (via pot & action statistics) that the game requires a new coach (at present, TTH can and does change the advisor according to the number of seated players). He thought it was a good idea, so I suspect we are going to see this in future releases of TTH.
2) I’m SB with K9o and, while probably a mistake, I throw in half a bet to see the flop. Flop comes A96 all one suit, not mine, and advisor tells me to bet into 2 other players.
It scares the shit out of A7 and brothers, makes the bad guy with a baby card of that suit go away, tells you to get out cheap if you get raised. This is *very* game dependant, you might be spitting in your own bowl if tried against smart (or extremely stupid) opponents.
Again, it's a valid advice. It's up to you to use it or not. You might know better for the game you sit in.
3) 2 off button, 1 limper so far, raise with 66?
Valid advice again for tough games if the blinds are foldable. Heads-up, a weak opponent will wet his pants if a bowed card ;) or an ace flops and he doesn't have it. Bet into any flop, think twice when raised. An easy fold if you get bet into on the flop with mucho overcards.
Of course, any plan goes wrong sometimes. You may get raised behind and end up three way on an expensive flop. But then again, a six on the flop can make you smile.
Limp/fold 66 in loose games against a single limper.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Could you kindly explain what you mean be a "bowed" card?
Read "An African or European swallow? post below".
Also 4) open-raising with KJ one off the button (or even two or three) is standard/correct and 5) defending the big blind with A6 versus a middle raise is borderline but not unreasonable; definitely fold if there is a cold caller.
To make for more multiway action, reduce the amount of raising (via a setting) and put in some of the loose players, but probably not the low limit players. If you want to make a new profile, you have to do the grunt work. However, you can start with a profile that is similar to what you want and only adjust it when you see it make a play that you disagree with.
Dan Osman asks how Crusty Jack, whose profile says to fold every hand, can beat the game. Simple. You have the "adjust play" flag on, which overrides the profile and causes Crusty to play relatively well.
-Abdul
???
How'd I lose the points 4 & 5 from my post??? I covered them all, but apparently screwed it when copying & pasting from my text editor (it seems a good idea to avoid Netscape when editing a post to avoid crashing and losing the work, Abdul surely knows what I'm talking about...).
I'm pissed because now it looks like I didn't know all the answers... Boy, is my ego hurt :)))
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
All is well. I like your points 1,2, and 3 whether or not they were accompanied by more.
The advisor catering to a game that I wasn't playing in wasn't something I had considered. The advice, while not applicable to the real life tables that I play at, is certainly food for thought. My 3-6 games have occasional raisers but mainly calling stations with around 5 people seeing the flop. Rough estimate is that 90% of them play with an "Any ace" mentality. Raising with some of the hands listed won't kick too many players out...but it's great strategy to know when it becomes applicable.
Also, thanks Abdul for your suggestions on changing the settings on the simulations. As for my own personality, I'll be working on it for awhile. I just wish grunt work wasn't so grunty.
Dan
ps here's a slightly risque' blackjack joke I heard. Thought it was funny:
Why did the blond tattoo an Ace on each of her ankles?
Because she was told to always split them.
It goes without saying that the standard TTH advisor is no good for loosest games. That's why I use a special profile of my own to jump in as the advisor when a hold'em-learning friend of mine spars against Turbo loose lineups. Yes you can make your own advisor in Turbo, I'm sure you'll find the option in the menus.
I am sure that the next versions of TTH will at least offer multiple advisor profiles to choose from, if not have the capability to switch them automagically.
Turbo users, email your wishlists to Bob Wilson, I'm sure he can be persuaded into anything reasonable.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Post deleted at author's request.
20-40 AC game. Folded around to the cutoff, an erratic, tilting (had been losing but just dragged a huge pot with 8-3s) player who raises. Button, a new player, calls. I look down and see 2h 3h.
Should I call if
a. the SB calls
b. the SB folds
Why care if the SB calls? Fold. The tilter _may_ have nothing, which is what you have. The button apparently has something - something we can assume bests 3h2h. And you're out of position on later rounds. No matter how you slice it, this hand has a negative EV, it's just a matter of degree...
You cannot be serious, here. If you are the only one in the hand, you should fold and donate the pot to charity. If you played the hand, make sure you come and play in a game I am in at the Taj.
You say the cutoff was tilting. How do you know? Obviously playing 83s is not a sign of tilting because you would recognize the symptoms when you looked down at 23s and said, "Oh goodie, a hand." Ask yourself in the moment would you play this hand if you had won the last one. If the answer is no and you still want to play it, you're on tilt.
If I was the only one in the pot, as per S&M advice on pg. 31 (I couldnt find my copy before) you can call against a weak opponent with hands as weak as group 8. However, I just noticed it says further down if anyone gets in between you should tighten up to group 6. Ok, I get the picture. Fold.
How many callers would you need in between you and the raiser to be able to call here?
I would play it in the bb for free and I would play it for 1/2 bet in the sb with a passive bb and six limpers. I would not play it in a raised pot ever. But, that's just me.
I would fold it under any conditions. But if this guy is tilting, it would really make it hard to bluff him out, and would make calling even a worse play than normal. D
Throw the hand in the muck before you even start to consider the possibilities this hand has. You are definately beat already and why give the guy on tilt more action than he deserves. You'll end up building him a big pot which he'll more than likely win which may be enough to settle him down. Is this what you want to achieve? I think not.
the lunchroom in 8th grade. But I digress. What happened in the hand? The SB called. I flopped an open ended straight draw. I ended up hitting it and dragged a big pot. The tilter (as is customary in AC) berated me and compared my intelligence to that of non-carbon containing substances. He ended up losing all his money.
Anyways, if the SB calls, you get 7-1 on your call, with no threat of a raise behind. Is this enough? According to people who have responded, no...
However, I was looking at a post in the General Theory section made by Jim Brier under the title "Implied Odds". In it he calculates the odds needed to call with 76s preflop. He calculates the winning pct. of 76s using only big hits like flushes, straights, trips or two pair (ignoring the times it will win with a single pair or a full house, quads, straight flush) to be something like 13% Using this 13% number, he then attempts to calculate your net profit on the hand depending on how many raises you have to call preflop.
Let's just take a glance at 2-3s in this situation. I will attempt to "plug and chug", as reasonably as possible, his formula for my situation. Like 7-6s, it is a suited connector, though a smaller one. It can pretty much ONLY win with two pair or better. Let us assume your only caller the whole way will be the tilting cutoff and that the other two players fold on the flop. Make it a 10-20 instead of a 20-40 as in my situation. In this scenario,over 100 trials, you will have a net profit when you win of 13*120 (not counting the money you put in), or $1560. 67 times on the flop you will fold with no draw, or $670 down the tubes. Add in the times where you chase to the river with your draw but it doesn't get there, or 20*40= $800. The net profit in this situation over 100 trials is $90.
Now I realize the odds that Jim applied to 7-6s 6 handed may not apply 2-3s 4 handed. However, I thought they were close enough because he ignored one pair possibilities to win, as you would with 2-3. The odds of 2-3s flopping a flush, straight, flush draw, straight draw, two pair, or trips on the flop is approx. 4.9-1. I realize 2-3s can be taken to the cleaners more often than 7-6s by a bigger flush or straight, but at most this makes it a zero EV, or slightly negative EV hand. Isn't this a good case to at least make this play for the sake 'of varying your game'?
Comments appreciated on my math, and also on my argument pertaining to 'varying your game'.
you forget how hard it is to hit a straight with 23. it is like 58, only more likely to be ignorant. also, the one flush over flush i had in my small amount of casino play was with 23s in the bb. i lost to 76s. i know that is just results and not that important, but all of the hands that 23 can make are likely second best hands. (except trips, full house.) you are incorrect, sir. this was a fold. i am glad it worked out well.
scott
That is true. 2-3 can never make a a nut straight, unlike any other suited connector. It also will most likely make gut-shots. This pushes it into the realm where it most likely isn't good even for the sake of varying your play.
So 2-3s for a raise is bad bad bad. Even in the BB. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
Let me be a quiet dissenting voice here - 23s in the bb for one raise is not necessarily bad, bad, bad. As you pointed out, you're getting 7-1 on your money. That's a pretty big number. Also, this hand is great for deception, if that's important in your game. These guys who will NEVER play 23s in a raised pot are going to be in trouble with their AK when the flop is A45 and someone who understands them raises in front of them or 3-bets just to knock them out of the pot.
The thing about small suited connectors is that they typically don't win much or lose much, in the long run, unless you're doing stupid things like calling three bets in a four-handed pot or something. But calling for one bet out of the blind is okay. As 'image' plays go, it's about as cheap as you can get, and in this case (without doing the math) I believe the call was probably profitable. Someone made a comment about being out of position, but in this case I think you're in just the position you want to be in. You know the late position players are going to bet the flop no matter what happens. That gives you some control over whether you fold, bet, check-raise, etc.
P.S. 23s makes a nut straight with A45.
I think this about sums it up. For some reason most HE players like to make a big deal out of pre-flop play, as if the battle is somehow won before the flop. I doubt that 23s is a real money maker here, but if it is losing money it isn't losing that much. While it's true that capping it up with a T4o in the BB may be a bit of a gamble, most hands that seem like a 'close call' really ARE a close call, since it's hard to know if they're small winners or small losers. Mason discusses this in Poker Essays, then goes on to say that most of these hands, in his opinion, are either small winners or big losers. However, that line of reasoning applies more to hands that run the risk of being dominated, like A7s, then hands like 23s. In short, I don't think pre-flop play is ever that big of a deal, UNLESS you're in the habit of calling raises cold with marginal hands or limping with crappy hands up front. If a player can avoid these two basic mistakes I think he'll be in pretty good shape.
i certainly agree that preflop is the least important part of play, once you have a general idea of what's going on. but would you call a raise with 85s? that's better than 23s. 25s is better than 23s, would you call with that? it can make one nut straight, one non-nut straight, and can only catch one open ended draw. compare that to 45, which can catch 3 nut straights, 1 non-nut straight and 5 openenders (including double gutshots). 23s isn't really a suited connector. it's a suited 2-gapper, the lowest suited 2-gapper.
scott
Depending on the number of callers in the pot, and whether I was closing the action or not, I'd call with all of them.
Bear in mind that I play in games against the same oppoonents night after night, and it's important to be able to show just about any kind of hand on ocassion. So I'm always looking for opportunities to throw a curve or two out there, as long as it doesn't cost any money. Whenever you're getting more than 6-1 before the flop any suited connectors just aren't going to cost you anything. They won't make you much, either. But playing them will make all your other hands more profitable.
There isn't a bad hand (at least no suited ones) that I haven't played in the BB. I don't know whether or not I would have played a deuce trey here, but I can tell you what I would base my decision on. 1) Whether or not the SB was loose 2) Whether or not the SB liked to check-raise, and 3) Whether or not the raiser would only call on the flop w/ two overcards if I bet into him, but would probably two bet an overpair (or some other good hand).
True, you can't make the nuts very often with a 23s, but then, you can't make the nuts very often with ANY hand. While having two possible nut straights (in the case of, say, a 35s) as opposed to 1 may matter in big multiway pots, it doesn't really factor in here, since a large part of the reason why I MAY call here is due to the fact that I might be able to steal on the flop (if the aforementioned conditions are met). I'd like to outflop my opponent, but if I'm fortunate it isn't going to matter. Again, it all really depends on who your playing against. But I think the decsion on whether or not to call here should be based largely on the skill of your opponents, with an evaluation the possible monsters you could flop being of secondary importance.
Dan
You are right about A45 making 2-3 the nut straight..brain lock sorry about that. Ya know, I was disagreed with so vociferously that I think I was swayed too far the other way. Obviously, we are talking about a small + ev, or maybe 0 or slight -. Either way, it is marginal. Playing it or not playing it shouldn't have a huge influence on your long-term $/hr average, though it may help in terms of "varying your play".
I usually don't get too engaged in discussions about whether 23s is better than 25s, etc. Whatever the case, the difference is trivial. Not worth worrying about. If you play them when it's roughly correct to do so, and stay out of real bad situations with them, or if you never play them at all, it's not going to matter much.
I find it much more interesting to talk about extracting a proper value bet on the river, or maximizing the size of the pot when I have a big hand. These decisions when they come up can be worth a big bet or two. The other decision is worth pennies.
I have a friend who is a very good player, and he uses 25s of one particular suit as his 'road hand'. He plays it from any position, and calls all raises with it. Is this a losing play? I don't think so. It comes up very rarely, and he can go days without seeing it. When he does get it, it's often in a game where it's profitable to play anyway, or if it's not it's only a slight loser. But he has dragged some big pots with it, and the spectacle of this otherwise tight player dragging a pot with 25s causes mucho confusion. The other good players stop giving him respect and pay him off, the bad players think he's one of the boys and give him lots of action, and when he raises the board when it's showing 346, half the table groans and says, "Oh god. Not the bloody road hand.". That kind of deception has GOT to be worth more than the paltry sum of money he's paid for it.
Everyone should have a hand like this. Mine's the 84 of clubs, which I play everytime I get it (I even have it tattooed on my right shoulder).
I believe there are a number of players who can play this hand for profit. I can't so I would have folded.
Here's a hand which I know I made several mistakes. Part of the reason was that I was tilting and not thinking clearly from having pocket Kings cracked 3 times previously within 1 hour. Here's the 4th time:
Pre-flop- A somewhat tight player raised from early, a middle position player called, and the button called, I was in the LB with Kh,Kd and made it 3 bets, original raiser called, middle called, and the button capped it.
Flop- The flop came J73 all hearts. I checked, early checked, middle checked, button bet, I raised, early mucked, middle mucked, button re-raised, I capped. (first mistake?)
Turn- The turn was a blank. The button bet out of turn (he was not a good player and I believe it really was an accident). The dealer pointed out the mistake and I thought I could find out about his hand by betting into him which I did. He called.
River- The river was a heart. I bet, he raised, I called. He had flopped the nut flush.
At first I thought I played the hand Ok until the river which I thought I should have checked and called. After thinking about it, I think the opposite may be true. I think I played the river Ok and the rest of the hand poorly.
Pre-flop I don't see anything wrong with my play. Even though I'm out of position, I may have the best hand and there's nothing wrong with getting chips in the pot. Opinions?
On the flop, I think my check/raise was Ok, but once I achieved my objective in isolating and getting it heads-up, capping it might have been overplaying my hand. Then again, if I check the turn, he can't be sure I'm not trying to trap, and may give me a free card. Does everyone else think this was too fast?
On the turn I have a 2nd nut flush draw, and maybe should've checked. But what if he had a lone Ah? Then he needs to pay for his heart. What's the proper play for me here?
On the river I originally thought I should have checked and called, but my 2nd nut flush does have some value. Should I have risked missing a bet? And if raised should I have folded? It was unlikely he would bluff raise me (I didn't think he was creative enough to make that play) however, even if there's a small chance he would, folding a winning hand here would be a catastrophy. What does everyone else think? I would greatly appreciate some insight. Thanks.
Very aggressive!
Seems like you got caught up in the heat of the moment.
Over played on flop? (a bit) with that board and the turn bet was uncalled for as he was gonna bet - with nuts I don't see why he didn't raise you. He was weak wasn't he.
River a check call would have been my play here something must have kept this guy in the hand with all the heat you applied. Ah is the only thing that makes sense.
Hope the rest on the session was profitable. Hope to see you Rick and the rest of the SO cal gang next Fri. I'll bring my ATM card. Mike :-)
Rounder,
I don't think this post was by my student. She hardly ever admits to tilt and it is not her writing style (unless she was writing incognito?!). On the other hand, I charge $1 to listen to bad beat stories so she may have kept this hand from me.
Anyway, hope you are feeling better and can make it on Friday.
Regards,
Rick
If you know you are on tilt then you should have taken a break for a round. Wash your face. Twiddly your thumbs. Figure out a good play and a bad play you made recently.
3-bet should be routine from the SB but keep in mind there are good reasons not to; just be sure you HAVE one before you smooth call, hehehe. Such a reason MAY be if in the BB and UTG raised, and you have nobody to drive out.
OK Check-raise. But when you are head's up and he 3-bets it, what can he have? Almost always its a hand better than yours or the Ace draw. His 3-bet indicates pretty strongly that he is going to the river. So "free cards" are not really an issue and you should bet or raise straight forwardly based on the relative value of your hand. At this point your hand looks weaker than his, at least to me.
Bet into him after he bets out of turn? What information could you possibly get that you can put to good use? If he raises you call. If he bets you call. If he bets the river you are likely to call anyway. The most likely information you can get is "I wish I'd checked". Now if there IS information YOU CAN PUT TO GOOD USE then it may be a good bet.
The chances your K flush is best is high and the chances of him betting a worse hand is pretty low: If you have a flush its obviously a big one. If you don't you are unlikely to call. He MAY bet the Q, he MAY bluff, but he is unlikely to bet a small flush or a set. Unless he is a habitual bluffer (being "uncreative" means he's not) AND its not obvious he has at least 2-pair, then bet it right out.
Pay off the raise? If you are in the habbit of laying down the 2nd nuts for one raise heads-up you are dead meat in the bigger games. You've got to be REAL SURE to lay it down even against this guy. For me its a brain-dead call but I'm sure others do much better than I in this particular situation.
- Louie
Its obvious you lost KK 4 times in a row because you are a terrible player ...err... because you deserve it ...err... because the powers that be don't want you playing poker ...err.. because you forgot to call Mom. Any of this sound familiar? Those are the sorts of thoughts that indicate tilt, and its time to go...
My opinion on the way the hand should have been is a follows. Bet out on the flop, if raised check and call to the river.
you ended up being lost on the turn and this resulted from your check raise on the flop and the poor play of the other player. IF you had bet out on the flop you probably would have been raised and at this point there's a good chance he's got you beat however, you cant be too sure so it fine to check and call with a possible best hand and a draw to the 2nd nut flush. By check raising it made it harder to figure out where the other player was at (granted he should have reraised you). All this assumes it was low limit game. If the game was tougher a different strategy might be more appropriate.
When you checkraise the flop and get reraised what does it mean here? It means you are either in trouble or he is running a bluff against you because that is the only way he can win. In both of these cases you should start checking and calling.
10/20 at a table with average to good players. I'm in small blind with KhKs. four limpers, I raise, all call. Flop comes Ac10h2c Now this is a really bad flop for this hand. I think the play here is probably to check see what happens. But I wanted to see where I stood, so I bet. I understand anyone questioning this play. Three callers, button raises. My thinking is that he must have at least two pair, trips, or is on a flush draw to raise. Also there is the possability that he's on tilt or gambling, because he is low on chips. I have no read on him, but I've seen many players low on chips play like this. They might be thinking that since they are probably going in the pot anyways, they might as well raise with a mediocre hand. My believe is that there is at least a 60% chance he's got a flush draw or mediocre hand. Its just a guess. So the question is reraise or fold. My thinking is that if I reraise I might drive out a A with a low kicker, and win the pot if a flush card doesn't hit. So I reraise and all fold, but the button who calls.
Turn comes Ah. Here is a mistake on my part I think, he's 10 left, I should put him allin with a bet, in case he does have a flush draw, he can't get away if he doesn't hit, not to mention the A hitting makes it even more likely, and since I don't have to fear a reraise whynot. But I just check and so does he.
Turn comes 4c. Maybe I should bet then, but I just check and call. There is too much in the pot, and considering he might be on tilt or just betting aggressive because he's low on chips. He had kc10c.
Tell me what you think. Thanks D
You put him on the correct hand and played the flop correctly. After that, your play went downhill fast. You should have bet the turn because you are going to call and if he does have a draw, you don't want to let him draw for free.
On the end, the pot is too big not to call $10 even though you are probably going to see a flush.
In this particular case, I believe you played your pocket kings correctly, with the button on the verge of going all-in. Overall well-played.
A few comments:
-You say, correctly that "this is a really bad flop for this hand." Yet you ended up making it 3 bets on the really bad flop.
-You reraised, in part, to "drive out a A with a low kicker." I think it's a good possiblity an Ace would already have raised your bet, weak kicker or not. And in 10-20, it's still not a cinch that an oppoenent weak enough to have twice called with A-x is going to fold for an additional $20 when there's already $190 in the pot. Your reraise does, however, probably drive out the inside striaght draws and anyone who paired the Ten.
-Yes, you should bet the $10 on the turn. You're going to call him on the river no matter what happens, as you're getting 21-1, so get the $10 on the turn in case he is on the come and misses the river.
In hindsight I really should have checked the flop. I think everyone folded because no one had an A. It might have been checked to him and if that happened and he bet, I should raise and then definately bet on the turn. Learn from mistakes, to do better in the future. Overall though I don't think I did too bad, but of course there's always more to learn. D
Big D,
I think it is close between checking the flop and doing what you did. A lot of factors you may not have included in your post may have been relevant (such as how often do your opponents limp with an ace). So don't be too hard on yourself.
Regards,
Rick
I would check and see how the action develops on the flop, and may check-raise the button if I know his playing style. Making 3 bets on this flop without position is creative, but sometimes can be costly.
regards,
jikun
Is it just me or is it a statistical impossibility to hold pocket kings and not have an A flop? If I held this hand, and as I often prove for more checks than I should I'm a little too aggressive, I would definitely bet the flop. I figure the type of player who will play any ace will raise with his bullets so you can safely get off your kings... not always, but a lot of the time. A better player would probably fold an Ace with a weak kicker since you showed strength before the flop and then bet into them, so the bet does you good there as well. Once only the near-all-in player is your only opponent I say definitely put him in as soon as possible since you have to call a desperation bet anyway and you may as well take that chip if he's on a fluch draw and it misses. i think your play was pretty good all around.
Big D,
I like your analysis of the way players act when they are low on chips so your reraise was a gutsy play on the flop, which will often accomplish exactly what you wanted (getting a bad ace to lay down).
Not putting your single opponent all-in on the turn was no big mistake. They often put themselves all-in anyway. Since you want to be rated, I'll give you a 8.3 :-).
Regards,
Rick
I was about 40min in a typical 6-12 game today, when the following hand happened. I was on the BB with Jh9d. After only 1 play from middle position limped, SB called and I checked. The middle limper played only 1 or 2 hands since I was in the game, and the SB was on the loose side.
Flop: Q 8 4h rainbow
SB checked, I bet and both called.
Turn: 10h
SB checked, I bet, call, check-raise. I made 3 bets, call, call. (here I thought SB had a made hand, limper is likely on the come, given the action on the flop and the turn)
River: 6h
Checked around. SB showed 10c4c, limper mucked. I really hate to miss the big bet, specially knowing the made hand would call. Comments are wellcome.
regards,
jikun
It seems unlikely that this tight limper would call you on the flop with a 3-flush. Qxh or 8xh is a possibility, something like QT or QJ is also possible - maybe even KJ. Not knowing much about his postflop play, its hard for you to get a good read on him. Its a tricky play on the river because you know SB will pay you off but the limper will only call (or raise) with a flush.
Actually, I think checking was the correct play as you didn't know much about the player and could potentially be losing 2 extra big bets if he did indeed have the flush. You got 2 extra bets on the turn, don't worry about this missed bet - you atleast learned a little about the limper - he's capable of making atleast a one questioable call.
~DjTj
DjTj,
I wrote my post before reading yours. I only mentioned one hand for the limper but most of yours are within reason at the 6/12 level.
One quibble - you don't always lose two big bets if the limper has a flush unless you bet and call his raise. If you check, he would bet his flush, get called by the small blind, and overcalled by you. However, he might bet other hands when you check. One is a set, which I think is consistent with his play.
For example, let's say he had an 88. He would call pre-flop, call on the flop, and possibly sandbag once more on the turn since the pot is still small and he would want to lure in the small blind. But when it came back to him checkraised by the small blind and reraised by jikum he would fear being beat at that time. When checked to him on the river, he may decide to bet again.
Regards,
Rick
You played the hand well except for the river. On the flop I like your semibluff bet with a gutshot into an uncoordinated board.
On the turn you made your straight with the 10h. I would have played the same as you, betting when checked to me and then reraising when raised. You figure that the limper might be drawing, and if he is, you want him to pay the maximum (if you wait until the river to raise he will simply fold if he missed his draw and you would have lost a bet). The SB has a made hand, probably two pair or better because he probably would have raised or bet on the flop with a good queen. You have the nuts and so you should try to get all the bets in that you can now, especially since there is a good chance that both will call.
The river brings the 6h which could possibly have made someone a runner-runner flush, but otherwise you still have the nuts. The SB checks, and you should go ahead and bet because
1. it is unlikely that the SB would try to checkraise twice in a row,
2. there are plenty of possible second-best hands that will call your bet but be afraid to bet themselves, especially since you have shown so much strength with your reraise on the turn.
jikun,
First, I like your flop bet with a draw against two opponents, since one has already checked and the other appears to be tight. You should have been able to pick up that pot at least a third of the time right there.
Based on the turn action, I agree that the SB had a made hand of sorts. However, if the middle limper was tight (as playing only a couple hands in forty minutes would indicate), he probably did not have a draw since there were no reasonable draws on the flop were a tight player could call your bet for such a small pot. I would guess he had a hand such as QJ and was playing it meekly.
When the river came I would bet the straight. I would not welcome a raise from the middle limper but I still think the bet was right. In essence, you can be almost certain you have the small blind beat and should still be a favorite over the limper. But I have the benefit of hindsight and may have checked it myself depending on my feel for the situation.
If there were two hearts on the flop I would have checked the river most of the time. But the fact that the possible flush came runner runner makes a big difference. In a nutshell, you don't need close to a sure thing to value bet on the river.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Rick's assesment that a bet on the river is ok I'm surprised that everyone agreed with your bet on the flop. It looks like the loose player would call with anything. Even if there were only two other hands in on the flop, semi-bluffing in this spot is rarely profitable in low-limit games, especially if you knew one of the players was extremely loose.
I will acknowledge that your bet won the pot for you however, b/c if its checked around the tight player is probably going to bet and you have to fold.
If there are a couple of loose players in the hand, semi-bluffing on the flop can be suicidal, especially without position. However, I will always try to create a situation to go head-up against a loose player with position, as long as he is not over-aggressive. With the tight image, you really can take all the options you want on subsequent streets, depending on your read, and how your hand develops. I don't remember how many times they say on the river "9 high" (missing something), or they muck as quickly as possible without seeing your cards. With more than 1 of them in there against you, the card is likely to hit one of them, so it is a different issue.
regards,
jikun
here's a hand i played in the 20-40 mirage loose aggressive game.A tight player raises pre flop in early position next guy calls ,next guy reraises and the cut off makes it 80 to go and the button calls.I'm sitting in the bb with pocket sixes,it is 60 for me to call if the rest of the plyers call which is almost a sure thing there will be 410 in the pot not including my 60 yet to call.I'm getting ruffly 6.5 to 1 on my money.Knowing that it's 8 to 1 to flop a set I was almost getting the right odds to call.With the knowledge that there were at least 2 over pairs out there I would like to hear from some of you guys if it was correct to call the 60 more to see the flop and to end a debate i'm having with my friend that thinks it's a bad call even with a big pot like that considering the dangers of getting under setted. C.M.
call. but be wary of the possible higher set. although if an K comes, it more likely the capper has AA. and vice versa. i think the set over set losses are compensated by the garunteed action you will have when you do flop a set and it's good. also, in a loose aggressive game, i don't always assume 2 big pairs in a multiway capped pot. and i find that cold callers of early open raises usually have 2 big suited cards. the button mught just be playing position, though.
and though i am big fan of betting sets out, i believe a check is in order on the flop here. people are dying to bet your hand for you.
scott
It's a marginal, but +EV call. I'd do it anytime. Implied odds are still good, given that nobody will fold on that megapot if a six hits. Yes, you can still lose to an overset. So what? Happens all the time, but you can also get hit by a brick when you step outside.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
a brick? really? that does it. i'm staying in my room.
scott
Exactly. Some people stay in their rooms for fear of bricks and some stay out of the big pots for fear of losing to an overset.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I don't believe it is worth investing 3 more bets to see a flop with pocket Sixes and you must remember that in Vegas it is a bet and four raises so it could get capped costing you 4 bets to see the flop.
The problem is that unless a Six flops in most cases you don't have a hand. In addition, flopping a set is not the equivalent of winning the pot. You can flop a set and lose to a bigger set but more frequently sets lose to straights and flushes. I recommend you read the "Wild Games" section of HPFAP-99 on the kinds of hands you need to be playing in capped pots pre-flop.
Another great analysis Jim.
I have an example I would like to get your analysis on. I was in a fairly tight aggresive 10-20 with a 1/2 kill game on friday night with 77's in middle position, no raises. Flop comes down K, 9c, 7c. Guy in fourth position bets out, I raise, he re-raises and I figure I've got him on the hook with two pair and re-raise back to $40. Turn card is a club and now I start feeling a little bad since now I recognize that he could be free-rolling a flush draw and top pair, he bets and I call (big mistake on my part?). River is another club and he checks, I check too (another mistake) and show down my losing hand to a K high flush. Did I play the flop too aggresively? I always want to make it as expensive as possible against a drawing hand but do not know when I've gone too far.
I just wanted to share an example of hitting your set, but then losing to a flush.
Your aggressive play on the flop with bottom set is correct. Like you say he could have two pair or even something like top pair plus a Club flush draw. On the turn when the third Club hits you have to call with your set because you have 10 outs to beat a flush and he may not have a Club flush anyway. On the river, when the fourth Club appears be thankful he checks and you can just check it down. He won't fold if he has a Club in his hand and all that money in the pot. You played the hand correctly.
I used to play the 10-20 main game at the Nugget for years. Just about everyone in that game would play your 77s example the same--be aggressive until the board shows differently and someone may convince you by his/her play they have you beaten. Yes, you can get beaten by a flush as you did. But until the board presents that possibility, I'd make THEM guess what I had. Early in my career, I made too many mistakes trying to figure out what OTHERS had rather than trying to make them think what I had. Also, what does "HPFAP-99" stand for in your response to POCKET 66s?
Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players Edition by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth
Richard it refers specifically to the new edition of Hold-em Poker For Advanced Players which came out in 1999. It has about 100 pages of new material from the earlier edition published ten years ago.
Call before the flop. If you were on the button and it was four bets cold to you then you should probably fold, but not in this case. You are going to get good implied odds if you hit your set, because everyone's going to be pot-stuck.
Unfortunately, so are you. If you miss the flop and check, and it comes back to you at one bet, you're probably going to have to peel off another card, given the size of the pot. If you aren't closing the action, then be wary of a check-raise by the early position players.
If this game is somewhat wild, then you can't lay down a set no matter what the action is, so don't even think of flopping a set and then folding to a double or triple raise because you think you're beat by a bigger set. You're going to have to ride it out, unless the board gets totally scary on you and you have absolute evidence you are beat.
These games are really high variance, but this is just the type of hand you want to have, when you are getting the odds to play it.
I hate it when you and Jim are of different opinions on something like this. Is this question mathematically definable? Or is it a matter of some inner motivation or desire to risk or play it safer. Don't get me wrong, it's great that many members of the al-called "clique" thrash out their differences for all to see, but it's confusing as hell to those of us that need some solid fundamental answers. Of course, the answer could depend. :-)
One of things you might want to do SammyB in these situations is to see what the books and articles on hold-em have to say as well as getting the opinions of the posters. HPFAP-New Edition has a chapter on this ("Wild Games" chapter in the loose games section). In addition, Lee Jones book talks about what kinds of starting hands you need to play in capped pots in his Winning Low Limit Hold-em book.
There have also been threads on this forum where the issue was debated between Ciaffone and Malmuth on calling raises on the button with small pocket pairs. I believe Malmuth stated that they were worth playing for a single raise against a large field but not for multiple raises. Bob Ciaffone has now conceded in his most recent article that small pocket pairs are playable in a volume pot with more than 4 opponents but that is for one bet only not multiple bets and raises.
The real issue is how much money gets lost over many thousands of hours of play when you pay 3 or 4 bets to take a flop with small pocket pairs versus how much you win when you hit a set and it holds up. I view small pocket pairs the same way I view suited connectors. They play well against a large field in an unraised pot. But when you have to start paying 3 or more bets to take a flop with these hands their profitability is lost. When you win, you certainly win enough to pay for the times you make your set and lose but not enough to offset that plus the huge pre-flop loss. I tried to demonstrate this phenomenon in my "Implied Odds" post on the General Theory Forum but it got very little response.
Your're wrong in thinking this is a clear fold. It's not. It's pretty close. While folding is a good play indeed, 'cause you risk nothing and can watch with amusement the other guys at each other's throat over a pile of chips, calling is slightly +EV at the expense of huge variance (which is not goot).
Remember, you are most probably going to see the turn here because of the pot odds and your chances of hitting a six by the turn are about 6 to 1.
Calling is marginal here, there's no doubt about it, but folding without giving it another thought is not the way to go. You should at least consider calling.
Don't forget that showing a cheesy hand on the river in a pot like this has its benefits also. You'll be seeing some serious tilt behavior if you happen to crack somebody's aces on a $700+ pot.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
The problem Izmet is that it will cost me at least $60 now and perhaps another $20 for a total of $80 just to take a flop. In the vast majority of cases I will never get to the river and no one will ever know that I came in on this hand.
You rate the chance of hitting your set at 6 to 1 by the turn. However, to make this call correct you must also assume that your hand is going to be good. If a set isn't good 15% of the time you are not getting correct pot odds to call preflop. Additionally, despite the big pot at the higher limits many of the players will release their hands when they see monster action on the flop. You're forced to fastplay your hand since in all likelihood it will be bottom or 2nd set. In general I think it's good policy not to worry about set over set in a huge pot because you're going to have to pay off 95% of the time with bottom set. However, you're assuming too much that decent players will be paying off double bets on the turn cold with something like one overcard or will pay 3 bets cold on the flop with a 3 card gapped straight. As for the tilt factor of cracking someone's aces...it happens often enough where a good player like yourself should let the fish do the bad beats. I think having pocket aces cracked happens often enough where good players should just let the fish do the bad beats. A bad beat is having a set of aces cracked by runner-runner quad deuces (happened to me once), not having a pair of aces beat in a 6 way capped pot.
You have a 1 in 8.5 chance of flopping a set when your opponents hold random cards. However, here it's unlikely that anyone has a 6, bringing your chance up to 1 in 7, just 6:1 odds against, and your implied odds if you flop a set mean the pot is offering much better than 6:1 effective odds. So you should definitely call preflop, right?
Wrong. If you flop a set, you have about a 75% chance of it holding up against several random hands. However, here you could be up against 3 live bigger pairs, which would reduce your chances to not much more than 50%. True, there is likely to be some overlap, like you might be against AKs, JJ, QQ, and AA, but even against just two live overpairs your chance of their not making a bigger set is less than 70%. True, some pairs might get scared out by overcards, but your hand also plays a bit poorly, in that you will also be scared by overcards and likely won't be able to go very many raises, while your opponents will be able to keep raising you when they make the nuts. True, you have some chance of making a straight or other ways of winning the pot, and this makes it a close decision, but working through the math I get a conservative estimate of a loss of .15 small bets for calling preflop assuming no 5-bet preflop.
By the way, I think the original poster made a mistake in counting the pot. I count $330 expected to be in the pot, counting on the other players to all call the four bets, not including his $60 call. If the original poster was correct then a call would be tempting, but even a 50% chance a 5-bet (in Vegas) would turn it back into a .15 small bet losing proposition.
Anyway, regardless of whether a call is correct in this particular case, keep in mind that when you flop a set versus multiple big pairs (and big suited connectors), your chance of winning the pot isn't much better than 50-50.
-Abdul
x
I analyzed this by assuming that the game was wild, and that multiple raises did not necessarily mean big pairs. Also given a wild game, your implied odds go up because people will bet into you, let you raise, pay you off, etc.
If this is a tight game or an average game that suddenly has multiple raises pre-flop, then I'd agree with you completely.
x
So Mrs. Emily Litella has done it again...
Abdul, do you think I am way out of line advocating a call here, provided the raisers do not necessary have overpairs as is usually the case in true loose-aggressive games? How close is it?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Although I backed off my advice, to tell you the truth it's hard for me to imagine not being up against at least two overpairs here. If they're routinely 4-betting with garbage like KQ, then they're not "loose-aggressive," they're maniacs. The 5-bet cap in Vegas (i.e., possibility of one more raise after you cold call) would turn it from borderline to a fold, at least in my mind. The mathematics of it can swing either way according to the probabilities of being up against overpairs and suited connectors, the amount of action you get after the flop, the skill of your opponents postflop, etc. I assumed that you would get a lot of postflop action, but not a ridiculous amount, because in sanely 4-bet pots all the overpairs tend to recognize that they shouldn't be real happy unless they make top set. You don't have to add many big bets of implied odds before it becomes a clear call.
-Abdul
There you go, kids! The answer is a clear, resounding "It Depends".
To be honest, I had forgotten about the extra bet in Vegas games. I'm used to a cap being at 4 bets.
Can we all agree that this play is somewhere in the margins, with relatively high variance? If that's the case, then the answer to the call/fold decision could easily come down to bankroll considerations. If this is a game that's under your normal limits for your bankroll, s'ok. But if you're playing in a big game that's at the upper end of your bankroll limit, then this could have negative Kelly implications?
Dan,
I'm holding you guys responsible for keeping me awake with my head spinning with all these interesting threads. Anyway, I agree totally with your summation. It depends on how much you want to gamble as the EV is relatively close.
Regards,
Rick
In games I play often (4-bet cap, very loose), I found that the fourth bet usually means nothing. The following is an usual scenario:
A guy who I *know* will raise with any pair (including deuces, BTW, they tend to do this a lot over here, as players obviously learn from each other, albeit the wrong things) or any ace, opens UTG with a raise. Somebody else of course knows this and dares to reraise a couple of cold callers (who will fold their 76o, A5o when hell freezes over) with a legitimate hand like AQs or a big pair. The next guy caps it with who-knows-what just because he thinks the original opener will cap it anyway. The button is stuck badly and cold calls smoothly because it's a big pot he was waiting for for the last hour (too bad it wasn't that big the previous hand, when he held ATo, now he has to wade in with his 58o).
With a Vegas 5-bet cap, things tend to be a bit different, as the four-bettor will only do it with a true powerhouse. Not so with the 4-bet cap.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Jim,
Great threads are passing me by but I'll make one nit pick comment for the heck of it.
You wrote: " I view small pocket pairs the same way I view suited connectors. They play well against a large field in an unraised pot."
I agree that they both play well in the situation you describe, but in the pot of this thread they couldn't play more differently.
When you flop well, pocket pairs hit the flop hard and welcome aggressive post flop play. When suited connectors hit the flop it is usually with a draw and prefer passive post flop play. This pot is almost sure to be aggressive post flop.
Maybe this topic could be taken up in a future thread. If I start it I'll call it "Jim Brier Problem # 1". :-).
Regards,
Rick
Well, after this all came out in the wash, it's comforting to see why there was so much initial disagreement - the play is close, and a yes/no answer is going to depend on the exact nature of the game, the size of your bankroll (perhaps), your aversion to risk, the need for deceptive plays, whether there are 4 or 5 bets allowed before a cap, etc.
Call or fold, it looks to me like a close enough decision that you can just close your eyes and let your evil twin decide.
Dan, I usually agree with your posts but have to disagree with you on this one. The odds are 7.5 to 1 to flop a set and this guy already said he was getting 6.5 to 1 pot odds. If the pair were higher, say TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA or maybe even 99's, then the call would make sense since these cards can win unimproved. Sixes will most often be dominated on the flop and folded quickly unless one wants to go for a long shot draw.
Aside from Abdul's objections (that in this case there is in fact a pretty good chance of set-over-set), then you are getting the odds to call, because in this situation you will get very good implied odds. As I said in my response to Abdul's message, I was assuming that this is a wild game, and not a normal game in which everyone just happened to get very good hands this time.
If it's a wild game, then you can assume you are going to be paid off big time if you hit your set. This is the kind of pot that could wind up with 30 big bets in it at the end.
I realize the decision is close. And if you are variance-averse, a fold is okay here. But when I'm playing in wild games, I don't like to give up opportunities to ram-and-jam with the boys, as long as I'm getting the odds to do it. If you play ultra-tight which is the other option, sometimes the game will dry up when you enter a pot.
Frankly, I'd rather avoid wild games. You get too many situations like this, which are low-ev and high variance. I'd rather play in a passive game at a bigger limit, with the same risk to my bankroll but higher EV.
Dan wrote,
"Frankly, I'd rather avoid wild games. You get too many situations like this, which are low-ev and high variance. I'd rather play in a passive game at a bigger limit, with the same risk to my bankroll but higher EV."
When you use the expression "low-ev" I assume you mean a low positive ev. Well, isn't any positive ev situation one in which you want to participate, or are not all positive ev situations that desirous. Because, and I hate to say it, Rounder's been saying this for years, now.
The issue is more one of EV vs Variance. A professional gambler prefers the highest EV with the lowest amount of variance. Instead of playing in a wild game with a win rate of 1 BB/hr but a standard deviation of 20 bb/hr, I could move up in limits and play a game with a 1 BB/hr win rate and 10 bb/hr stdev, but for double the stakes, with the same risk to my bankroll. The second option would be vastly preferable.
If I'm going to play in a wild game, I want hands like big pairs or medium pairs if I get the odds for them. I want to hit big hands or nothing at all. The problem with hands like KQ is that it's easy to make a mistake. The flop comes K98, and there's a bet and two raises to you. If the game is full of maniacs, you may have the best hand, and folding the best hand when there's 20 big bets in the pot is a huge error. On the other hand, you could be up against a set with the same action, and calling multiple raises while drawing dead is also a huge error. I hate being in those situations.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's just that it would seem the preferred tactical philosphy liturgized by the Church of 2+2 (apologies to Mark Glover) is that if you calculate the ev of a situation to be positive then that is the final consideration. The fact that you say there are better positive ev situations to risk your money in is exactly what Rounder has been saying. Don't get me wrong I agree with you about the statistics of being suited that you and he are constantly at each other about, but if he says he doesn't want to pursue a gutshot getting the proper odds which even if he hits might then lose to a flush or boat or higher straight, how is that different from any other low ev situation?
given the choice for the same ev between high variance and low variance, most people (esp those on a limted bankroll) prefer low variance. also, if you can tolerate a certain amount of vaiance (based on your bankroll) you want to make your ev as high as possible. suppose a sane 20-40 game has the same variance as a wild 10-20 game. also suppose you make 2.5 bb an hour in the wild game, but only 1.5 in the sane game. clearly, you make more for the same risk in the sane game. that is all dan is saying. this has nothing to do with gutshots, because you don't have hand selection in the same sense as you have game selection. if a hand is +ev then you should play it. you can't switch it for another hand that has the same ev but less risk. actually, if you were going to live for ever you could just wait for low risk hands. but i won't, so i can't. i have to make as much as i can at every oppurtunity.
scott
It's different because calling for a gutshot when you're getting big odds can be both low variance AND high EV. I wouldn't argue with him a bit if he folds his gutshot when he's playing for .1sb, and a small chance of a raise behind him would make the call -EV. Fine. But he takes an absolutist approach that causes him to miss a LOT of profitable opportunities. How much money do you think he loses when he folds a gutshot to the nuts and a 3-flush when he's last to act for one bet and there are 25 bets in the pot already? And how much variance do you think this play has?
Also, if he ever plays against me, and a gutshot straight comes in on the turn, he may be looking at a semi-bluff raise or check-raise, because I know what he can't have, especially if it was a rainbow flop. And those times when I have the best hand against him I'm going to value-bet more on the river, because I can eliminate whole ranges of hands that he could be holding. It's also going to be harder for him to bluff, and harder to get paid off on his real hands.
So all his other hands become tougher to play. This increases variance as well, and lowers profit.
Oh come on, you don't "hate to say it"!
From experience, as the games in my area have toughened up, I have found that wild games are difficult to play in. They are difficult because you only play such premium hands that you hardly play at all. Here I agree with Rounder.
Games that I used to belive are wild were just full of very poor players. Games that I now see as wild are games full of shoot em up gamblers who do know how to read the cards.
I have recently seen a game in S Cal (Commerce) where players were playing wild. They actually did not know what they were doing.
It depends on your mindset. If you like low ev situations and play well in them then you shall make more money than if you do not play them. If you play them poorly you will lose.
Regards
This is an easy decision for me. FOLD !!! Its very doubtful you have the best hand. Why force yourself into a bad situation. I don't care if over next 100 times I have this hand that I will come out ahead $2. This is the only time I will have this hand with these players. Its a bad call!!! There will be another hand. Wait and let some other sucker call 4 bets cold with 66 when you are holding AA.
Call.
Though there may be times to take a shot like this holding pocket sixes is not one of them. Your implied odds are going to be good but your chances to win are slim. I just don't like being in this position. With all the preflop action if you miss the flop are you really going to pay a bet and most likely a raise to see the turn? It seems like alot of upfront money on an 8:1 shot.
Best of it !!
MJ
In my humble opinion, I think this is a clear fold. I don't see why everyone is claiming there are good implied odds here - there probably won't be much re-raising post-flop unless somebody else flops a set, in which case you lose. The only action you'll get is maybe top pair betting and AA raising - which is not a situation that will come up all the time.
With 66, you want to see the flop cheaply and have the pot quadruple in size after you've made your set - that's the meaning of implied odds.
If this is a wild game, you'll get lots of opportunities for raising if you hit your set.
Perhaps the type of game I'm thinking of is not what everyone is thinking of in this case. I've played in games where there's a lot of re-raising and capping before the flop, and the action often doesn't slow down much after. If you've got a couple of wildmen betting and raising, then these pots can become gigantic because even the good players get pot-stuck, knowing that the maniacs don't have to have much.
If, on the other hand, this is a pot full of good players, and there are several overpairs out there, then I'd agree that it's an easy fold.
Dan, let us take the type of game you are referring to when you have a lot of wild men betting and raising and capping on suited connectors, small and medium pocket pairs, Ace-little suited, and say King-little suited. Now if you as a good player start playing the same way as the wild bunch do, where is your edge?
I would argue that you have none pre-flop and that post-flop when the pot gets huge no one is making much of a mistake by hanging around and chasing with anything. Bottom line is that your play and that of your looser playing opponents all start to look the same when holding these hands. What I am missing here?
Your edge comes from playing the right kinds of hands before the flop, mainly. I'd never play a hand like KJ in games like this, but my opponents will. So when they hit their one pair and I make a set or a flush, they are paying me off. When they make a set or a flush, I usually won't be in the pot.
But frankly, I hate games like this. You have to play ultra-tight before the flop (66 in a 6-way field when you are getting in for one less bet than everyone else is an exception). You often get pot-stuck and wind up chasing with the fish after the flop. Your variance is sky-high. You lose the edge of being most agressive at the table, and you lose the edge of being able to read people's hands. You lose the edge of making tight folds after the flop, because they are often incorrect when the pots are huge.
I'd much prefer a nice loose, passive game where I have a lot of control over the situation, and where I can play a lot more hands.
Absolutely correct. This is 6-6 we're talking about. You have to hit a 6 and then hope it holds up. And you will have to be passive because of yourrposition and the overcards. You win money with good cards in good situations. These are bad cards in a bad situation.
DjTj,
So long as you have the bankroll, you should play this hand in the 3/6 and 6/12 at San Manuel. First, there is a three raise limit. Next, your opponents will not play that well post flop. You will. But when a normally sane Las Vegas 20/40 erupts into this action level (especially given the five bet cap), then it is a fold for the reasons Abdul has mentioned.
BTW, you need to be tiltproof. When you lose after flopping a set (in the San Manuel game I would estimate you will win about 65% of the time if you flop a set), you must be ready to play good poker and forget about the monster that slipped away.
Regards and Good Luck,
Rick
There's a ton of replies out there but I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
This is a fold situation. The other players have let you know you are beat already and you are getting less odds than you require (not considering implied odds).
Your set of fours can easily be beat by an overset here. [I know it doesn't happen often but this is definitely the prelude to it]
There are lot's of cards that work well together including Ax suited which could be a straight problem for you.
In short any implied odds you have are eaten up by the hands that can beat your set.
Now, to find out, THE REAL ANSWER.
Regards
Damn, it's pocket sixes, same thing goes except don't worry about the bicycle obviously.
On the side of playing, there could be a number of hands that include and A or K. Let's suppose both AA, KK, and AK plus A-Face are out there. Aces are dead and King's are close. Any good suited draws 9 and above are close to dead. If a six hits I like your chances.
I STILL dump the 6's unless I'm hot as a pistol.
Regards
The Mucklshoot Indian Casino Poker Room is the most popular room in western Washington and is, generally speaking, well managed.
However, a decision was made recently to introduce trainee dealers into live games and into the room's weekly tournaments. These dealers had apparently been thru a class put on by the management.
While I understand that training new dealers is important and necessary, what has happened at the Muckleshoot is a classic example of casino management being out of touch with the reality of actual poker games and the problems that incompetent dealers can bring to a table.
I would like to preface the following criticisms by saying that the problems discussed are not the fault of the trainees but of the management who chose to put these dealers in situations that they were not prepared for - both mechanically and mentally.
Trainees were put into the weekly tournaments. The management must understand that when 6 tables have competent dealers and 1 table has an incompetent and very slow dealer, the players at that table are put at a severe disadvantage. The goal of tournament players is to accumulate as many tournament chips as possible in as short a time as possible. When you are dealt less than a third of the the normal number of hands because of a slow dealer, you have been denied the opportunity to be competitive with the other tables.
The only conclusion that I can reach about this management decision is that the person or persons who ran this class and concluded that these trainees were ready for live games is either incompetent or insensitive to players concerns or both.
Now let's discuss placing trainees into live action poker games. The results of such action admittedly affect only the players at that table. The players are not put at a disadvantage to other tables as in a tournament. However, why would management expose their players to such incompetence and create such player frustration? I ask this again in light of the fact that their main competition, the Emerald Queen Casino, is reopening its cardroom shortly and another non-indian casino has just opened.
Does the Muckleshoot Indian Tribal Management want to drive their hard earned player clientele to these other establishments? I think not. I can only hope that this decision was the result of individuals who have no clue how to run a poker room. It is not the poker room manager. This decision was mandated to him by tribal management.
I hope that this message is read by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribal Management and that they strongly reconsider allowing whoever made this decision (not to mention who trained these dealers) to remain in place.
There has already been one player barred from the casino for expressing his frustration with a trainee's incompetence. While I can't condone this player's actions, I can certainly understand his frustration with having to put up with an incompetent dealer in a $20-$40 holdem game.
In summary, I think the Muckleshoot Poker Room management is the best in western Washington. I enjoy the games and the friendly atmosphere. It is very unfortunate that something like this has to happen that makes absolutely no sense and has created such player disharmony.
What is your proposed solution? If inexperienced dealers aren't allowed to get experience in either tournaments or live games where are they to get it? As I understand it most card rooms have new dealers initially deal only the lowest limit games until accumulating the requisite experience for higher limits and tournaments. The (debatable) reasoning being mistakes in lower limit games have a lower cost to the players involved. In your opinion is this what Muckleshoot should do? Or hire only experience dealers?
I think the trainees should have had better training with a final exam of dealing to the poker room management (floor people) and experienced dealers in a game simulation. After that final review and any feedback from the floor people, those dealers that prove acceptable can then be introduced into the lower limit games for further evaluation.
I have no doubt that none of the trainees put into the games I mentioned would have passed such an exam. I'm not asking for experienced dealers only but for a little common sense and player consideration to be used in the trainee selection process.
The bottom line is that a poor decision by a casino management person has put the floor people in the unenvious position of having to try and explain why such a fiasco happened in the first place.
This didn't have to happen Mister Pragmatist(aka casino manager).
There is a very thick line between being pragmatic and having absolutely no clue about how to run a poker room or train dealers. I think your tendency is toward the thick side of things - or is that too pragmatic for you.
I am not as emotionally involved with this situation as you. Nor for that matter am I a casino manager, so no need to get personal or demonize me. I am a player who is sympathetic to your complaints. I asked for your proposed solution because I assumed that it would be as detailed as your complaints, and would perhaps save the "casino mgt" to whom your complaints are directed some additional misteps.
Please accept my apology for interpreting your post as coming from the casino management. I would hope also that the casino management would learn from this unfortunate situation.
I must agree with you that this is personal as it is very frustrating to be exposed to incompetent trainees for no other apparent reason than a management decision by someone who apparently does not have the capacity or the concern to determine what is an acceptable minimum level of performance.
l
I played the following hands over the weekend and I am wondering if I am weak on the river? 5-10 holdem in AC.
First Hand: I’m dealt AcQc on the button, one loose passive player opens in middle position, folded to me I raise, SB folds BB (solid player) calls.
Flop 6c,Qd,7d BB bets, loose passive raises, and I 3bet. I want to see if the BB will call two bets cold or not. He does, loose passive calls. Now I put the BB on a strong draw, and loose passive could be on anything (including bottom pair, two pair, or a weaker Q, he also plays A anything).
Turn 6h BB checks, Loose Passive Checks, I check behind. I wimped out here when the board paired! I just got this feeling I was being setup for a check raise… Especially with all of the action on the flop…
River 8h
Checked around here I figured a str8 just came out and the board was paired. I figured that except for a weaker Q the only hands that can call have me beat…
BB shows the nut flush draw (Kd,Jd), and loose passive shows A,7 offsuit for second pair with an overcard on the flop.
I don’t mind missing the bet on the end here as much as the turn… I think I should have bet the turn for information and value, but I hesitated figuring anyone who made trips here would go for the checkraise based on me 3 betting the flop… In retrospect this is an obvious bet and I lost at least two big bets here.
Second Hand:
I have AhKh in early position (2nd to act). Folded to me and I raise folded to the SB (loose) who calls, as does the BB.
Flop Kc 8h Jd Checked to me and I bet SB calls and BB folds. I don’t really have him on a hand at all here. He is just tooo loose and I think he would have called anything out of the small blind. That said I am thinking of K weak, one of several str8 draws, or an A.
Turn 2s SB checks, I bet he calls.
River Qs SB checks I check behind fearing the str8. He shows K,T offsuit. Again I figured he only calls me on the end if I am beat but truthfully he would have called his top pair on the end.
Sean
Just out of curiosity, do you lose to straights quite often? I think you may be giving too much respect to your opponents here, maybe because you could only see yourself sticking around to the river with an open ender, rather than with what these guys showed down. It is sometimes amazing what people will hold onto in a low limit game, and caution is advisable since they can be holding on with anything so maybe your play with the first hand was correct since any six or the str8 beats you.
One the other hand though, I might be more inclined to bet my hand until someone raises and lets me know I am beat, and even when raised I might make a crying call with top pair best kicker to keep them honest.
I think you fear straights too much. Look at the example two for instance. To get a straight the SB needed either an A10 or 10-9. Either way, he's holding onto semi-trash with the hope that a queen manages to fall. Then he gets it on the river and decides to check to you! That he could have had a much better hand (KJo comes to mind) should have concerned you. The straight? no.
Same thing with the first hand. When the cards come 6,7,8, either someone was praying for the 8 fit inside their 9-10 or was playing with a 4-5. It is true that the board paired, but that doesn't guarantee that someone has the 6 in their hand. Besides, if you bet you can tell for sure when they raise you back. IF (and I do mean if) you come to the conclusion that they absolutely do have the 6, then you shouldn't fear having been set up for the check-raise. You can fold and save yourself a few bets later on. Meanwhile, your bet might flush out some of the drawing hands.
Realize that you did say these games were loose. Don't expect loose players to only call you if they can beat you. Sometimes they'll call just out of curiousity!
BTW, KJ suited isn't the nut flush draw (unless the ace hits on the river).
Dan
Dan Wrote: "BTW, KJ suited isn't the nut flush draw (unless the ace hits on the river). "
Your right of course... I misread my notes...
Sean
I agree with you that both hands were played weakly.
Hand # 1. I think you should have bet the turn and the river. If you get check raised, it's decision time. The bottom line is No Free Cards!
Hand # 2. You played the hand correctly until the river. You should have bet. If you get checked raised, again it's decision time. Most players who make a draw are going to bet on the end because of the fear that players will check to the possible. This was an obvious value bet situation.
First Hand:
PreFlop your raise with ,AcQc is correct of course.
On the FLOP: 6c,Qd,7d
(LP was on a semi-bluff?) Your raise/thinking with top pair top kicker is also good "I want to see if the BB will call two bets cold or not. "
On the TURN: 6h
The BB's checks after calling the two bets cold is tough but I think you should have bet here, your still in good shape with two pair/A kicker. Had the BB check-raised before? If the LP raised then he may have three of a kind.
On the RIVER: 8h
Well here the flush draws did not get there. The straight draws hit if you had them on 9-10 5-9? Not out of the question for 9-10 but pretty poor poker. You have two pair and a top kicker your opponents have checked to you twice ..Time to bet. if some one was on a slow play then they will raise right back at you and you will probably have to play them off.
Tight/Aggressive .. When you get good cards play them strongly.
Best of it !!
MJ
On the first hand, a bet on the turn is clear. When opponents act weak assume they are weak until proven otherwise. With a big pot, one of the opponents probably would have bet trip Sixes if they had them instead of checking. There are worse things in poker than being checked-raised in a limit game. You should also bet the river when it is checked to you. I think you lost two or three double bets here.
On the second hand you should bet the river with top pair/top kicker when your lone opponent checks to you. It is highly unlikely that has specifically Ten-Nine for a straight and more likely that he will call with a weak King on the end.
Unless the board is incredibly threatening on the end like 3 parts to a flush plus 3 parts to straight plus an open pair you should usually bet on the end when your opponent(s) check to you if you think you have the best hand and will get calls from worse hands.
In general, when the enemy acts weak with checks and calls it is because they are usually weak and not because they are slow playing a powerhouse.
If this player is as weak as you say, he'll call you with anything on the end, especially heads-up.
In the first hand, you definitely should have bet the turn, and probably bet the river. The river bet depends on your opponents. How tricky are they, would they go for a check-raise on the river if they hit a straight, etc.
Don't be afraid to make a value bet on the river just because a draw comes in, especially if it's checked to you. If you had had four opponents then checking may have been prudent, but heads-up you're just giving up too much, especially when you're playing loose opponents who will call on the end with all sorts of junk.
A lot of people have been complaining about loose games and how tough they are to beat. The way you beat any game is to exploit your opponent's weaknesses. In a loose game, their major weakness is that they call too much. You have to punish them for that, to get back the money you loose to the longshot draws. Getting those value bets on the river is a big part of this.
Before I read:
Hand 1: Unless the blind flopped 6's and 7's or a set of 7's or maybe a set of 6's which now became quads or maybe a set of queens where he did not reraise you preflop or maybe maybe maybe. What ever the case may be I think not betting here is just what you suggested a weak play. A very weak play.
Hand 2: I would have bet the river. However I don't think you lost a lot of value here, but still value is value.
Thanks to all for the confirmation of what I already knew.
Most of my poker playing is a 5-20 spread limit Home game I play two nights a weak. Since it tends to be mostly the same group of guys the game is very tricky, and the fact that big bets can come on all betting rounds usually means folks are on a legitimate hand since the relative expense is higher. Also no blinds in this game (the dealer antes $5 of dead money)
I guess I just poorly adjusted to play against weaker players, and also the inducement to "peel one off" that the half size bets on the flop seem to induce. Also I got snapped off by folks playing trash so frequently I got somewhat gun shy...
I also might be playing over tight preflop in casino games as limping hands for a small bet are probably lower then in the game I am used to where you can expect at least 1 big bet preflop and at least one on the flop. I tend to only play big cards, and rarely play middle connectors (except for deception) unless I have late position and can limp in for $5 (very rare).
It seems like I value smaller pocket pairs higher then most and suited middle connectors and such lower.
Sean
I would like to know what you people out there think about the Low Limit Section in 2+2's Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players. Has it helped your game? I belive it has for me.
All the sections have helped.
The books are great ,concepts are solid and the forum is even better. I have learned more on this forum than I ever thought possible. The concepts in the books are explored here every day and this helps keep them fresh in our minds.
Let's see $29.95 for Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players 21st,about the same for Theory Of Poker.
$60.00 total investment
return about 3,190.00 to date..
Has it helped your game?
YUP!! it's sure has
Best of it !!
MJ
I can't agree more...
The low limit section (actually the loose games section) was very helpful, but I also found Lee Jones' book to be very useful in that regard. However, I have to say that most useful part of HEPFAP is the Short Handed section. The money that I have made by outplaying my oppponents when short-handed has paid for the book hundreds of times over this year alone. It is amazing to play with otherwise solid players that have no concept of the adjustments that need to be made for a short handed game.
JCC, if you play hold'em and don't yet own this book, you are costing yourself A LOT of money.
Regards- Mike
Please correct me if I'm in error but to my understanding there is no chapter addressing low limit poker in the new edition of HFAP. There is a chapter on loose games but these are clearly not the loose games of low limit California fame. The games addressed in that chapter assume your opponents play well after the flop, more like a tilted 20-40 game in Nevada.
Here's a hand from the pot limit game today. Blinds $5-10 with 7 players. Live straddles for $20 are frequent today. On this particular hand there is a live straddle, a couple of calls and Ron sitting in the BB makes it $40 to go. All call including straddler. So there is 4 players for $40 each plus $5 small blind; $165 in the pot before the flop. Flop comes Jd, Td, 6s. Ron bets $150, two folds and you are last to act with Ad5d. Some background on Ron. Ron has been making his living from this game ever since the cardroom opened about 5 years ago. Ron is a solid player. How do you play it?
How deep are your stacks?
Sorry this is important. Each guy has about $5000 in front of him.
which hands can he have? AA, KK: it depends on the player, but most players would have bet pot before the flop. but QQ, JJ, TT is likely, KQs 98s too. hands like 65s or 77 are unlikely, 55 too.
i think, to call would be a poor play in this spot. when you don´t improve and he bets out again on the turn, which is easy possible, you would have to fold.
when he´s cappable of having JJ or TT in this spot, you should fold. when you think, he might have AA or KK AND(!) is cappable to fold this kind of hands on the flop, go ahead and raise. if he doesn´t reraise and checks the turn, you should check the turn when you don´t improve (he probably has a hand he would go to the end with).when he reraises: fold (he has trips almost for sure, so you´re drawing thin), when he calls and bets the turn, which would be a great play imo, you should fold the turn.
when you hit the flush, the play is easy, the problemcard would be a five on the turn. i think, you should better check and call a bet on the river (you might induce a bluff). be aware: an ace is no out for you, because it might make him the nut-straight.
regards
m.a.
The hopeless $20 raise is a clear sign he has no big pair. He must have some sort of quality drawing hand and is trying to "build a pot" or more likely cheaply take the initiative from the weak players (who are unlikely to "bluff" after someone else has shown aggression). Sounds like a play to keep control of the game but I digress... Such quality drawing hands are very likely to hit JT.
Now if it was J65 I would be very tempted to come over the top with your over-card nut flush draw. But with this flop there is too much chance of getting called. I would call if he thinks I would also call with a good Jack (which isn't true; I'd have to raise since he doesn't have a big pair...). I would raise if he thinks I would raise with a good Jack. I would fold if he knows I'll fold on the turn any calling hand on the flop.
- Louie
Call the $150 and Raise the river if you hit your nut flush. Seems pretty routine. If Ron were a weakish player I may consider a raise here. Depending on the read I got from Ron I may be inclined to raise the pot here but ROn's $150 seems like an "I want a call" here so he is probably on to something but then again if he is tricky?
I think this hand is too good to fold. Problem is if Ron bets $150 on the flop and you call then if a blank hits on the turn and Ron bets $450 I think you would have a hard time calling this bet unless Ron would pay off a possible flush on the end for something like a $900 bet. Of course an Ace might be good as well and Ron would have to pay less to make it worthwhile to draw. Also if you hit your hand on the turn Ron might not pay you either. Here is what I thought about the hand as I watched, not being involved. I think that Ron has a pretty good idea that nobody is too strong right here. If Ron had KK or AA I think he makes a max raise pre-flop to try and limit the field. I believe that Ron could have a wide variety of decent hands here including JJ and QQ. When Ron bets $150 on the flop from an early position, I believe that this is probably a bet to protect his hand. I think you have to raise here, probably the max (make it $600 to go), if you think that Ron will check to you a lot on 4th if he calls the flop. Even if it becomes a gigantic pot here (by my standards) by getting in a lot of money on the flop, you probably have at least 9 outs and a lot of times you will have 12 outs with two cards to come to make your hand. Ron wouldn't have to fold that often on the flop to make a raise worthwhile IMO. In this case your biggest concern is that Ron calls your raise and if a blank hits on the turn, he makes another pot size bet.
I think your best play here is to raise a moderate amount...perhaps $250 or so. This depends on how you've played other hands before but if you consistently make medium raises with both big hands and draws/good hands then you can see where he's at. If he comes over the top you have to fold. If he calls he's probably real scared of that flop or is drawing and you may be able to buy it on the turn with a pot sized bet. I don't like a call in this spot...I think you raise or fold unless your call is likely to make him check to you. He's only going to check a draw to you though I think if he calls on the flop.
I did consider the play you mention and it does make a lot of sense.
One of my favorite posters, Mr. Rick Nebiolo has stated in several of his posts something to the effect that: "When many players limp in pre-flop and the flop comes Queen-high or Jack-high there is a better chance of someone having top pair than when the flop comes Ace-high or King-high since players are more likely to raise with an Ace or a King pre-flop." In John Feeney's article in Poker Digest entitled "One Way Not to Fold" he also mentions this in passing.
But is this really true? I sort of mentally went through the list of playable hands people come in with pre-flop and I believe that this is not true. Assume that players raise with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT, AK, AQ, and sometimes AJ suited and KQ suited then here is my list of typical hands players will limp in with pre-flop:
1. AT/A9/A8/A7/A6/A5/A4/A3/A2 suited. 2. AJ offsuit, AT offsuit,A9 offsuit. 3. KJ/KT/K9/K8/K7/K6/K5/K4/K3/K2 suited. 4. KQ offsuit, KJ offsuit,KT offsuit.
In addition some players will limp in on any Ace.
Now let us look at typical limping hands for Queens and Jacks.
1. QJ,QT,Q9,Q8 suited 2. QJ offsuit, QT offsuit, Q9 offsuit 3. JT suited, J9 suited, J8 suited, J7 suited 4. JT offsuit, J9 offsuit
I do not believe it is very common for players to limp in on any suited Queen or Jack.
Now when I compare the two sets I believe that there are far more playable, non-raising, hands headed by an Ace or a King than by a Queen or a Jack.
My conclusion is that when the board flops Ace-high or King-high against a large field of limpers pre-flop you are far more likely to run up against top pair than when it flops Queen-high or Jack-high.
What does everyone else think?
I think what you say is true.
Perhaps Rick and John were more specifically worried about people holding top pair with a good kicker - something that they might stay in with. You can rule out AK, AQ, and KQ if there is no preflop raise and an A or K comes out, so you may be able to represent the pair and have people fold AT, KT, or the like - however, with a Q-high or J-high flop, you may be up against KQ, AJ, QJ, and various other high-kicker combinations that will not fold.
...but maybe I should just let them answer for themselves
Jim,
This is fun. I have not even written a book or complete magazine article yet and I make your hit list. I'm very honored so I'll try to clarify my thoughts a bit.
First, I would rate the limping cards in the following order for typical mid limit players. By typical, I mean opponents we should have a reasonable edge over but they are not maniacs or extremely loose. IMHO, jacks and tens are the most common limping cards, followed by queens and nines, and to a lessor extent eights and maybe sevens.
Now a playable hand with a king would be the most likely card to come in with a raise, especially in mid to late position. However, hands like KQ, KJ and KT suited are played both ways here in Los Angeles. A player limping with Kx suited anywhere but in back is very weak but I can live with that.
Regarding aces, I think Jim is right. I'm too beat to verify all my past posts, but I wouldn't be surprised if I've emphasized the king but at times included the ace in the raiser's arsenal. Many of my posts are made extremely late at night so I can get sloppy in my deranged "I should be sleeping like a normal human" state. So let me rethink this a bit.
An "ace anything" tends to be played by weak players from almost any position period. This is not nearly as true as a "king anything". In other words, many mediocre opponents will play A7 offsuit even UTG but would not think of playing K7 offsuit. So Jim is correct in saying that many unraised pots will include an ace. However, I still think that when a pot is not raised, the king is the card that is most likely not to be out (other than baby cards).
The queen is also worthy of reexamination. First, here in Los Angles, weak players are playing Qx suited from any position so it is important to know who they are. This diminishes the strength of your small suited connectors (played in back only) for their flush value; however, this topic has been covered in old threads. Anyway, I see a lot of queens limping. The other great thing about a queen high flop is that the only overcards that can call are AK and this hand is usually a raising hand.
How do we use this at the table? A classic example is getting a free play in the big blind (or an almost free play in the small blind of a 15/30 structure). Remember, when you are in the blinds, your opponents must fear you could have anything.
Example one: One to four mediocre opponents call to see an unraised pots. You have a 5c 3s in the blind. Which of the following flops are best to bet at with the hope of taking it right there?
Flop one comes Ah 5d 2c.
Flop two comes Kh 5d 2c
Flop three comes Qh 5d 2c.
Flop four comes Jh 5d 2c.
Flop five comes Th 5d 2c
Now that I have rethought this a bit, here is my ranking.
Flop two is an easy bet. I would expect to win more than my fair share. I might even bet against five opponents with this one.
Next comes flop three. The queen goes both ways but I don't have to worry about overcards.
Flop four and five would only be bet against one or two opponents and a lot would depend on the way they play.
Flop one is special. Here the playing style is what matters and I would have to have a great feel before I ventured a bet here. In general, I like the bet against two late position players who just limped in.
Anyway, I want to thank Jim for pointing this out. The purpose of participating in this forum is to have your fuzzy thinking torn apart. It is a lot cheaper here than at the tables :-). Of course further comments and flames are welcome.
Regards,
Rick
One easy way to resolve this is to do what Mason and David did in HFAP, where they say that a flop w/ an A or K is a good one to bluff at if you're in the BB since most of the BETTER players will raise pre flop if they have a hand they like that contains an A or K. If your opponents are bad( which usually means they're calling stations) or mediocre players, your profit doesn't come so much from these bluffs, so you don't really have to worry about using this play unless you're in a game with players who have a clue (and therefore have to find other ways to make a profit, rather than just making savory value bets on the river).
Right. GD's point is simply the flip side of the statement with which Jim disagrees. It does depend on the types of players in the game That's why I phrased my comment in the article, "In many games..." to qualify my statement. In many games with a number of tougher or at least fairly rational players, the lists of hands most of the players will limp versus raise with will look quite different from Jim's. As a couple of quick examples, in some of the games I frequent it would be unusual for anyone to limp with A9, because they wouldn't play it at all except to steal the blinds with a raise. On the other hand it would be unusual for anyone to limp with AJ. They'd usually raise with it. Of course there will often be players in these games who represent exceptions to these tendencies. But, after all, they are just tendencies. This idea is mentioned, btw, in the Free Card chapter in HPFAP-21.
Great post and very helpful at clarifying your stance.
For what it's worth, even in an online 10-20 game, I would agree that the K-rag-rag is still your best bet with the semi-bluffing hand you described, even though I see a lot of limping kings.
In loose games especially, I think you are definitely correct. In the 10-20 online games, you can take the adage that most people don't limp in with a king (or ace) and throw it out the window. I would say something like 30-50% of the players online routinely call with hands like A-8o and K-7s from middle and even early position. A play that usually works well, like bluffing into a flop like K-3-8 with nothing in an unraised pot, becomes perilous and devalued.
I have made this observation here before -- much of what is taken as gospel by many smart posters only works in tough games. In the wilder world I live and play in, it is harder to eliminate holdings. I am frequently shocked at what people turn over on the river. Last night, I saw MANY examples of group 8 or worse being played up front, and there were a few players who played any ace and any suited king for one bet from any seat. I need a whole book on loose games -- not just a chapter!
You could wirte a whole book about online loose games and not cover half of the material. My online play is tighter than live play. I am playing fewer hands, BUT winning bigger pots. It's very easy for an online player to click the mouse and bet bad hands. Many players lose touch with the game because they don't have to manually pickup chips.
In a 10/20 or above game I would check/fold this hand. I don't see anything except getting wacked by a bigger pair or a set on the river. My Opinion...
I love the psychological factors that go into gambling.
Casinos use chips rather than money because players disassociate themselves with the monetary value of the chips ($10 to me? No it's not, it's just two little chips! I've got plenty of those...).
Now you're saying that online gambling is even looser because people who have come to realize the value of the chips now disassociate it with the "bet" button.
What's next? Voice activated systems for people who come to realize clicking the mouse costs them money?
Dan
Exactly.... the farther you are removed from your CASH the less you are attached. Here's another factor. Say you buy in ( charged to your credit card ) for $500. With some smart play and good luck you win $500. Now what... are you going to cash in and wait 2 weeks for a check. No... you leave your money on account for the next time you play. Unfortunately next time you lose X dollars. The loss is a paper loss, just like a stock trading down for the day. You never had the CASH in your hand. Hell, you have not even received the credit card bill. Online players are more likely to give back all their profits. It's too easy to continue playing past a stop loss limit. The money is just sitting there only a click away. I've seen (profitted from) it time and time again.
Scott - My poker page specializes in loose low-limit games, kind of as a counterpoint to the tough games usually discussed here. I have (modestly) started off with a couple of essays. I can't wait to see "Phoenix Problem #1" here !! :)
Reminder! Everyone should send in their picture to my gallery of 2+2 posters, which is at Dick's Poker Page. E-mail to me or send a regular photo to my snail mail address found at my contacts page.
...Dick
The Gambling Forum Archive
Hold'em
January 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo