![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Hand #1. 5-10. Passive table. I hold 8h8s in the BB. 4 limpers plus me see the flop of 8c5s9c. I bet my set and get raised by middle position. I reraise and he calls everyone else folding. The turn is the 4c. I bet, he raises, I call. The river is the Ks. I check and so does he!!. Did I miss a bet here, should I have reraised the turn or was I properly intimidated by the possible flush?
Hand #2. I'm sitting with Jc9c in the cutoff. Same passive table. 3 limpers to me, I limp, sb folds. 6 hands see Qs4c7c. It gets checked to the button who bets. 3 see the turn of the Qc. I bet, button raises. I reraise, button caps it. The river is the 8s. I check, button checks!. Should I have bet the river?
Thank you in advance for your comments.
On the first hand, what could your opponent have to raise your flop bet? With an over pair he probably would have raised pre-flop unless they were specifically pocket Nines. He is unlikely to have the case Eight for top pair. Therefore, a draw(especially a flush draw) becomes a real possibility. When the third Club shows up on the turn and you bet and get raised you should assume that he has a Club flush and you need to fill to win. When a blank comes at the river, it is perfectly correct for you to check planning to call.
On the second hand, when you make your non-nut flush I think you showed a lot of hair to re-raise with an open pair on board. You could even lose to a higher flush. It would be insane for you to bet the river in this situation. You should check and make a crying call if the button bets. The button is a complete idiot for capping it on the expensive street when the flush card comes. Maybe he had trip Queens but he still over played his hand.
You have to assume you are against sane opponents and that the previous betting action has some significance
Batholemew,
You said this is a passive table so I will assume the opponents involved are normally passive.
In the first hand, he put in an awful lot of action on a medium size pot. His betting pattern on the flop and turn was consistent with a flush draw and a made flush. I think you showed appropriate restraint. My guess is you got maximum action out of whatever hand he had.
In the second hand, you got four big bets in with a made flush when the board was paired. Your opponent capped the turn. You had to worry about the full house being out. My question is this. Would you even be wondering about lost bets if the betting went you bet, he raises, you call on both betting rounds?
I think you got the maximum on both hands. Trying to get one more bet out of either situation on the river after all that turn action will often result in the opponent folding some kind of combo draw/hand or being raised by the actual full. In other words, you will often gain no bets or lose two.
Once again, I will go into shock if Jim disagrees. But then again, I need the sleep (does shock help for sleeplessness?).
Regards,
Rick
In regards to hand no# 1,
My guess would be that he held something like A-10 offsuit, Ace of clubs.
I would have raised you too on the flop if I held the Ace of clubs with an overcard kicker, PLUS the runner-runner nut flush. His raise on the turn may seem a little wacky to some, but who knows what kind of read he had on you. Maybe he thought there was a chance of you dumping two pair, since his backing off on the flop gave him the look of a flush draw. And besides, if you don't dump, there is still the nut flush draw as a back-up.
The river is a blank for him, so he dumps his hand
[You asked if you should have re-raised the turn. Well, that's the beauty of "The Protected Raise", a term that I think was coined by Bob Ciaffone.(His book "Improve your Poker" is a must buy. There, he discusses the protected raise.) The scare card on the turn gave him protection from a re-raise by you(if you have anything less than a flush), while at the same time checking to see where he stands with you.]
-Don Martin
I'm going to guess what your opponents had in each situation before looking at the other responses. Let's see how I do.
Hand 1. I think he had an overpair, and the K on the end scared him.
Did you miss a bet? If this was a reasonable player in middle position, then he would not have raised with a flush draw. However, I've seen this happen by unreasonable players. His raise could not have been a bluff with that flop, since he should know that you will call with overcards. I think you should have at least bet the river. I would normally re-raise on the turn here, but if this player is wild and weak, then I could see calling.
Hand 2. Button has either a K high flush, or a Q in his hand. If he's a good enough player to know that he should bet his flush draw on the button, then he's probably not playing too many suited Kings to start.
However, it's not clear that he doesn't have an A high flush until he checks it down. At the point you are making your decision, you can figure him for a flush, or a Q. A lot of the flushes beat you. Unless he is a weak player, none of the Q's he could have beat you. I think you did the right thing by checking.
-steve
I posted this on RGP last week, and the positive responses were over-whelming. I thought I'd share it with you guys over here. I hope that neither the length nor the content are out of place in this forum.
Here it is:
WARNING: This is very long and very detailed. It is probably even tedious. And it's probably going to read like I'm tooting my own horn. Please understand that the point of this message is "what it felt like". What I'm describing is the most emotional night of poker that I've ever experienced. It was also the most thinking that I've ever done at a poker table. If you're not interested in following a player's thought process and stress levels, don't read any further. If you get frustrated by the detailed nature, I apologize in advance. You've been warned :-)
Like many of you, I've always wondered what a "live" no-limit game felt like. I've played in small no-limit tournaments, but putting in your stack is no big deal when your "stack" only cost $20. I figured that I'd probably never get the chance to find out. But lately a new trend is starting here in Las Vegas: small "big-bet poker". The Stratosphere has been spreading no-limit Texas Hold'em a couple nights a week, with $1 and $2 blinds and a $50 buy-in. The Union Plaza followed suit by spreading pot-limit hold'em with similar blinds and a $40 buy-in. Not exactly what we saw in "Rounders". But live big-bet poker has become affordable, so I thought I'd give it a try.
I went to the Stratosphere Sunday night. I figured I'd buy-in for the minimum, and give "the Cadillac of poker" a test-drive. There was one table going (the no-limit tournament going on was down from 5 tables to 3, so there were plenty of no-limit players in the room), and when I put my name on the list, they had enough to start a second game, which would be a "must-move" game.
I bought in for $60 (I just didn't have the heart to say, "soft-break, 50-10") and sat down. Most of the players bought in for $80-100, except for the player on my right, who had $300.
I immediately noticed the first of many things that I would learn that night: no-limit hold-em MAKES you pay attention. We've all heard a million times that we should be studying our opponents at all times, and not watching the ballgame on tv, and yadda-yadda-yadda. Well, from the moment I sat down, my antennae went up and started twitching. I noticed that the guy who bought in for $300 had his game-face on. I noticed which of my opponents seemed nervous, and were probably playing this game for the first time. I recognized two others whom I had played with earlier in the week in a small limit game. They seemed like the type who spent a lot of time in poker rooms, and I remember tabbing them with a "weak-tight" label.
I spent the first 10-15 minutes trying to get into their heads; which ones knew how to play, which ones came to gamble, which ones were sick gamblers who wanted to lose (there are a lot of them out there). These are things I usually consider, but this night I was INTENSELY concentrating on stuff like this.
(At this point, the reader should look into MY head, to see where I'm coming from. I usually play low-limit hold'em, and usually destroy these games. I've only played higher than $6-12 once, and that was a long time ago, and I got killed. I wasn't very experienced then, and I'm looking forward to putting together a bankroll and moving up. I've been away from the game awhile helping my wife out with the babies. But I've been playing part-time for a few months now, and that bankroll is starting to take shape.
I've read a ton of Sklanskly, Malmuth, and Caro, as well as some Cappelletti, Ciaffone, West, and Zee. While I'm deeply indebted to these men, there is one glaring omission from this list: Brunson. I've read and re-read all those books, and I don't know anything about no-limit hold-em!!!)
I am going to play strictly ABC. I am not going get committed to a pot unless I've got the goods. If my opponents pick-up on this and decide that they're not going to pay me off, that's OK with me. I really don't expect to make much money at this. I'm just here for the experience, and if it ends up costing me $60, so be it.
First hand: first 5 players pass, next player makes it $15 to go, all fold.
I guess this is going to be a lot different than no-fold'em.
Next hand I pick up KJ. I'll usually play this up front in low-limit, if the opposition is weak. But then I remembered being told that for years, the "Doyle Brunson" hand was not 10-2, but AQ. Doyle refused to play AQ, I guess because when it made the second-best hand, it cost a bundle. I folded my KJ.
It became apparent to me that hands like KJ, KT, QJ, or even KQ could lead to a lot of trouble in this game. Mark this down as the second thing I learned that night. I decided to dump these hands up front, and to proceed with caution, if at all, in late position.
Hey, I thought, I'm getting pretty good at this.
I fold my KJ. 5 people see the flop for $2. After the flop, a pretty girl in the #4 seat asks how many more cards will be put on the table. I immediately take note of how many chips she has, and imagine them in my stack. 15 checks later, bottom pair wins a $10 pot.
Well, this isn't very exciting.
Later, a few people call the $2, Mister Three-stacks-of-red makes it $20 to go, all fold to the big blind. She's young, pretty, and lost. She looks at the dealer. "There's been a raise," she's told. "How much to call?", she asks. "$20."
Her jaw drops. She puts in the $20.
I don't remember the flop. She checks. Mr. Bigstack bets $100. BB asks, "He can do that?" This girl had been playing $1-5 stud with her mother, and they both came over to this game at her mother's urging. It seems that she had no idea what the words "no-limit" meant, and she was finding out the hard way. It was becoming clear to her that yes, he bet $100, and that if she wanted to call, she'd have to put the rest of her money in. "Well that sucks," she said, and sadly mucked her hand.
As Mr. Bigstack was stacking his chips, she asked, "What did you have?" He just smiled. "What did you have?", she asked again, thinking that he must not have heard her the first time. He smiled and said that he was sorry, but he couldn't tell her. "Come on," she pleaded, in that persuasive womanly way. He laughed, but still refused to give in. "Asshole!" she cried, but in a good-natured way.
Next hand all fold to the Asian guy in the #1 seat (I mention his ethnicity for a reason. I'll explain why in a minute). He makes it $15 to go. All fold to the same pretty girl, who is now the small blind. She doesn't know what to do. She was not at all prepared for this kind of game. She looks at her mother. "If you have a good hand, call!", urges her mother. The player next to her mentions the one-player-to-a-hand rule. Daughter calls, all others fold.
Flop comes Jack-rag-rag. She checks, he bets about $20, she looks at her mother! Mom re-iterates, "If you have a good hand, call!" Mom gets lectures from everyone at that end of the table, including the dealer. Daughter check-calls all the way, calling all-in on the river. Board still Jack-high. Asian guy shows J6!! Daughter shows KJ, takes it down!!
"My God, these are some bad players!", I think.
Asian guy buys more chips. The reason I think his race may play a part in this hand is as follows: aren't women supposed to submit to men in that culture? I know this may sound bigoted, but I've seen this act before. I'm not saying ALL ASIAN MEN WANT WOMEN TO BOW DOWN. It just MAY have led this guy to over-play his weak-ass hand.
Next hand Asian guy comes in with a raise, Cocky Kid (who hasn't played a hand yet, and is one of the "weak-tight" players I mentioned, but talks a good game) re-raises to about $30. Cocky Kid loves to hear himself say the words "come over the top", and now he does it. Asian guy calls, they're heads-up. Flop is Ace-rag-rag. Asian guy bets about $30, Kid goes all-in, about $50 more, Asian guy calls. Kid show A8, Guy shows A9. Neither improves, Kid is busted, Kid quits. I was expecting some tough competition in this game. These guys just put all their money in on hands that I couldn't play!
Later, I discussed this hand with a friend of mine. He said that he knew Cocky kid, and thought that he was excellent at reading hands. If Cocky kid put Asian guy on Ace-no-kicker, he would put it all in with a hand like A8. Since Asian over-played his 6-kicker the prior hand, I guess Cocky kid expected to see the same.
Now pretty young daughter quits. She's not having any fun, even though she's winning. She's very nervous, and she wasn't nervous at $1-5 stud. She picks up her chips and heads back to the stud game.
Three other players follow her. Or should I say, they follow her chips.
This game is on its last legs (and I KNOW that this story sounds like it's on its last legs, but it gets better). Fortunately, my name gets called, and I "must move". I get up, not having been involved in a pot with more than $5 in it. I'm about even. I can't recall the play of any hands, but I think I picked up the blinds a couple of times. I'm about even, maybe down about $5.
I sit in the main game. This line-up looks quite a bit different. They all look like grizzled poker veterans. A lot of Orleans jackets and Binions caps. I fold the first dozen hands that I'm dealt. Very few flops are put out. Some one makes it $8 or $12 to go, and all drop. Tough to get a line on anyone's play, because no one wants to play a hand. I do notice that there is a LOT more money on the table. I'm the only one with less than $200.
Finally, I get to play a hand, and what a hand! Pocket Aces!!
I feel a rush of adrenaline the moment I see what my cards are. I mean a REAL rush!! My heart is thumping. This is a dream-come-true. I'm playing no-limit hold'em, for real money, and I've got Pocket Aces under the gun!!
I quickly recall the only strategy tip that I've ever heard about no-limit: in early position, limp in with a big pair, and if it's raised behind you, come back at 'em hard. I call the $2. Fold, fold, fold, raise-make it $6. Fold, button calls, blinds fold, up to me. There's $17 out there. Winning $17 is not my dream-come-true. I'll keep slow-playing, for now. I call.
Flop comes 9d-8d-2c. I check, raiser bets $10 (I'm disappointed that it's not more), and the button calls. Now there's close to $40 out there, and the board could get real scary, real soon. Slow-playing time is over. I move all-in. The dealer announces, "Raise, make it $50 and all-in." Both of my opponents raise their eyebrows. They muck their hands without hesitation.
(I don't have any idea if I played this hand correctly or not, and I don't think that I have any poker acquaintances who have opinions about live no-limit hold'em that I could respect. I went out the next morning and bought the Cloutier/McEvoy pot-limit and no-limit book, so I suppose I'll find out soon.)
I start stacking the chips, and I think of a roller-coaster. You know how you feel when you step off of a roller-coaster? You've got your feet back on solid ground, and you try to catch your breath, and your rapidly-beating heart starts to return to normal? I know that sounds like a lot of hype, but I'm being sincere when I say that's really how I felt after moving all my chips in, and not getting cracked.
And that was it. No more big confrontations, no more drama. I play for another 30 minutes, and it was rather boring. These guys just weren't giving away their money. I noticed that Mother and Daughter were playing $1-5 stud at the next table. The pots were bigger over there than they were over here. I took my $68 and move to the stud table.
(The no-limit story isn't over. The good part is still coming!)
I know some of the people who work in the room, and I chat about the experience. It was interesting, and I made eight bucks. I probably won't play it again, though. I sit down at the stud table. On the first hand I see, one player is betting his hand all the way, and has 3 callers all the way. He bets the river, fold, fold, now it's on the guy in the #2 seat, who from now on will be referred to as the Fish (I told you the story would get good soon). The Fish announces that even though he has absolutely nothing, he would never fold and let someone win a pot this big uncontested. He called, and was shown a real hand (I didn't notice what it was). The Fish turned up his hand, proving that he really WOULD call with no-pair.
I played at this stud table for about an hour, and watched the Fish squander the remainder of that rack, then another, then another! $300 in a $1-5 stud game in a little more than an hour? I don't think I could do that if I TRIED TO! And the remarkable thing was, he was PROUD of the amount that he had lost! He bragged about calling with nothing, because he "came to Las Vegas to GAMBLE!" When he had the low card, he'd bring it in for the max, $5. And if you raised his bring-in, you'd better keep some chips handy, because he was gonna re-raise in the dark. It was really something to see. And he'd keep making announcements like, "I call. I'm down over $200, but I don't care." After a while it was, "I'm down over $300, but I don't care." It was as if to say, "Well, you guys might play poker better than I do, but even though you've taken a few hundred dollars, YOU CAN'T HURT ME, NYAA-NYAA-NYAA."
Meanwhile, the no-limit hold'em game was breaking up. It was close to midnight, and they were playing short-handed.
I guess the Fish realized that he had no chance to get even in a $5 limit game (and he was less interested in playing after Daughter called it a night), so he picked up his chips and moved to the no-limit game. At the time, there were just 2 guys playing heads-up. The Fish took the #3 seat and pulled out $200. I wasted no time. I jumped into the #4 seat (where else?), and decided that I wanted more than $60 on the table. I was sure that if I made a hand, the Fish would pay me off. I pulled out another $100. As the dealer was selling chips to Fish and me, three more players from that stud game followed us to this game. The two guys that were playing heads-up looked at each other in amazement. They tried to keep from laughing out loud, but were unable to do so. One of them pointed to Fish and said, "This guy sits down, and suddenly we have a game again."
First hand: a couple of limpers, then Fish makes it $50 to go. I don't even know if he looked at his cards. All fold. Fish chides the other players. "No one wants to play? I thought this was Vegas! Let's gamble!"
Fish ran over the next few pots, too. If he didn't overbet before the flop, he would on the flop. He'd usually pick up a little pot, sometimes get caught by a real hand. I noticed that the people holding the real hands were too timid. I didn't fear any of the players who came from the stud game. Most were playing ABC. One of the original heads-up guys was, too. But the other heads-up guy struck me as a solid player, one to be aware of.
Soon a new player sat down. His name was Knox. I don't know if I'll ever learn as much from a book as I learned from watching Knox play.
Knox was a chatterbox. He would talk to no one in particular, but could be heard by all. He was NOT annoying. He had this down-home country accent, and a good sense of humor. He would talk between hands. He would talk on the flop, talk some more on the turn, and usually be respectfully silent on the river, and then start talking after the hand was over. His chatter and humor actually relaxed the rest of us.
The game got a lot looser after Knox got in. Knox would also raise every pot. Not much. Instead of $2 to go, he would make it $5 to go. Every time. The players who had to act before him got into the habit of calling the $2 blind by tossing in a $5 chip. That way, after Knox would enthusiastically raise, they could point to the chip that was already out there and say, "call".
What he was doing was two-fold: the extra money in before the flop loosened up everybody (myself included); and since he could out-play just about everybody in the game after the flop, he made sure that we all put some money in.
And it wasn't long before Knox went to work on Fish.
Fish was still in the habit of splashing chips in before the flop. Knox would usually be the only one to call. And Fish won some pots. But more often, Knox would show him a better hand, or bet enough to drive him out of the pot. Granted, Knox had a good run of cards. But it wasn't long before Knox's original buy-in of $300 had swollen to two racks of red ($1000), and almost all of it came from Fish.
Fish would get busted, buy $200 or $300 more, and get busted again. One time an Ace hit the flop, Fish had Ace-rag, and Knox had Ace-king. Busted again.
Fish bought another $200. He was steaming after that one. He thought that getting out-kicked qualified as a bad beat.
Knox made it $5 to go, as usual, Fish makes it $60. He's steaming pretty good.
I look down and see that I have the button, and I've got Pocket Queens.
First thought: does Fish have Aces or Kings?
Second thought: Fish has 2 random cards. Period.
Third thought: if I move all-in, Fish will not give up that $60 without a fight. He will not fold.
Fourth thought: I hope no one else calls. if they do, I’m in trouble.
Last thought: I haven't played a single hand yet, and they all know it.
"I'm all in," I tell the dealer. I push out about $150.
Everybody dumps, except Fish. "I call," he says, and proudly turns up his Pocket Nines.
I feel a slight sense of relief, but I remind myself that it's not over. I note that my Queens are black, and his Nines are red.
The dealer burns a card, then counts off three cards face down. She grabs the face-down pile and turns them face-up. But I relax before she spreads them out; the top card is a Queen.
Fish doesn't improve his pair, and I've doubled from $150 to $300. This is pretty heady stuff. You don't pull in many $300 pots when all you play is $1-4-8-8 hold'em.
Fish buys $500 in chips now. He's no longer boasting about how much he's losing. In retrospect, I think it stopped being fun for him after he crossed the $1000 mark.
Meanwhile, Knox continues to feast on Filet-O-Fish. Fish comes in for $50, all fold, Knox re-raises $100 more. Fish calls.
Flop comes J-8-7 rainbow. Knox bets $200. Fish calls.
Turn a 6. Knox says "I'm all in," and pushes four racks of red forward.
Fish has about three or four hundred left on the table. He thinks for a minute, then folds.
Knox says, "I'll tell you what, I had the stone bananas that time," and turns up his hand: 4-3 offsuit!! He bet $2000 on a hand that couldn't beat the board.
To his credit, Fish tried to control himself. But he was visibly shaking.
The VERY NEXT HAND, I've got Q9s on the button. A few limpers, Knox makes it $5 as usual, Fish just calls (not as unusual as it would've seemed earlier), I call. Small blind (the solid player) bumps it $20 more. A lot of callers to me, and no chance of a re-raise behind me. I call. About $150 in the middle.
Flop comes Jc-Tc-3s. I got the straight draw, but if this guy makes a huge bet at this $150 pot, I can't draw.
Surprise: he only leads into it for $25. Limper folds, Knox and Fish call, I call (in limit, I love raising in this spot, trying for the free card. Here, a raise would be suicidal! Another lesson learned.)
Turn card: the lovely 8 of spades. I would've preferred a red 8, but I guess I got the nuts, and the button, and $250 in the middle, so I shouldn't bitch. Small blind leads out again, this time for $30. I don't have any idea what he could have, and I'm not sure that I care any more. Knox calls, Fish raises to $100!! Again, he could have anything! This raise causes me absolutely no concern. I've got him! He loves his hand. And after being beaten by a huge bluff last hand, I'm convinced that I will get paid if I put my money in the center. My only decision is whether to put it all in now, or be cute and try to make a few extra dollars.
I look at the board. It's scary as hell to a guy holding the nut straight. Two clubs on the flop, and two spades after the turn card. It's not inconceivable that someone has a set or two-pair, which means there could be more than just flushes drawing against me. There's $400 out there. Like Alec Guinness telling Mark Hamill, "Use the Force, Luke", I hear David Sklansky's voice telling me, "Win the big pots NOW, Bobby!" I remember that slowplaying is OK if you can't get outdrawn, and if the pot is small. Well, since this is the biggest pot that I've ever played for in my life...
"I'm all in," I say solemnly and quietly. Small blind quickly folds, Knox quickly folds, Fish quickly calls.
The dealer puts down the burn card, and I say, "Red card, please." Actually, that's what I WANTED to say. What came out of my mouth was, "RED CARD!!!"
Phew! It's red.
And it's doesn't have too many pips, so I don't think it paired the board. I should be safe.
It's a Seven. A safe, harmless Seven of Diamonds. Victory is mine. I can relax.
Or so I thought.
I hear Fish say proudly, "I have a straight!"
Oh God, no. You mean I didn't win that pot? I might have to split it?
The board shows J-T-3-8-7. Fish turns over T9.
"Nine makes a straight," the dealer said gently.
I turn up my hand. "Queen-Nine makes a higher straight," she announces.
Fish wound up and punched the tabletop. Hard. I was surprised that neither he nor the table suffered serious damage.
Now I had five stacks of red, two coarse C-notes, and some assorted white chips and coins. This was looking like the biggest score of my young career.
And Fish bought more chips.
Now it was getting close to 4 AM. I was on my 3rd beer. I never drink when I play cards, but Knox ordered a beer when he sat down, and after he won a nice hand, he said, "The beer sure tastes good in this place, don't it?" I gave in to the temptation, ordered a beer, and it DID taste good. I haven't used the expression, "I need a drink" since my high-stress military intelligence days, and I didn't even realized I felt that way, but that beer provided some relief of the tension I was feeling. It didn't seem to take away any of my concentration. It just seemed to take the edge off. The second beer, too.
Most of the weak players who followed us from the stud game had busted out. They made some terrible plays. One called $100 all-in with nothing but a flush draw on the flop, and not much more that $20 in the pot.
The next hand that I played: AK in the little blind. Knox made it $5 to go, I made it $30 to go. I get 3 callers (but not Knox. He mucks).
The flop is Kh-9s-5s. I have no spades. I’m first. Do I bet out, or try for a check raise? There is $120 in the middle. I’ll bet at it, and if no one calls, fine. If someone raises, I’m putting it all-in.
"I bet $200," I announce. I gotta tell you, the next morning, I laughed out-loud every time I pictured myself pushing two stacks of red and announcing that I was betting $200 on a hand that wasn’t the nuts. Remember, for me, heavy action is when I get to say, "Re-raise, make it $24."
Solid Player to my left takes a while to think it over. This makes me a little nervous, but I don’t sweat it. I’ve already decided that I’m committed to this pot.
Knox is still chattering. He points to Fish, and says to me, "This boy’s got 9’s and 5’s. Can you beat 9’s and 5’s?"
I smile. I can see what Knox is trying to do. He knows Solid Player. They’re the only two pros at this table. I’m not accusing Knox of anything, but I believe that when he’s chattering to a player that’s in a hand, he’s trying to guage reactions and pick up tells. Knox isn’t involved in this hand, but he might be trying to read me now, to help him later. But he knows Solid Player by name. It is possible that he’s trying to induce a tell out of me to help Solid Player NOW.
I turn to answer Knox’s question. I’m about to agree with him that I’m in trouble if someone flopped two-pair. But as I inhale to begin speaking, I notice that I don’t feel steady at all. I know that if I try to speak, it’s not going to come out smoothly and naturally. So all they get out of me is that smile. It’s a little bit forced. I’m rather upset that I’m sending out tells like a broadcast beacon, and I’m trying to hide it by smiling, and this quasi-phony smile IS the tell!!
Solid player folds, then everyone else follows. I pick up the $120 in the middle, plus my $200 bet, and I thank the table for folding. I tell them that calling would’ve been OK, too, but folding is fine by me.
Of course, I gave away far too much information with all this chatter. But I was pretty nervous with the kind of action I was involved with that hand, and had a lot of tension to release.
Another lesson learned: you need more than skill and a bankroll to play this game; you need BALLS.
The next time I had the button, I picked up A9. Fold, fold, Knox makes it $5 as usual, Fish calls as usual. I feel pretty sure that I have the best hand (three beers ago, I said I wouldn’t even PLAY a hand like A9!), and that if I put in a good sized raise I would either win right there, or be heads-up with Fish. I make it $30.
The blinds fold. Knox calls and Fish folds.
RED ALERT! RED ALERT!
THIS is not what I wanted. I wanted to milk Fish. I didn’t want to tangle with THIS guy. I look at the tower of full racks in front of him. I’m feeling a fear that I’ve never before felt at a poker table.
Flop comes A-Q-2 rainbow. Knox checks. Knox hasn’t checked very much all night. If he’s in a hand, he’s usually betting or raising or folding. He’s just about never checking or calling. But I know that Knox is paying attention. He’s already made a few comments about how tight I’m playing. He probably has put me on a much bigger hand than I actually have, and he doesn’t like the flop one bit. I’ll bet and give him a chance to drop. I put in $60, about the size of the pot.
Knox calls. I smell a rat. A big one.
I look at his stack of chips again, and I look at my beautiful stack, and I fear the worst. At this point, I’d rather be somewhere else, doing anything else. I decide to get away from this hand.
The turn card is a blank. Knox checks. I take a few more seconds to think about it, then I check behind him.
River is another 2. Board shows A-Q-2-x-2, no flush. There’s a little less than $200 in the pot.
Knox thinks about it for a moment, then bets $100. I’m still puzzled. Why is he playing this hand so differently than all the other hands he’s played all night? He hadn’t checked twice in a row all night. He hadn’t bet as little as $100 at a pot this big all night. What gives?
Of course, he had been playing against Fish all night, and not me. Maybe he was as unhappy to be in a pot with me as I was with him (not that he was afraid of my skills, but rather the fact that if I’m putting money in, I’ve got a hand). Maybe he’s worried, too.
He didn’t reach for his chips until I showed weakness and checked on the turn. Then he bet $100. It sure seemed like a bluff to me. I could also imagine that once he decided to bluff, he didn’t want to lose too much if he got called (or raised). And even though I was playing super-weak-tight, he didn’t know if I could lay down a decent hand when there was now $300 out there.
What if it’s not a bluff? What hand could he have that would beat me? When the board paired on the end, my kicker got better (now I have Aces-up with a Queen). If Knox had AK, I think I would’ve heard about it before the river. If he has AQ, I’m in trouble, but it just doesn’t seem like he’d play it that way.
I figure he either has Ace-rag (which would be a split pot), or he’s bluffing. Either way, I’ve got an easy call.
Knox seems surprised that I call so quickly. He says, "I can’t beat an Ace. If you’ve got an Ace, you’ll just have to take the money." I turn up my hand. "I can’t beat an Ace," he repeats, and mucks his hand. Since he has acted like a classy gentleman all night, I don’t ask the dealer to show us Knox’s hand, so I can’t tell you what he had. He did look upset with himself though, and when his chattering started again I heard him remark, "Boy, I made a mistake there."
The waitress brought Knox another beer. "I didn’t order this," he said. She just assumed that he wanted another one, as he had been drinking them since he got there. Knox pointed to me. "Give it to him," he told her. "I don’t want no more beer, but I know he does." I was thirsty. I took the beer. It tasted good. Doesn’t beer always taste better when you’re happy?
Knox quit the game a few hands later. He was not nearly as jovial after the hand he played with me. He must’ve decided that the beer might have hindered his play. I couldn’t believe that anyone would quit a game that Fish was playing in.
But maybe Knox noticed something that I didn’t notice until much later: Fish was actually playing tighter. He had screwed down, and I hadn’t noticed (do you think that the beer was starting to hinder MY play?).
A little later I get Ah-Jh in the big blind. Solid player UTG limps, a player whom I haven’t seen play a hand ALL NIGHT limps, a new player (who bought in for the minimum and got broke twice by Knox and now has about $11 left) limps on the button, Fish calls from the small blind. There are 5 of us at the table, and everybody wants to limp in. I make it $12 to go. All call (new player is all-in before the flop).
Flop comes 8h-7h-2c. There is about $50 in there. Fish checks.
I bet $50. I hope no one calls, but if someone does, I still have a chance.
Solid player UTG says, "I’m all in." He’s got about $700. I have about the same.
Now what do I do?
I decide immediately that I can’t call him heads up. This $700 I’ve got on the table is a significant portion of my fledgling bankroll. No sense taking silly chances.
Mr. Super-Weak-Tight-Hasn’t-Played-A-Hand-All-Night is next to act, and asks for time. He takes at least 3 full minutes, and no one says a word, nor acts irritated. Now if he calls, can I call? He’s got about $300 in front of him. No, I guess I can’t. Moot point anyway; he mucks.
Fish folds. I sigh. I fold. I wonder what would’ve happened if I had called. Would I have caught that heart to make the nut flush? Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream.
The dealer was counting the rack or something, and lost track of the action. "What happened?", she asked.
"It’s over," I told her. "Give him the pot."
"Wait, I still have a hand!", cried the all-in player. I forgot about him.
The side-pot was awarded. The remaining cards were dealt. The turn card was the 4h. D’OH!!!!
"Why did you have to show me that? Why did you have to torture me?", I asked in vain.
Solid player shows his 72s to take the main pot. He had flopped bottom two-pair.
Of course, my initial reaction was: 72??? Oh yeah, it was SUITED!!! Nice hand sir. WELL PLAYED.
Upon further reflection, though, I decided that calling a small raise with 72s wasn’t a bad play at all, as long as you thought that Fish was going pay you if you hit a hand.
A little later: I’ve got Pocket Sevens on the button. This strikes me as a better hand for no-limit than limit. New player limps, Fish limps, I make it $10 to go (note that since Knox left, there is always less money in the pot before the flop, so the raises have gotten smaller. Before, it would take $20-30 to limit the field. Now $10 does the trick).
Solid player in the SB folds. Mr. Still-Haven’t-Played-A-Hand-All-Night is the BB and makes it $30 to go. New player folds, Fish quickly calls. I need 7-1 odds if I want to try to flop a set. I’m getting 7-2 now, but the sky’s the limit later. I think that BB has a huge pair, and if a seven falls, they’ll BOTH pay me. I call.
Flop comes something like Kh-Th-9d. Not what I had hoped for. Oh well, better luck next time. I’ll fold.
But I can’t. Mr. Weak/Timid checks, Fish checks, so I check.
Turn is the 7h. The good news is I made my set. The bad news is the three hearts on board, not to mention a million straight possibilities.
But before I get a good chance to think this through, Mr. Tight bets $50 into this $90 pot, and Fish moves all-in for a total of $98.
Now the dealer is looking at me, waiting for me to act. "Time, please," I say, "and this’ll probably take a few minutes."
(When I tell this story to my friends who occasionally play poker, I ask them what they would do in this spot. I get the same answer every time: "I don’t know." I always reply, "Well, I don’t know either, but everybody at the table is looking at me, so I have to do SOMETHING.")
I quickly decide that I want to call Fish. He could very likely have a stupid hand. He could’ve put it all-in with the bare Ace of Hearts, drawing to a flush, or an 8 for a straight draw. And if he does have me beat, he’s not gonna get any more money out of me on the river.
What worries me is Mr. Weak. He checked the flop, but bet when the 7h fell. I just couldn’t put him on a hand, because he hadn’t shown a hand all night. I felt that he was only gonna call here, whether I came in or not. Unless he held the nuts, I didn’t think he’d play back. And if he did play back, I’d put him on the nuts, and decide whether I wanted to draw for the boat.
Oh yeah, I might be beat at this point by a straight or flush, but if I am, I have outs! I get to call! I hope that Mr. Weak just calls.
How much money do I have? I’m up $600? Well, since I’m playing with their money, I’ll make a loose call (when I press my friends for an answer besides, "I don’t know", they usually say, "Well, it depends on whether I’m winning or losing. If I’m way ahead, I’ll call." I tell them that this is a terrible reason to make a call, and that sure enough, I used the same reasoning to reach my decision).
I call. "I just don’t have the good sense to lay it down," I mutter aloud. Mr. Weak calls.
River is a blank. He checks. Fish can’t wait to turn up his hand. I’m probably beat for the main pot. Should I bet my set for value on the side?
There is currently $0 in the side-pot. If I bet and I’m called, I’m in trouble. I decide that no good can come from betting, so I check, too.
Mr. Weak flopped a set of Nines. Fish showed 86. He hit a 2-out gut-shot (remember I had 77 in the hole), and went all-in despite the hearts on board.
I immediately began to dissect my play of the hand, and decided that I was a chump. Calling close to $100 with bottom set, when the board is showing straights and flushes, with the possibility of a substantial re-raise behind me, may have been the single worst play that I’ve ever made since I figured out how to play this game. Maybe I’m being too hard on myself, but I doubt it. And another thing, meat-head: do you think those beers may have played into your decision to be Fearless Man??
I looked at my watch. It’s 4:30 AM. My wife is gonna kill me. I rationalized all night that when she heard my Fish Story, she’d go easy on me. Well, that may have worked at 2 AM or 3 AM, but the sun will be up before I get home. I cannot believe that I’m quitting while Fish still has money, but I’m tired, I’m too drunk to play for this much money, and I might just blow it all if I stay. I started with about $160, and I cash out for about $500. I guess I shouldn’t feel too disappointed. But I do. It was like a really great movie, that had a really crappy ending.
But playing that hand wasn’t the end. Cashing the chips was the end. So I guess there was a happy ending after all :-)
But the sequel doesn’t look very promising. I’ve played low-limit poker 4 times since that night, and I’ve booked 4 straight losers. I’m playing way too many hands, and trying way too many bluffs. I think I’ve been trying to duplicate the adrenaline rushes I felt that night. I’d better straighten up and fly right real soon.
I’ve been back to the Stratosphere since. It’s all tough players again. No Fish.
But the experience was unforgettable.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
(Disclaimer: I am employed by the Stratosphere Poker room.)
UPDATE: Since the original version was written, fish HAVE been spotted in the Strat's no-limit game. They may not bring a few thousand dollars to the table, but the still leave broke almost every time.
Next time we play, I'll annihilate you you racist pig!!!
I liked your story. But, now you see that it is impossible to feel the same excitement playing limit poker. Now, you know why.
I immediately noticed the first of many things that I would learn that night: no-limit hold-em MAKES you pay attention.
1. ABSOLUTELY true.
2. On your AA hand, I would have moved all in after
the first raise because you had more than one opponent.
3. Good all-in with QQ, knowing the Fish was the key
to this one.
4. Good fold with the AJs hand.
5. Yes, the beers impacted both Knox and your play.
6. Only in America can you play N/L hold em with the
Fish and the pretty girl who is lost.
Bobby,
GREAT report. I noticed the ads in Card Player for both the Plaza and Stratosphere games, and after reading Ciaffone's stuff, I finally got to pay big bet poker at reasonable limits on vacation in LV the week before last.
I didn't have a Fish that bad in the game, but I still had a great time. Since your stack is always at risk, your awareness is heightened; you see things, and hopefully, you begin to think like a poker player.
Every decision becomes more important. It's hard to go back to limit poker after my big bet sessions. I hope these games thrive and are still there when I get back to LV in ttthe fall. I'd also like to see a lot more discussion of big bet hands in this forum. What a great game.
Fat-Charlie
Great post.
For the record, I think you did fine on the hand with AA UTG. When the two suited flop came it then became time to go all-in.
Dave in Cali
Hi there. I am a fairly new player playing at the Canterbury card club in Minnesota (just opened up), and i was wondering something while re-reading HEFAP. It says the different hands to call/raise/fold in different positions, but what if i am in a loose passive game where the players are really bad?
*If* there is a raise pre-flop at the 4-8 table, there always seems to be at least 4 callers. So my question is this: how low on the S&M chart can you go and with what position?
characteristics of many Canterbury players from my experience: -Ax is keepable, by some players it is very raiseable -position and pot odds are not even thought about -*anything* suited is playable -players with few chips try to raise in an effort to buy the pot
i just feel bad folding my 76s in early position against a raise (and sometimes a straddle!) because someone has AX and they feel they must raise it...and then the pot has 4-6 players calling.
Fistdantilus
Fistdantilus,
I believe you are in a game that is very tempting to lure players into making poor plays because they see the garbage everyone else is playing and the frequency with which they are playing it. Playing hands for raises and hands out of position are a sure fire way to burn through a bankroll.
In regards to cold calls of raises, this is a pet peeve of mine. I just finished re-reading John Feeneys book and I agree 100% with his assessment that you can basically get a good feel for opponents by watching how many times they cold call a raise. From my experience, players who cold call raises with any frequency are usually poor players and do not last very long in the games. Do NOT fall into the trap of cold calling raises.
In regards to position, do NOT fall into the trap of playing hands like 6-7 suited up front where you are at great risk of having to call a raise and then be in crap position for the entire hand. You are giving up very little by not playing hands such as these but are risking a lot when you start playing hands such as medium suited connectors in early or middle positions.
Starters and position in holdem are crucial elements of the game. Just because others fall into this trap, I assure you that consistent winning players do not. I would suggest practicising self-discipline and exercising patience and waiting for a situation where you have premium hands or very strong hands with position and then invest heavily in those situations. Just my thoughts, hope they help.
Michael D.
I need some advice on playing short handed. I'm talking about 6 handed, 5 handed, 4 handed... these are how the games at my club usually slowly break every night. I am a skilled ring game player but it seems I dont have as strong a grasp on short handed play. If anyone can offer help I would be greatly appreciative.
Thanks.
Read the shorthanded section of HFAP 21st. It's very useful.
The optimal strategy in ring game fullhanded play is tight aggressive. The optimal strategy or "gear" in short handed play is loose aggressive. Once the game starts to breakdown and go from fullhanded to shorthanded, take advantage of those players who are stuck in ring game gear by quickly shifting gears from tight aggressive to loose aggressive. Stop playing small suited connectors because these hands go down in value (due to the lack of implied odds) in shorthanded games. Shorthanded play is a big card game. If the game has as little as 4 players or less, you can raise with any As or Ks or even Qs. Because in shorthanded play no one is liable to have good cards, it's imperative that you raise, bluff, and steal with any hand, especially if they have a big card (or two big cards) in it. Be a maniac in shorthanded play and try to run over the rocks. Be a warrior, gladiator, carnivore, as opposed to merely being a player, or worse, a grinder.
B.F.--Can you give examples of starting hands for 5 handed, 4 handed.....Thanks
Don't play the hands. Play the players. If the table is full of weak tight players, raise every hand. If the players are maniacs, leave.
Much of the wisdom touted on this forum is to never give free cards to drawing hands when you have a good but beatable hand. "Make them pay through the nose to draw", Jim Brier is fond of saying. You don't want to give them infinite odds on their draw. Does it follow then, that if you have a draw you always want a free card? (Unless of course you're going for a semi bluff)
No it doesn't follow.
Some draws are strong enough, if there are enough callers, they gain from the extra betting and even putting in the raises themselves.
I think the confusion is this. With just one or two opponents you don't want to give any draws a free card. With many callers, they can't all be on good draws so you don't want to give the weaker draws a free card. You will share the EV with the really good draws though.
D.
Here are a couple examples: 1) Lets say you have the nut flush draw on the flop and there is no pair. One guy bets and 6 other guys call. When you raise you are getting more money in the pot compared to the odds against making the flush. If everybody calls the raise you are getting 6to1 on a hand that is less then a 2to1 dog. If it were heads up your reason for raising would be for a free card as you are now only getting 1to1 on your almost 2to1 dog.
2) Another example of where you would definetely prefer the freebie is when you have a gut draw. If you are getting 18to1 from the pot you would have to call the bet which reduces your odds from infinite, to a mere 18to1. You see the difference between the two?
You should bet a super draw like an open ended straight flush draw, or a flush draw AND a straight draw, or a flush draw AND two overcards, or a flush draw AND a gutshot, etc. When you have 12 or more outs with two cards to come you should usually bet since you are frequently a mathematical favorite to make a winning hand. As others I have pointed out the number of opponents makes a big difference as well.
Not to be nit picky, but a number divided by zero isn't infinity, it's undefined. Of course, when expressed in terms of odds I use the term *really good* when drawing for free.
Betting a draw is one of the most flexible weapons a poker player has. Each situation needs to be analyzed as to the effectiveness of a bet, raise or check-raise. I don't think that Jim was indicating that you should only wait for your >12 out hands to bet! These hands are not mathematical favorites to make a winning hand except in specific instances, but they are usually favorites to earn money.
I think the best coverage of these hands is in Sklansky & Malmuth's Hold'em for Advanced players. There is also a good section in Hold'em Poker (sklansky).
Most importantly, when you have a strong draw, you try your best to manipulate the size of the pot so that you get the best return on the equity you have in the hand. John Feeney points out (in his book) that he often sees players bet draws into sure raises, and in the situations to which he's referring, it has exactly the opposite effect of what you would want.
If a player bets what you *know* is big (top) pair with a good kicker and you're in a multi-way pot, why would you raise a medium flush draw if you're next to act? If you had a good overcard to the board (say the flop is 9 high) you might have a valid reason to raise even if you had a small suspicion that your opponent flopped a set.
If you have no way to improve your chances of winning more money with aggressive action, generally it's better to take the draw as cheaply as possible.
Low-Limit hold'em,
You've got something like A-4 offsuit in the Big Blind. Actually a pretty loose game, but there are only two callers and the small blind folds. You don't raise(mistake?)and the flop is: A-7-A, no two flush. You have a fairly conservative image, so if you bet the other two will most likely fold. Besides, the last guy to act will almost always bet, especially with a scary flop. So, you check and the notorious bluffer doesn't let you down.
How would you milk this guy from here on?
I only called the flop, and the third guy dropped. On the turn I check-raise him(I think a 9 hit)and he dropped, so I think this was possibly a mistake. The thing is that I wasn't too confident he'd bet the river if I checked again since I'd been calling him all this way with SOMETHING.
On these not-so-common occasions where you it's just you and a bluffer who happens to be acting last, plus you're pretty sure you've got him beat bad, I'm never sure how to go about getting that second big bet from him(not counting his flop bet or pre-flop bet).
-Randy
I think a check-raise on the turn is wrong. When you get a free play in the big blind and catch an Ace (or two), and you have a weak kicker, you basically have to play check and call. If your opponent has an ace, you're most likely beat, and if he doesn't let him keep betting at the pot. Maybe he'll catch a king or queen that pairs him on the river and he'll bet it or call if you bet.
Pre-flop, A-4 is not a raising hand out of position against two opponents.
I think a check-raise on the turn is wrong. When you get a free play in the big blind and catch an Ace (or two), and you have a weak kicker, you basically have to play check and call. If your opponent has an ace, you're most likely beat, and if he doesn't let him keep betting at the pot. Maybe he'll catch a king or queen that pairs him on the river and he'll bet it or call if you bet.
Okay, I can't say I agree with this at all. There's a big difference between flopping a pair of aces with no kicker and flopping trip aces with no kicker. Once you've flopped trips there's only one more ace in the deck. Even if the whole table took the flop you're not likely to run into that case ace, and if you do, who's to say he's got a kicker (that beats the board) either?
What you recommend in the above paragraph is reasonable advice with just a pair of aces against an overly aggressive bluffer, but with trip aces it's extremely unlikely that someone has anything better on a board of AA97 rainbow. It may not be wrong to check-call the above opponent, but your thinking here is very weak-tight.
FWIW, I think the original poster played it just fine, if he was concerned about the bluffer not betting on the river.
Pre-flop, A-4 is not a raising hand out of position against two opponents.
Obviously not. A4 isn't much of a raising hand at all, except to steal. But what does that have to do with this situation?
Me: [regarding the out-of-position A4 raise] But what does that have to do with this situation?
I didn't see this part of the original post: "You don't raise(mistake?)" which prompted Andy's comment about not option-raising with A4.
Yes, it is indeed less likely an opponent has an Ace when there are two on board. But since your opponent knows this too, he is much more likely to continue his bluff. I still don't like a check-raise on the turn; see Rick Niebolo's thinking on this below, with which I agree. I still think it's better to wait until the river if you're going to make a move here.
And, yes, my comment about not raising with A-4 was in response to poster's question.
You would not want to be raising out of your big blind with Ace-little offsuit. In fact, if someone else had raised you should fold unless it was a steal raise from the button.
One thing to keep in mind is that just because you bet and your opponent folds does not mean that you made a mistake. If your opponent does not have anything he probably was going to involved with the hand anyway. One tactic might be to just check-call the flop and then lead on the turn. Many opponents will try to buy the pot on the cheap street but freeze up on the expensive street and just try to check it down. However, an habitual bluffer will sometimes get suspicious when you suddenly lead on the turn after a blank falls.
Randy,
I would not even consider raising two loose game callers out of the blind with Ace small offsuit.
The best way to milk the guy is to check-call the flop, check-call the turn, and try for a checkraise on the river. If he checks behind on the turn you might again check on the river as he may bluff off his hopeless hands and bet some that will call your raise yet be beat.
Regards,
Rick
You played it fine. Your best bet with top set against a constant bluffer is to wait for the river, unless he'll tend to give it up when you don't drop on the turn. In this case, however, the problem with waiting for the river is that you're out of position. If you check on the river and he's picked up a litle something, he'll check. But if he gives up the bluff and you bet, he might call if he's spiked a pair.
Another alternative is to represent a counterbluff. Let's say, for example, that there were several players between you and the bluffer. On the flop, your best bet might be to checkraise -- quickly now -- in the hopes that he won't believe that you'd try to isolate him with top set. In effect, you're daring him to show you that he's not bluffing while suggesting to him that you're bluffing. When it works, it's incredibly profitable.
I raised early with Ac Ah and was 3 bet by a very solid player in middle position. All fold to me and I called.
The flop came Jc 5d 3c
I bet, he called.
The turn was the 6c
I bet, he raised, I re-raised, he called.
The river 5s
I bet, he called with the Kh Kd
I wonder if I played this too fast. When he called my flop bet, I figured he was planning to raise the turn. And when the 3rd club fell and he indeed raised the turn, I felt I could now re-raise with impunity since he could not re-raise again because I held the Ac. This also allows me to bet the river for value (even if I am beat by a flush or set) without fear of a raise. However, I wonder if he mis-played his hand given the clubs. Comments?
I wish that my only problems playing poker were whether or not I extracted as much money as I could from my opponents.
I don't know how you could have played the hand any better. I think your opponent made some tactical errors not necessarily due to the clubs being on the turn. He probably also made a "reading" error in that he put you on Queens (which you elicited by not 4 betting before the flop).
I probably would have raised you on the flop with my Kings rather than wait until the turn. I do this largely because this approach gives my game balance, but also because I need to give your bet some consideration on a flop like this, and I believe the hand is easier to play if I control the betting for one raise. If you 3 bet the flop, I will *know* that my Kings have run into a serious threat. In other words, I would rather lose 3 small bets than 3 big bets if I'm beat. Your opponent thought he had trapped you by representing over-cards on the flop, and pulling the trigger on the turn, but he only trapped himself. (Had you been raising with hands like A-J from this position?) I think he's pretty committed to going to the river with this hand head's up, though.
Pre-flop your smooth call of his 3 bet in this heads-up situation is okay but I would rather make this move when I have position over my opponent so my preference is to 4 bet and simply take control of the hand. I want to make sure I collect something on every street.
On the flop your lead is fine and I think your opponent should have raised your flop bet with his Kings. He needs to get a better feel of where he is at on the cheap street. Had he raised, you would of course re-raise to extract maximum money otherwise you lose your market if an Ace shows up.
On the turn, your play is fine and his raise is not at all that bad because he has the King of Clubs giving him a flush draw as well as his big over pair. At this point, based on the action so far he has no reason to believe he does not have both the best hand and the best draw.
I think you played the hand well.
Hand #1
6 handed game. Solid player raises 1 off the button, I call in the BB w/ 6s 5s. Heads up.
Flop= Ts 5d 2s
I check, he checks.
Turn= Th
I bet, he folds.
Does anyone think it was reckless to bet the turn? What about the call pre-flop? What if this same situation occured in a full game?
Hand #2
Preface: I had been going through a stretch of raising pre-flop only to have to lay down my hand on the flop or turn. I also made a big laydown against this player earlier.
I raised 1st in and was called by a loosish aggressive player in the sb. Heads up.
Flop came Tc 7h Th
He checked, I bet, he raised, I re-raised, he re-raised (capped), I called.
The turn was 3d
He bet, I raised, he mucked.
Aside from the fact that I didn't feel he would've played a ten in this fashion, I thought it was time to make a stand. I never show bluffs, but this time I turned my AKo face up and made a joke about being tired of getting pushed around. I also received action from him for the rest of the night. Did I play this whole hand foolhardy or are there times when it is correct to play a situation/player in this manner?
It would be easier to comment if I knew the limits you were playing at. With regard to the first hand, were you planning to check-raise the flop? Personally I'd have bet the flop. Solid player may well be on a steal, particularly as it is short-handed and you have a flush draw and middle pair - that is plenty to be betting with, and maybe even check-raising. On the turn he would have probably bet the flop if he had top-pair so feel free to bet the turn when another ten falls. All in all I'd say you weren't 'reckless' enough.
As for the second hand, if you had a good read on the player then by all means play the hand as you did. A lot of people would slowplay a T (although this is less likely when there are two of the same suit showing). However, he could well have a 7, or a pocket pair. Your aggression on the flop didn't buy a free card on the turn, so I'd have probably checked and called turn and river. But like I say, you know the player better than me.
Keyser.
Keyser-
I apologize. The ten and two were cubs not spades. I don't have a question if they were spades. I posted in a hurry. Sorry.
I apologize for my carelessness. The T and 2 were clubs not spades. I did NOT have a flush draw which of course makes a huge difference and is the reason for my question. Sorry....
I would be inclined to bet the flop. A check raise doesn't work as well here because if he's got over-cards he'll pull off a card for the extra bet and your hand may become difficult to play because you're out of position. Since you didn't bet the flop, betting the turn is designed to take the pot. Against an aggressive player that won't check twice, you might check-raise here.
Second hand: It sounds like you played the guy off of a small pair by representing a big pair. Good play, but I don't know that I would have shown my hand. Now you've basically made it impossible to use the same play later against anybody at the table. I don't know what kind of a player your opponent was, but it sounds like he was playing you for something like A-K, but was convinced by your betting action that you had him drawing thin. You likely stole a good sized pot with a 6 card out. I wouldn't want to give up on that option by showing my hand.
First Hand:
"I would be inclined to bet the flop."
Even with no hand? Isn't there too much of a chance that an aggressive player will raise with just overcards? Now you must fold. (remember I made a mistake in my original post. I did not have a draw) On the other hand, I would have folded the flop had he bet. But then I don't lose any more. His check surprised me. I thought he is either trying to trap or he made an out of line pre-flop raise. When the top card paired, I figured there was a good enough chance that a bet would win. (I could have been going for a check/raise on the flop).
"A check raise doesn't work as well here because if he's got over-cards he'll pull off a card for the extra bet and your hand may become difficult to play because you're out of position."
Agreed.
"Since you didn't bet the flop, betting the turn is designed to take the pot. Against an aggressive player that won't check twice, you might check-raise here. "
Again, are you saying that it is sometimes correct to make these plays with absolutely no hand?
Second Hand:
"Good play, but I don't know that I would have shown my hand. Now you've basically made it impossible to use the same play later against anybody at the table. "
You may be right. But I do not often put in 4 bets on the flop then raise the turn without a hand. This was purely a muscle play because I thought I was being muscled. In addition, I thought it may alleviate any weak/tight image that may have been fostered due to the cards I was getting and the way I had to play them because I was not hitting flops. I thought eliminating this weak/tight image was in my best interest. So my question is, does this make it correct to show this hand? I usually do not.
If I recall the first post, didn't you flop a pair of 5's? Head's up in a six handed game, that IS a hand. From the description of your play, I don't think you have to worry about a "weak-tight" image much. If you are folding in a head's up pot, in a short handed game, you are giving up too much. I'd read S&M's "short-handed play" section in Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players 21st Century edition.
If you fold on the flop shorthanded when you flop middle pair with a bunch of rags you're giving up way to much.
All good points. I'm assuming the first hand was heads up-- which makes it an O.K. pre-flop call (but not a no-brainer). If he's the type of player who will just call the flop with overcards, then a bet here is automatic whether you flop a pair or not. If he WILL raise with overcards then it's almost assured that he's also the type of player that will BET his overcards, which makes a check raising a nice play for two reasons-- first, you know where you are if he three bets (he probably has an overpair, since almost all players will slow down with nothing on the flop), and second it allows you to take it down on the turn.
As for the second hand, this is one of those plays that probably break about even in the long run. Sometimes they have something, sometimes they don't... I probably would have just called the flop raise and then two bet the turn, since you should be able to get him to lay down on the turn if he has nothing, and if he DOES have something you save money by not three betting the flop.
The first play was good. You should probably check-raise the flop if he bets, and bet about any card on the turn. This type of play will usually make your opponent fold overcards. But a bet on the turn is pretty standard good play. On the second hand, i think you overplayed it a tad. You put a lot of money in the pot hoping your opponent would eventually fold (after the 4th or 5th time you raised, he finally folded). It worked this time, but i wouldn't make a habit of this type of play. But given your read of the situation, it may have been a better play than it looks like on paper.
I won't look at the ohter replies... before posting.
I think your preflop call depends on what is happening at the table, is everyone raising before the flop? Or it is the case the raiser is playing as if he was playing a full game. I would prefer to be getting better than 3 1/2 to 1 but I think calling is ok.
I would bet the flop, you might have the best hand, and you have a great draw. And I like betting the turn, although you pbly have the best hand. And if not you most likely have 11 outs. The only reason to not bet is to try and induce a bluff. But I think you shold bet the flop, as in a short handed situation you can't give your opponent credit for a big hand. (Were you planning to checkraise the flop?)
In the second hand, I wouldn't have gone that far (was it still 6 handed?). Who is this player in the second hand?? Has this player /the table been overplaying hands??? I think if this is the case maybe making a play like yours isn't bad, for the long term perspective...
I have to apologize to all who took their time and responded to this post. I must have been half asleep when I posted this hand. I described the flop all wrong. I did not have a flush draw or a pair. I had absolutely nothing on the flop. When we both checked the flop I made a pure bluff bet on the turn when the board paired. My question was is this a reckless play?
Again. I apologize for taking the time to those who responded to my incorrect post. I will be more careful (and rested) in the future when I post hands. Sorry.
Steven H
[Also posted today to RGP]
Critique my theories on gutshots, then add your own...
We all know that since you're 11:1 to turn a gutshot, your pot odds or implied odds need to be at least that. Typically, I'll take a card off with a gutshot even if I'm getting as little as 6:1 or 7:1 as long as I figure there'll be two opponents seeing the turn with me, as making 2-3 big bets on the turn and river makes up for taking a short pot now. Heads up, 8:1 will do fine since the fact I'm against only one opponent may mean I have pair outs in addition to straight outs.
How about gutshots on two-suited boards? You now have 3 outs to the nuts, so your odds of turning the nuts are about 14.7:1. So, if you're getting 11:1 on an immediate call with two opponents seeing the turn with you, you're doing okay. Of course, just because the flop is two-suited doesn't mean there's a flush draw out there. You can't play hold'em constantly fearing the nuts, so maybe you don't quite need odds as good as 11:1. So what kind of odds would you typically chase on the flop with? 10:1? 9:1?
If it helps, assume here that you have the top two cards of the straight draw, but that there's an overcard to your hole cards. (e.g. you have JT, flop is A87)
When would you chase a gutshot on a paired board? Assume an ugly paired board like 664, not one where you very well could be drawing dead, like T99. Would you ever chase a gutshot on a paired, 2-suited board? -- Terrence Chan http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool." -Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
IMO,
"2-3 big bets on the turn and river makes up for taking a short pot now". This sounds about right, I might be a bit more conservative against tough opponents. You should be careful about raises behind you, though.
Against a suited flop you will have to pay off a flush if you hit the wrong out. Even if you hit one of your 3 good outs, a flush draw has a 9 out redraw. This, in effect, gives you less than three outs against a flush draw (you would need > 15:1 to take one off). If you are against many opponents who all appear to be calling on the flop, I would want more than 10:1 to take one off.
Greetings,
Here are some hands where I wasn't sure if I went to far or not. I'll note where I think I made a bad mistake. Please tell me what you think and if I went too far. All of these are from a 10/20 game which had a few players I wasn't familiar w/ and a few I hadn't played w/for months.
1)I have QQ in early position and raise. 2 cold call and BB calls.
The flop comes j 6 2 rainbow. Check I bet 1 st folds, 2nd calls, BB checkraises, I 3 bet other cold calls and BB calls. (At this point I was pretty sure I had the best hand, and thought AJ was in one hand and maybe other other had two pair... and the action on the turn should definitely clarify things).
The turn is 8. Check I bet call call. (Hard to imagine they have a hand that can bet me as BB is fairly aggressive but respects me, other player I ve never seen before and hasn't played many hands in the 20 mins at was there...)
The river is another 8. Check, I bet call call. I turn over QQ, BB says chop it up, and late position player turns over KK. I was drawing dead from the flop (and pretty thin before the flop). They all seemed to think I had JJ or AA. Did I go too far?
2) 1 player limps (new fish to the table) I raise w/ KhKd in mid position. 1 cold call as does BB and fish. FLop comes
Td 8d 2h. Check fish bets, I raise, BB (tight player from first hand w/ KK, who rarely plays anything) cold calls, fish calls.
Turn is a small diamond. They both check to me. Now since I had Kd I thought a bet was correct even thoguh I strongly suspected the BB had diamonds. Low and behold BB checkraised fish folds and I call.
RIver is Ah. He bets and I fold. (Sick and tired of paying off on the river). Almost anyone else Ill call but this guy hasn't raised anything. If he bluffed me out I'll tell him congrats.
3) SB w/ Qc3c, 4 limp fish on the button raises (as he was doing every other hand) and I looked to the left and saw all were planning to reluctantly call. Expecting something like 11 1/2 to 1 1/2 I call which I wouldn't had a)This been a legit raise b) the infrequency of limpreraises at this table. They all called.
The flop comes Q T 9 w/ two spades. I check BB bets all call so for 18 to 1 I call.
The turn is Q still no flush. I check (mistake), BB bets 2call, I checkraise all call.
The river is an offsuit 7. I bet and get called in 3 places. BB has KQs.
Thought the checkraise seems a bit much on the turn I have a good chance of having the best hand, and even if someelse has a better Q (or straight) I have 6 outs which will chop (if we aren't chopping already) w/ the other Q and 3 which give me a full house. And with all these probable straight and flush draws paying .
There were a few more but I think that this is pbly long now.
All commments appreciated!
Thanks alot.
#1 and #2 look like decent play to me. QXs is a piece of crap that will drag your sorry ass down more than one way. It can also make 2nd (and 3rd) best flush. Dump it next time.
-Fred-
Nothing wrong with your play on #1 and 2. If you are going to play #3, which probably is a bad play to begin with, you should muck on the flop. You need to hit the flop perfectly or you're through. I don't care if you have top pair. You have no kicker and you are up against straight and flush draws. As it turns out on the flop you are drawing real thin.
Bruce
Your plays on the first two hands are reasonable. On the third hand it is okay to call a raise from your small blind with Queen-Jack suited, Queen-Ten suited, and maybe even Queen-Nine suited but never Queen-shit suited. I would have bet the turn having made trip Queens rather than going for a check-raise that may not work since the turn is a scare card to anyone who does not have a Queen and may want a free card to a flush draw on the expensive street.
Thanks for the replies. Seems the first hand was much less remarkable than I thought. (It is a very unlikely event that 2 people ahve the same pocket pair, and another has an overpair...)
I knew no one would like the call w/ Q3s. Does everyone tighten up even if the raiser is a ridiculous one? Certainly Id play this hand if it wasn't raised, and expecting no reraise thought not a great call it wasn't bad. As for folding on the flop, I'm getting something like 18-1 on my call. There is areasonable chance I have the best hand, and even if think I need to improve it is reasoable to assume I have 5 outs (though this wasn't the case here but it usually is as if the Q comes out the probability someone else was dealt a Q is 18/47). Indeed I could have stayed out of alot of trouble by folding preflop, or even the flop!
3 limped and I raised with Ac Qc in late position. 1st limper re-raised all called and I capped. The flop came Qd 9s 3h
Checked to me and I bet, 2 call.
Turn= Ts
Checked to me I bet, and first player raises, next folds. I thought he may have a pair with a spade or straight draw. I re-raised, he called.
The river was a blank
He checked, I checked in case he did limp re-raise pre-flop with AA or KK. My Queen was good.
Questions:
1). Was my re-raise pre-flop Ok for deception purposes?
2). Was my re-raise on the turn correct?
3). Did I miss a bet on the end?
Thanks. I appreciate any help with how I played this hand.
1) Nothing wrong raising with AQs pre-flop. You probably have the best hand and you'll buy the button and after getting reraised why not raise again to take the initiative on the flop. It only costs you one more bet. You still may have the best hand and if not you can certainly make the best hand.
2) I don't like the reraise. You may be drawing dead at this point. It's a big pot and by calling on the turn and river you will see your opponents hand. What happens if your opponent reraises you? You will have a difficult time calling and if you do it is going to cost you two more bets.
3) I would check the end if I reraised on the turn. You can't beat AA, KK, or a set.
Bruce
I think you over played your hand. With regard to your questions:
1. You should not cap it with AQ suited. Your initial pre-flop raise was good but when you get 3 bet by a limp re-raiser who will usually have AA or KK I think you should just call.
2. You should not re-raise on the expensive street with a pair of Queens since the betting usually means you are up against AA or KK. Keep in mind that whenever you raise you run the risk of a re-raise and you are risking 2 bets to win 1 bet. You already announced a good hand when you capped and then bet the flop.
3. I would check it down like you did since you have already over bet your hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
But Badger, even if the guy only has AK you are seriously dominated. While I am no big fan of limp re-raising my observation is that the vast majority of the time it is done the limp re-raiser usually has AA or KK. Occasionally it is done with AK suited and sometimes with AK. But all of these hands are much better than AQ suited. I have yet to see anyone, even a flake do it with a pair of Jacks or AJ suited but then I don't play in Southern California much.
Post deleted at author's request.
So is the concesus that you should never re-raise the turn without the nuts??? I thought this person may be check/raising with a pair and/or a draw. Since I was willing to call his bet on the river (2 more bets to me), I decided to get both bets in right away in case he was drawing and I had the best hand. If he 4 bets the turn there would have been little doubt I was beat and would've mucked. If I was beat by AA KK it cost me the same $$$ since I checked the river. Is my thinking flawed?
1) I like your preflop cap due to your last position and the two probably weak limpers trapped in the middle.
2) Your reraise on the turn was overly aggressive IMO. If your hand is beaten, you are wasting money by reraising. If the guy was semi-bluffing, he might have bluffed again on the river had you not reraised.
3) You could have bet the river for value had you not reraised on the turn.
1. I don't think that any deception you may have gained BTF would be worth the extra bet. I find that when someone limp-reraises up front they usually have AA or KK, but I have seen some AKs limp-reraises too. Actually, I will occasionally limp-reraise with AKs in a very loose game with typically 5-8 preflop calls.
2. reraising the turn was not that bad since you had picked up a flush draw, but I think I would not have done it. There is too great a chance that you are beat by a big overpair and you don't want to put more $$ in as a dog.
3. I think checking the river was OK. There was lots of $$ in the pot and you didn't want to get check-raised.
Overall I think you overplayed it though. Good post.
Dave in Cali
3-6 game at Mohegan. Table is comprised of calling stations, one or two decent players, and a complete fish who has a strong affinity for bluffing (sitting directly to my right).
Big blind, I pick up 93d. Uncharacteristically, there is only one limper, fishboy throws in two-thirds of a bet from the small blind, and I check.
Flop comes K32 rainbow. Fishboy bets out. While it's possible that his hand is legitimate, it's more than likely he's betting on any two cards, an Ace, or bottom pair. After playing with this guy for about 2 hours, I have a pretty good read on him.
I raise, both for information, and to knock out the other limper, who has routinely folded to aggression. Sure enough, the limper bows out, and fishboy tanks for awhile before calling. I'll note here that he had and would reraise with top pair here, so the only thing I'm worried about is being outkicked on middle pair.
Turn comes another king, fourth suit. I'm positive the one hand that my opponent does not have is three kings here. He checks, and I bet out, hoping to pick up the pot. Opponent tanks once more, and calls (even more reluctantly).
River is an 8. He checks, and I check behind him, just in case he's paired the 8. At the showdown, he turns over J2o for kings and twos, and I display my hand for kings and threes.
The table gapes at me, open-mouthed. I suddenly start getting a lot more action, and I end up having a great session.
So, was all this pure lunacy/luck on my part, or did I play any of it legitimately?
The fact that you had such a perfect read of the table makes what you did extremely good poker. Congrats.
Well played. Just because you have crap preflop doesn't mean you can't play it agressively after the flop.
Bruce
You played your opponent rather than your cards and got a good result. If you are this proficient at reading players, you should consider playing big bet poker like pot limit or no limit. The late, great Stu Ungar was the best at reading his opponents and got spectacular results.
Good read. I think I would consider betting on riv just in case he *did* have a bigger kicker, picked up an eight, or had a pocket pair bigger than 3's. Makes a tough call for him when you've been betting the Kings all the way.
IMO, you played this hand just fine. You observed the playing habits of your opponents and made plays based on their most likely reactions. Your raise on the flop was a calculated risk that paid off. Reading your players allowed you to take a marginal situation and turn it into a winning hand, where you otherwise would probably have folded. Your thinking here shows that you are paying attention to the game and your players and applying what you know. Good post.
Dave in Cali
Hey people,I take exception to your bashing of Roy West as I am his student and have been for years.I was with the Master and had the privelage of witnessing this lay down in person.Several major points have been omitted in the previous posts.We had just gotten orders of pizza nachos and bbque'd chicken nuggetts delivered to the table,also leftover potato skins were on our immediate left(LOPS),Dr.Browns Root beer on our right,(DBRB),and 5 or 6 callers which meant it would be several minutes before the hand was over.This was a no brainer,an easy fold.Dont forget to kill your bankroll on the way out.
Oh, man. We forgot to consider the Root Beer factor.
I, for one, feel properly chastised.
I've been playing and studying Poker for a year and a half now and I recently made the big step into playing outside of my friendly home poker game. Got the nerves to go to the nearest casino and played 5-10 Hold'em. I would have liked to play a lower limit but this is the lowest available. My bankroll can handle it. Anyway the games are good: usually I'm the player with the best knowledge of the game with most being loose/ average. A very beatable game.
I've been playing with Sklansky/Malmuth starting hands from HEFAP. I found them easier to remember when I started. I modify them to suit the lower limits : tighter in early position for example. I play the flop/turn and river according to Jones. I also play according to Jones if there is a pre-flop raise in front of me.
I haven't been playing for long so I know that the short term effect here can't be conclusive but I've been loosing so I was wondering if my overall play was ok or if I should adjust it now or maybe just learn the Jones starting hands.
Any help appreciated...
theprince
Who is Jones? Can you give us an example of how his post flop advice would deffer from S & M ?
"I play the flop/turn and river according to Jones."
I think this is an indication of your problem. You need to play "poker" from the flop on. I don't believe Lee Jones suggests a specicfic way to play at all times.
You need to learn what your various opponents are doing and how to read hands. Then you can make better decisions about what actions to take. Both Lee Jones and HFAP will be valuable to give you ideas that you can use at various times.
As far as calling raises before the flop, both books have the right idea, don't call legitimate raises with something like an AT and you will be on the right track.
Also when you may want to provide some numbers about your results before anyone can comment on the signifigance. Also reading the 2+2 literature on the bankroll, variance, and getting into the long run will tell you how to evaluate your results.
D.
the prince00:
Move beyond the books. Instead of playing "according" to Jones or S&M, try playing according to your opponents. That is, focus on what works and what doesn't against the particular styles and habits you're up against. So muck AJ on the button against the tight early raiser and (sometimes) 3-bet with AT against the stud trying to run over the table. Note who bets out upon spiking their second pair on the turn or river and who likes to check-raise. Learn exactly which range of hands each of your opponents can have upon raising particular flops. Understand how they react to losing and what they think of you and how you can use that against them. These are some of the real problems you'll need to confront in order to beat the game because anyone can play big cards in position and calculate drawing odds. You might not want to believe this, but your opponents who are playing inferior starters preflop but with better instincts postflop are probably outplaying you overall.
At the table, constantly think about the range of hands your opponents could be playing and what it means for what you should be doing. You do this not because you're trying to learn exactly what they have -- obviously you can't -- but to keep the range of possibilities at the front of your mind.
If you're interested in a different take on starting hands, go to "Abdul's PosEV Page" in the Favorite Links part of this website and print out "Hold 'em Preflop Strategy According to Abdul." Read it many times and think a lot about the issues he raises. Contrast his approach to playing against preflop raises with Jones and decide for yourself what works best and why. IMO, Jones' (admittedly cursory) advice about calling raises preflop with trouble hands is wrong or at least incomplete.
BTW, if your 5-10 game makes a dent in your bankroll, there are a lot of 2-4 and 3-6 games online.
can I find Lee Jones starting hand requirements anywhere on the Internet???..../gen
Thanks a lot Chris...
I was playing $15-$30 at Hollywood Park and I got the pleasure of meeting Rick Nebiolo's student that he has been tutoring. Despite having only played a short time she plays an excellent game and is definitely a favorite in this game. However, there was one hand I thought would be instructive to post. In California they seat 9 players. The student is in Seat #1, the big blind is in Seat #4, and I am in Seat #7 with the AhQh. #5 limps in, #6 folds, and I raise to $30. #8 and #9 both fold. The student cold-calls the raise. Everyone folds to the limper who calls. There is $115 in the pot and three players.
The flop is: Jc8h6d
The limper checks. I bet $15 with my two big suited over cards and backdoor nut flush draw into two opponents. The student calls. The limper calls. There is $160 in the pot.
The turn is: 9s
The limper checks. I check. The student checks.
The river is: 5c
The limper bets $30. I fold. The student raises to $60 and the limper calls. The student wins having the 7h7d for a straight at the river. The limper mucks.
I have 3 questions about the student's play on this hand.
1. Pre-flop, was her cold call of a bet and raise having pocket Sevens in the cutoff seat correct?
2. On the flop, was her call of the flop bet correct given the presence of a pre-flop raiser who is betting into her and the two over cards on the table?
3. On the turn, was she correct it checking and taking a free card?
Preflop
This hand should normally be folded particularly if Student intends to routinely fold on the flop after the preflop raiser bets (which he generally will do). A call might be the proper play if the button and/or the blinds play loose and are likely to call (giving her 4 or more opponents).
While reasons can be given to 3 bet here, I generally don't like doing that with medium pocket pairs particularly when there is a limper before the preflop raiser (i.e. the isolation 3 bet may not work).
Flop
I don't like the call. I would usually fold. Not only can Jim have an overpair or AJs, Student has very little info concerning the limpers' hand i.e., his check may not mean much if he is in the habit of checking to the raiser. In short, Student is really acting under the gun here if one were to assume that on the flop, the limper would automatically check and Jim would automatically bet.
If I were to play with 77, it would be with a raise given that I only have 2 opponents.
Turn
Having just called the flop, a bet on the turn here is I believe mandatory. Jim's hand is likely marked as being AK or AQ. So, Student should know that her hand is better than Jim's hand at this point. While the limper may have Student beat, he sure has not done anything to indicate that he does. Besides, even if Student is trailing the limper, she has some outs on the river.
In any event, there is a good chance that Student's hand is tops at this point. She should bet and protect it.
Another important reason to bet is that it may cause someone (like Jim) to fold a Queen. Thus, if Student goes on to hit a 10 on the River, she avoids the "drawing dead" syndrome.
skp,
You wrote: "Preflop this hand should normally be folded particularly if Student intends to routinely fold on the flop after the preflop raiser bets (which he generally will do). A call might be the proper play if the button and/or the blinds play loose and are likely to call (giving her 4 or more opponents)."
She is not big on routine folding ;-). But in this game, she should have gotten the button and one blind most of the time. So in retrospect I won't argue with the call before the flop.
"While reasons can be given to 3 bet here, I generally don't like doing that with medium pocket pairs particularly when there is a limper before the preflop raiser (i.e. the isolation 3 bet may not work).
This game was not one to make isolation plays in.
Flop: I don't like the call. I would usually fold. Not only can Jim have an overpair or AJs, Student has very little info concerning the limpers' hand i.e., his check may not mean much if he is in the habit of checking to the raiser. In short, Student is really acting under the gun here if one were to assume that on the flop, the limper would automatically check and Jim would automatically bet. If I were to play with 77, it would be with a raise given that I only have 2 opponents.
I thought the call was wrong for the reasons stated in the first post I put up tonight. But now that you mention it, I wonder if a raise would not be a bad idea. She knows enough about Jim to realize that he probably won't three bet without an overpair and maybe not even then given the dangerous middle card board.
"Having just called the flop, a bet on the turn here is I believe mandatory. Jim's hand is likely marked as being AK or AQ. So, Student should know that her hand is better than Jim's hand at this point. While the limper may have Student beat, he sure has not done anything to indicate that he does. Besides, even if Student is trailing the limper, she has some outs on the river. In any event, there is a good chance that Student's hand is tops at this point. She should bet and protect it. Another important reason to bet is that it may cause someone (like Jim) to fold a Queen. Thus, if Student goes on to hit a 10 on the River, she avoids the "drawing dead" syndrome."
I agree with this logic 100%.
Regards,
Rick
RERAISE - "Pump it or dump it" - Under no circumstances would I call in this situation. I may easily have the best hand against two face cards. Raise or fold.
By 3 betting you will likely: (a) buy the button (b) knock out the blinds (c) May knock out original limper and get it heads-up (d) Put you into a guessing game.
If I were the student, I would continue hammering you until you fold or pay me off with a better hand.
The only way I would just call would be if there were 4 players already in the pot. RIGHT or WRONG - This is my style, very aggressive or sitting on the sideline.
Bob,
This was not a Wednesday afternoon game at the Bellagio. This was Sunday afternoon at Hollywood Park. Three betting before the flop would have resulted in three opponents on the average (although maybe not this particular hand).
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Why, when the enemy suddenly shows weakness, do you want to now play scared and check on the turn? When neither player bets on the expensive street, you could have both the best hand and the best draw. Against only two opponents, there will be a significant percentage of the time when you will win without a fight by just betting out. If you get called, you have 8 outs in case you do not have the best hand.
I am mystified by a playing strategy that has you cold-calling raises pre-flop against a small number of opponents in situations where you are a huge underdog about half the time and a marginal favorite the other half. Then you find the guts to call flop bets when you fail to improve, two over cards to your pair show up, and you are being bet into with the possibility of getting raised from behind. Now having shown all that courage you suddenly get cold feet on the turn and want to check it down. Is the strategy here play loose pre-flop, play loose on the flop, but freeze up on the turn just in case you were wrong on the first two streets?
Post deleted at author's request.
She doesn't have the best hand on the turn. Why bet then?
Steve,
Her player reading skills are very advanced at this point. She may have world class potential here. Knowing why she is making a play needs work, and of course many plays are debatable. That is why this is fun.
This is her read on the limper: Very loose before the flop, unaggressive on the flop to the finish, seldom checkraises, will play middle cards up front, and will call down with most pairs.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
I do agree with Badger about the check on the turn. The limper showed weakness on the flop by checking, but now he called the flop . Thus the 9 on the turn is almost bound to hit partially his hand unless he is a total fish and called with something like TA. A bet is in order if it is positive he would fold a pair under a jack with no draw but this would be a very rare player (and then you should raise the flop)
I would fold preflop.
I would raise on the flop in most cases. 77 is almost even money to be beaten by you at this point if you would raise preflop and would raise on the flop with any two flop overcards and with pairs above 88 plus JA and JKs. Again a raise is especially good against weak-tight limper.
I would only fold on the flop if the limper would never lead on the flop against a preflop raiser even with top pair.
To sum up, I am interested in the flop only because the limper didn't show interest about it yet. Now that he did call and showed some interest I have to check the turn.
Badger,
Student agrees with you 100%.
Regards,
Rick
Well obviously, I disagree with Badger on almost every street.
I am really perplexed by Badger's advice on the turn...how in the world can a check be better than a bet here...Jim's hand is marked for 2 overcards i.e., AK or AQ. I suggest betting to get him to drop AQ. Badger says Jim would automatically call anyway. I doubt it. If Jim has AQ, he can't be saying to himself "well, you know, I have a 10 outer and therefore will call". Jim probably can't count the 3 Queens as outs and may not even be able to count the Aces as outs. If Jim can count those cards as outs, he should bet the turn rather than check-call. In any event, even if Jim will call with AQ...so what...Student should still bet.
If Jim has AK, Student obviously should bet and Jim will likely be erring by calling.
Ah yes...we do have the limper to be concerned about. On the other hand, all he has done so far is check-call the flop and checked the turn...so, I wouldn't exactly be quivering in my boots while looking at him.
I say "bet the turn"...and I also say what I have already said concerning Student's play preflop and the flop (although I am not nearly as vehement mith my selections on those streets as I am on the turn play).
I would be interested in more opinions on the turn play.
I wrote my message before I read yours, and I agree with you on the turn bet. Way, way too many dangerous free cards to give out here if 77 is in fact the best hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
Maybe you are right. But this makes the flop call even worse. Student is laughing at me right now.
Regards,
Rick
Badger wrote:
"You are wrong about free cards, Dan. Think about it. What could Jim have that he would fold? AQ is a gutshot and two over cards, he should call one bet from the last player with that. AT is an open ender. TT is to, and is a pay off pair. All pocket pairs 6 or above are either a set or a gutshot or an overpair. The *only* muckable hand is AK. All the other hands we will not be giving free cards to. He's going to call! So, therefore you have to look at the *value* of betting 77 against AQ or AT. There is precious little value there."
The problem with this analysis is that while it correctly contemplates various holdings that the other two players could have, it gives very little weight to the fact that they have both checked the turn. Their checking the turn makes it unlikely that they have many of these monster hands that Badger seems to be concerned about. I mean, if you had a set here, would you check on this draw-infested board?...Didn't think so.
Let us examine Jim's "possible" hands:
10,10 - No. He just turned an openender. He was the preflop raiser. There is only one overcard and there was no raise on the flop. He would be nuts to check 10,10 on the turn.
A set- No. He can't afford to check with this draw-infested board. Besides, there is only one player left to act and she may not bet. A slowplay here with a set would be crazy.
A,10 - Possibly and he will call Student's bet on the turn. But so what, if I am student, I would prefer he fold but if he calls, I am still the favourite. In other words, I like his call but love his fold. I hate not betting at all and giving him infinite odds.
A,Q - Quite likely. I disagree with Badger that Jim should automatically call with AQ. He can't count the 3 Q's as outs (particularly if limper also calls Student's bet). If Jim were to check-call with AQ, he ought to have bet AQ on the turn. After all, he was the preflop raiser and his bet on the flop was met with no resistance. Also, as with the A,10 analysis, Student would like a call from AQ but would love a fold from AQ. She has to hate giving a freebie to AQ.
AK - Very likely. If you knew that Jim had AK, it would be silly for 77 to check here.
Based on the action so far, it is highly likely that Jim has AK (with AQ being a close second choice). In either case, Student should bet.
Now, let's take a look at limper:
Once again, for the reasons already given, a set is unlikely. Firstly, sets are hard to come by. Secondly, a set really should be heard from earlier on this type of board. And if you go around fearing sets all the time, you will never be able to bet without a strong hand on the turn because a set is possible on every board no matter how raggedy it looks.
Now, we are talking about HPC games. I have never been there but I gather from Rick's posts that these games are not exactly the tightest games on the planet. So, when limper check-calls the flop and checks the turn, why in the world would you assume that he must have Student beat. Could he not have called preflop and on the flop with a hand like A,10 or KQ. He could also have something like A,8 and peeled off a card on the flop with second pair and then been ready to fold on the turn. There are lots of hands that he could have that Student beats. While there are lots of hands that he could have which beats Student's hand, the point is that very few would be strong enough for him to checkraise with. In fact, some hands (such as A8) though stronger than Student's hand may be folded at this point by the limper.
Bottom line vis a vis limper: Ya, Student could be called by a better hand. So what? Is not the expense of 1 big bet worth a shot at the sizable pot?
I can't help but go back to Mason's infamous 44 hand. His bet on the turn was something that everyone agreed with. In fact, he may have got the chump of the year award if he failed to bet the turn on that hand.
Badger is rarely wrong but I really think that there is something amiss with his turn analysis here.
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
I guess the premise of your argument is that Student has no chance of winning the pot with a bet. That's where you and I disagree.
I think we are on common ground that Student's hand is definitely better than Jim's hand at the turn.
As to the limper, I can think of:
a. Several legitimate hands that he could have which Student beats i.e. AT, K10, A6s, 55 and down, KQ, 76s, 65s
b. Some hands that he could have which beats Student's hand but which he may lay down for a bet i.e., A8; Q9
c. Very few hands with which he would checkraise Student with (i.e. if you agree with me that he is not likely to check a set in this situation).
The penalty in betting and being called by a better hand is small: 1 big bet
The reward in betting and driving out even one of the other players who may go on to hit the river is several big bets.
It is easy to conceive of a situation where betting halves the number of collective outs as against Student's hand.
I make the bet every time.
Let me ask you this:
Suppose Student checks the turn. A deuce comes off on the river. If limper bets and Jim folds, what should Student do?
If you say "call", her check on the turn is a clear mistake i.e. the call you make on the river may as well be the bet you make on the turn.
If you say "fold", you are a lot less suspicious of river bluffs after a display of all-around turn weakness than I am.
Anyway, I enjoyed the debate. If you don't mind, let me have your E-mail address. I want to run something by you in private concerning this hand.
Post deleted at author's request.
"You guys are grabbing at a chance to lose this pot."
I don't get it.
This assumes that you too believe that 77 is the best and that betting somehow will expose you to dropping the best hand in the event you get checkraised. If anything, I think that checking is "grabbing at the chance to lose the pot".
As I have already said, it is unlikely that you will be checkraised here. Yes, a check-call flop/ checkraise pattern by the limper often signifies a set. But not every checkcall flop/check turn is made by a set. The vast majority are made because the player ain't got SH*T. In other words, you don't have to fear a set until and unless limper comes to life on the turn and he often will not (and if you disagree with me on that one, there is NO WAY in hell I can win this argument).
And even if he does raise with a set (which is highly unlikely given that he would likely have bet considering the layout of this board and the simple infrequency with which sets crop up in play), 77 still has some outs.
"A pair of eights or better ain't ever going to fold for one bet."
Oh...so you are saying that it's absolutely ridiculous for 77 to bet the turn but perfectly reasonable for the limper to call with something like A8?...eh?
"A player who routinely loses that river bet (as opposed to the turn bet) is going to make a lot more money than somebody who loses the money on the turn. When you have the draw, you want to see as many cards for free as you can (against one or two opponents)."
Disagree. That may be true when you have just a naked draw. It does not apply when you have a draw and possibly the best hand (or a draw with the second best hand where the best hand may fold to a bet).
"You really think there is *any* chance *both* players will laydown for a bet on the turn? "
Yes - a good chance. And even if 1 lays down and you catch the other on a draw, your bet has helped you tremendously.
"I don't understand your point about calling when a deuce comes on the river. Why does this make the check on the turn a mistake?"
The point I made is also made by Dan Hanson and probably needs not to be repeated. Betting the turn and checking the river is a common and effective use of position. It's one of the reasons that you can often bet AK on the turn against your opponent even if you are unpaired. You then check the river. Another way to play it is to check the turn and call the river even if you are unpaired. I generally prefer the first alternative. This situation is not much different in principle.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger wrote:
"Are you saying you would muck A8 if she bet? I don't know that I've *ever* played with anyone who would."
Oh c'mon. This is way too melodramatic and wrong to boot. Are you saying that you have never folded 3rd pair on the turn?
Of course, I could fold A8 on a board of J986. If you are saying you would always call I revoke the license I gave you to call ME the live one;)
Actually, I know that you wouldn't always call here either. I just don't know why you would say the opposite here.
Badger wrote:
"Well we disagree totally on the one point. I think it's ludicrous to think both will muck. They basically *both* have to have AK!"
Why in god's name does that have to be the case. In one of my other posts, I set out several hands that the limper could have none of which beat 77. Are you saying that none of those hands are probable? Have a look at them again and tell me why if you will. And we know that Jim doesn't beat 77. So ya, a bet can win the pot and a bet can certainly knock out at least one opponent.
Badger wrote:
"Betting in position is often a good thing that leads to checks on the river, but who cares about that in a situation where you are very likely betting the worst hand and losing value?"
Well, this retort assumes that you are correct. It is not an argument advanced to prove your theory. Thus, it really doesn't add anything to the debate.
I could just as easily dismiss off all your arguments with a wave off my hand and say:
"Checking with a draw is often a good thing that leads to saved bets, but who cares about that in a situation where you are very likely also betting the best hand and therefore gaining value?"
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
OK, even if they don't lay down to a bet, won't a bet on the turn stop a bet on the river that she would prefer not to call but may have to because of the size of the pot?
Regards,
Rick
Boy, this is fun...but Badger also wrote:
"If I had JJ, and had one of you crazy crap-betting guys behind me, I'd sure check and let you bet the limper into me, then checkraise!"
So, let me get this straight:
You espouse calling a middle position solid player's raise preflop with 77. The hand is not "crappy" then.
You then espouse calling the solid player's bet on a J86 flop with the limper still left to "really" act. The hand is not "crappy" then even though you could be drawing to a 2 outer or some remote runner-runner straight.
You then say the hand becomes "crappy" on the turn after *both* players *check* and after the hand has also become an open-ended straight draw.
Aaaah...no...it ain't right.
Steve,
It seems to me that you are offering a reasonable alternative of how Student can go about saving $30 by checking. I will grant you that your idea of checking increases Student's chances of saving 30 bucks.
But, you are overlooking the fact that betting is a reasonable alternative of how Student can greatly increase her chances of winning a $160 pot.
I weigh the two and the contest is not even close: This "crazy crap-betting guy" would bet every time.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger wrote:
[Re: the flop call] "Lol, no, it's crap. But it's worth a call. That's a lot of what poker is, protecting your equity with marginal hands."
Funny how that logic doesn't seem to appeal to you on the turn bet *after* two opponents have shown weakness by checking. It almost seems like you have no respect for raises (preflop) and bets (on the flop) and all too much respect for checks (on the turn).
Badger wrote:
"Only a sucker would view it as "open-ended". It's a bottom end draw only, realistically."
Exactamundo. That's why you have to bet (see my initial response to Jim's post). The chances of it being a bottom end draw are greatly increased if you meekly check.
Let's take a very realistic possibility. Limper has KJ and Jim has AQ. You bet. Limper calls. Jim folds. The bet just gave you an open-ended draw. On the other hand, the check not only leaves you with just 4 outs, it leaves you with 4 "drawing dead" cards.
You seem to intimate that betting may increase our chances of winning from 12% to only 14%. Clearly inaccurate. Creating 4 extra outs increases our chances a lot more than that...and that assumes that our bet has no chance of winning the pot which is clearly not correct. What are you saying? You have never won a pot with a bet on the turn against two opponents who have already checked when you know that one opponent (Jim) for sure does not have you beat?
I am sorry...but this "live one" bets
Badger wrote:
"but given we should fold to a checkraise I'd say betting is a wash in terms of the not-very-important concept of "chances of winning the pot."
You say we should fold to a checkraise. I don't...so the wash you speak of ..well...just doesn't wash.
and "not-very-important concept"?...lol...
Badger wrote:
"Every game needs a liveone."
Aaaah...finally a statement I can agree with:)
Post deleted at author's request.
Good players spot weakness when their opponents check ahead of them on the turn. Good players bet when they sense that weakness and when they could have the best hand and a back-up draw to boot.
Bad players fail to see this and therefore fail to win the bets and pots that they should win.
I don't know how you can define the limper's hand at all. The only evidence we have is that the limper check-called one bet, and then checked again. If he does have us beat, there's got to be a good chance that he'll lay the hand down (say he had an 8 or a six). This flop could also produce many gutshot or straight draws. In any event, if you check the turn and the limper bets, you're committed to calling if Jim folds. Might as well bet the turn.
skp, Badger and all,
This seems about the right place to post this although Oz may disagree.
Jim Brier and I had a drink in the Hollywood Park bar Sunday night after this hand was played and we both agreed this would be a fun one to post. Anyway, Student appreciates all the interest and work so many posters put into disecting this hand. We believe there cannot be a better and more exciting place to learn but on this forum. After all, we are all students of this complex and exciting game and no one knows it all (except Badger ;-) ).
I’ve posted my thoughts here and there but they are pedestrian. Of course, the most interesting debate has been between Badger and skp sort of above. Student told me to post the following excerpt from an email she wrote this morning before work. It describes what she was thinking during the hand:
"…I still agree with Badger 100%, he could not have described better my position when I was playing the 7's. I agree with him that my post play was the best I could do no matter what other people say. Since I already took the plunge of calling Jim's raise preflop and there were 2 cards on the flop that were higher than my pair, I will not bet my cards even though I was the last one to bet. For me, it's a waste of money, the limper was there (who had a Jack and a small card), and my thoughts were, "let the best person win", I was ready to have a showdown at the end since I had a medium pair anyway. Also, I have been playing quite a few times with this guy and I know how he plays and how the other HP players play. If they have a pair, they will hold on tenaciously to their pair to the river and nothing you do will kick them out. So, Badger was right in my opinion and I will just know better the next time not to put myself in a predicament like this again."
Anyway, those were her thoughts as of this morning. She was very entertained by the lively debate between skp and Badger tonight after getting them again at Hollywood Park this afternoon. Thanks guys.
My thoughts: I generally agree with Dan Hanson that calling pre flop was a little loose but this game had about as good a lineup as you could want for this play. On the flop I think she should raise since this flop is pretty scary to many hands Jim would play but I also wonder about the back door straight making the call a little better than it looks.
On the turn, I’m up in the air. A bet seemed clear cut but now I’m starting to see Badger’s logic. A lot depends on a “feel” for what the limper will do. Maybe the above email will help.
Regards,
Rick
** Although many who play with her know her first name, “Student” goes by that name or “Rick’s Student” on this forum because she has a very responsible day job controlling the finances, books, and office supplies for a secretive fundamtalist/religious/conservative/libertarian/socialistic organization dedicated to changing the American way of life. I think their main goal is to ban the sale of packaged snacks at gas stations but there may be other more sinister items on the agenda. If they knew of her poker activities, she would become pollitically suspect and could lose her job. Moreover, she is the only one in the office who smokes so she is already under suspicion.
P.S. My computer is falling apart as I type (the disk drive sounds like a cement mixer) and somehow I lost my spell checker. I may be offline for a few days as a new one I ordered is at the UPS office in my town so I will be in installation hell the next few days.
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
Why save something good for weeks?
In all seriousness, she did mention that the limper was unaggressive to the extreme. If so, her flop call may have likely bought her two looks.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
skp,
Student has just told me that the original limper was a bit loose, unaggressive and not very tricky (thus unlikely to checkraise but likely to call if he had top pair).
If so, I like the raise on the flop but not by a lot. If the limper has a jack (or maybe an eight), he is likely to just call and Jim or Student won't like it. Now I like the call even less. Folding was still an option and better than a call.
Since she reached the turn and was checked to, now is the time to put on the heat. She has a draw and a pair. Once they both check, she has a hand to protect and it is unlikely she will get check raised since the board should be scary to her limping opponent and to Jim, who is no big fan of the check raise ;-).
BTW, as we speak, Student is seeing the logic of the turn bet but is still stubborn about the call on the flop.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
That's what I like about poker, it's a continuous learning process.
Badger and the student played one way and won.
I would have played it totally different and won also.
Badger is a much better player than I am, so his advice would more likely be correct.
Congratulations to Rick for being such a fine teacher.
Your way seems fine against a lot of tight players. They're likely to just call your 3 bet pre-flop with face cards and give it up on the flop when they miss.
Post deleted at author's request.
Bob,
Student has tremendous potential but a lot of raw edges to work on. Her focus is great and she is starting out at 15/30 after a brief stint at 6/12 and 9/18 holdem. She has been barred by me from playing Omaha H/L for playing too many hands before the flop. Besides, it is a lot more fun playing forty hands per hour at 15/30 or 20/40 holdem compared to eighteen (or less in a good game) hands per hour in Omaha H/L.
Anyway, in Los Angeles, playing 6/12 and 9/18 holdem just won't prepare you for for the yellow chip games. The dead drop makes the game too loose and it is tough to develop skills. She did have some time with me on Planet Poker. There the 5/10 game is tighter than a Hollywood Park 15/30.
Regards,
Rick
I'm going to have to disagree with Badger. I think it was a marginally bad pre-flop call. So far, she's looking at calling a raise cold with a smallish pocket pair with only two people in the pot and several to act behind her.
On the flop, I would have either raised or folded, given that the limper checked. I don't have the odds to draw to a set here, so I'm only calling if I believe that I may have the best hand, in which case it's a big deal to get the limper out. If the action had been slightly different (i.e. limper bets, raiser cold-calls), a smooth call becomes more defensible.
On the turn, the student should have bet. Once both players check, there is even more reason to believe that 77 is the best hand. And, you don't even mind getting raised, because it becomes an easy fold. If the hand had more outs, perhaps a check is more in order.
Dan wrote:
"And, you don't even mind getting raised, because it becomes an easy fold. If the hand had more outs, perhaps a check is more in order."
Suppose Student bets the turn and is raised by the limper...I am not sure that Student should automatically fold here. After all, the raiser has to have exactly Q,10 to make him uncatchable. There are lots of other hands he could be checkraising with (i.e. any set, 98 etc). Thus, I am not sure that I can agree with your comment above.
That said, I still would bet the turn for the reasons already given. I mean, the guy did check twice. There is no reason to believe that he is now suddenly going to bombard the pot with chips.
Post deleted at author's request.
I meant that in the second case smooth calling would be more defensible as opposed to raising. I agree that folding would be the best option in that case.
The point I was trying to make with the raise is that you have the chance force the limper out of the pot. Remember, you think that you have the raiser beat, or you couldn't call his bet. If that's the case, you need to get the limper out. You might get him to fold a better hand, and if he doesn't have a better hand he's likely to have at least a gutshot.
I should point out that this situation was just about inevitable, given the call before the flop. This is where you'll find yourself when you call a raiser immediately to your right with a small pocket pair. They're going to get checked to, then they'll bet, and you'll be put in a difficult position. You can't always just fold to this bet, but you know other players could be waiting to check-raise, and you may call or raise, find yourself re-raised, and lose a bunch of chips. This is why I thought it was a bad call before the flop. In a completely passive game, where the blinds almost always limp and where you'll be able to outplay your opponents on the flop, the call is slightly +EV. You can count on at least a couple more callers, and check-raising will be at a minimum after the flop.
This game obviously wasn't like that, given that the blinds folded and it wound up 3-handed, and given that players like Jim Brier were in the game.
Steve,
There are so many posts here and it is obvious some of us are now up. I will say that the limper did in fact show a jack small suited (he was a weak player) so he in fact did play it bad.
Regards,
Rick
Oh Boy,
One thing about trying to help someone with their game is that in the short run they can beat the heck out of you and tend not to want to listen to what you have to say. Lately it has been that way since she has won nine out of the last ten sessions and my talk of short term luck runs thin.
Right after this hand was played, student runs up to me while I'm working the floor and tells me Jim (who she had just met since she is an avid reader of his posts) was writing in his notebook and she was pretty sure this was the hand.
Anyway, she described it quickly and my initial reaction was that the hand was a close call before the flop against a single limper and solid raiser, a bad call on the flop where the pot was not big enough to justify taking one off and hitting the set may be dangerous (remember it is vulnerable to redraws on the river, especially against the limper). But betting the turn once she picked up a draw/pair combo hand and was checked to by two opponents did leap out in my mind (especially since at least one was capable of folding). Unfortunately, I was baby sitting my section so I didn't have time to ponder.
So, I will comment above in this thread here and there and later we may have another hand to post where she actually may have bailed out too soon on a much better draw where the danger cards were unlikely to be in the opponents hands.
Regards,
Rick
Shouldn't Jim have fired a second barrel on the turn? He has two overcards with a gutshot, he can represent an overpair, and his two opponents have shown weakness.
Not her,
Interesting point. The limper has checked and he should know that student should respect his bets, although she can be hyper-aggressive in the best "Abdulian sense".
OTOH, I wonder if Jim can call a turn bet by Student if the original limper calls. He is only getting 6 to 1 odds with AQ and the board is J 8 6 9. How good can hitting an ace or a queen be?. And the ten can easily end up in a split pot. Jim has a problem here.
Regards,
Rick
There is $160 in the pot and it costs me $30 to bet the turn. These are only 5:1 pot odds. Given that board and two opponents who have been staying with me all the way, a bet will not win the pot here. What are my outs? Any 10. A Queen may not be an out given that board since anyone with a 10 would have a straight. An Ace may or may not be an out. I have 4 clean outs although someone with a Queen ties me and the other 6 are of dubious value. I think this is the functional equivalent of a 5 outer which would require about 8:1 pot odds.
I don't understand the pre-flop cold call of a solid player's raise. I would drop my small pair here.
wgb,
She ended up almost worse case scenario. But normally she would get two more to commit. If so, it was a close call.
Regards,
Rick
I think it was a bad call, because it's a bad situation for the small pair. Forget odds before the flop - She's probably not going to get enough to call just to hit a set. Sure, she might get three callers behind and wind up in a +EV situation, but she might also get re-raised behind and wind up in a 3-way pot for 3 or 4 bets before the flop. That would be 'bad'. Overall, if you're a good player there is no reason to stick your neck out like this. Another factor is is that a good player raised. If I'm faced with a marginal call, I base my decision on the quality of my opponents. If there are several good players in the game, I tend to just avoid them. No sense butting heads with the tough guys when there are fish swimming all over the place.
The real problem calling here is that she's going to get put in a tough situation on the flop, having the pre-flop raiser immediately to her right, and players to act behind her. This will force her to play incorrectly quite often when she doesn't hit a set (playing incorrectly in a FTOP sense - folding the best hand, or raising into a better hand). And the nature of those small pairs is that bad decisions are expensive, since you typically have few outs.
Incidentally, for those of you who helped me through my losing streak, thanks for all the support and advice. My game is now back on track and better than ever. I used the experience to improve my game and I am actually glad I had that run of bad cards.
Here is a recent 10-20 hand for you to critique:
I was dealt Ac Js on the button. This is a loose and near on tilt game. Three callers, a maniac immediately on my right (thank god) raises, I call, everyone calls. BB goes all in to call.
Flop comes Jc Jd 4c. Checked around to the maniac, he bets, I raise, ALL CALL. BB is still all in.
Turn comes 9c. 3 flush is on the board. I now have trip jacks and the ace of clubs for the nut flush if another club comes. Checked all the way around to me, I bet, mid position player checkraises, everyone drops, I call. Now it is heads up between me and the checkraiser and the BB.
River comes As. I now have jacks full of aces. Mid position bets, I raise, he makes a crying call and says full house. I say me too, AJ. He had 99. I win the side pot.
The BB turns over AA for aces full and wins the main. When the mid position player sees this he tears his cards in half and throws them across the table. He says 'nice two outter guys'!
Now, would anyone in their right mind make this laydown? How could I possibly have made this laydown when the guy who checkraised me could just as easily have had a flush or another jack with a weaker kicker?
Fact is, I had 4 outs because another 4 would give me the best hand, too.
The only possible mistake I think I might have made was the flop. I normally will not play AJ offsuit for a raise, and only called it because the maniac was raising every hand.
Any comments?
SmoothB
"The only possible mistake I think I might have made was the flop. I normally will not play AJ offsuit for a raise, and only called it because the maniac was raising every hand."
You took the words right out of my mouth. Even maniacs wake up with the good now and then. I'd play the AJ against him in a head's up pot but multi-way I'd be a little shy.
-Fred-
This is quite the interesting hand. I like to fold this hand preflop to this raise, simply because I feel the hand is easily dominated, however if you can get away from the hand quickly after the flop, your long term EV will still be ok. Once you see a flop with two jacks, you played it properly. You absolutely have to raise the maniac's bet. (By the way, speaking of two-outers, what is the 99 waiting for? If he puts you on a jack or an overpair he has to fold. He played this hand extremely poorly). When the nine comes on the turn, I like your play. When you are checkraised, I would put the checkraiser on a flush. (He could conceivably have 44, in which case you would have 7 outs) (I don't put him on 99 unless he is a very weak player who regularly draws thin). At this decision point there is $125 in the main pot and $165 in the side. For twenty more you are getting 8-1 just on the side pot. You have to call. Too bad for him that he didn't have the discipline to lay down a weak hand on the flop. Your post flop play was correct. (Folding it preflop may still be the right play)
Thanks for the feedback. RE getting away from this hand - I have no trouble getting away from a hand like this unless the flop hits it HARD, like it did here.
If the flop came A Q 5 rainbow and there was a bet and a raise I would fold it under these circumstances (depending on the better and raiser) if it were raised preflop.
-SmoothB-
Tell the guy who ripped up his cards to learn better manners. There's no way you're getting off that hand unless Mr. AA turns his cards face up.
BTW, Mr. Mid position called to hit a two-outer on the turn himself.
Let me get this straight. The mid-position player is complaining about 2 outers when he called a bet and a raise on the flop against 6 opponents when an open pair of Jacks are on the board and he has pocket Nines? I think he is a little mixed up.
You played fine, except that I would fold pre-flop with Ace-Jack offsuit given the number of limpers and then the raise by the maniac to your right. However, your call is understandable.
I normally don't like playing AJo. In this situation with the maniac on your right raising I would prefer either 3 betting it or passing.
Bruce
AJo should be folded to the raise. Keep in mind that if the "maniac" has been raising every hand then all the limpers before him presumably feel their hands can stand a raise. Also, anyone with a really big hand will simply call preflop, and backraise the maniac once all the AJ's of the world have committed themselves.
Wait for a better opportunity than this.
Not to sound too redundant but with the number of limpers described and facing a raise, I would definitely fold here pre-flop(especially given the fact that anyone calling had to expect to be raised by the maniac and already felt their hand was worth more than 1 bet). If I was able to isolate the maniac, then I would have 3 bet him pre-flop and attempt to get the pot heads up with position.
Have no idea what the guy with 99 was doing in pot after the flop but I would definitely want him in the game. I love players like this, especially in the 20-40 and higher games, that peel one off only to catch their card and get crucified. Even more amusing is the fact that they think they got bad beat!
Hope this helps.
Michael D.
IMO you did not make a mistake by calling pre-flop. Perhaps you should have reraised the maniac though, since he was raising almost every hand. You might have limited the field some, but calling was probably just fine.
On the flop you did what you had to do. when it was bet, you raised, OK. Seems to me that the guy with pocket 99 called two bets cold here. We'll see about that later....
On the turn a nine comes and our mid position hero check-raises. You absolutely had to bet and you absolutely had to call his raise. You still had three aces, one jack, three nines, and three fours to beat him. Plus you still had the ace of clubs and a flush draw so you absolutely cannot fold. You played the turn fine.
On the river you also played fine. Although some of your outs were not actually in play, you had to consider them because you could not have known they were in other player's hands. If you knew what the other players held you would have had to fold, but you had no way of knowing what they held!
(Looks like Mr. nines hit his two outer on the turn. He made a stupid call of two bets cold on the flop. It was a multiway pot that was bet and raised, he should have folded rather than calling two bets cold. I hope they kicked him out when he ripped the cards).
Dave in Cali
Hello all its been a few months sense Ive posted,,, but here is a hand that i found myself in a couple days ago,, 20/40 table is tight all exect 2 players who have been 3 betting and 4 betting weak hands in all positions,,, hands like 67 89 66 44 middle limping hands if that in this game ,,,, I find myself stareing down at 10sJs in the BB 4 callers including the 2 maniacs,,, wich one is on the button to raise,,, ive only been in one other pot with him and folded out the flop... so as im stareing at him, im thinking hes on a bluff ,, so I 3 bet him all call!!! Flop.....7s 8h Ks ..I check,,, one next to me ,bets all call button raises,,, all call,, turn 9h,,, i check all check to button he bets out ,,,I raise 2 fold 1 call he 3 bets me, I capped it ...river 8s,,, I bet all fold to button,,, he raises ,, I call,,,
I have been reading about how some of the top players have proteges. How can I get one of these top players to be my mentor? Also - do any of the top players charge for hourly consultations? I would like more info on these matters.
-SmoothB-
By regularly making posts in the twoplustwo.com forums, you will effectively be giving yourself a lot of knowledgeable players as your poker mentors. Post everything from individual hands to general philosophies. You'll wind up with a lot of advice. And it's free!!!
I'm going to hate it when his phone gets too busy but....Bob Ciaffone gives lessons that can't be beat. He's reasonable $-wise and available. Call him today at 517-792-0884.
.
I agree with happy student. Give Bob "the Coach" Ciaffone a call on 1-517-792-0884. He charges about $25 per hour and he gives outstanding hand analysis. He has tutored dozens of students over the years. However, if you are rich then you might want to talk to David Sklansky. For a modest $300 per hour you will probably get the greatest teacher of all time. Another possible source is John Feeney but I do not know if he takes on students since he is busy getting rich playing high limit poker these days.
Smooth B.,
Contact Badger. He will always agree with you which should increase your self esteem.
Regards,
Rick
Here is another 10-20 hand that I got flack for.
I was on the button. One caller, extremely loose preflop raiser makes it 2 bets. I am on the button with J T of diamonds. 2 more callers, I decide to call. I usually don't call this hand for a raise but I like my position and I can expect to be paid off well if I hit this hand hard. I also know that I can cut it loose.
Flop comes Js Ts 5h. I flopped 2 pair. BB (very loose aggressive bad player) bets out. Preflop raiser makes it 2 bets. Now, I have seen him bet strong draws very aggressively - he might even have 98 of a different suit. I was going to raise myself but decide to just call the 2 bets unstead of making it 3.
Turn comes Qc. Not a great card for me. Preflop raiser bets out, two other people and I call.
river comes Jh. Preflop raiser checks, I bet, 1 caller, he calls. I show my full house and he mucks.
He had AK of spades! He flopped the gutshot royal flush draw, and turned the nut straight with nut flush redraw. There were only 4 cards in the deck that could hurt him.
He was pretty upset about this 'bad beat', but he is a friend, and we talked the hand over later. He didn't blame me for hanging in there with 2 pair. And I don't imagine that many people would be able to fold for 2 bets with this flop.
Did I play this ok? Since I suspected that the preflop raiser made it 2 bets on the flop with a strong draw, should I have made it 3 to go?
-SmoothB-
In a raised pot with multi-way action, there are many turn cards that may come that will be scary for your hand. The pot has already become large. If you 3 bet on the flop you are taking advantage of your postion. It should make the turn somewhat easier to play correctly, plus you don't mind getting more money in the pot. (Although, if you could see all of your opponents hands you might not raise even with the best hand).
It sounds like you were getting close to the correct odds to draw to your full house, it's a little unclear how much money was in the pot.
This is one example of why hands like J-10 suited can be complicated to play in a raised pot when the flop comes and negates the value of your hand being suited.
When you flop the top two like this you must play it fast. Three betting is clear. You almost certainly have the best hand and must make others pay to play. I find it ironic that so many players like to play loose pre-flop like you did here by cold-calling a raise (which is not bad) and then back off on the flop or later when they have could easily have the best hand.
J10d is a preflop fold in my book to a raise and two cold calls. I hate this hand. You say you can "hit this hard" or "cut it loose" if you miss, but your story shows how untrue this is. If you flop a diamond draw you are stuck, and may be drawing dead. If you flop two pairs you will often be shown two better two pair, trips, or a straight. Other times you will make a straight with your J only to be shown QJ.
Sometimes I think people like this hand simply because it's two cards to a Royal Flush!
a
Hi all,
I've been playing more and more in the 10-20 game on Paradise Poker. Most of the time, the games seem to be moderately tight and aggressive, but still with some players making what I would consider obvious mistakes.
I seem to be doing reasonably well (low statistics, though), but upon reviewing transcripts of my play, I find a few questionable plays when it comes to medium pairs. I'll give an example a bit further below.
In the low limit no fold'em games with which I am more familiar, my usual playing strategy with pairs is to limp in whenever it looks like a 5-way or better pot. I don't cold call single raises with less than JJ, double raises with less than QQ. On the flop, unless I nail a set or an overpair, it's an easy fold.
In the online games, these conditions are rarely met. While I have seen several of my opponents cold-call raises with 77 or worse, I still cannot believe that this is good poker. Am I correct in this assumption? Hence, while I will call raises out of the BB with pairs (I believe correctly), I'm not playing very many elsewhere.
On the other hand, since one is usually up against a smallish field, if one can get in cheaply, an unimproved medium pocket pair may hold up.
Even so, on those occasions when I have played medium pocket pairs, I feel that I am playing them rather weak-tight, and have flagged this as a potential leak.
Here's an example:
8 handed 10-20 Paradise poker.
PREFLOP
I'm in the cutoff seat with 7c 7d.
UTG limps, folded to me, I limp (methinkst I should have raised here), button folds, SB completes, BB checks.
4 small bets in pot.
FLOP: 3d 4h 8h
Checked to me, I bet, SB folds, BB raises, UTG drops, I call.
BB hasn't been on the table long, but strikes me as relatively tight, generally strong player. At this point, I'm figuring that I probably have a payoff hand.
Should I have surrendered here?
8 small bets in the pot.
TURN: Jc
BB bets, I call.
6 big bets in pot.
RIVER: 6h
BB bets, I fold. If BB was playing a draw aggressively, he got there; if he had an overpair or two pair, I've been dead all along.
OK... I know, I played that badly. So, how should I have played that??
What should my thought process be like when I consider whether/how to play medium pocket pairs (55 to 88 or 99) under the tightish game conditions described?
I would have bet out on the flop like you did, and folded to the checkraise. I honestly can't think of anyone that would checkraise a draw, especially since it is almost a guarantee that it would become heads up, as it did.
That is the way I would play the hand if I had flopped top pair. The board is pretty coordinated, albeit on the low side. If the game were pretty tight I would assume that the flop missed everyone and that the cutoff seat were betting a draw or trying to steal.
Like I said, I like the bet on the flop a lot, but I probably would have folded to the checkraise. Or definitely folded on the turn.
-SmoothB-
Thanks for responding!
I would have bet out on the flop like you did, and folded to the checkraise. I honestly can't think of anyone that would checkraise a draw, especially since it is almost a guarantee that it would become heads up, as it did.
I agree. Going over the transcript of my past 100 hands, this one stuck out as a "What the h--- was I thinking?!?"
One note though, while I agree that almost all players wouldn't checkraise a draw in this manner, later in the session, this player made a couple of plays which suggested he might suffer from "Tricky Play Syndrome" (TPS), so I thought I'd include that option for completeness sake.
You should have called the river.
Just how strong a hand do you think the BB needs to have to check-raise a last-position bettor in a 3-way pot? If I'm in the big blind in this situation, I might have played a straight draw, flush draw, two overcards, or ANY pair that way. I might have check-raised the flop on the assumption that you would bet just about anything here, then lead into you on the turn. If that's the case, I wouldn't have liked your call on the turn, but I would have planned to possibly bet into you if a scary card landed, which it did.
In heads-up situations like this, you need to vary your play. You might have re-raised the flop, then taken a free card on the turn to induce a bluff if he was trying to move on you. Then you have to call the river. Unless you absolutely know your opponent is a rock, occasionally you should call the raise, then raise his bet on the turn with the intention of checking down your hand on the river. Or, you can check and call all the way.
I'd have a hard time folding pocket sevens any time when I'm heads-up with another player with an 8-high flop. There are just too many worse hands he could be playing at me with.
Agreed. I think I would have three bet the flop here, then lead bet the turn and tried to check down the river. As far as small pairs go.. As Gary Carson (and others) have pointed out, there's quite a difference between 33 and 77-- they can't both be classified as 'small pairs', since 77 will drag quite a few more pots than 33 if it doesn't improve. So, when looking at 7's or higher I tend to raise in virtually any position if I think I can get it heads up. If I DON'T think I can get it heads up (or get a huge mulitway pot going), then I'll either limp or muck. If it looks like it's going to be a three or four handed pot, I'll always muck unless I'm on the button.
I would have raised pre-flop and hopefully I'd be playing headsup where I am a favorite, although perhaps a small one. Assuming I limped preflop I would bet the flop and either reraise after getting check-raised or raise on the turn and then check the river. I prefer raising on the turn because your opponent very well may lay the best hand down. It is unlikely a J helped him and your raise may pressure him to throw his hand away. If you are reraised on the turn you need to throw your hand away.
Bruce
If you're going to play 77 preflop against one early limper (and thats a questionable play) you have to raise. Firstly, to ensure that you are in last position on subsequent betting rounds (buying the button). Secondly, to ensure that the blinds aren't coming in with complete crap. I think thats why you ran into trouble later in the hand. You just can't rule out the possibility that the raggedy flop has hit the BB in some way.
If you'd have raised you may have got it heads-up with the early limper, and would have been in excellent shape when all low cards hit the flop, or the blinds might still have called, but you'd at least know that they were more likely to have high cards than low cards, and could have put more pressure on them to fold, since you've shown strength preflop.
Keyser
Greetings,
I was thinking about some of the conventional wisdom regarding raising flush draws for value on the flop. The usual point is since you will make the flush more than 1/3 times you can raise for value if you have more than 2 callers coming along for the ride. However there a few problems with this namely:
if these players are ok who could be coming along for the ride?
If one of these players have trips he'll he's a 3-1 favorite over you, thus you need at least 3 callers. If you have only 2 players and one has trips youre making him money by raising!
Maybe someone else is drawing to the same flush, and your odds of making the flush is considerably lower.
I suppose straight draws could be there, but most won't pay through the nose for a straight draw in a two flush flop. (Eg they won't call 2 cold).
Maybe the ideal scenario is one or two people have top pair, another an over pair.
Comments?
The likelyhood of being up against a set is slim, plus if you are and you do make a flush you can often get three big bets in on the turn or river. You have less outs, but your implied odds go up. If there are multiple flush draws, which doesn't occurr all that often, hopefully you will have the nut one and if not, be able to identify that and release your hand. If you do hit the nut flush draw you will often get two or three big bets in and your implied odds go up again.
Bruce
While it is true that other player's holdings might change the actual expectation of your raise, you usually cannot realistically consider these things when making such decisions at the table. Now if you have SPECIFIC information that might influence your decision, that is one thing. However, if you can't tell what cards they have in their hands, you have to raise for value on its own merit.
While it is true that you will be making more $$ for the guy with the set when you raise with your flush draw, how can you know he has a set?
And while your scenario about two players having top pair and another an overpair is completely valid, it is hard to actually determine when this situation occurs, so therefore you cannot wait for this situation to arise in order to raise.
These considerations you have brought up are all valid but I don't think there is very much opportunity to make a practical application of these theories. Good post though....
Dave in Cali
I observed a very interesting 40-80 hold-em hand at Oceans 11 in So. Cal. tonight. Limp by one of our illustrious posters, followed by a raise by a live one, with another raise, and a cap. The blind calls and everyone else calls. The flop comes Q33. The initial raiser bets, the three bettor calls, the capper folds, and the blind calls. An 8 comes on the turn. There are no flush draws. Bet and now a raise by the three better. The blind calls and the initial bettor calls. An 8 comes on the river. Check, check, bet, check-raise, call, call. The blind has Q8s, the next player has AQ, and the next player has AA. On the flop AQ has 1 out to split the pot, while Q8 also has 1 out to split the pot plus he needs to catch runner runner to win. Interestingly on the flop, Q8 is in much better shape than AQ. God bless California hold-em. We pay higher collections, but nowhere else do you get this type of consistently good action 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a week. (P.S. The collection in this game is $7 per half hour)
Bruce
Heh, I remember this hand. I was the poster, I think. I had a small pair -- 55 as I recall. Well, I hadn't really expected it to get capped behind me, but getting 17-3 preflop I had to call the three additional bets, especially given a couple of the players who were in and the action I could expect from them. I think I called again on the flop, didn't I? I hate when all that happens -- unless I catch the card. Oh well, what's a couple hundred bucks between buddies? Fun game :-/ It's been that way sometimes recently.
When I saw the blind turn over Q8 I about fell out of my seat. He was totally clueless. How he called on the turn I don't know, but I guess if you call four bets with Q8s pre-flop what the hell is two big bets more. I think you did call on the flop. I was talking to a buddy playing 20-40 when I saw this hand.
Bruce
From the sound of it Student played a few hands tonight that may be driving Jim Brier to drink but we won't talk about those now. (Note: Jim, go ahead if it eases your frustration.)
Here is one where she bailed out when I believe she was getting good odds. She is a classic case of a player who will reach a certain win (or get even) and play too conservatively trying to protect it. I've tried driving John Feeney's "The next hour you play is the next hour you play" directly into her head but it is too thick.
As I write, she just argued that I had told her to watch for opponents who tighten up once they get even after being stuck or those that sit on her stack when ahead by a goodly amount. I meant that is what typical opponents DO, not what is the right thing to do.
On to the hand:
Before the flop Student has 5d 4d on the button. Three typical HPC players call and the blinds are loose. She calls. This is OK with me but not a big profit maker. Both blinds call.
The flop is Qc 3c 2s. SB checks, BB checks, check, bet, call, Student calls, and all call. There are now 6 big bets in the flop. IMHO, I think the call is OK. With the late bet, two flush and no high card strength, there is no good reason I can think of to raise here.
The turn is the Js. SB checks, BB bets, call, original bettor raises, fold, Student FOLDS! Her thinking was that she was afraid of the flushes and the higher straight (by someone playing a king ten, after all this is Hollywood Park!).
I hate this fold. Best case is that there is no reraise and all call. In that case she will be getting 14 big bets on her two big bet call. That is 7 to 1. Worse case is the BB rerasies and we lose a player or two. That drives down the odds but there are extra bets to be made on the river. And this doesn't look like a capping hand.
Let's also assume a club ace or six will be break even at best so she only has 6 clean outs (if king ten is there and an ace hits it just isn't her day). So she has 40 bad cards and 6 that will almost certainly win it. That is 6.7 to 1. This one isn't even close unless she misplays the hand when a Ac or 6c hits (i.e., folds a winner or pays off a loser big).
Homework for student: Keep track of bets in the pot and know your turn odds for various number of common outs. The turn is the betting round when knowing the odds really matters along with the logic of which outs are questionable and which are clean, and how future bets that can be won improve your hand when the immediate pot odds may be marginal.
All comments and flames are appreciated. BTW, the river came an ace of spades which would have won (not that this is relevant (i.e., the "would have won" part).
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Almost every draw stinks when its capped on the turn and this one more than most but mucking because of this possibility is paranoia. She's looking at 5-1 now, at least 6-1 when the round is over, and another 2-3 bets on the river if she hits. Calling is correct.
Why is she committed to paying off if the river is the Ac or 6c? Perhaps much of the time she will, but she's not looking at set over set here. If the original bettor on the turn bets the club hit on the river and gets called, she should bail (unless he's wierd).
I should read these things better before posting. So the ace might be a trap. Good laydown.
Steve,
In the worse case she ends up getting trapped for four bets on the turn against two opponents. Then she is getting 3.5 to 1 on her money (I'm still discounting the KT). She should get about four big bets on the river when she makes it after this much action so she ultimately will get about 4.5 to 1. But if two opponents cap the turn against her, the likelihood of a flush draw being out goes way down. So maybe we can include the other two outs as fairly clean.
Then that is worse case. Most of the time she will be calling just the two bets and have all or most of the opponents. With the money to be made on the river, I would call. But I don't expect to get the last word on this ;-).
Regards,
Rick
by misplacing that other post.
Rick, I agree with Badger on this one. I think it would be a bad call not only because of the possibility of having to call further raises but also because the As or the 6s could give someone a runner-runner Spade flush. Yes, in these games guys will play runner-runner especially if they have a pair (e.g.-QsTs, Qs9s, As3s, Ks3s,etc.) and most importantly your student has 5 opponents which makes all kinds of stuff possible.
I'll have to go along with the student on this one Rick.
Calling on the turn is PURE GAMBLING in a dangerous situation. You want to be the bettor or the raiser, not the caller.
I call. The other hand I am in the Dan Hanson/Skp camp wrong play at every street. Glad to see Badger debating all these hands though, it is not so often that we have strong arguments on both sides.
D.
I count 12 big bets, assuming the original bettor and caller both call the raise. So she's getting 6-1. Sure, there will be some bets to be had on the river, but I think counting on 4 big bets is a little excessive. More likely 2 or 3. With this many callers on the flop, I'd also put a high likelihood on the club flush draw being out there, so she's probably drawing to six outs. Like you, I wouldn't place much stock in KT being in the pot, but you do have to consider it when the decision is close. I also think there is at least a 50/50 chance of a re-raise from the original bettor, seeing as how he stepped out into a large field after checking the flop. I suspect two pair.
I think the call on the turn is a coin flip. I can think of reasons to call or fold. Small EV either way, don't worry about it. Variance considerations might predominate.
...
I have been lurking here for about three months and only recently started posting. I am quite overwhelmed with the incredible number of variables one has to consider on each and every hand. The thread about Rick's student is particularly puzzling to a relative novice like myself. A world champion like Badger, a formidable presence like Jim Brier, Rick Nebiolo, Dan Hanson, John Feeney, skp, Tom Haley, I mean the plethora of talent is astounding and you all seem to have legitimate arguments for disagreeing with each other. The pat answer "it depends" makes more and more sense to me with every post I read. I can only surmise that it is hands like this, with decisions so on the cusp of pos or neg EV, with variables so abstract such as the temperament of an unknown limper, and whether or not he or Jim or student are at the moment varying their play for effect, these are the kinds of hands you guys like to distill to the pure essence. What it means to me is that unless you have an exceptional read on your opponents if this situation comes up, flip a coin, how wrong can you be?
Bartholomew,
Actually when we start arguing that things may be close then what we are doing is establishing baselines for play and what we should be thinking about in difficult and (hopefully) common situations. Ultimately, we get a firmer grasp on "why" we should do something. Some would call it "brain storming", here it may be "brain bashing". But it is more fun than complaining about bad beats (I give advice for free but charge $2 per stupid bad beat story).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. At least Badger can't underbid me.
"..., with decisions so on the cusp of pos or neg EV, ..."
These are the issues that generate the most discussion but will put the least money in your pocket. The big winners are the posters that get a leak fixed with one short post that's straight to the point.
There is some value in each issue so I'll keep my head in it.
-Fred-
I believe that the primary place where fiery debates occur on the forum is when the play is not exactly clear and the EV of each play is fairly close. For instance, there will never be much debate about folding J8o for an UTG raise by a tight player. This play is pretty clear. But whether or not to play AQo for a raise (and if so, how to play it) is not always a clear call and therefore will generate much debate. It will "depend" on the nature of the game, the playing characteristics of the original raiser, the texture of the game, etc, etc, etc.... Many post flop decisions are very close as far as EV goes. These situations will also generate much debate. These debates may not conclusively prove "who is right" but everyone who reads and participates will improve their game by spending time thinking about poker. That's what the forum is here for.
Of course some posters are more likely to be right than others........
That one should generate some debate!
Dave in Cali
I am a winning 5-10 player who wins about 55% of the time, maybe a little better. I know that isn't great, but I feel that some of my loses are due to the looseness of the 5-10 game. I have been thinking about moving up to 10-20. One of my problems is that my bankroll isn't even close to the 300 big bet rule for the 10-20 game. Do you think this is a wise move? Or should I stick it out at 5-10 and learn how to play loose players better?
All comments are appreciated. Ray
You'll most likely get more technical answers from the regular posters but I'm in the same situation as you. The problem is when you move up too fast and get hit hard right away you no longer have the bankroll even to continue at 5-10. I would think you want to be killing the 5-10 game before taking on 10-20. The differences between 5-10 and 10-20 are dramatic compared to the differences between 2-4 and 5-10. More fancy raises, trickier opponents, and opps who can read you better. In the loose game play tighter, be patient and be agressive when you've got the goods. Post a few hands here when you have doubts and maybe you can plug some leaks.
I think you should stick it out. Moving up too fast is a killer. I know from personal experiences. Remember just because you play higher doesn't mean the game will be tighter. You have to learn to play in very loose games. This is where most of your earnings come from. Player's calling when they should fold etc. The 300-big bet rule is if your going to play this game only. If you have other everyday expenses it's probable isn't enough. I think you should have at least 500 Big Bets. If you have to pay your everyday expenditure out of your bankroll like I do more is better. My bankroll is around 12K, but I play $10-$20. If the games looks incredibly good I'll play $15-$30, but not that often.
It's the 55% that concerns me. Can you convert that to $$ per hour?
Also, can you be selective about the 5/10 you play in are there other games to move to? I like a bit of looseness but a maniac table is really hard to beat on a consistant basis others will argue with that but I don't buy their logic.
The hourly rate is more important then the % of time you win.
Moving to 10-20 depends a lot on the house and the players there - for example in Arizona the 10-20 was like watching grass grow a very tight game and there was much more money to be made in the 4-8 and 6-12 but you had to be selective about it.
Of course with 8 - 10 games going a lot of the time it is a bit easier to be selective.
I have won my last three sessions and my hourly rate for those three was $35 per hour. I have gotten lazy in keeping my journal and would have a hard time figuring my loses into my hourly rate, but my bank roll has been moving in the right direction.
Where I play there aren't too many options as to what 5-10 table you join. A player is usually seated at a feeder game and then moved to the main game over time. The main game is usually a little tighter though.
If you can't beat the hell out of a 5-10 game chances are you will do worse playing at a higher limit esp. if you are under capitalized. In smaller games hand selection can generally guarantee you a win but as you move up your opposition is stronger, players will take shots at you, the play is more deceptive, and reading becomes more important. If you want to give it a shot be real selective about the games you play in and try to lower your variance by avoiding certain hands and situations which may be only marginally positive, but don't play scared or you will get massacred.
Good luck!
Bruce
Don't move up. The toughest competition in the casino is usually at the 10-20 games. Better to build your bankroll and your experience at the 5-10 game and then take occasional shots at the 10-20 to see how you do. I underestimated the importance of an adequate bankroll but just knew that my "skill" would compensate for it. It didn't because I was playing with scared money. On the bright side, it was probably the best lesson that I've learned at the tables and I'm a better player for it. Too bad I had to sell my Grandmothers teeth to get back into the game. Good Luck.
OK Badger, tell me Student played this one right.
Jim Brier opens for a raise one after UTG. Student cold calls with Kd Jd (unlike Rounder, she just loves those suited hands). Two typical players cold call along with the big blind. There are five players and $85 in the pot.
The flop comes K 9 8 (she forgets the suits but thinks it is a rainbow). After the big blind checks, Jim Brier bets, Student calls(?), as does everyone else. There are five players and $160 in the pot.
Turn is a jack. The big blind checks, Jim Brier bets, Student raises, fold, fold, big blind calls and Jim Brier calls.
River is a blank. The big blind checks. Jim Brier checks. Student bets. Big blind raises. Jim Brier folds. Student makes a crying call. Big blind shows QT for a straight. Student thought that Jim had at least AK or a pair of aces but did not see his hand (which makes me wonder why she called before the flop). Jim makes a quiet exit shortly after the hand. Welcome to Hollywood Park, Jim. Maybe Student needs a better teacher unless Badger can justify calling a solid player who raises early with KJ suited with players yet to act.
Regards,
Rick
Most of the times in these CA games it is probably not too bad to call with the KJs. I would lay it down to Jim B and few others but not very often and she probably just had a hard time letting go, besides it must be fun to drive Jim nuts.
She needs to raise on the flop here I think too.
D.
Bad play preflop in early position. Perhaps calling in the back if it looks like it will be a family pot and only one raise. On the flop student has to raise. Gut shot draw may fold. If she thinks Jim B. has her beat on the flop then why play the hand to begin with. Raising certainly increases your chances of winning the pot. Calling a solid player with KJ is generally a poor play. Don't care if it is suited or not.
Bruce
I had the KhQh. King-Queen suited is a pretty hand I seldom drag pots with. I don't believe I opened with a raise but I think I just limped in. With 5 players including the big blind but excluding the small blind, then there would $85 in the pot before the flop as stated in your post. Otherwise if the pot had been raised there would be $160 in the pot pre-flop. On the other hand if I had decided to vary my play and raise with this hand, I don't think it is a bad raise because we were getting multi-handed action and raises were not driving out players. I was stuck about $500 for the session and I had to get back to the valley so this was my last hand anyway.
On the flop, I bet top pair/excellent kicker and I got called by your student and the big blind. I am unsure about who else was in the hand. Since I am on vacation so to speak I have not been writing down hands this week. There would be $160 now in the pot assuming no raise pre-flop and five players on the flop.
On the turn, when a Jack comes I now have picked up a gutshot straight draw with any Ten in addition to my top pair/excellent kicker. I bet the turn. When it was raised and called back to me there is now $310 in the pot and it costs me $30 to call. For all I know, a King could be an out, a Queen could be an out, and a Ten could be an out. I could have as many as 10 outs and as few as 4 outs. I remember that the flop was rainbow and I don't believe there was a flush possibility. Therefore, I called for another $30. Note also that this closes the action so I don't have to worry about any more raises.
At the river when a blank falls I fold when it is bet and raised back to me. Of course in sunny California (the land of "fruits and nuts") KQ suited is a dog to KJ suited and QT offsuit.
Jim,
She is pretty sure there was a raise. If there was not, then calling with KJ suited pre flop is not so bad since it will attract more calls and the game was not too aggressive. But I don't like her call of your bet on the flop either way.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, If you call a raise with KJ how can any rational player when they flop top pair lay down their hand on the flop for a single bet? Why would you play the hand to begin with if you lay down top pair on the flop? On the turn with more compelling evidence a fold may be the appropriate course of action, but mucking on the flop is certainly very weak-tight.
Bruce
Bruce,
I wouldn't call a solid up front raiser holding KJ suited with many players yet to act behing me in almost any game. But if there was no raise (and I did call) and Jim Brier bet into a field when a king flopped with many behind me, I would probably fold. If Marc Maniac made the same bet things might be different.
Regards,
Rick
.
Rick,
There are two players behind the student excluding the blinds who can have anything. I think your giving up too much if you flop top pair on the flop and you muck your hand for one bet. I know your position sucks and Jim plays solid, but Jim is just as likely to lead at the pot with pocket Queens or Jacks. I know I would if I were Jim rather than check and either call or pass. We are in agreement that the best strategy is not to get involved in the hand to begin with.
Bruce
Jim,
My late night math was wrong in the original post. With the raise, your numbers are correct.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Many of the games if not all at HP are shootouts with lots of callers raised or not.Id make the call preflop as long I I felt if I got there i'd win a big one.Did one poster suggest folding after the flop?As for releasing after the flop when JB bets ,terrible play.
Steve,
You wrote:"Rick Rick Rick... calling with that hand at Hollywood Park is fine. You say two "typical" players called too, and I take that to mean they had worse hands than her.
She cold called a very tight, solid player sitting on her right who raised in early position. Most of the field was left. I can see calling late after worse players had called, but not with so many left.
"Not raising the flop was not fine. She screwed up there. She wins the pot with a raise, or she gets the gutshots to make terrible calls, which is fine too".
Agreed. She needs to work on hands were she is medium strength and in the middle. But she is getting there very fast.
"Happy now? She made a mistake... not the one you were scolding her for tho, natch."
Scolding? Me happy? Anyway, she really wants to become a top player and has the talent. I wish I had her concentration and observational skills. Maybe I'll be her Butch Harmen to her Tiger Woods.
"You've done a great job with Student thus far, especially the cruel Omaha8 ban, but..."
Actually she started doing very well at Omaha. She was becoming a solid winner but really wants to play bigger. I don't see steady mid limit Omaha on the horizon. And her card reading skills help more in holdem. And she doesn't like watching paint dry.
"now you want her calling two big bets with crap, and routinely folding good hands preflop, at HP?"
Huh?
Regards,
Rick
i agree with rick preflop.
but there is an even more important issue here. rick, read you own posts!! you always forget to unbold after the quote.
actually, it's not a big deal. i just thought someone should point it out.
scott
scott,
Regarding the unbolding, I do 99.8% of my 2+2 browsing using the small market browser "Opera". There it looks fine. I just looked my post up using MS IE5 and you are right!!!
I wish someone told me earlier although I had only started omitting the "close bold" marker at the end of paragraphs a month or two ago. For some reason, Opera closes the bolding at the end of a paragraph and I thought it applied to any browser.
Regards,
Rick
To the 21CHE authors
After recently perusing the hand rankings, the fact that A9s was not listed struck me as odd. When K9s, Q9s, J9s and A9 are in the rankings, I find it hard to believe that A9s should be part of Axs. Please clarify, others will also find this interesting.
There is some specific discussion of A9s in the text.
It´s not that I overlooked the explanations (e.g. page 25) on how to play this hand - I´m just interested in the value of A9s in terms of hand rankings and groupings. I´m also aware that decisions regarding which hands to play are not based on hand groups but - as is aptly explained in your book - "on the intrinsic value of each hand in each particular situation" so, just in case you suspect me of being a hand ranking stickler, I´m not. The main reason I´m asking is plain and simple curiosity. So to cut a long story short: in which group and where in that group does A9s belong?
Just speculating, but to me the reason A9s is treated as part of the Axs group while K9s gets its own listing is because K9s (Q9s, J9s) can make a straight using both cards while A9s cannot. So A9s is more like A8s than K9s is like K8s, for example.
Might well be. Still, that doesn´t explain why A9 is listed separately (in group 8) and A9s is not.
/
the reason is that all Axs are about equivalent. a higher but still low kicker does not affect these hands very much because the majority of their profit comes from hands higher than one pair.
the reason that A9o gets a mention is that it is significantly better than other Axo. the reason it is so much better is that a higher portion of it's wins come from scenarios where kickers matter.
there is much more difference between A9o and A2o than there is between A9s and A2s. this is reflected in the rankings.
the reason that K9s, Q9s and J9s get a specific mention instead of being lumped in with Kxs, etc, is that the 9 makes the straight. the straight accounts for a significant portion of its wins.
scott
I'm in a 15-30 game at the Bellagio. I have the BB with Q8o. 1 early limper, sb folds , so I'm heads up. Flop coms KK3. I check, he checks. Turn brings a T making 2 hearts on board. I figure I can steal it with a bet. After my bet, the dealer immediatly flips the flop cards over, drops the deck and pushes me the pot. I mean this guy was a fast worker. This was all done in one motion before I, the limper, or anyone else could say anything. With my puzzled look he finally glances over to limper who still has cards. I hadn't stacked any chips yet. He ask if I want a floorman, I don't answer. He turns the flop back over saying he can recreate the hand, and ask me if I want a floorman again. No one speaks. I'm thinking if I answer this question yea or ney it gives away my hand. Either I want a call or I don't , either I have a K or I don't. Anyway I know the limper should have the option of calling so I say "just play the hand". He called. Dealer picks up a card from the table and flips over another heart as the river. Of course limper makes flush and calls my final bluff. I would like to know what I should have done and what the dealer should have done. I'm sure it's was an honest mistake however it was aggrevating losing this way. Since I have no idea where the river card came from. Should I have grabbed the pot quickly, do I want a floor or not, shouldn't he be asking the limper ?
You should simply take the pot. For all you know, the player could have said something to the dealer like "I fold" and the dealer is just reacting before you realize what has happened. I would take the pot and start stacking my chips. Let the dealer and the player call the floor if they like.
Jim, are you saying I should protect myself at all times ? I seem to be on the losing end of every dealer f-u lately ? Have I been naive ?
I am saying that no one has a greater interest in protecting yourself than you have. When the dealer pushes you the pot, simply take it and start stacking. Assume that the dealer knows what he is doing and let the house and the other player worry about any potential conflicts.
Thanks Jim, sounds like good advise.
I would stop the dealer from pushing me the chips and alert him to the other active player in the pot. I also would not tip dealers who don't pay attention to the game.
Scenario: I observed the following hand and am not sure of the correct answers.
Hero Hand: QQ (Novice player)
Hero Position: BB
UTG raises (Novice player)
1 seat left of UTG 3 bets (Solid player)
all fold to hero and she calls and novice calls (3-way pot)
Question # 1 - Should hero just call because she may not have the best hand and want to keep her hand deceptive because of her poor position? They may have AA KK Aks - wait and see the flop?
Flop: Th 9c 6h
Question # 2 Would it be best to Rope-a-dope (check & call) all the way to the end. By playing this way if they have a bigger pair, hero would save money and if they were betting a weaker hand, hero would win several bets.
Question # 3 Would it be best to check-raise with this hand since they raised & re-reaised in early position; and are unlikely to have a straight draw but maybe a flush draw?
Action on the Flop: Hero bet overpair to avoid giving free card to straight or flush draw. UTG raises and solid player accidentally exposed AKd as he was mucking his hand. Hero just called raise.
Fourth Street: 8d (Board Th 9c 6h 8d) Question #4 Should hero lead or check and call; giving a free card to a straight or backdoor flush draw. If she leads and gets raised again, does she fold or call? Thanks for your opinions.
Personally, I like the flat call preflop. If an Ace or King comes on the flop, I am probably done with my hand. Also, by just flatcalling, my hand remains a bit of a mystery to my opponents. For example, I can now more easily represent a staright on a board of 10,9,8,6 (I use that as an example because that is the board that we have here).
Given the 10,9,6 flop, I generally would try for a checkraise here on the assumption that the bet would be coming from my right (the preflop 3 bettor). The problem with betting out is that I am likely to be raised by someone regardless of wheteher I am beat. In other words, I am likely to gain more information by raising as opposed to betting out. Checkraising also has a greater chance of reducing the competition to 1 opponent. The other advantage of going for the checkraise is that I also have the option of folding without putting in any chips if there is a bet and a raise back to me.
Anyway, let's assume that we flat call preflop, bet on the flop and just call the raise on the flop. It's heads-up and the board then reads 10,9,8,6. Obviously, you should know that your opponent can't have a straight. You should also know that he can't be so sure about your hand i.e. he may well think "ya, ok, he may have called preflop with QJs or 77 or something". So, the question really becomes "how do I best convince him that I have a straight"...Generally, the best play is to lead bet again. It is highly unlikely that your opponent will raise you. If he does, you should know that something is fishy and may even want to consider poppping him back. Put yourself in your oppoent's shoes. If you were him, would you raise with AA or even 10,10 on this board?
If you decide to check, a checkraise ought to be considered for the same reasons given above. Your opponent is more likely to bet on this board if he had AQ, AQ or JJ. He is likely to check with AA, KK or 10,10 because giving free cards is not as big a concern with these hands as with other hands.
Geez, I wish I could write more concisely. Sorry for the long post...I don't have time to make it short.
BTW, the rope-a-dope strategy may not be a bad idea if you were heads-up to begin with.
i agree with most of this analysis, but i think a check raise is a better play. especially after failing to reraise the flop.
i am pretty sure that we want don't want to lose him on the turn so we should not try to convince him that we have the straight (unless he has TT and will give it up when he fails to fill. haha. that's real likely.)
the opp has at most 4 outs if he is losing. the pot can't be big enough to want to drop him. i want his AK, AQ, AJ, JJ, JT, etc in. i want them all to call.
if we bet we lose most of these and most will bet. we will lose some of them on the check raise but people hate to bet/fold.
and if the rare KK, AA, TT will really check fearing a check raise then that's great. we save a bet.
but i would have probably reraised the flop, after which i would lead out.
scott
With regard to #1, our hero should just call and not cap the betting here. Make it AA or KK and I would cap despite my poor position but with QQ I would just call being out of position like this plus if an Ace or a King flops your hand is probably dead.
With regard to #2 and #3, once the flop comes I would not necessarily go for a check and call strategy all the way to the end because I could easily have the best hand given that no Ace or King has flopped. I want to make sure I collect something on every street and I don't want to give any free cards. My tendency would be to lead at this flop with my big over pair and see if I get raised and by whom. If it gets raised and re-raised back to me I would probably fold figuring between the raiser and the re-raiser I am up against a better hand. If it get raised by the 3 bettor after the UTG folds, then I would probably just call and check the turn depending upon what showed up. Unless an Ace or a King shows up I will see this hand through to the river in a heads-up situation.
With regard to #4, our hero needs to recognize some things:
1. The UTG did not cap pre-flop so this tends to deny AA or KK.
2. Given that the 3 bettor is gone and exposed an AK then there are only 6 ways the UTG raiser can have AA or KK. There are only 3 ways for UTG to have TT given a Ten on the flop.
3. His raise of our bet on the flop means AA,KK,TT,QQ,JJ, or maybe AT, KT suited, JT suited, etc. given that he is a novice and capable of anything.
4. There are enough hands that our hero can beat and enough doubt about the novice player that we will not be folding this hand unless an Ace or a King shows up and we get heat.
5. On the turn, our hero has picked up a gutshot straight draw with any Jack.
I think our hero should check and call on the turn. If our hero bets the turn and gets raised, then she must call because she has 6 outs to beat AA or KK and there is still an outside chance she could have the best hand when up against a novice.
I like skps answer better.
BB check calls on fourth street. River is a Queen (making her a set) She bets ant UTG calls with ATo. Novice raised UTG with ATo and floped top pair with ace kicker.
I have been dumping this hand when it gets 3 bet to me in the sb. Suited or not, multi or not, 10/20 or 15/30. For instance 15/30 one late limper, a cutoff raise and a button reraise (button unknown), limper and cutoff solid. 2 1/3 to me, I've been letting it go and seeing multiway big pots go down to lesser complete hands. Although I was dominated by AK, or big pairs, when the hand hits it can be huge. I would like to know, "if I think my escape skills are good enough, should I go for it if it might be multiway"? Seeing as how I don't like to take a lot of heat with the hand to see the river. Am I giving up too much ? Comments welcome !
KQ offsuit is a clear fold. Usually KQ suited is a fold except when you are partially in and you think you will get good multi-way action from at least 3 plsyers. I might venture a play with KQ suited. You need to be able to get away from this hand quick if you flop top pair with no flush or straight draw and get any heat.
It's a lot different when the raise comes from the cutoff and the reraise from the button. MANY players would reraise with a wide range of hands on the button that do not dominate KQ b/c they think the cutoff is stealing or semi-stealing and want to get heads up. If the raises come from earlier on, it's an easy fold. But in the situation Clint describes, I would call with KQs (maybe still fold KQo) and not necessarily panic if I just have top pair on the flop. I would be very afraid if the cutoff re-raises preflop after I call.
But there was also a limper before the cutoff (described as solid) made the initial raise. That also puts a different spin on things. The presence of the limper indicates that cut-off may not necessarily be on a steal and if button knows that, his 3 bet is also likely to represent a strong hand.
I agree with your analysis if there was no limper, cutoff raises and button 3 bets.
I missed that -- good point. I was assuming no limper.
I had started a thread on June 28 (KQ facing a limp re-raise) about just this topic. The concensus was virtually unanimous that it was good poker to dump the hand facing that kind of heat,although in that particular hand, the KQ would have been a winner. (All the "Results Wizards" may line up on the left.)
The hand is just too easily dominated by legitimate 3-bettors, and even after allowing for the maniac effect, I think it is better play to be patient and wait for more attractive opportunities.
I went back and read your thread of a week ago on this subject. I'm sure I read it then. Funny how some things need reinforcing again and again before they take. I don't consider myself slow but until you live it you ain't done it . Folding a winner seems to be negative reenforcement to good poker theory. Which can be as compelling. Thanks again everyone.
KQ is a clear fold against a solid raise, let alone a reraise and poor position. I would venture to say that this is one of the worst hands to be holding against heated action. I will play KQs against a loose raise and several callers, but even that is dicey.
"Escape skills" really won't help you. What are you going to do if the flop comes K72 rainbow? Fold? Even Houdini will get trapped with these cards.
KQ for more than 2 bets is a big time losing hand. In fact, if you fold for one raise against a good player, you save a lot of money over time.
My wife is pretty new to short handed play. So I wanted to give her some advices. This is what I told her. Can you pleas correct me if I´m wrong or add something, when I missed something (don´t forget, she´s new to shorthanded play)
1) Raise preflop from the small blind with every pocket pair, A, K and two cards above T when the other player is cappable of folding preflop (even if it´s just sometimes)
2) Raise preflop from the big blind only with premium hands and once in a while with hands like JTs, just for not being too predictable.
3) When you are first to act on the flop and raised preflop, bet the flop no matter what comes. (same goes for turn and river if you got some kind of draw and missed)
4) When you are first to act on the flop and did not raise preflop always check the flop. If you flop a pair (or better), a flushdraw, an open end straight draw or a gut shut (or backdoor flush) draw with at least one overcard, check raise the bettor. If the other player does not bet the flop, always bet the turn, no matter what you have.
5) Fold on the flop with all other hands.
6) When you check raised your opponent on the flop, always bet the turn.
7) Always bet the river when you bet your draw and missed (exeption: when you hit a small pair or got at least A high)
8) Don´t give your opponent too much credit for having a hand.
9) Call preflop raises in the small blind almost with every hand.
10) Call preflop raises in the small blind most hands.
11) Try raise bluffes on the river regulary.
Thanks for all responses in advance.
M.A.
Never do anything always.
Says, "if after the flop , thou has a pair plus a possible straight draw, i.e. (K,J) and the flop is (Q,J,T), though hold a weak hand unless the pair is boss pair. Consider: AA, QQ, JJ, KK TT, AK, AQ, AJ, K9, and 98, are all better cards than KJ, not even considering flush draws."
However with a rainbow flop and no preflop raise, this picture changes significantly. Does anyone else agree this statement could use some revision ? I approach this because one should not have called a preflop raise (mostly) with this hand in the 1st place. Also no early raise changes the likelyhood of the above mentioned hands out against you, although you could still be chasing. This seems more like a pot odds vs. heat proposition rather than a golden rule. Comments appreciated.
I agree. I don't see how a nut straight draw counts as a "weak hand" so I wouldn't agree with the statement even without the pair. It would be correct to say that these hands look better than they really are. They tend to trap players into making aggressive mistakes because of the potential for improving to second best. So play it as if you had no kicker and check and call out of the blind.
The real problem with these hands is that they're difficult to price in a multiway pot because some of your outs are held by your opponents. Even so, as long as you play as if your kicker's no good you can't make a big mistake. Heads up against a better hand, figure that you'll win 1/3 of the time.
Who is Davis? I thought this might be from Cloutier/McEvoy book.
Your hand isn't bad here, and has a reasonable chance to improve to a straight. Seems to me you can continue even if your hand is allegedly weak.
Granted there are some people will not raise w/ QQ, KK AQ at times.
Specific conditions will dictate how to play this hand but rarely will you fold.
"Holy Bible" the Holdem Poker Bible , by Davis. The cover doesn't give his first name and I don't remember as I don't have the book with me now. However it is a collection of short passages and golden rules pertaining to the play of Holdem, each passage supplimented or augmented by a passage from THE "Bible". Quite interesting, but some (minor) stratagy (like here) is probably outdated. You can read the whole thing in a couple of hr. and for a quick brush up before you play, it's great, for the average and begining players. The "Bible" analogies seem appropriate as well. Very interesting, but I'm not sure if it's still in publication.
n/t
Hi Everybody.
I have been playing BlackJack for well over a year now, and have been making quite a good profit on it. Lately I have been very interested in POker. POker really got my intention after seeing the WSOP on the Discovery channel. I believe a guy named Noel Furlong won........ Here is my question: Is it possible to make a good profit playing poker, like it is in Blackjack?? Also how much is skill and luck in poker?? I mean, if I sad down with the world champion of Texas Hold'em. How whould that game be? WHould I stand a chance?? I hope somebody will take the time, and answer my questions.
P.S. Can somebody recommend some good books/videos on Seven Card Stud??
Best, John Slater
i don't know what you mean by skill or luck, but if you are interested in the std dev of hourly rates i think it is about 10 big bets. hourly rates are on the order of 1 or 2 big bets.
yes. it is possible to play poker profitably.
i don't understand 'how would that game be?'
but whether you would stand a reasonable chance would depend on the structure (blinds vs stack sizes, limit vs nl or pl). you would always have some positive chance of winning. but, assuming the wolrd champion (or whomever you are playing) is better than you, you will usually lose.
7cs for advanced players is a great book. it's the only one i've read besides the stud section of supersystem, which i thought was rather superficial.
stud is a great game because you can have a sizeable edge against pretty good players. in holdem you dont win much unless you have some bad players to play against.
scott
If you think (and I do) yhat there is skill in blackjack well you're in for a treat. Poker is one of the most difficult game to learn. Sure Bridge and Chess are good but Poker offers a lot more than most people think. For starters, in Poker there isn't a perfect strategy that dictates every hand. You have to adjust to the number of opponents in the hand, your position, your reputation at the table, your take on the other players, your cards, tells and many many more.
Poker is a game of skill. NOT LUCK!
Of course anyone can bet or raise a straight flush and win. No problem... But in the long run as we like to say it, a solid player will crush weaker ones. Always.
Poker is not played against the house, it's played against other players, your edge can then be significantly bigger. If you were to play against a player who has a solid base of poker strategy, you would surely loose over a period of time. If you were to play a world class player, you would be crushed to death.
If you're interested in 7cardStud, I strongly recommend Winning 7card Stud for the low and medium limits by Roy West. Then when you'll have digested it, buy 7cardStud for advanced players by David Sklansky.
Don't venture in the higher limits (20-40 or higher) until you have many, many hours of play. In the thousands... If not you'll get crushed. The higher the limit, the tougher the players get.
Hope this helps...
Keep reading 2+2 and you'll learn a lot.
theprince
On one hand, poker is completely luck-dependent because, apart from when you have the nuts, you´ll never know if you´re going to win that pot when you put money in it. On the other hand, poker has nothing to do with luck in the long run, because the foundation of being a good player is knowing the probability of a certain event to occur, and good players will use that knowledge to such an extent that they do win on a very regular basis. My personal recommendation (due to my lack of blackjack insights?) is forget blackjack, at least that´s what I did, because the house has a built-in mathematical advantage over the other players (apart from bj tourneys), in poker you "only" have to beat the others. Regarding books: try Seven card stud for advanced players (21st century edition)
Purchase Roy Wests 7 Card Stud-42 lessons book. This book is easily comprehended and gives you a solid foundation to build on. I own other 7CS books but this one is by far the best.
Unlike blackjack, poker odds are EXTREMELY dependent upon your skill level versus that of your opponents. In the short term, anything can happen. But, in the long term, the game is beatable.
If you played against the "best in the world", you would lose unless you hit a lot of hands. However, even in the 2000 WSOP championship event, there was a lot of luck at the final table. However, both players in the top 2 (TJ Cloutier and Chris Ferguson) are elite players who you probably would not invite to a home game.
There is a very high frustration level in the game. You can do everything right and still lose in a given night. This is true of blackjack also, however, your small games will make some of the most absurd plays in the world to beat you. However, these players also make enough errors such you definitely can beat them over time.
Hello All,
I am posting this question to see what the forum thinks about the following situation.
3 handed 10-20 holdem game - Is it correct or incorrect to straddle (obviously the straddle occurs on the button) for the duration that the game is 3 handed. The player in the small blind is tight agressive, the player in the big blind is loose agressive. Both like to check raise frequently.
Both are capable of raising draws, betting middle or low pair and check raising if they feel they have the best hand or best draw.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts or suggestions.
Michael D.
Hey Mike!
Only if one of the players is PK! (Sorry forum, inside joke)
It might not be clear that you are probably talking about keeping a forced straddle button in the game when it breaks down to three handed.
If you have an edge on the other 2 players (which I assume you did) I would think you're better off taking it out of the game and opting to play 15-30 or 20-40 instead. This is because the straddle button can cause a lesser player to play accidently correct against you. This is Ok in a full game because the biggest mistakes people tend to make with a straddle IMHO are usually pre-flop. But due to the randomness of hands in a 3 handed game, your edge is probably best utilized without it.
Take care.
Hey Kevin,
Good to hear from you.
The situation I described was not a forced straddle. Small blind folded 80-85% of the time and raised 15-20% or the time. The big blind folded 25% of the time called 50% of the time and raised 25% of the time.
I found that the forced pressure placed on the small blind to either make it 3 bets or fold was worth the extra edge. The small blind was a very tight agressive player who probably did not care for short handed play (is this true IRS Frank? - just a guess) I was able for the most part to isolate heads up with position. I felt this advantage was worth it.
As I said, I am not sure if this is a good or bad strategy.
Thanks for the input Kevin.
Michael D. (and no it was not PK!!)
Hello,
Isn't there something to be said for throwing out the idea of the straddle and simply taking a very aggressive approach to being on the button with solid (three handed solid) raises?
The straddle has potential to cost you alot of extra bets that may be best saved for legitimate hands. There is also the chance of falling into the hole of feeling you need to defend your straddle of BB raises.
I often play in a three handed game with two lose-aggressive players. Am I off base here with my thinking?
Radish
I misunderstood the original question. But offhand, I'd say it doesn't matter since if the sb folds 80-85% and the bb 50% of the time in a 3 handed game, you'd be correct to raise EVERY time anyway.
This is a very good question...
Between both of them, they may be collectively re-raising the proper amount of time to thwart this strategy. Since I didn't have time to do the math, I shouldn't have shot out such an the off the cuff response. I apologize.
Again, I apologize for at first answering without thinking. Here's where it gets really embarrassing because I've now thought about it and I may still be wrong! But I think I am close and perhaps someone else can do the math the correct way...
Assume 100 hands. Also take into account that we can only consider the blind money since you can't place a $$$ amount on post flop play. But it should at the very least even out since you have position and figure to play better than your 2 opponents post flop.
First the big blind. You will win the $10 blind the 50 times he folds for a $500 profit. 25% of the time he will call you. Since you have position and showed strength, I think it's safe to say you will win at least %70 of these hands. So you win $20 17.5 times and lose $20 7.5 times for a gain of $200. Lets say the 25 times he re-raises, he wins 80% of the hands (again, I think this is more than fair since he is out of position). Now you lose your $30 20 times and win his $30 5 times for a loss of -$450. So you have a net gain on the bb of $250.
If the sb folds 85% of the time you will win $5 of his money uncontested 85 times out of 100 for a profit of $425. He will re-raise you 15% of the time. But at least some of these times you will also win. Even if he wins over 80% of the time he re-raises, (again, not only do you have position but there will be times you improve on the flop when he does not) you will lose $30 12 times and win his $30 3 times for a loss of -$270. So you show a total profit from the sb of +$155.
I think these figures are very generous (to the blinds). So whether you put the $20 in as a straddle or a raise is irrelevent. The only difference is that if your opponents don't know any better, a straddle makes it less obvious of what you are doing. Some players will start to play tougher if they are constantly getting raised. So I think the bottom line is YES! Given the percentages you gave, it is definitely a good idea for you to get $20 in before the flop regardless of how you go about it. Great question!!!
I don't see why you would voluntarily put $$ into the pot BTF when you don't have to. Straddles are not good poker. Putting up blinds voluntarily when you are not required to is not good poker. The opponents you mentioned have little effect on whether this is correct - it isn't.
Dave in Cali
Dave-
He is talking about a three handed game. If the blinds incorrectly fold too often, then he is definitely correct to raise and try to pick up this dead money regardless of his 2 cards! If you think about it, it doesn't really matter if he raises or straddles.
I think his question was more concerned with the percentage of times they would need to fold and/or re-raise to make this play correct.
Dave,
Kevin has summed up what my thought process is here - as I said I am not sure how correct it is - it may be awful - however I can honestly say that I have found it extremely profitable in 3 handed situations - I have used it about 15 different times or so - most players do not know how to react - I agree with you that a straddle is a losing play - but given the circumstances I described, from my limited experiences, the presssure applied to the blinds forces them to play incorrectly pre-flop - ie calling when they should fold or raising when they should call - The other major important factor is how well one plays compared to his opponents after the flop - I have found that this factor along with guaranteed postiion throughout the hand - has definitely been a profitable play.
I realize I may be opening myself up to look like a complete and total idiot here but felt it was worth it to get others opinions.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Michael D.
I think I understand what you guys are saying now.
I guess that the straddle move might be OK to use against some players, especially since you said that these particular players did not know how to react to it. It might also be useful in places where you can post a "live straddle" since you could insure that you were last to act on all 4 rounds of betting (assumes you were playing 3 handed still).
However, if you make this move against knowledgeable players, you will inevitably lose $$. Good players will simply reraise you with their best hands and fold their worst hands. Then, when you get reraised, you have a random hand being played for two bets blind against a raise. Often you will find yourself in a difficult position when you straddle against good players who know how to adjust. One thing though, if the players you are against are not adjusting well to this move, then perhaps it would have some useful application, I would just use it very cautiously.
Dave in Cali
Let me get this out of the way first,
On the flop, your odds of improving by the river are divided by about two, right? For example, an inside-straight draw (with 4 outs) is about 10 or 11 to 1, but on the flop, with two cards to come, it's about 5 to 1.
My Question: Let's say you have some sort of draw on the flop you're not too crazy about(inside straight, just overcards, hoping to hit a set), and you've decided that you want to only see the turn card [people will often phrase it in their post's like, "I decided to peel off one card"]. Don't you need to be getting somewhat higher immediate pot odds(on the flop), since you're not planning on going to the river if you don't improve? And if yes, about how much higher?
Because of Sklansky's implied-odds reasoning, I'm assuming you wouldn't need to adjust them to the full required odds for your draw. Like 11 to 1 for a 4 outer, but yet higher than 5 to 1 with two cards to come.
Thanks, Dan
You need to be careful about estimating the odds w/two card to come. It isn't twice the chance of im provement of improvement on the next card. It is always less.
If you want to figure out your true chances, figure out the probability you don't improve. (Eg if you have a gut shot(and thats all) the odds of making it by the river is 1- P( missing both times)= 1-((43/47)(42/46)).
If you plan to "peel one off", just consider the chances you'll improve on the next card compared to the pots odd. Actually if you are drawing to a big hand (like a straight), you dont' need to be getting say 10-1, since you have implied odds. That is if you anticipate making extra bets besides what is in the pot if you make it. So you could draw to a gut shot if you were getting 8-1 from the pot.
Note the reason you less than 10-1 is not bc of the chances of improving by the river (youll pbly fold on the turn unless you pick up something esle or the pot if big), but bc of the extra bets you intend to win if you make your hand on the turn.
In addition to what suspicious has posted I would add that we must remember that hold-em is not like draw poker where we get to draw two cards. There is a betting around between each card so our cost to draw is higher. This means we have to be more conservative about evaluating your chances of improving to the best hand. HPFAP-21st Century Edition, Appendix A contains a chart that shows you the probability of completing various hands with a given number of outs based on two cards to come.
Your odds to draw are not exactly 2-1 with two cards to come. You also want to make sure you are drawing at the "nuts". The worst thing to do is hit your draw and get beat anyway.
You can "peel off a card", then fold the turn. In this case I use about 11-1 for a gutshot straight assuming no flush draw exists. If there is a flush draw, I go on 3 outs vice 4. This makes the odds about 14.5-1.
Question? normally you raise to either get more money in the pot or narrow the field. However if your preflop raises are not narrowing the field should you now not raise before the flop or do you still have instances where getting more money in preflop is correct? background: 5-10 game with a kill,blinds $2 and $5 avg of 6 players see a flop. a raise at any time will normally result in checks around to the raiser(not necessarily a bad thing). an early position raise will result in 2-3 seeing the flop. a late position raise drops no-one. I stopped raising in late position, figuring if I hit the flop I could then raise later. I also started playing hands I would usually toss. also knowing there are few raises, can you lower your starting hand requirements or is this where i went wrong? a few examples: 3-5 players in , I'm on or near the button, no raise, very rarely do the sb and bb raise. I played 22,33 hoping for a set played far more connectors than usual, like 78 off, 67 suited , or 1 gappers like 9J or 810. I don't think it was wrong to play these but I had trouble getting away from them when hitting a partial flop or open ender. a flop of J,6,2 with my J9 resulted in me playing it out and getting out kicked. all comments welcome Thanks
Nothing wrong with playing small pairs and suited connectors from late position. You might even consider raising with some of these hands. However, hands like J9o and 78o are rarely worth a play in any game IMO.
If you're in late position with a legitimate raising hand then by all means raise. Reducing the field is only one consideration. Magnifying the mistakes who opened with garbage is another (apologies to Jim). Plus, raising on the flop sometimes puts you into position to win it with a turn bet even if the flop misses you. As for the second part of your post stay away from non-suited gappers. Even KJ is a dangerous hand against multiple opponents. If you're going to play suited connectors make sure you do it with enough opponents to make your pot odds right for a draw.
3-6 HE last night. Game is loose, passive, with several weak calling stations in the game. I would consider 3 players in the game were decent players, a buddy on my immediate left, one other guy downtable who played generally a fairly sound game, and your humble author.
I'm on the button with Qc-Th. I don't really like this combo very much, but if you are ever going to play it, here was the spot. Five limpers up to me, I call, and both blinds call as well. Eight of us in an unraised pot to take the flop of Qs-9c-4c.
BB bets out. 3 callers to me, including the decent player downtable who was in early position. I just called. I did contemplate a raise, but my thinking was like this. I've got top pair with a weak kicker, and what would I accomplish by raising. Thin the field? They were already in for 1 bet, and the chances of anyone folding who might outdraw me even if I WAS in the lead were slim and nil, and slim just left town.
Raise for value? I've got an early position bettor into a big field and several callers. Can I assume I have the best hand? If I did raise, and got re-raised by the BB, should I dump or peel off the turn card to see what happens? Does the Qc add any value for runner-runner flush potential? Should I raise to possibly portray the flush draw and/or possibly buy a cheap turn card from the sheep if they all check to me on the turn?
Anyway, turn card was a low club, the 3, I think. BB now checks, and much to my surprise, it got checked around to me. Who would take the free card now? Am I walking into a check-raise? Do I have the best hand? I felt from the texture of the game that my Q was best, and I bet. BB calls, decent player calls, 1 other caller.
River is Kh. Checked to me, I just turned my cards over. I figured no worse hand could possibly call in this situation, and maybe the overcard killed me. BB mucked, so I had him beat all along, the late position limper also quickly mucked, and the other guy turned over JTo, and took the pot with his str8.
In talking over the hand after the session, my buddy felt I should have raised the flop to take control of the hand. He's possibly right, given the hands as they actually existed, for when the small club comes on the turn, and they (presumably) check to me again, when I go ahead and bet out, the guy with the open-ended straight draw may fold. He is thoughful enough to put me on the flush, so why would he draw for the str8 on the river when he didn't have a club card? I suppose we cold argue the merits of his playing JTo up front, but that's another thread. Thoughts?
I'm on the button with Qc-Th. I don't really like this combo very much, but if you are ever going to play it, here was the spot. Five limpers up to me, I call
Unfortunately I don't have it in front of me, but HPFAP21 specifically mentions that offsuit face-ten hands should often be mucked after a few limpers. You like the pot odds but could easily be dominated, and will not be able to put much heat on if you flop top pair. Of course in low limit I would usually call too, but I think this is worth noting.
As you point out, although a raise on the flop won't thin the field right away, it might get people like that JTo out on the turn when you bet again, as the flush scariness factor goes way up. I also think that if you aren't very confident that your hand is best, you should consider folding. There are a lot of possible draws, and (if not best) you are playing a 3 outer probably, right?
This guy was on a straight draw - somehting LL HE players live for you ain't getting him out of the game with a ski mask and a .357. I really doubt if he would muck his beloved straight draw to a flush on board. All he knows is he has a draw and will cry call you to the river.
If a player is good eneough to muck the hand maybe it is a play to bet the turn - which I probably do anyway.
PS Was one of the other guys Don.
Don was sitting on my immediate left, and we were discussing the hand at home after the session. I played 6-12 last night with the str8 drawer in the game, and after seeing some of the junk he showed up with at a little higher level, I have reevaluated. You're right, I wouldn't have been able to get this guy out with a gun. Thought it was worth some discussion.
Mike, are you back from Europe?
Nothing wrong with playing preflop QTo on the button. If you raise on the flop and the flush comes on the turn are you going to bet the hand? I doubt it, espc. since you have the Queen of clubs. So the outcome is not going to be any different. Raising preflop with a marginal hand when you are last to act doesn't accomplish anything. You have no draw and you have a weak kicker and you won't muscle anyone by raising.
Bruce
I think your plays were fine except that my preference in this situation is to raise with top pair/fair kicker since the bettor could be betting a draw and I want to charge everyone for staying with me when I may have the best hand. I think with AQ someone might have raised pre-flop so you are a big dog to KQ and QJ but a favorite to everything else. No one raised the flop bet so the other players probably have some kind of draw. However, with this many opponents just calling is understandable and I have no strong opinion one way or the other.
I think you played the hand just about as well as you could.
This seems to be an reverse-implied odds (sklansky term) problem. Since this is a flop that many hands will like, all the draws will be getting implied odds from your hand. If you didn't hold the Qc, it makes the play of the hand even trickier. The play should be to get in cheaply and see what happens on the turn in a loose passive game like this.
I think I raise the flop here. If I'm three bet I fold. If the turn brings the flush then it's easy to muck if someone bets or if I'm check-raised. Further, the pot's pretty small, which means I can catch people making a fairly big mistake if they call another bet with a gutter (or mid pair, etc.). But the main reason I raise is because I want to find out if my kicker is good, and generally a guy can accomplish this by raising and seeing if he's three bet (unless the original better has QJ, in which case they'll often call. But if they have KQ or AQ they usually raise in an effort to thin the field).
Guy! This was a loose-passive $3-$6 game!
I'm not totally against a raise here, but remember, the big blind led bet the flop. Who's going to fold for another bet?
C'est vrai tha nobody's folding. But, by raising you figure out if you've got the best hand. Note that if you're re-raised you can easily dump, since you're at best dominated and your kicker can complete all kinds of exotic gutter draws. So, if the gaggle just calls, you're a hugie banana for the time being (you will get run down by pocket fours on the river, but there's not much you can do about that) AND you get more money in when you're ahead.
So-- if three bet, you muck. If everyone just calls, you're ahead, and can procede from there.
Further, by raising you define your hand as top pair, which is a good thing in these small games-- in fact, I usually like it if people put the 'right read' on me in a LL game, as this accomplishes one very important thing--- it tells you a TON about their hand if they play back at you on a later street (or lead bet). In a LL game they may 'know' what you have, but they're not good enough players to really do anything with that information EXCEPT give away their hands when they get there.
Example. You raise the flop, everyone (correctly) puts you on a Q with a mystery kicker. If the lead better re-raises, he owns you-- muck at your leisure. If the turn brings the flush, or some other terrifying card (like a wheel card) and someone bets into you, their announcing that they've got a Q beat-- and usually have it beat badly. Of course, you've got to know just who at the table has a clue, since some players will know what to do when they've got your hand pegged, but most won't. In fact, all most of them will do is politely let you know when they run you down.
I consider this concept akin to your 'they'll play to beat A's' concept, which IMO is one of the most valuable contributions to HE theory in the past five years. If you define your hand, then they'll define theirs. The only difference is that you know what to do with the information, while they do not.
In sum-- by raising you can get away from your hand very easily if you're three bet by the original raiser (or three bet by a limper, as that lame limp- re-raise trick almost always indicated a monster set when utilized by a player in a game smaller than 6-12) OR if someone gets excited on a future street. And, if you have the best hand, it allows you to put more money in when you're still ahead.
I'm reading Super/System, and Brunson very often uses the words "flop" and "turn" interchangably. One of many examples: Page 391 in the chapter called "When You FLOP a Set". The second sentence of the chapter reads "If you TURN Second or Bottom Set. . .". He of course means "If you flop second or bottom set". Was there once a time when the "turn" was not the 4th card to hit the board?
just wondering. . .
In the old days of hold'em they used "turn" to refer to the first 3 cards. It wasn't until the game gainded popularity that 'flop' came to be known only as the first 3 cards and 'turn' specifically meaning 4th street.
Seems you have the wrong book.
You ought to be reading a beginners book on limit holdem.
You have totally misread the paragraph because you don't understand the terminology.
He means turn 2nd or bottom set cuz a set is 3 of a kind comprising 2 in the hole and one on board.
I was wondering which books were good to read for Holdem. I have already read Holdem FAP, Lee Jone's Winning Low Limit Holdem, Caro's Fundamentals, Malmuth's Essays on Poker, and i am getting Super/System soon. Are there any others that i should not miss out on?
Thanx.
Fist
Once you've read Krieger's books and Cooke's book, you've just about read everything.
here is what i read in the order i read it:
top, hefap, 7csfap, split poker for ap, book of tells, supersystem, ciaffone's nl/pl book, tj's nl/pl he book, sklansky on poker, poker essays 1, poker essays 2
the word read gets less rigorous as we go down the list. for example, i only read the hold 'em sections of ciaffone and rueben's book. and i have only read parts of the poker essays books.
i would recomend all of these books.
scott
Scott, I am suprised that you have not read "Improve Your Poker" by Ciaffone and Feeney's new book, both of which I would recommend to Fistdantilus.
which i would also recommend.
until just a couple months ago i had only read the advanced player series and top.
improve your poker is on my long term list, but right now i am reading don quixote.
scott
nt
it doesn't hurt to have someone ask this every week or so. remember that the reason we get this board free is that it helps mason sell books. having to tell a new player that he should buy 2+2 because they are by far the best every couple weeks is well worth the forum.
scott
for sure. If you read nothing else read TOP.
Also the other books Scott recommended when you find the time.
The two newest 2+2 books are excellent also. Definitely read "Inside the Poker Mind" if you are thinking about a move to middle limits and "The Psychology of Poker" if you want to get inside your opponent's heads better (and your own as well).
David
Theory of poker poker essays 1+2 Inside the poker mind Psychology of poker Holdem poker (original by DS)
super system is a great book but the holdem section is somewhat outdated because the structure has since changed. the draw sections and 7CS sections are good reading though and the entire book is a classic. The high/low rules may be somewhat different now as well as I don't believe the 8-low qualifier was in use when S/S was written.
I was going to mention Ciaffone's "improve your poker" book, but someone else did.
Of the books Fistdantilus didn't mention I also think Cloutier and McEvoy's book is worth reading though with a very discerning eye. Though there are alot of mistakes, but there are a number of things of value. I borrowed it from freind of mine and it did help my game, though it is very important as I said to read w/a discerning eye. Though one probably should read most things w/ more suspicion than I suspect one does...
... and I think Roy Cooke's book is very good.
Suspicious...
I have to agree. I also forgot to mention Bob C's book. I also think Roy Cooke's book is great, but I don't actually have it. I have read it but it was borrowed from a friend.
Dave in Cali
I've been reading the posts from this forum for quite some time now, and I love the intelligent discussion that goes on here.
I'm 21 years old an I have been playing hold'em for 2 years now. (I started out at the Indian casinos where the legal age limit is 18) I only make $10/hour at my job and i've been living on my own for 2 years now. I started out with 2-4, and played 3-6 for about a year and a half. I play on average two times a month (Including home games).
Needless to say, when I started playing for fun on the home games and the casino, my friends and the players used to take all of my money. So I bought some books including HFAP(even though it's not really for lower limit) and Lee Jones.
I am at the point now where my friends don't like playing hold-'em with me at our home games becuase I always take their money. So they switched it to 7-card stud, but eventually I started taking their money at that also.
At the casino, in the 3-6 hold'em games, I win the majority of the time I sit down.I've broken tables before at 5 a.m. the morning when there were no replacement players.
I wanted to know if I have an advantage In my age becuase I look really young. People that haven't played with me before think I suck becusue i'm young and don't think I have enough experince under my belt at the card table, until I leave with 3,4 or 5 racks of their money. People who are know me or are unusually obsevant know how solid I play, even after I dump small bet money at the table ocassionly to train people to think otherwise. What goes on in older players mind's when someone that looks 19 sits down? Do they think I'm a college kid with some money to blow? That's what I think when I see someone my age sit down.
Thanks for any advice!
Most decent players don't let looks affect their play.
I let their actions dictate how I play with them. I always assume a player is solid and go from their based on what and how they are playing and from what position.
i think most players do let appearences affect their thoughts about various players. obviously it should have less weight the more hands you see them play, but looks do tell you something.
also, i think assuming a player is solid is a mistake since so few players are solid.
one last thing, do you have any tips on quickly dissecting opponents postflop play? it's easy to notice general things like tight/loose, passive/aggressove, but i have trouble catagorizing things like 'bets draws' or 'will fold top pair no kicker' quickly. it usually takes me at least full hour with a player to begin to form that kind of detail. do you know of a way to speed this up?
scott
I said most "decent" players don't let a players looks affect their play and I play unknown players as solid unless they prove them selves otherwise.
I'd rather overestimate a mew player than underestimate one. It works for me.
I look to see what a player is calling raises with and in what position. I also want to know if he is betting draws I also like to know what he is doing UTG and on the button. Give me 2 or 3 circuits and I feel I can peg most players.
Rounder,
I almost forgot to say this, but I was curious about your age, and playing experience, where you play and what limits you play. You might not believe me, but I really admire your advice and guess that you are a really good hold 'em player. I have modlded my playing style after reading some of your posts and my game has improved.
Rock
Rock,
I'm a young 54 :-) been playing poker and specualting at the outcome of events since I was 14. Been pleying serious poker for 3 years since I sole part of my resort and it gave me time to persue other avenues of income. I play a lot of tournaments these days and was until last month playing in Arizona - I have relocated to Chicagoland and will be playing in Aurora and some local tournamrents. I play the best games available - my idea of a good game might not be the same as others but I do know what I like in a table mix - I like PL and NL HE best.
I'll be at the Orleans for the open and probably the TOC next.
Rounder-
NOT Aurora! That's where I play! What's wrong with the games in Arizona anyway? And what's the chances you'll be going back soon? Now I'll be going crazy trying to figure out who you are. Not many players in Aurora fit your style. (With any luck, you play Omaha).
Kevin,
This is me
I'm gonna try to make it to Aurora this weekend Fri. and Sat. If you see me say hi I haven't player there since early Jan just moved from Arizona for the summer and just got back from Europe.
See ya.
Hello Rounder:
To continue with Kevin's line of thought. Have you considered the Empress?
scott,
You wrote: "i think most players do let appearences affect their thoughts about various players. obviously it should have less weight the more hands you see them play, but looks do tell you something.
I agree here. There is a "look of live" that the bad players eminate and it is worth it to have a feel for it as players quickly move in and out of your game. But you can change your mind if you have time to observe their play.
"also, i think assuming a player is solid is a mistake since so few players are solid."
I agree for the most part. An old friend had a saying: "Assume they are idiots untill they prove otherwise." It probably works better in California than it does in the mid day Las Vegas games ;-).
"one last thing, do you have any tips on quickly dissecting opponents postflop play? it's easy to notice general things like tight/loose, passive/aggressive, but i have trouble catagorizing things like 'bets draws' or 'will fold top pair no kicker' quickly. it usually takes me at least full hour with a player to begin to form that kind of detail. do you know of a way to speed this up?"
If you can figure this out in less than an hour than your mind is going at warp speed and you retain everything.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Hope I got the HTML tags right as I wrote this in my Opera browser. Am excited to be getting a new machine this afternoon as I just heard another chunck of data on my hard drive being ripped off.
your html stuff was a-ok.
my problem with dissecting other's play is that i often focus too much on preflop. it is so easy to analyze it begins to dominate my considerations of other players. i have to really focus to pick up on particular nuances of their post flop play.
scott
i am 18 and have been playing for 2 years.
obviously people will react differently to your youth.
some people will assume are inexperienced. some people will assume you are studied.
of the ones who think you are inexperienced some will play soft against you because they feel bad taking money from a kid. others will be overbearing, assuming you are on a short bankroll and can be scared out of pots. still others may think you will call them down with anything because you have not learned to temper arrogence and your temper and thus allow your ego into the game.
but after a little tight play, most players (especially decent ones) will immediately decide that you are a book player. obviously this is only agianst players that know about the books. they will think you are a 'math' player, probably weak tight.
at least that has been my experience.
scott
I'm 26 and look like I am 14. In general, I **know** that I'll probably get called a lot more often than other players in the game - at least in the beginning. This generally means, no bluffs. However, the more astute players will **typically** notice in an hour or so that I am not some "dumb kid." Then I can generally adjust my play accordingly, as well, especially when my bets and raises are getting some respect.
Like Rounder, I generally assume that a player is solid until they show me otherwise.
My 2 cents
Thanks Tim
I agree with everything Scott said. Sometimes when people softplay me I feel bad about taking their money later. But I'm learning to deal with it.
With respect to strange players, I generally assume they know what they're doing. This is usually a mistake.
Take advantage of your image and let the old rocks think what they will. I look very young as well, and if some ancient rock makes a comment about the young whipper-snapper in seat #3 then I will do something to reinforce his illogical beliefs about me. This is just one more weapon in your poker arsenal so keep on using it to your advantage.
5-10 game with a kill. full table. 6 seeing most flops, very little preflop raising other than me(seat 8) and seat 4. only other preflop raisers usually show down, AA,KK,QQ . blinds $2 and $5
Hand 1) I'm on the button with 10,9 off. 5 in not including the blinds, no raise. blinds rarely raise in 4 hrs of play. I called figuring 8 of us would see the flop. Was this correct? flop came 10,6,4 it was checked to me. I bet but don't think I should have? comments 4 callers who all checked the J turn card to me what should I do now? Bet, Check?
Hand 2) was the very next hand, I'm the cut off. I have 10, 9 suited. seat 2 in seat 3 in seat 4 raise , folded to me ? Call, Raise, Fold whats my play. I called figuring the blinds and seat 2,3 would call. we take the flop 6 handed. flop 10,9,2 rainbow . checked to seat 4 who bets, now my turn, do you raise, call, fold ????? and why. I raised to get it heads up and seat 4 reraised. him and I took the turn of a 4 now 2 of a suit. he bet out; my play and what do you put him on ??
Hand 1 bet on flop is good jack on the turn is a bet in my book - of course it will depend a lot on my read of the players. I would most likely bet the turn.
I find giving free cards to tight players is a losing strategy. If I can't bet and raise in a game like this I am folding.
Hand 2 I don't usually call raises in tightish games with T9 suited or not. But since you did I raise with top 2 because when you flop two pair with coupled cards in the hole you are most definately looking at a straight draw I raise him on the turn.
He probably has a straight draw with a poss. flush draw now he probably has JQ possibly AT maybe TJ. If he came back at you on the turn raise I put him on a set.
Hand 1: Bet and fold if you are chackraised. Check river even if you improve. Hand 2: Raise him now or raise him on the river unless a 2 or 4 hits. He's probably holding an overpair. Only two ways for him to be holding a set, because you're holding the other ten and nine. I'd raise him now and check the river if a 2 or 4 comes. I would not worry about the flush...
On the first hand you barely have a call pre-flop. Make it Nine-Eight offsuit and I would fold. On the flop you have top pair/weak kicker and 8 opponents but they checked to you so your bet is correct. On the turn, when your 4 remaining opponents all check and the Jack turns up I think you have to bet again since you could still have the best hand. If you get raised you should fold.
On the second hand you should not cold-call a raise with Ten-Nine suited. I would fold because the hand is not worth two bets to take a flop plus it could get raised again. When you flop the top two you should play it fast and raise at every opportunity. This is a raised pot with lots of players so the pot is large and you should focus on making your opponents pay the maximum to continue. Seat #4 was the pre-flop raiser so he could be pushing his big over pair so your hand is probably still good. I would raise on the turn when bet into by the pre-flop raiser when I have the top two pair.
hand 1) I bet because I did not want to give a free card and figured a J out there would have bet or check raise me. blank hit river, checked around including me. got beat with A,10 off
hand 2) I wasn't sure if a call was correct or not but have seen seat 4 raise with K,J Q,J A,K and other non pairs so I figured the flush possibility added just enough to call. I played the 2 pair fast and when seat 4 checked the river I knew he had just an over pair so I bet and he called. he had A,A . I threw these hands out because I still struggle with how to play middle connectors and how to play when you don't have a solid hand but may have the best hand. Glad to see I was not far off from how most would play it other than my preflop call. Thanks
On the turn, when your 4 remaining opponents all check and the Jack turns up I think you have to bet again since you could still have the best hand. If you get raised you should fold.
Folding to the check-raise is probably wrong. I count 9.5 big bets in this pot already minus the rake. You should have 5 outs available (2 T's and 3 9's). Even without implied odds, you're getting over 9-1 on an 8.2-1 shot.
I know on the actual hand you were dominated because the T's aren't an out and will get you in trouble. But this is only true because your opponent played his "big ten" like a toad. The only sane reason for him to check the flop is for a check-raise which he didn't follow through with.
Opponents who slow play a small set will have you in trouble, but based on everything I read here, this is a dangerous way to play. If your opponent is known to do this, you might want to fold. But I think you've run into a "big jack" here most of the time, and the pot odds seem to suggest a call. The implied odds from getting another bet on the river probably cover your edge cases.
Fat-Charlie
Hand 1. I doubt I would see the flop. If I did I would certainly bet the 10 if checked to me. I don't think I'd bet the turn. I smell a checkraise in the making.
Hand 2. 10,9s is a fold against the raise. Especially in such a passive pre-flop game. Assuming I called, I would certainly raise the flop. Since seat 4 was the preflop raiser I would immediately put him on big pocket pair. I think I would just call him raise, then pop him on the turn. Given the benign flop, I think this is not too dangerous.
On hand 1 I can't say that I know wether a bet is right. I do think that if a bet isn't right with this flop and this action then you shouldn't play the hand in the first place though. You got top pair, in position and its checked to you with a not-super-dangerous flop. If you can't bet that, why are you playing the hand at all? If you are only gonna wait on straights/flushes to play it, then wait for em to be suited too.
What exactly does it mean to be 'weak tight'? Is this similar to tight passive? Or does it refer to a person who may well be tight aggressive, but plays in a very straightforward way - and is probably easy to read?
What are some characteristics of a weak tight player?
-SmoothB-
Playing with scared money is the first thing that comes to my mind.
Under-valueing hands on the flop and beyond because of lack of reading skills seems second.
Lack of balls after commiting to a pot, the third.(fight of flight syndrome) Directly related to 1 and 2.
Just a guess at what makes Johnny run !
weak as opposed to aggresive tight as opposed to loose
Ray Zee coined this term many years ago and it refers to a player who does not bet his good hands aggressively enough when he clearly has the best of it. It is not the same as tight-passive. However, lately a player gets the label "weak-tight" if he recommends folding when someone else would call or he calls when someone else would raise when in fact there are legitimate reasons for either course of action. I think the term has done more harm than good recently because it tends to be a "discussion stopper" since no one wants this label stamped on them.
If a low limit loser wanted to turn it around then weak-tight would be a damn good spot to start. You won't get rich but you won't make too many mistakes at low limit either.
-Fred-
I think it means a tight player who plays too predictably. One who never semibluffs or even bluffs.
A player who you always know where he is...
I think you describe a rock, although similar, except a rock is unlkikely to fold his hand head up or three way but w/t will, if the risk is big enough also a rock is subject to raise the near nuts if he can read at all. This from someone who considers himself weak tight at certain limits. I've never been mistaken for a rock at any limit. Just my .02 .
Here's a trip report I put together for rec.gambling.poker, but thought I'd post it here also..
Off to a Good Start
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I arrive Friday evening thinking that I would spend the evening/night unwinding by playing some blackjack and having a few drinks. I would retire early, and be fresh to catch some fish at the poker tables on Saturday. I end up going on a pretty good blackjack run -- I would routinely crack the dealer's pocket Kings and Queens by sucking out with my 65o and 74o. I manage to win $500 playing $25/hand, and in that process, I also manage to drink 7 Kamakazes.
High from my win and the alcohol, I unfortunately decide to venture over to the poker room after all. The plan is to just kill some time playing 4-8 hold 'em until I get tired.
Why Kamakazes Are Called Kamakazes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When I stumble over to the poker room, there is a list for the 4-8 but a seat available for 8-16. "Cool!" I think to myself, "I can win twice as much!"
I take a seat and proceed as planned, just having fun and playing as loose as the others. By the time the table breaks up, I'm down a little but not as much as I should be. I then decide that having now had 9 Kamakazes, it being 2am, and I being extremely tired, that it was the perfect time to move over to the 15-30 table.
I buy in for a rack and start playing, but after a few rounds it becomes clear that there aren't any live ones at the table. The table is tight-aggressive, with frequent blind steals and typically 2-3 players seeing the flop. So of course I decide that I would beat the table by altering my strategy. My new strategy would be to cleverly raise my trash hands and smooth-call my premium hands to throw everyone off! It was brilliant!
Three racks later I partially recover my senses and realize that going to sleep is probably the correct move. Ai-ya!
Day Off
~~~
I switch to Plan B and spend the next day, still tired and slightly hung over, away from the poker tables and playing various table games with my girlfriend (blackjack, Pai Gow, etc.) I end up recovering some of my poker losses playing $100/hand blackjack at the Venetian.
The highlight of the day comes at O'Sheahs on the way back to Bellagio when I win 500 nickels at the nickel slots. That was the largest number of nickels I had ever seen in my life.
Real Poker Day
~~~~~~~~~~
After a decent night's rest I wake up early on Sunday, ready for a real poker day. I grab a seat at the 15-30 table but encounter the same tight-aggressiveness from Friday. This time, however, I refrain from employing my brilliant strategy from Friday and instead get my name on a few additional lists.
If You Can't Beat a Table, Move to a Higher Limit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A seat comes up at the 30-60 table, so I move there. It's a bit looser, but not by much. Pretty soon, though, there are a few player shuffles and I find myself at a decent table: In seat #1, there is a maniac they call Bad Beat George (BBG) -- he got his nickname, not surprisingly, because when he does win a pot it usually gives someone a bad beat. Seats #2, 3, 4 are occupied by solid locals. In seat #5 is an attractive young woman who is weak-tight (she plays by S&M and is rather predictable). In seat #6 is a loose-ish caller. I'm in #7. In #8 is another solid local. A tough player in #9 -- a funny man with a British accent who is joking with everyone and winning. And sitting next to the dealer in the #10 seat is our main dish -- a fish we'll call Wanda who never, ever folds preflop.
When the Going Gets Tough, Go Get a Hot Dog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I find myself in an unbelievable dry run of cards. In the meantime, Wanda and BBG are cleaning up the table with their fishy play. I finally catch QQ in a 4-way capped-pre-flop pot, but lose to Wanda's Js4s when she turns a flush. It really wasn't that bad of a beat, but watching her scoop a giant pot with Js4s got me on tilt so I got up to grab a quick bite to eat.
Let's Go Fishing!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I return to the table just as Wanda is scooping a big pot with J7o when she sucks out on AK to make trip jacks on the river. (Flop was AJx.) I give my friendliest smile, congratulate her on her nice hand, and tell her how tough she is.
Soon I find myself with KdJd in middle position with one limper before me. I raise, and get three callers including Wanda, the BB, and the limper. I'm not too happy because of the prospect of being dominated by AK or AJ. I feel better when the flop comes: KJx. I'm still a bit cautious because in an almost identical scenario earlier I'd ended up losing to 89o when he made a runner-runner gutshot-gutshot straight. Two checks to me, I bet and everyone calls. I'm delighted when another K falls on the turn. The delight turns into ecstasy when Wanda raises my bet! The BB and limper drop, I re-raise her, she calls it and my river bet and I win my first decent-sized pot. Wanda flashes me her K before folding, and I give her a sympathetic nod.
After that hand, Wanda tightened up quite a bit and I was able to steal several smaller pots from her.
Next Up: Bad Beat George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBG raises in early position, everyone folds to me, I look down and see QQ. I re-raise, and it's heads-up. Flop comes 356 rainbow. BBG checks, I bet, and he raises. Normally I would re-raise, except that it was BBG, and there was no way I would eliminate the possibility of him holding something like 47 or 56. So I just call. Turn is a 3. I feel a little better, but only call his bet to avoid a potential Bad Beat. Then a beautiful Q falls on the river, I raise his river bet, and give BBG a Beating of his own.
Why Everyone Should Wear Dark Glasses
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's getting fairly late when the following hand eclipses my previous highlight of winning 500 nickels. I'm in the BB. A late position raise, SB calls, I look down and see JJ. I decide to smooth-call.
Flop comes JJT. I thank God that I'm wearing my sunglasses because my eyes probably grew twice as large. Flop is checked around, and I realize I probably won't win much off this hand.
Until the dealer turns a 7. SB bets! I hesitate and give my best crying-call imitation. Now original raiser raises! SB calls! Now I fire off a re-raise with both hands. Raiser calls, and SB gives up.
River is a 9, putting a possible straight flush on the board, but I take the risk and bet, and fortunately get just a call. Turns out, the raiser had 77 (so she turned a full house) and the SB had QQ.
Cha-Ching!
Obligatory Presto Story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No trip report is complete without a presto story, so here goes. I'm UTG with 55, so I raise. Everyone folds, and I win the blinds. Presto! Sort of.
Not long after that, I leave the table up just shy of a rack.
Easy Come, Easy Go
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An hour before my flight on Monday, I'm killing time playing $10/hand blackjack when the shoe count goes off the charts. I place two bets of $300 each, but end up losing one and pushing the other. That gets me on blackjack tilt and I start playing $100-$200/hand until my flight.
By the time I leave for the airport, I'm just about even for the whole trip! I guess it could have been worse..
Murdoc,
I really enjoyed your post and would like to advise that if you are drinking you should probably refrain from playing poker. No other form of gambling requires so much concentration, and you can really blow a lot of chips (and your cool) when a little tipsy. Good thing for you someone filled up with your quad jacks, finally got some action with a next to unbeatable hand eh?
Great post! It sounds like you had a good time. That's why Las Vegas is there.
ps. If you're a serious poker player and are there to win money, drinking is not a good idea, but if you're there to have fun, have at it!
Drinking and cards ouch, kind of like fire and ice.
But in a more serious vain, it sounds like the 30-60 was a pretty ripe game. If you want a really wild story, try Bobbycho's story on no-limit hold em (I think it was June 30)
Correction, July 1, it's a great story.
What a great post. I really enjoyed reading it. Have you ever considered becoming an author?
Hello Everyone,
I was playing 3-6 hold-em at Cache Creek, an Indian casino in Brooks, CA, and a hand came where I won the pot, but I am not sure if I played the hand correctly. When situations like this occur, I am never sure of the correct strategy.
I was sitting in seat#6 in a nine-handed game. Table was loose-passive, with frequent muti-way pots, but little raising pre-flop. In the BB with black Tens, the whole table called.
Flop came 245 rainbow. SB checked, I bet, and everyone called!! The turn brought an offsuit 4, SB checked again, and I bet again. I think 2 or 3 folded and the rest called, except the button, a loose playing lady who raised.
At this point I was sure I was beat, either looking at trip 4's or a made straight, and was thinking about folding. SB cold called two bets. When the action got to me, I thought a ten was my only hope to win, but the pot looked big enough to call, so I did. UTG called the extra bet and the others folded.
The river brought a ten. SB checked, I checked, and now UTG bets!! The lady on the buttons just calls and now SB raises!!! I 3-bet, UTG folds, SB and button calls.
SB had 6-3 offsuit and button flashed a 4 before mucking.
Was my call on the turn correct? And if I did not hit my ten on the river and everyone else folded, how big does the pot have to be for me to call, when I am fairly sure I am beat?
On another subject. I just got back from Las Vegas, I've only been there 3 times(including this trip), and played some 3-6 and 6-12 at the Mirage. I know this is low limit, but the games seemed awfully soft. I was under the impression that all the limit games in Las Veas were tough.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
At the point where you are deciding whether or not to call the button raise on the turn there is $108 in the pot and it costs you $6 more to call. These are pot odds of 18:1. But if you consider that the original callers will probably call the raise plus the extra money you will win if you catch a Ten then I think you have a call here and should play your 2 outer which is a 22:1 shot. I think you will win more than $132 here when you hit so your call is correct. If a blank comes, it depends on what the card is and who does the betting.
The low limit games at the Mirage can be tough or soft depending upon the lineup. If you get a lot of tourists playing then it will be soft which is usually on the weekends. If you play during the day during the week where you might get a lot of locals than the game could be tougher.
Thanks for the response Jim. The only problem that I have is that math is not a strong point for me and I frequently have trouble calculating pot odds, especially if the pot is big to begin with and there are multiple raises in the hand. I have been playing poker for about 3 years and it is still difficult.
In regards to the Mirage, it seemed like the locals were the ones playing the worst.
Thanks.
You're probably stuck calling the turn, and may be stuck calling the river-- don't worry to much about making these crying calls on the river. If the decision seems close, it's because it IS close, which means it doesn't cost you much or make you much. Plus, as Rick Nebiolo points out, you can sleep better at night knowing you saw the 94o. However, if the pot was smaller you may have to muck, since most players won't raise here without a 4. Ask yourself this: "would this player make this play with a hand WORSE than mine?" If the answer is no, figure you're chances of catching up (and, as you improve your game, quickly calculate you implied odds and reverse implied odds), your chances of your hand being good if you do make it, then make a decision.
BTW, this is a good spot for a pre-flop raise. The whole field is in, which means a raise will make a pretty good size pot-- which, of course, is exactly what you want should you flop a set. Further, should you flop trips, many players will continue on with hands they SHOULD MUCK (like two overcars, which is almost always drawing dead), thereby increaing your profits.
I'm not sure I understand the action correctly. Did you raise pre-flop out of the big blind with TT's?
With nine way action and a big pair and everyone calling both pre-flop and on the flop it seems to me that you are justified in calling to the river with your two-outer (even though you did'nt know it).
On the flop I think leading out with top pair is good, but you really cant love the flop. Sounds to me like a no fold em game, and someone with A3s could have flopped a monster, as it stood someone with 63 flopped a monster.
You played the hand correctly in calling a raise on the turn since there was so much multi way action and chips in the pot, but I would be wary of lead betting considering the amount of players in the pot. Of course you are beat on the turn, with all those players, but folding just seems wrong here. I would not fear quad 4's, but it should be considered.
On the river I think your checkraise is a little dicey unless you KNOW someone is going to bet, maybe in this case you were correct, considering how bad at least one of the players is, three betting the river is mandatory . Good hand.
Appreciate the response JOE. Actually, you brought up some very good points which I didn't address in my post because I didn't want to make too long of a message.
I didn't raise in the BB with my tens. Although, I gave it some serious consideration. I think it was Mason Malmuth who suggested raising with medium pairs in the BB to make the pot size correct to flop a set (am I wrong here?). However, in situations like this, I usually refrain from raising because I'll make the pot too big and I won't be able to get away from my hand once the flop comes. Like AA3 or J65.
Also, It did occur to me that someone could have flopped a monster hand, but I hate just checking and calling. I thought if someone flopped a big hand, they would let me know quickly. As it turned out I was wrong, with the SB having flopped the nuts.
Lastly, I thought about lead betting on the river. I was pretty sure the button was going to bet but not raise if bet into.
I think you did get very lucky here. Once you hit the river, you did well getting bets from your opponents.
I believe TT is worth a raise in the blinds if no one has raised before you. The guy who flopped the 6 high straight really messed up, he should have re-raised against trip 4's on the turn. His error allowed you a marginal call with your 10's.
I typically fold here. There's a chance for a backraise. There's a chance you're drawing dead. You will be tempted to call on the river even if you miss.
Even if we assume you are getting roughly correct odds to spike a 10 (about 22:1), it's a close call, and you will very probably lose many bets before you recoup. When I'm faced with a very close call like this, I usually err on the side of lower variance. It can get frustrating to miss a draw like this 40 or 50 times in a row.
Post deleted at author's request.
But Badger-
You left out one very important possible scenario...
Those times her bet gets the limper to fold a better hand like 2nd pair. Now that $30 bet wins her the entire pot when Jim does not improve or folds.
You've loaded the dice before throwing them.
If you want to calculate the EV of this bet, you have to consider the following:
Given the large number of variables above, it's easy enough to make a case for betting or checking. It all depends on the probabilities you assign to these possible events. SKP (and myself) feel that on balance it is better to bet here. You do not. You have more experience in those California games than either of us, so perhaps that accounts for the difference.
But the decision has got to be closer than you make it out to be. Your attitude is that a check is CLEAR, and that you'd be nuts to bet. I don't agree with that at all.
BTW, I'm not sure why you think Jim Brier is going to hang onto his overcards here, even with the gutshot. If you read his messages on here, he advocates folding overcards routinely. In this case with a board this scary, he may assume that hitting an overcard is no good, so all he has is a gutshot or nothing at all, depending on whether he has AK or AQ.
Dan, you don't recognize a -EV play when it smacks you in the face! Taking the other side of any issue against Badger is a bankroll burner. Badger is never wrong, he'll explain it to you just as soon as he wakes up.
Next time just nod, mumble and go on to the next issue but don't tell Badger he might be mistaken.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
"But now suppose the limper has any hand that impacts on Student's out: QJ, T9, 87, J5."
If you are going to include this set of hands in your analysis, then you should include hands like, AK, AQ, AT, KQ, KT, 55...
A bet would then have +EV and may save the pot.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
Badger, skp, Dan and all,
I talked with Student early last night as we surfed the "Wirebrushing" thread and one thing she emphasized to me about the play of the limper was that he was the type to rarely bet or bluff himself when others showed strength and also the type to call with good overcards and any pair (except perhaps an underpair) all the way to the river. So this player would check and call with hands such as A8, A9, A6, K8s, K9, K6s and even AJ and KJ. He would also play hands such as Q9 and QJ about the same way.
I trust her evaluations and observations of opponents and so does my friend who regularly plays 15/30 to 40/80 at HPC. My friend and I have been astonished by portions of email that describe a common opponents playing style precisely.
I also posted some thoughts late last night in the original thread. One defends the flop call on the basis that there was a very good chance that she would get a free look at both the turn and the river because of the style of play of her opponents.
BTW Steve, I was just kidding. I do believe you think you may be wrong on occasion.
Regards,
Rick
Steve,
When I posted my initial response to Jim's post, I said that one reason to bet is to create 4 outs. I did not say that it was the only reason or even the chief reason. I would note that it could become the chief reason if the pot was slightly bigger (if the pot was way bigger, this reason may disappear because someone with a Queen may have enough odds to call for the gutshot).
I am in meetings most of the day so I don't have time to check your numbers. Knowing you, they are probably correct. If so, I believe it tends to support my argument. Your conclusion apppears to be that betting purely to create 4 extra outs yields a gain of $2.33. That is to say, even if limper and Jim exposed their hands to Student on the turn, Student should bet.
You correctly point out how this $2.33 can be negatively impacted on if, for example, limper has QJ, Jim decides to call etc.
However, as Albert says, there is a flip side to that coin. You have to throw into the mix the possibility that you (a) have both limper and Jim beat [after all, they both checked] and (b) limper may throw away a hand that beats yours eg. A8 - which I say he may well do given that he only has 3rd pair. I know you disagree with me on that one.
In any event, Suppose limper has KQ,A6,KT,AT,65, 64. Clearly, the bet by 77 has positive EV.
Assume that 77 bets, limper calls and Jim folds his AQ.
The figure in round brackets indicates the number of bad river cards for Student if she bets the turn. The figure in square brackets indicates the number of bad river cards for Student if she checks.
KQ (9) [12] A6 (4) [12] KT (8) [15] AT (8) [11] 65 (2) [12] 64 (5) [15]
In all but perhaps the case of KQ and KT, Student drastically reduces the number of bad river cards for her by betting.
[And don't forget that both players could fold to a bet at times. i.e., limper could easily fold KQ, A6, 65, 64 followed by a fold from Jim.]
Now, I put this up in a bit of a hurry. So I will readily admit that I could be in error on my calculations concerning bad river cards.
Gotta go. Will tune in again later.
Post deleted at author's request.
Obviously, I meant that Student sees KJ and AQ out there. Jim doesn't see KJ and 77 out there. He just sees Student bet and Limper call.
Anyway, forget about what anyone sees. It doesn't happen in the real world. If limper has KJ and Jim has AQ, your own analysis indicates that a bet by 77 is profitable.
Badger wrote:
"Face it, if Student is beat, there are some scenarios where a bet is proper *if* Jim folds. The bet is never right if Student is beat *and* Jim calls. And the bet is *usually* wrong if Student is beat and Jim *does* fold. And the bet is always wrong if the Limper checkraises."
Actually, there is nothing for me to "face". Review all my previous posts. I have never argued against these statements.
This whole new thread seems to be deviating from the main point of a bet on the turn. You bet because you probably have the best hand. The point of the KJ/AQ example is that your bet can gain value *even* if you are not the best. Your own analysis shows that.
I mean, the $2.33 advantage is an advantage we gain by betting when we are *beat*. What about the betting advantages when we are ahead.
Let me ask you this:
When players check to you on the turn...do you find that they usually plan on folding to a bet or raising a bet? Obviously, the chances of limper folding to a bet are WAY higher than him raising your bet.
Let me pose my own little "face it":
I say your bet has positive value if you have them both beat even if they both call. Your bet increases in value even if one of them folds...Face it.
I have some other comments to your posts under Dan's post and Jim's post. Off to play a set of tennis though. Will post later tonight.
As I recall, Badger based his analysis on the assumption that the limper had Student beat. I could be wrong, but that's how I read the earlier post.
If I'm wrong on this, then I'm wrong. But if I'm correctly describing Badger's stance, then I have to ask this: How does he come to the conclusion that the limper has Student beat? If I was the student here, my thoughts would go like this on the turn: a) I have Jim beat. If he had T's, or a J or an overpair or something even bigger, he would have bet the turn. b) God knows what the limper has. In fact, I wouldn't even think about it. If the limper is a bad player (and, judging from earlier posts, I'm assuming he was) he could have just about anything. The only hands that would worry me are a slowplayed set that he's now scared to bet since the straight came, or a weird two pair. Either way, I'm not 'putting' him on anything.
So, I think I've got Jim beat, and I think he'll fold if I bet. And I have no idea what the limper has, but I think he'll probably fold to a bet as well, or maybe call with bottom pair/ overcard kicker, a four flush he picked up on the turn, whatever. But the limper is the last thing I'm concerned about. One of my 'rules' (such as it is) is this: "Never worry about a bad player calling when there are more cards to come IF that player hasn't shown aggression on any previous betting rounds". This isn't always correct, of course, but it's correct enough to make it one of the stars I set my course by.
If the student suddenly had to go to the bathroom and somehow gave me her hand to play, I'm betting it here on the turn. Without a doubt (Although, had she given it to me on the flop, we wouldn't be having this discussion). And I'd bet it because a) I think I have the best hand when they all check, and b)I think there's a reasonable chance that the limper will lay down with a hand that beats me if I bet.
I agree.
We haven't even considered hands such as Ax, Kx, Qx suited (and a whole host of other hands) which limper would call with on the flop and then bail out with on the turn.
In other words, there are lots of times when Student has both limper and Jim beat. Clearly, a bet is called for on those occasions. And as Badger's analysis shows, a bet can also be correct *even* if the limper has KJ so long as Jim will not overcall.
In other words, for the bet to be bad, limper has to have Student beat and Jim must overcall with his AQ.
Post deleted at author's request.
"I don't know what else there is to talk about if you don't at least see that a bet in this actual situation, in hindsight, would have been very very bad."
Obviously. Review my posts. I have never said that betting is a good idea if limper has a Jack AND if Jim will call with AQ. So, I don't need hindsight to agree with this statement. I have never claimed otherwise.
Heck, I would also agree (obviously) that the bet is a bad idea even if Jim folds if limper has us beat and his sidecard cripples our draws (eg. he has a 7 or Q in his hand). Once again, I have never claimed otherwise.
But you don't seem to want to concede that there are lots of hands that limper could have which makes your check on the turn miserable. And I am not talking about silly situations where both limper and Jim have 22 or something. I don't know why you bring that up as if I need to rely on those extreme situations to prove the point.
Post deleted at author's request.
I think the debate boils down to one simple point: You think that the limper usually has the student beat, and I-- and I think skp-- don't think this is usually the case.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger wrote: "Okay, so you are gonna delude yourself the guy has one of the about six plausible hands that you can beat, instead of one of the 25 that have you beat, not a very good idea but even assuming that... and assuming what Jim said, that he'd overcall a bet something over 50% of the time."
I'm not going to get into a debate on the limpers possible holdings, since IMExperience the limper could have a very, very wide range of hands. And that is the crux of this debate. YOU think the limper has you beat (and is going to call the turn), while I think the limper could have almost anything--- maybe they'll call the turn, maybe they won't)--- and will likely-- say, 75% of the time-- muck on the turn for a bet.
If the situation was different, then I'd change my analysis. But, in situations akin to these, the limper (again, IMExperience) could have just about anything. Consider these factors.
1) If the limper is not an award winning player (and for the purposes of my post here we'll assume he's not), he could have almost anything pre-flop. On the flop he could have anything from top set to a three flush with bottom pair and an overcard kicker, a gutter, whatever.
2) The pot is not huge, but it's not a scrapper either. While many mediocre players will muck on the flop in an unraised pre-flop pot if they don't really hit, many will peel with just about anything if the pot's been raised.
3) This is one of those flops that bad players just don't miss. The worst case scenerio (for the fish) is that he has suited wheel cards. Otherwise, he has either a) A small pocket pair with which he'll take off ONE card, b) A gutter draw, c) A pair of some kind with maybe an overcard kicker, or d) some combination of a pair, three flush, three straight. In any case, he'll look at the turn with just about anything... maybe as high as 30% of the hands that he would have taken a flop with.
If the flop was 229, and the limper overcalled on the flop, then I'd be a bit more nervous. But with these co-ordinated flops they'll peel with an incredibly wide range of holdings.
Badger wrote: "Now do yourself a bunch of math. How *much* more often do you think you have the limper beat: 52%? 98% Find your number. Work out all those profits you make. Then, subtract the losses you take when you don't have the best hand, including the times you are drawing dead, including the times you get checkraised."
This is fine, but it's imcomplete. It's not just a question of how often you have the limper beat, but how often the limper has you beat AND will call a bet on the turn. If the limper has you beat but mucks on the turn, then a bet has saved you the pot.
If the limper is the type who will check-raise when they pick up a draw on the turn, then clearly a turn bet begins to look more like a bad idea. But most players-- at least, most players in the games I've played in-- rarely if ever utilize this play.
Badger wrote: "Okay, now delude yourself the limper doesn't have middle cards, then go ahead and add all the numbers together, the small wins and the big losses..."
Again, I'm not deluding myself into believing they don't have middle cards. I'm simply saying that it would be very difficult to put the limper on a hand in this particular pot. Further, if a bet makes the limper fold on the turn, the wins aren't quite a small anymore. And IMExperience most bad players will muck on the turn here-- either with a hand that currently beats you or with one that doesn't-- if the turn hasn't in some way helped their hand.
All said, a turn bet has many things going for it-- first, there's an excellent chance that you're betting the best hand. Second, there's a good chance that you'll get either a) a better hand to fold, or b) get a hand that would beat you on the river to fold. Third, by betting the turn you'll given yourself a MUCH better chance of checking down the river should you not improve.
Post deleted at author's request.
Whoa whoa whoa. You are now twisting words. I said "let's not factor in silly situations where BOTH limper and Jim have 22." It's not at all silly to factor in hands such Ax,Kx,Qx,44,33,22 etc as limper's hands. The essence of my argument all along has been that there are lots of hands that limper will call a bet with on the flop and then muck on the turn (GD echoes this point). You essentially want to take away the majority of the limper's hands that my argument is based on and arm yourself with every possible hand tha the limper could have which supports your argument. This is akin to the accused telling the prosecutor "You can't use the knife with the victim's blood and my fingerprints on it as evidence...let's see you prove me guilty now."
You say:
"Is the limper going to call with KT? Not likely. AT, maybe. KQ, maybe."
Why do you say that? If a guy limps with Jx suited UTG and then doesn't bet or raise with on a flop of J86, I can tell you categorically that there is a very strong chance that this fellow will call 1 bet on the flop with as little as 1 overcard and then routinely fold for a bet on the turn. That's the modus operandi of fish play.
In one of my early posts in response to one of yours, I already stated that you contemplate various hands that the limper could have but do not give sufficient weight to the fact that he has check/called the flop and checked the turn. The vast majority of the time that signifies weakness. The guy ain't got much. And that applies to fish and non-fish alike.
Anyway, enough of the preamble.
Just as you have listed every possible hand where limper beats Student, here are the possible hands where Student beats Limper. And I am not just talking about theoretically possible (i.e. I haven't included hands such as T5s etc because I will assume that even fish will not call a flop bet without an overcard). I am talking about hands that limper could call the flop with and then check the turn:
55,44,33,22,
A2,A3,A4,A5,A6,A7,AT,AQ,AK
K2,K3,K4,K5,K6,K7,KT,KQ,AQ
Q2,Q3,Q4,Q5,Q6,Q7,
T6
76 74
65, 64, 63, 62
If limper has any of these hands, the bet gains value. BTW, I am not going to work out the value of betting in these situations. Frankly, I don't have the brain power (or sufficient quantities of Excedrin at my disposal) to undertake the task. If you have the time and interest to do so, be my guest.
Calculate the cost of checking if your bet would have attracted 2 calls and both limper and Jim fail to go on to hit.
Also calculate the cost of checking should limper or Jim go on to hit when either or both would have folded for a bet. This is an *important* calculation which you overlook.
You say:
"Except the AT, all these bets make about $5 or less. Hardly a "miserable" check."
I gather you are talking about situations where Student bets, both players call with lesser hands and then both players miss. The more importnat calculation is to figure out what you would lose if your failure to bet costs you the pot. i.e. both players would have folded for a bet.
To make your analysis complete, also factor in the fact that your bet gains value even on those hands (that you list) where limper *beats* the Student and when Jim folds his AQ.
In addition, there are the hands that limper could have which beat Student's hand but which he might fold on the turn. I will use A8 and K8 as examples (I will not include hands such as A9 or Q9 because it is rare for someone who hits on the turn to fold for a bet. However, it is not all rare for someone to fold third pair on the board for a bet on the turn).
GD has it right. I too said the same thing a long while back in the thread below. Fish check/calls flop, checks the turn...well, more often than not, he is going to fold for a bet on the turn. That really is the bottom line.
Away now until Sunday night. I will reply to your next retort at that time.
Happy calculating.
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, now that you want to bring in "reading hands" into the picture, try this:
2 people check to you on the turn:
What stands a greater chance:
1. Neither player has 77 beat and will fold to a bet eg. Limper has 64s and Jim has AK: or
2. Limper has a hand that beats 77 (eg. KJ) and will call AND Jim will have AQ (rather than AK) and will call.
Remember both people checked. What do you think is more likely: (a) Limper check-called the flop and checked the turn with a hand like 64s or (b) he did so with a Jack in his hand.
Notice also that the "cost of checking" in situation no. 1 is $40+ while the "cost of betting" in situation no. 2 ranges from a loss of $6 to a gain of $2.33 depending on whether Jim has AQ and will overcall with it.
In other words, the magnitude of the error in checking (situation no. 1) is about 7 times greater than the error in betting (situation no. 2). So, situation no. 2 must occur about 7 times more often than situation no. 1 for checking to be correct.
Now, what do you think is the better play?
Believe me, you don't need to waste any brain cells to figure that one out.
Horrible check.
And just what do you mean that this player will not call on the flop with A2s or K2s and then fold to a bet on the turn? This player plays UTG preflop with Jx suited and then fails to bet or raise on the flop after he makes top pair and then fails to bet again on the turn. You say that a player who plays that poorly can't call the flop with A2 suited?
What color is the sky in your world?
Fish do that hand in and hand out.
You ask:
"We have a guy who limps in an LA 15-30 game, who calls a raise, who calls a bet on the flop from the preflop raiser with a J86 board, a 9 comes on the turn... now what can we put this person on when it's checked to the third person who holds 77? What actions can we expect of him?"
Usually, you can expect him to fold. If not usually, he will at least fold often enough to make a bet profitable in the sense that you avoid the $40+ catastrophe if you check and let him or Jim hit a hand that they would have folded if you bet.
Post deleted at author's request.
"you ignored the point of my post that if you have a guy calling with A2 it's ludicrous to think the same guy will fold K8 on the turn."
The fish who calls with A2 on a flop of J86 figures "ah..it's one bet, the pot has got $145...it only costs me $15 so I'll peel one off to see if I fluke out an Ace"
The fish who calls with A8 on a J86 flop figures "ah...it's one bet, the pot has got $145...I'll peel one off to see if I hit an Ace or 8" (his thinking here is more or less correct although I would often bet this hand on the flop).
He mises the turn. He now figures "well, I missed. It's now $30 to call..too much...I am gone"
Now, I am not saying that the fish will fold every time he has got A8. I am saying that it is a possibility. It is certainly not an unheard of happening.
That said, I too must say that you have not now responded to the main part of my post being the exbortitant cost of checking when both players would have folded to a bet but go on to overtake us because we checked.
In closing:
a. My apologies for the "what color is the sky in your world" comment...totally inappropriate...but to be honest, I have been rather ticked ever since you insinuated that I was a "crazy crap-betting player". I trust that based on my posts alone (as you have never seen me play), you would assess me as a winning player.
b. My thanks to you for putting up a tenacious and well thought out argument. It made me think and it sure was fun.
Yes...on to the next AQ thread...
skp amd Badger,
I am in the middle of computer changeover hell and figuring out the best way to repel an ant invasion of my home all while trying to keep up with stuff.
Little did Jim Brier and I know that this hand (one of three he wrote down even while on "vacation") would provoke such a debate. It is fun to read you guys and the quality of the discourse here is fantabulastic.
Regards.
Rick amd Student
Also don't forget to factor into your analysis that for the bet to be bad, the number of trials where the limper has us beat AND Jim will call with AQ MUST far outnumber the number of trials where we have limper beat or where Jim will fold his AQ even if limper has us beat.
After all, when we are wrong with the bet, the cost is the calculated fraction of the bet.
When we are wrong with a check, the cost can be:
a. The calculated fraction of the bets put in by your opponents when they call and go on to miss on the river.
b. More importantly, the calculated fraction of the pot where one or both players would have folded to a bet but go on to overtake us because we checked.
Well, my departure has been delayed by an hour or so.
So, here's a startling illustration of the cost of Student's check.
Let's take a very realistic scenario. The board is J869.
Student has 77. Both players check to her. Let's give limper 64s and Jim AK.
[Now, I am going to keep the math simple and omit some nitty gritty detail that will not affect the calculations by more than a couple of dollars either way. If it does, I am sure Badger will correct me].
If Student bets, both players fold and she wins the $160 pot.
If Student checks, there are 11 bad river cards for her. 11 out of 44 unseen cards is 25%. Thus, a quarter of the time, she is going to lose the $160 pot that was rightfully hers. So, 25% times $160 is $40.
Every time Student checks in this situation, SHE LOSES FORTY BUCKS.
Add to this the fact that Student will call a bet from limper on the river if he hits a 6 or a 4 (I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she will fold on the river if an Ace or King hits and Jim bets). This will happen 1 in 9 times. The call on the river costs $30. $30 divided by 9 is $3.33.
Thus, Student's check in this situation costs her $43.33 on average.
Compare that to the $6 and change that it will cost the Student if limper has KJ AND Jim calls with AQ. If limper has KJ and Jim folds with AQ, Student's bet in fact has a positive value of $2.33.
Miserable, horrid, catastrophic check.
Badger, since I raised pre-flop, bet the the flop, and now check the turn, I can only have AK or AQ since with a big pair I would obviously keep betting. If I have AK I clearly have to fold when the turn is bet since I have no pair, no draw, and two opponents who are betting and calling. With AQ I have anywhere from 4 to 10 outs depending upon how you evaluate my hand if an Ace or a Queen hits. An Ace gives me top pair/excellent kicker but will one pair win? A Queen gives me top pair/top kicker but it puts four parts to a straight on the table. A Ten is an out but I could split the pot with someone else who had a Queen. If the turn is bet and called by the limper there is $220 in the pot and it costs me $30 to call. I would probably call but it is very marginal.
Bottom line is that the pre-flop raiser (me in this case) will be folding about half the time when the turn is bet by the student and called by the limper and the other half of the time I will have a marginal call. Overall, a turn bet hurts my chances and therefore must help the student.
Post deleted at author's request.
I could be forgetting something that you posted in the earlier thread, but it seems to me like you're giving the limper a heck of a lot of credit. If the limper plays poorly he could have just about anything, and will likely muck on the turn. In fact, I'd say there's probably at least a 20% chance that the field will muck to a turn bet IF the limper is a lousy player.
I say this because the flop is relatively co-ordinated, and IMExperience a lot of bad players will overcall on flops like this with all manners of mid pair, gutshot and pocket pair holdings, then automatically muck on the turn for a bet. Sometimes they go all the way, but they'll usually miss even when they do. And, if they do call, it will really compel Jim to muck, since he now has to be very concerned with splitting the pot should a T drop.
To all regular posters, I am a lurker and a rare poster, but i would just like to thank all the regular posters who have shared their often brilliant and well constructed arguments. I think it goes without saying that quality poker players are often high quality people as well. Special thanks to Rounder, Jim brier, Rick N, Abdul, scott, spitball, Dan Ne..., Ray z, ds, mm, jf, and so so so many others. This discourse is superb and apprecitated as others have stated. Hey gentlemen just so realize that your time and effort is appreciated. god bless
i couldn't help but notice that you forgot to mention the incomprabble alex b.
true, he has posted only 5 posts related to poker. and one was censored, 2 were unintelligible, and the other two were just wrong.
but his work on biosuits and john's biography were groundbreaking.
brilliance is a dime a dozen. laughter is what matters.
in all seriousness, thanks for your kind words. but i think you would get even more out the forum if you were to post more frequently.
scott
Ok, here is my problem, I have faced this twice now at the local casino in Chicago. I am playing 3-6 holdem, and the table is not really loose. There is verry little pre-flop raising. At this game I usually do extremely well. the past two few times that I have gone since reading a few books I have gotten up 100 or more pretty easily. But on the last two occasions a problem has come up where I lose big.
All the sudden the table gets loose as all hell. one guy goes on tilt and two others start capping pots preflop and all the time. How do you adjust your play to this? I am assuming that I need to tighten up and play only premium hands, but what happens when your hand misses on the flop, but you have an overpair to the flop..say you are holding QQ or KK or AA and it flops a 3 6 8 rainbow? Do you call 4 bets there? how bout 2 or 3?
Allot of these guys are calling garbage too. I had pocket 7's and it flopped 433, they capped the betting before it got to me, I folded, and two people chopped th pot with 33 with king kicker, neither had anythign and were raising the raises. How do you play these guys.
It just adds to it that these 3 guys live at this poker room and are friends, this is soemthign that I get nervouse around because you hear how 2 people sitting at a table can crack a game, how about 3 of them?
What are y'alls suggestions?
Kevin
Play 6-12 or 10-20 it's not as bad. really !! The 3-6 games at the casinos are crap shoots, you know that. They chase shi.. to the river all night long. If you gonna play in that games you have to expect it.
Save your cash, build a stake and get in a better game.
Best of it !!
MJ
MJ gives good advice. A game can change personality with just a couple of new players.
If a game gets like you described I just move and find a new one. I have waited out the loose explosion you described and won big. Just a matter of judgement.
Kevin,
Get up that stake and join Rounder and I at Hollywood Friday night for the 5-10 game and you will see the difference. It will be money well spent.
See ya there, ¤¿¤
Mike H.
PS: Ray and George will be there also, should be a good game.
If all 4 of us and Rounder will all be up there, wouldn't we be better off playing out at one of our houses and saving the rake? Just an idea. How much will I need for buy in out of curiosity? I look forward to playing, and hopefully getting some feedback from y'all on my play.
My question with your advice is that these guys that were playing free and loose were the guys waiting for the 6/12 game to open up. Eerie that they would play like that in the 3/6 but not the 6/12.
Talk to y'all later,
Kevin
Kevin,
They figure they can win it back in the 6/12 so why not have a bit of fun.
As for the buyin 200.00 to start with another C note as a backup would be a good start.
See ya there,
about 7:00
Mike H.
Last time there I bought in for a C and cashed out $800 a few hours later. Don't expect that again but it was a nice sat afternoon in Jan.
Seems to me you're in a great game for making money. Play only AA, KK, QQ, AK and never fold unless the board is horrible. You can probably play other hands (JJ and AJs+ come to mind), but it really isn't neccessary. If people are truely willing to cap it all the way to the river with nothing, you will eventually win a gigantic pot. The road will be bumpy, but you will eventually get paid off big.
People are advising you to play in a game with better players because they can't stand being drawn out on, but they seem to forget that the bad play is what makes the game profitable.
Now if you want to actually play a few hands and enjoy the game, move up to the higher limits that other people are recommending. But you will make more money over the long haul with this game.
Played 4-8 holdem last night and the following hand came up. I'm in the big blind with ATh and a late position player raises after 2 players enter the pot. I do not know the raiser and call.
Flop comes T, 6h, 5 rainbow. I bet out with top pair and best kicker two other players call and preflop raiser raises. This is a problem since I'm not sure of the raiser, usually I will reraise with top pair best kicker but I may be beat already. I call although with backdoor flush and figuring a T or an A may win.
The turn is a 8h, I check and it gets checked around and now I know I have made a mistake against a drawing hand, should I have bet?
River is a 4s and now I check and call a bet to someone who held on with 6s7s.
I felt (and know) that I just played the whole hand wrong, I guess this is the problem with AT, it's too easy to be dominated with that hand. Also, the raiser had AKo and I could not believe that he raised when he totally missed the flop, thats another problem, when you don't know the player your up against.
Comments?
I believe you played correctly. Pre-flop, of course you call a raise out of your big blind with Ace-Ten suited. You should assume that the raise is legitimate since two players limped and the late position player raised. By legitimate I mean that his most likely holding is AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK,AQ,AJ suited, and maybe KQ suited. Had no one limped in ahead of him, then his raise could be on worse hands like 99,88,77, AJ offsuit, KQ offsuit, KJ,AT, etc.
On the flop, it is correct to bet your top pair/top kicker and backdoor nut flush draw into 3 opponents. You could easily have the best hand. Now when called in two spots and then raised by the pre-flop raiser you have to worry about AA,KK,QQ,JJ, or TT since with just over cards most players would not raise.
On the turn, you have picked up the nut flush draw in addition to your top pair/top kicker. The problem is that there are three parts to a straight now on the table and you still have 3 opponents. It is quite likely that if you bet here the pot will get raised by the pre-flop raiser who probably has a big over pair. I would check as you did. When it gets checked around, obviously the pre-flop raiser has just over cards and yes with 20-20 hindsight it would have been better to bet the turn but you didn't know this. Furthermore, you have a draw yourself.
At the river, a blank comes, a limper suddenly finds a bet, and I am assuming everyone else (including the pre-flop raiser) folds. I think you have to call for another $8 when there is $72 now in the pot.
You got a bad result but you played correctly. This happens a lot in gambling games.
Jim, I dont think I agree with your analysis completely.
I would prefer to check raise this hand on the flop to isolate the original raiser who I have put on two overcards. I'm willing to risk the free card because my hand is not that strong and ,in most of the games I have played in, a bet here is like going to war with a peashooter.
If my check raise is successful, I can probably knock out the two in between callers and eliminate giving them the opportunity to suck out, like one did here.
I feel like if I have correctly put him on AK, AQ or AJ, he won't reraise me on the flop and he is drawing to 3 outs plus whatever outs you assign to a backdoor straight.
If he does reraise me, I can plan to check and fold on the turn or bet and fold to a reraise (although I would probably do the former).
However, if the turn brings additional outs, like it did here, I may come out betting even after his reraise because so often a bet at this point is so confusing to someone who had previously raised.
Often times, they will lay their hand down right there thinking a have two weak pair or if they dont have anything, which was the case here. Even if they dont lay their hand down, there is a good chance they will just call unless their hand is very good. If I am raised, I'm not happy but I have a lot of outs to make calling his raise proper.
See my response to Mad Hatter's post. Many of the advantages you cite for the check-raise also work by just leading with your top pair/top kicker. Players who would fold rather than call two bets cold will frequently fold when bet into with a pre-flop raiser yet to act. In addition, if the guy has you beat with an over pair he will raise and you will find out for only 2 bets instead of 3.
Except that you don't *really* learn anything from the two bets since it doesn't have to mean overpair. Can, as here, mean unimproved big slick. I also suspect in the typical 3-6 game you will move more people out of the pot facing a double bet as opposed to calling a single bet with the risk of a raise behind them.
If you believe that when a player raises pre-flop and then raises again on the flop that this player could have anything, then your check-raise approach won't tell you anything either. If he loves big slick and is always willing to raise with it regardless then it won't matter what you do on the flop.
Again, if the assumption is that because this is a $3-$6 game and the players are basically unaware then the check-raise approach is totally useless and won't make any difference anyway.
I think you have to go for a check-raise on the flop here, unless the pre-flop raiser is the type who a) will define his hand by his reaction to your bet (i.e., he'll raise with an overpair and just call with overcards or an underpair, and b) will just check if he missed. Since very few players meet both of these conditions, check raising is usually the best play. If he three bets you can make a call and see what the turn brings, then muck if you don't pick up any help.
Virtually every player that I have played against will raise having an over pair in this situation when bet into after raising pre-flop. Most of them will call with just overcards although some might even fold if it is bet with several callers to them. The check-raise approach is risky because some players will be happy to check it down having only overcards when faced with multiple opponents. Furthermore, the check-raise approach frequently results in you spending 3 bets on the flop to find out what you could have found out for only 2 bets if you would just bet your hand.
I think this is a great example of where you need to know your competition and vary your play.
If you always fold to the flop raiser when he bets on the turn, then I gotta believe players will pick up on that and begin to run over you. I also think its risky allowing the other two players in. I wonder how much you lose by betting out, finding out your in the lead only to have people tag along and beat you versus checkraising, being wrong and then folding on the turn.
So you spend three bets to find out your not ahead, sometimes you will suck out and win, other times you will actually be ahead and win the whole pot because you isolated the preflop raiser.
I dont know if this can be easily packaged in a nice mathmatical analysis but it would appear that checkraising might be more advantageous.
Another advantage to check raising is the long term benefit you receive by causing players who would have bet their hand to check and give you a free card because they fear your check raise.
I also have a hard time believing the 6/7 would have called two bets cold in the given example. Obviously, in retrospect, the check raise appears to be the correct play under this scenerio. However, I can certainly see playing the hand multiple ways.
As is so often the case, "it depends" is a very applicable answer.
I don't advocate always folding on the turn when you get raised on the flop by leading. It depends on what the turn card brings and the subsequent action. Like you say, you might suck out on the turn anyway. The point is that whatever decisions you are faced with on the turn when the pre-flop raiser bets the turn will be the same whether you check-raised on the flop or not.
Check-raising has merit and is a valuable tool when used properly but you have to pick your spots.
Who knows what a guy who limps in with Seven-Six suited in early position will do? Why do you assume that a player who is so loose pre-flop will suddenly start playing solid poker on the flop when he catches a piece of the board and is faced with a calling two bets instead of one? Again, if the guy is influenced by having to call one bet versus two bets on the cheap street he might be just as influenced by being bet into with a pre-flop raiser yet to act.
"Played 4-8 holdem last night and the following hand came up. I'm in the big blind with ATh and a late position player raises after 2 players enter the pot. I do not know the raiser and call."
Sound fine.
"Flop comes T, 6h, 5 rainbow. I bet out with top pair and best kicker"
The preflop raiser will almost always automatically bet with this flop. You should consider a check raise.
"two other players call and preflop raiser raises. This is a problem since I'm not sure of the raiser, usually I will reraise with top pair best kicker but I may be beat already."
You may also just want to call and see what the flop brings. If a blank comes you can lead at it. (This way you defend against a possible raise with two overcards by someone hoping to get a free card.
"I call although with backdoor flush and figuring a T or an A may win. The turn is a 8h, I check and it gets checked around and now I know I have made a mistake against a drawing hand, should I have bet?"
If you checked, you should have done so with the intention of check raising once the second heart hit.
"River is a 4s and now I check and call a bet to someone who held on with 6s7s."
A check raise on the flop would have solved this problem.
"I felt (and know) that I just played the whole hand wrong, I guess this is the problem with AT, it's too easy to be dominated with that hand. Also, the raiser had AKo and I could not believe that he raised when he totally missed the flop, thats another problem, when you don't know the player your up against."
Many players will make this play.
"The preflop raiser will almost always automatically bet with this flop."
Not where I come from. Against 3 others who've called my pre-flop raise from the button (including those instances when my raise gained me the button) and checked a trashy-looking flop, I used to automatically bet and regularly got my clock cleaned. Now I'm 90% likely to bet against 3 strong or fatigued players and 40% likely to bet against no-folders.
"Now I'm 90% likely to bet against 3 strong or fatigued players and 40% likely to bet against no-folders."
When I hold two big overcards with no other draws.
And when the pre-flop raiser does bet he will frequently have AA,KK,QQ,JJ, or TT. Now when you check-raise you are doing it with very few outs and helping him thin the field at your expense. "If he will almost automatically bet this flop" you do not get much information when he does bet as to whether or not he has an over pair or just over cards. However, by betting out, when he fails to raise this frequently tells you that he does not have an overpair.
The check-raise approach is centered around the problem of driving out a secondary hand held by one of the other opponents who might go on to beat you if they would fold for two bets but not for one. However, your primary problem is the pre-flop raiser and check-raising frequently backfires especially when you get re-raised by the pre-flop raiser who has a big over pair after the other players fold.
Actually, in this case the checkraise technique probably would have knocked out the 76 that won the pot.
Also, in many less tough games even someone with AA will not pop you back ever after you checkraise, although they will call you down. (I realize that in most of your games, Jim, checkraising is less useful, but many 4-8 players really will just call you down with both AA and AK in this case, which makes it much better).
Jim-
I know your not a fan of check/raising, but when do you check/raise? This seems to be a classic example of check raising to cut down the field and improve your chances. Granted. You may already be beat by the pre-flop raiser. But for crimeny sakes Jim, a pre-flop raise does not always indicate a big pocket pair! There are other hands people will raise pre-flop with!
Do you only use a check raise to get more money in the pot? Or do you acknowledge there are times when it is correct to check raise in order to cut down the field?
I check-raise usually for value because I think I have the best hand. Sometimes I will check-raise on a draw against one or two opponents over which I have good control and I feel there is chance I can win the pot outright. But check-raising a pre-flop raiser with a crowd of players involved is not a good idea.
Think of it this way. When many players limp in, a guy who raises pre-flop will usually have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK, or AQ. Given that you have an Ace and a Ten and there is a Ten on the board, there are 22 ways he can have a better hand and 24 ways he can have a worse hand. Now if he has a better hand he will be betting 100% of the time. When this happens you are HUGE dog with hardly any chance of winning and you rate to get re-raised and frequently you lose the maximum amount of money when you make crying calls all the way to the turn or river. Now what happens when he has AK or AQ? He may not bet into 3 other opponents 100% of the time but might just check and take a free card a certain percentage of the time. In other words, the fact that he is betting means that he is much more likely to have you beat than otherwise because of conditional probability. If he does bet and you raise you still have the other players to worry about as well as the bettor even though with AK or AQ he has very few outs to beat you. But even when you win because you guessed correctly, you don't rate to win much because the bettor and the other players will be folding on the flop or on the turn usually. The limpers who fold on the flop will have frequently folded for one bet anyway, so making it two bets didn't really help you that much in most cases. By the way, a limper who is astute enough to fold for two bets cold having a tenuous holding will frequently fold if bet into with a pre-flop raiser yet to act.
>> But check-raising a pre-flop raiser with a crowd of players involved is not a good idea. >>
I think this is the best place to do it!! The A 10 is very vulnerable multiway. If the check raise will move some or all of the people in the middle, it's a must play. If you can't move them, then the hand really loses value.
I think leading at the pot is the bad play. Everybody will be calling (the boardisn't scary enough to get someone to fold unless they have no hand and no draw) and the pot is going to be juicy enough after the late position raise that they'll stick to that pot like glue.
But Chris your primary concern should be the pre-flop raiser who is marked with a good hand not the other limpers who could have anything. Check-raising frequently just ensures a good second place finish for yourself but there is no place money in poker. Furthermore, the last thing you want to do with a good but vulnerable holding is to have it checked around thereby handing out free cards to a table full of opponents. If everyone is willing to "stick to the pot like glue" when you lead into them with a pre-flop raiser yet to act then why do you think they will fold when you check-raise?
>>> But Chris your primary concern should be the pre-flop raiser who is marked with a good hand not the other limpers who could have anything. >>>
In low limit hold em I worry quite intently on the guys who could have anything. I would much prefer to be heads up with the pre-flop raiser who I don't think has a hand that beats me. If I thought I was beat, then I'm not playing the hand anyway.
In the situation described, the before the flop raiser was a total unknown. I still would want to checkraise and see how he reacts. If he reraises and convinces me I'm beat, I'm probably done with the hand. But NO MATTER WHAT I want those other players out.
>> Furthermore, the last thing you want to do with a good but vulnerable holding is to have it checked around thereby handing out free cards to a table full of opponents. >>
Absolutely right. But it's extememly rare for a preflop raiser in this kind of game to check when all trash hits. He'll bet any pair and bet overcards as well. If they all check, then the next card off has a high probability of beating me. But that's all the more reason to go for the check raise!! If they stick around, that next card is still coming up.
This is the ideal place to do it. You're in early position and the probable better is all the way around back. If you don't think this is a good time for the checkraise on the flop, then when is a good time? What better time for a checkraise than when you think there's a good chance your hand is best, but it's very vulnerable?
>> If everyone is willing to "stick to the pot like glue" when you lead into them with a pre-flop raiser yet to act then why do you think they will fold when you check-raise? >>
If you bet and then comes call, call, call, raise, then you call, nobody is folding. (I like a reraise better than a call. Heck I like a fold better than a call.) The pot is big enough to hook them all. But the checkraise is a whole different story. Non brain-dead people with gutshots lay them down. People with an overcard and a backdoor flush pitch their hands. Middle or bottom pair with an overcard may call as well as the open-enders. But I want KJ and KQ to fold. And they won't fold without the checkraise. That's just the way these crap shoots go.
If the pre-flop better has me beat, then my judgement was bad and I'll lose money. But I won't be losing money because of the checkraise, but because of the poor judgement.
"By the way, a limper who is astute enough to fold for two bets cold having a tenuous holding will frequently fold if bet into with a pre-flop raiser yet to "
This is a very good point.
I should say that I tend to go for the checkraise in this situation more often than not but you (Jim) do present a evry convincing argument for betting out. It may be that the decision to bet out is better where the limpers are astute enough to fold for 1 bet with a pre-flop raiser foaming at the mouth and waiting to act behind them.
Anyway, good points.
>>> It may be that the decision to bet out is better where the limpers are astute enough to fold for 1 bet with a pre-flop raiser foaming at the mouth and waiting to act behind them. >>>
If you've got those kind of people in between you and the raiser, then your game sure is no ordinary 4-8 game. More typical is a thought process like "HE bet?? I'm confused so I'll call."
But even if you have thinking opponents, the check raise still does the same thing. Yes, it will perhaps cost you one extra bet if you are reraised and you call. But that extra bet has given me some info as well as to how I should proceed. I don't see it as a wasted bet.
If I flop a set, I like to bet here because they will all thoughtlessly call and then when the raise at the back comes, they'll keep calling. The lead bet here is going to build a pot. If that's your intention, then lead away. With A 10, I don't want to build a pot. I want it heads up and then I'll trust my judgement as to whether or not I have the best hand.
Just because I've check-raised here doesn't mean I'm going to the river. I may not (though probably will against an unknown opponent) even see the turn. But it's going to depend on the pre-flop bettor's reaction to the checkraise, what comes on the turn and how he reacts to that. I'll be watching HIM all the way here and the fewer oppenents hence less distractions, the better for me.
I would go for a check-raise here at least 80% of the time.
I don't follow your logic here at all. You say that with many limpers the late-position raiser can only have big cards or big pairs? This is contrary to S&M advice, for one thing. With many callers, a late position raiser could have a small pair, a hand like QJs, 89s, whatever. Lots of hands.
Anyway, even if it's even money that he has an overpair (and I think that's way off - I would guess that the chance you're up against an overpair here is less than 25%), a check-raise is still a good play. If there is some chance that you have the best hand in a pot this large, thinning the field is very important.
I have an article in the new issue of Poker Digest on multi-way pots. I'm curious if you've read it, and if so if it made you think twice about the importance of thinning the field.
My experience, for what it's worth, is that most people do not raise in late position with all the hands recommended by S & M. They tend to limit raises to JJ or better, AK, AQ. Some will add AJ. Much depends too on how often it gets checked around. Against S & M schooled pre-flop raisers who automatically bet the flop, then of course the check/raise should be employed more often in this situation.
Well, Dan maybe in low limit games guys raise with anything from late position, I don't know. In most of the games I play in when someone raises after several players limp in they are marked with a good hand just as if they raised from early position. The vast majority of players do not raise according to 2+2 standards in these situations. If they have a small pair or a suited connector they are very happy to just limp in behind everyone else and take a flop cheaply. Basically what you are saying is that one should simply ignore the significance of a pre-flop raiser and not adjust your play at all. Furthermore, if the guy has the kind of hand you seem to think he has rather than a premium hand, what makes you think he will bet the flop and not just check it down? I would argue that if he will raise on anything the likelihood of him betting the flop goes down dramatically unless the flop has hit him somehow. In Mason's post when he makes the statement that the pre-flop raiser will bet automatically when checked to he is assuming that the guy has a legitimate raising hand not a pair of Sevens for instance and therefore is not necessarily adhering to S&M advice.
"Thinning the field" is a good idea when you have a strong reason to think you have the best hand not when there is a very real possibility that you have the second best hand with the worst position.
Well Jim, there are now 9.5 small bets in this pot. If you are behind, you have anywhere from 2 to 5 outs. If you're ahead, the raiser has anywhere from 2 to 6 outs. So, the key EV deciding factor in this hand is whether or not the raiser has a big pair.
Where we really differ here is in your assessment of what the raiser can have. This is the situation: It's a 4-8 game, there are only two limpers, and this guy is on the button. In my neck of the woods, an 'average' 4-8 player here would raise with any two suited cards above a ten, any pair above 88, and any offsuit cards above a ten (i.e. AJ, KQ, etc). Plus, there is a smaller probability of other oddball hands like Axs, 55, etc. If this is correct, then the number of non-pairing hands he could have is much higher than the number of pairs ten or above he can have. I'm at work, so I don't have time to work out the combinations.
Now, given that the blind and two limpers check to him, which of these hands would he bet on a ten-high flop with no straight and no flush? Again, in my neck of the woods he would bet with any pair, and any of the other hands maybe 75% of the time.
This means that it's very likely that you're ahead. And if you are, a check-raise is very important both to protect your hand from the other two limpers, and to punish the button for betting a hand with a thin draw.
BTW, when I make plays like this they rarely cost me any more money than playing passively, because the show of agression on early rounds can often save you a bet on the river, or allow you to release the hand on the turn if the player plays back at you. Checking and calling has the characteristics of often winning you the smallest possible pot when you're ahead, giving you the least amount of protection when you're ahead, AND costing you just as much or even more if you're behind. That's why weak-tight is a bad way to play poker.
I will concede one thing - checking and calling may be the better play if you are so sure that the player has a better hand that you're willing to check and fold on the turn. Against a typical 4-8 player betting the button I could never do that with top pair/best kicker, but maybe you're better at reading players than I am.
Here's a typical scenario of how a weak-tight player loses a pot with AT on a ten-high flop - he checks the flop, and the pre-flop raiser bets. He calls, and now an overcard like a Q lands. The pre-flop raiser has AK, but now you're scared of a queen, so you check again. He bets again, and you fold your hand. I can't count how many pots I win this way when I'm the one with AK.
If I'm playing this hand, I'd check-raise the flop. If I'm re-raised and the player is tight, I'd check/fold the turn unless I had the odds to draw, OR an ace or a king lands. If a King lands, I'll bet into him again, since his most likely holding is QQ,JJ, or AT, which he may now release. If he calls my turn bet, I can check the river. It's a rare opponent who would bet one pair here or try to steal after I've shown so much agression, so I'll get a free showdown or I can fold if he bets, because that signifies a set, straight, or two pair.
Of course, if the player is a calling station, forget it. Check-raise the flop to drop the limpers, get heads-up, and then either bet the turn and check the river, or check and call the rest of the way.
If I absolutely knew the pre-flop raiser would bet this flop, I would check-raise 100% of the time. Given the uncertainty of a bet, you can make a case for simply betting out, not because you're worried that you're behind but because you can't afford to give a free card in this situation. If I did bet and he raised, I'd strongly consider 3-betting, if the limpers are the kinds of players who will fold a hand for two more bets after putting one in. And that describes the majority of poker players, even in the low-limit games.
Dan I now agree with you that if the guy will raise on all the hands you think he might have AND he will bet almost all the time even when he has a weak hand he shouldn't really be raising with pre-flop then the check-raise has merit. I guess I am playing in the wrong games because when I play $15-$30, $20-$40, and $30-$60 at the Bellagio and the Mirage in Las Vegas my opponents don't play this way. Nor did they play this way when I played $20-$40 on the Gulf Coast for two years before moving to Vegas. I am not familiar with these kinds of games.
I am not advocating checking and calling. I am advocating betting and if raised then I call. I think this is the preferred approach to check-raising in the games I play in. What started this firestorm was Mason Malmuth's comment about how check-raising might have folded the guy who eventually won the pot but this 20-20 hindsight. Mason plays in the same games I play in and I don't believe the majority of his opponents raise pre-flop after several limpers come in with tenuous holdings like suited connectors and medium pocket pairs.
I agree. When a guy raises in a protected pot pre-flop, he usually has a big hand.
Although I have disagreed with many of your arguments for not check/raising in the past, you make excellent points here.
Mainly, if the pre-flop raiser does in fact have just overcards, it is much less likely he will bet into a large field and you lose the chance to get money in the pot with the best hand. However, if he does bet you are probably beat, most likely by an overpair or set.
But there are still some counter points...
1). I think it is still very likely you have the best hand and should play it as such. It is wrong to irrationally fear a big pair from the button. Many players will raise a multi-way pot from late position with a wide variety of hands like AXs, mid-suited connectors and mid to low pairs. Although, if this is the case, he might not bet the flop. This robs you the opportunity to check/raise. Which is why I am starting to see your points. Albeit for different reasons.
2). Even if he does have a big pair, you might still be better off check/raising since narrowing the field does improve your chances somewhat even if you are up against JJ,QQ,KK.
3). It is unlikely that players in low-limit games are thinking about or even care what the chances are of the button raising.
Bottom line: You have given me some additional things to think about next time I'm in this situation. Thanks for your post Jim.
so what do you do if the turn had been the 8 of spades and the raiser bets again?
It would depend on who else was in the pot and how the action went. In general if I lead on the flop with top pair/top kicker, get called, and then raised by the pre-flop raiser, I will call and take off a card. If the turn card were the 8s which is a blank for me, then I will check the turn. Assuming others check and now the pre-flop raiser bets again on the expensive street I will usually have to fold here since I am usually playing with no more than 5 outs and sometimes less plus there are other players in the hand. Keep in mind if the raiser does not have an over pair it is pretty difficult for him to keep betting over cards like this when faced with multiple opponents.
Virtually all small limit players will three bet with an overpair and just call with overcards if you check-raise, so you can find out where you're at for the (relatively) small price of 3sb's. And that's a worst case scenerio- often you'll have the best hand, AND have the pre-flop raiser dominated (which happened here), in which case you're forcing draws to come for two sb's and forcing the pre-flop raiser to call one more sb with a hand that has three outs.
But won't these same players raise your bet if you lead having an over pair and just call with over cards? If that is so, then it only costs you 2 bets to find out that you are beat instead of 3.
That's a good point. But the 'free card' play is so standard now that often they raise, which puts you in a bit of a bind. And, by check-raising you stand a better chance of thinning them out behind you.
As always, I guess, 'it depends'. In my experience, I like to check raise here since the pre-flop raiser will almost always define his hand by his reaction to my raise, and I get to thin things out. Altough I readily concede that there are some players who will define their hand based on their reaction to your lead bet.
"However, by betting out, when he fails to raise this frequently tells you that he does not have an overpair."
Exactly. So by betting the top pair/ace kicker when first to act with a button raiser you get this benefit, squeeze the other limpers, and prevent a free look at the turn in case it otherwise would have been checked around.
You are almost certainly an exception. And if you're not, there's probably an easier game just down the street.
Had you known that the pre-flop raiser would only raise in that situation with either AK, AQ or JJ, TT, QQ, KK, AA, then the call makes no sense as you're a big dog pre-flop to all of these hands and there are only 2 limpers so you can't justify a flush hunt. However, if the pre-flop raiser would raise with any two high cards and even say 77 or 98suited in that position, you have a marginal call since your AT is suited.
Betting the flop was fine. Once raised, a reraise backfires often enough, but it can provide more information that just calling (there is no way to tell, after just calling, whether the raise was representing JJ or better or a drawing hand or two overcards). On the turn, after you pick up the nutflush draw, your cogent options are: 1) bet and call if raised, 2) check and call if bet, 3) check and raise if bet. Not an easy decision because you can't know for sure if you're behind or not. Betting out may put the squeeze on the limpers and you want them to contribute to the pot if you ARE chasing. Checking and raising is definitely worth considering, but checking and intending to call is hardly ghastly. As it was, even though you were ahead, you had the worst position and had more ways to benefit from the free card than AK (2 outs) or 67s. The 4 on the river called for caution, so the check and call was logical.
I think this is an excellent example of how incredibly important position is when you play these kinds of hands.
If you were on the button with this hand, and the preflop raiser with AK acted before you, you could have reraised him. This would tell you where he is. If he called, and it's checked around to you on the turn, you can bet out again knowing that he is probably on overcards. Etc etc.
I don't blame him for the raise. His choice is either to raise or fold. He has to put the heat on to make it more likely that the player between you will fold. This will greatly increase his chances of winning the pot if he spikes his A or K on the river.
Of course, a fold would not have been out of the question either.
-SmoothB-
Just one or two things, and I'll try to write more later.
a)Harris suggested folding preflop. This is insane, I think one could call in the BB w/any suited A or even less. Unless someone else will reraise (which is often unlikely) you expect something of the order of 7-1 on your call.
b)SmoothB suggests folding on the flop, even if you knew he had an overpair folding here makes no sense as you are getting 13-1 on your call and have 5 cards which will improve you to 2pair/trips, and 10 which will pick up the flush draw... A fold here is out of the question!
When I play HE I seem to either play too aggressively or too timid (yes, that's a weird combination). Here is a hand I played in a loose-aggressive low-limit game (i.e., some are very loose, some are very aggressive, some both). My play is a bit more understandable if you know that in the hand just before this one there was a lot of post-flop raising, with in the end a measly pair of 7's winning. Now I think my only correct play was on the flop, and maybe on the turn.
I have AJ one off the button. Two limp in (which makes me think they don't have excellent hands), I raise. Only the limpers call.
Flop comes T84 rainbow. Limper #1 bets, #2 folds, I raise. #1 reraises! Should I fold here? Anyway, I call.
Turn is a J.
#1 bets, I raise (am I going too far?), #1 reraises. I think I should have folded now, but instead I called again.
River is blank. #1 bets, I call (wrong?), and #1 wins with 2 pair.
Yes, you played too aggresively on this hand. Your raise one off the button with AJ is not too bad, but it is marginal. On the flop when you missed entirely your raise is horrible, then when faced with a re-raise your call is bad since you can hit your card and still have it be no good (as you saw). You sucked yourself in too far to let go on the river and you pay off.
One of the things that causes me to lose a lot of chips is to let the play of a preceding hand affect my play of a current hand. Try not to let that happen to you. Too many people pursue draws when they miss and then try to bet their way to victory merely because they try to represent.
By the way, T8 is not a good hand to call raises with, of course, but the flop hit them hard.
Thx for your reply. I went way too far...
I didn't mention #1's winning hand explicitly, but to my total amazement he actually held 84, not the T8!
84! AND CALLING RAISES? Where was this game?:)
Some will disagree but I I am on a hand like AJ and I don't hit the flop I am out of there with any action in the position you were in. I think it is a clear fold.
While it is permissable to over play some of your hands against idiots who play any two cards, there is a balance required. Pre-flop, your raise with AJ offsuit against two limpers is normally not good poker. However, if this is a special case because you are playing against a couple of real loose geese then raising is probably warranted here.
However, once the flop comes, raising is a very bad idea. The limper is almost certainly betting some piece of the flop especially since he is leading into you as the pre-flop raiser. The loose goose is not folding any pair so your raise will not allow you to win the pot outright. This means you are playing 6 outs at the very best and there will be times when you will be playing with hardly any outs. I think you have a clear fold on the flop. If you want to maintain some kind of image and don't want the "weak-tight" label stamped on your forehead then go ahead and call. In the actual hand, after being re-raised, your call was pure charity.
On the turn, you are continuing to pay out unnecessarily. What does it take to get you to lay a hand down?
Yeah, you played this wrong. Muck on the flop. You missed, the pot is small, and hitting your hand could get you in trouble.
Yeah...but do you fold after the first bet already, or only after the reraise?
I fold after the first bet, since anytime someone leads into a pre-flop raiser they almost always have top pair or better. This puts you in a bit of a jam, since the J or A may not be any good.
I have AJ one off the button. Two limp in (which makes me think they don't have excellent hands), I raise. Only the limpers call.
Good move, I'd do the same thing.
Flop comes T84 rainbow. Limper #1 bets, #2 folds, I raise. #1 reraises! Should I fold here? Anyway, I call.
Yes, the 3 bet poses a problem for you. You know he has a Ten or better hand. The question is how many "outs" do you have? The answer is anywhere between 0-6. You are taking the worst of it here.
Turn is a J.
#1 bets, I raise (am I going too far?), #1 reraises. I think I should have folded now, but instead I called again.
Same as the flop, if you beat you are beat, fold.
River is blank. #1 bets, I call (wrong?), and #1 wins with 2 pair.
#1 has shown tremendous strength, your call is nothing more than a crying call.
$3-$6 game, very loose with 5 or 6 seeing every flop. I have Ac Qc in middle position. UTG bets, I raise, 4 more callers for 12 bets in the middle.
Flop comes 8c 7c 2c. I check to slowplay, it gets checked to the button who bets, 2 call, I call.
Turn is a K (I forget the suit, not clubs). UTG bets, I raise, button calls, UTG calls.
River is 7d. UTG bets, I raise, button re-raises (uh-oh), UTG folds, I call.
Button shows pocket 8's for 8's full.
I know in loose, low-limit games you should rarely slow play, but at the time the flop didn't look THAT threatening to me. I think perhaps I ought have check-raised the flop instead of the check-call slowplay, or should I have bet out?
Please point out any and all Rookie mistakes.
no mistakes, the set would never fold. You played ok.
In low limit games you should almost always play in a straight forward nondeceptive manner. The pots are relatively large, and deception against typical opponents is not profitable.
You should BET the flop, BET the turn, and BET the river. And RAISE, RAISE, RAISE whenever possible.
I recommend Lee Jone's book. It will help you.
I have the Lee Jones book. I just tried to milk a bit more when I shouldn't have. Lesson learned.
Nothing you did would have made a difference. You still would have lost to the 8's full. He's not going to fold to any number of raises. I think you played it right. The set of eights was the one that shouldn't have been slowplaying. Anytime a flop is all of one suit, any set is extremely vulnerable. He should have been raising to knock out any single high clubs.
Your slowplay was correct, his slowplay was dead wrong.
His slowplay was absolutely NOT correct! Especially in a 3-6 game.
It seems to me that at the 3-6 level, the only hands that will draw out on you while your holding the nut flush are going to call you no matter how many raises that you put in on the flop. Do you disagree with this?? The hands that can turn or river a full house are either two pair or a set, excluding runner, runner. These hands aren't going anywhere. I would think you would want to keep in the single King of clubs or top pair so that you could get more money out of your hand, which is a favorite even against a set.
There is no harm in slow-playing this hand. Are you saying that the results would have been different if he raised on the flop? The only thing that would have been different is that he would have lost more money.
"It seems to me that at the 3-6 level, the only hands that will draw out on you while your holding the nut flush are going to call you no matter how many raises that you put in on the flop. Do you disagree with this??
No. But the point isn't to get them to drop out. It's to get as much money into the pot as possible.
"There is no harm in slow-playing this hand. Are you saying that the results would have been different if he raised on the flop? "
No. The results are the same regardless of how he plays it. But the money he makes had the board not paired may have been quite different.
I have just read the other posts and I seem to be in the minority here. With the majority of players acting after you, I still like betting out though.
I am not a fan of slowplaying but your situation is a notable exception. You have the nuts on the flop. You want to encourage players with a singleton Club to come in and take off cards when they are drawing dead. You played correctly and there are times when you are destined to lose a lot of money regardless of how you play it.
The guy with the set played poorly. He should play his set fast especially when the board flops all of one suit.
Jim,
I think slow-playing was correct, but should I have check-raised the flop instead of check-calling? In hindsight I think so. If he would have re-raised, I would have capped. Or just maybe he would have folded and I could have taken a decent pot, instead of trying to be so greedy.
Anyway, let me know where to send the $2 for my bad-beat story. ;)
No Rookie you don't want to "let the cat out of the bag" quite yet. I would just smooth call to keep the other flush draws around and then pull the trigger on one of the expensive streets depending upon what shows up on the turn and the river.
He's 3.5:1 to make a full house or quads by the river. He wouldn't, and shouldn't fold to a raise.
Keyser
If this is a 3-6 game with lots of bad players, they're coming anyway with whatever weird club draws they may hold. And, they're coming with gutshots (particularly if those gutshots hold an overcard club, e.g. Jc Th, Js Tc and probably stuff like Tc 6s). You might as well make 'em pay, since they're not going anywhere for one bet. Further, if they're bad but don't know it, they'll 'read' your hand for a Slick in hearts and start betting and raising with all kinds of crap-- mid pair, bottom pair, 83 of spades, etc. etc. As you keep raising they'll finally 'put you on' an offsuit slick with a big club. Of course, when you flip your hand over on the river, they'll all shake their heads and berate you for 'playing the nuts too fast', but by then you're dragging a 15 bb. pot.
I never slow play against bad players. Never. And I REALLY NEVER slow play against bad players who don't know they're bad. If you just bet out on the flop here, the last hand they're going to put you on is the one you're holding. To make matters better(better, that is, for you), this is one of those flops with two middle cards, which means EVERYONE has a piece. They've either got gutters, pairs or overcards, and they're going to play no matter what. So, charge 'em for the priveledge.
That said, our hero should have just made a crying call on the river. Another one of Guy Downs' golden rules is this: "When a bad player leads into or raises you AFTER you made the last bet/ raise on the previous round of betting, you are ALWAYS BEATEN." This rule, by my estimate, is right on at LEAST 95% of the time, and maybe more. In fact, if I could give an aspiring player just one nugget of wisdom, this would be it.
I'm surprised I am in the minority on this. The poster flops the nuts in a very loose game with many players yet to act and everyone agrees he gets the most money in the pot by checking this hand?
Loose players will likely draw to queen high (and worse) flushes, top pair/no kicker, middle pairs, etc. with this board. And when the button raises and the poster re-raises, they are likely to call here and again on the turn as well. Not to mention if you really get lucky and someone else flopped a flush with you.
I bet this hand in this game EVERY time!
This thread is really lame. The poster played it right and got rivered. The button played it right, what's he supposed to do, 3 bet the turn? Fold? BTW, I hardly consider what the poster did as "slow playing".
I think the button should 3 bet the turn since he has two or three(?) opponents with 10 redraws to beat a flush and a flush may not be out there 100% of the time.
In HPFAP I was studing Appendix A : Probability chart on page 309. At the bottom of the page four common hands are listed, 1. Straight flush draw, 2. Flush draw, 3. Straight draw, and 4. Two pair or gut-shot draw. The numbers co-incide to these hands on the chart. My question is the number of outs they figure for some of these hands. The straight flush draw is listed as having 9 outs for 35%. But I figure it for 17 outs. The flush draw is listed as having 8 outs for 31.5%. But I figure it for 9 outs. The straight draw is listed as having 15 outs for 54.1%. But I figure it for 8 outs. The two pair or gut-shot draw is listed as having 4 outs for 16.5% and I agree. I am either reading the chart wrong, or it could be a type-o. Or I I need help in figuring out my outs. Could someone explain this chart to me?
Thanks, Ray.
There is a misprint here. It will be corrected in our next printing.
didn't you notice a mistake in ray's numbers?
here's a hint: how many outs does a straight flush have?
scott
Straight flush draw is also a flush and straight last time I looked.
The important thing Ray is that the chart itself is correct in that it gives the correct winning percentages with two cards to come versus the number of outs. What is incorrect are the first three footnotes. Footnote #1 should be "flush draw" instead of "straight flush draw". Footnote #2 should be "straight draw" instead of "flush draw". Footnote #3 should be "straight flush draw" instead of "straight draw". Footnote #4 is correct as shown.
Thanks Jim, I changed the footnotes in my book.
Scott after a little more thought I now realize that a straight flush draw has only 15 outs due to the two flush cards giving you the straight flush. But I am glade to see someone is always ready to slam you when you make a mistake.
Actually I think he was thinking the sf draw was a 2 outter.
nope. ray got it right.
and if you think ray's original numbers are correct, then i suggest you take the 5,6,7 and 8 of spades out of a deck of cards. then go through the deck taking out all the cards that make at least a straight. count how many cards you take out.
scott
Not interestd - I got it right - the writing was not real clear.
I was sitting 3/6 at empress Joliet, and was doing ok, had two guys that have their own bed in the poker room being that I have never gone up there and not seen them there, in thie game with me. The flop comes down 35djc. And they cap the pot, and move on to the turn that comes out with the 7d, and the fun begins, trash talk all the way from the guy on the end of the table about spanking the other guy and garbage like that, they both cap the pot and the river comes up blank. I am sure most of y'all know what happens, the trash talker turned the Ace high flush, while the other guy had the str8 flush. The guy on the end threw his cards across the table and went on a 10 minute bitching spree that would have embaressed a table of sailors till the dealer finally told him to give it a rest.
Fortunate for the rest of us he went on tilt and dropped 500 more in the next several hours.
Kevin
It's not easy to lose 500$ in one night playing 3-6, but I have seen it done. The worst beating I ever saw was a guy who lost 12 grand playing 10-20 over the course of about 20 hrs.
Twelve grand in $10-$20 after 20 hours? Did you get this guy's name and phone number and put him on your Christmas list?
Hell I would invite that guy to any and all game, would pick him up, drop him off, and probobly have neough of his money to buy him dinner afterwards.
It was a spectacular display. The guys name was Thomas-- he was a 2-5 player who was fortunate enough to have parents who loved him enough to put a ton of money in a trust for him. He was on the book for eight of it (bought four dimes worth of chips in cash), and the gamerunner was VERY concerned that this guy was going to split and never be heard from again. But, he just pulled out check book, wrote a check for eight dimes, and disappeared. Nobody's heard from him since.
The most peculiar thing about the story is that the check cleared. None of us could believe it.
I wouldn't have thought it possible. Heck, it isn't easy to do in a game several times that size.
I have two things to add:
1. I've made two straight flushes in my short hold'em career, and both times I busted someone who must've held what they thought was the "nut flush". You should see the puzzled looks on their faces when you just keep re-raising them on the end. And they always check their hole cards to make sure they've got the Ace.
2. The first time I played in a public cardroom, I lost about $600-700 in a 3-6 hold'em game. And I would've lost more, too. But then I put in about 8 or 9 raises on the end with the second-nut flush. The woman with the nuts was quite insulted at this act of disrespect and started screaming at me. "WHAT DO YOU THINK I HAVE??? DO YOU THINK I'M STUPID???" Since I already felt foolish for losing so much on one hand, I decided I didn't need to be yelled at, too. I quit. Good thing, too. I may have gone on to set the record for biggest loss in a 3-6 game (if I don't already own the record).
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
I play in a regular game w/ a mixed crowd, but lately, one player seems to be getting my money on a regular basis. He's an old guy who never raises w/ out a monster, but will call down hands w/ out raising w/ as good as top pair top two pair and down to no pair 1 over card. I know the response will be "HOW can you lose to him?" But my main problem is that I'm an aggressive player and it seems like he's giving me enough rope to hang myself. Example, he limps UTG I raise in button A8s blinds fold. flop comes 8 3 2 4 k and I bet it down to the river and check on teh end. He turns over pocket nines. I've run AK vs his AA and QJ vs his QQ when AKK and QJ hit the board and that might be why I'm thinking I'm playing so poorly against him. I think I should tighten up vs him, but then I see him show down a pocket pair that's 4th high pair as well as A6 nothing calling all the way down to the river in other hands. He's got me all mixed up. I'd like to think it's just the cards, but damn it's been a tough two weeks(down around 4500 in 10-20 and 15-30).
Sounds like your typical 2-4 player to me.
Obviously, don't try to bluff him. Sit on his left so you can raise and have him all to yourself. Take lots of free cards - you should bet or raise the flop almost everytime when heads up against him.
Besides that, don't be afraid to be second pair (or worse) for value, but accept that you won't know you're donating to him until the river, which you should still bet for value.
And respect his raises.
Is he always losing with junk against the same player or players ? Do you think he could be playing on a common bankroll, calling down his partner with crap but only playing good hands against you ? This is just a thought that came to mind, he seems so rockish against you but a loose calling station against others. This type play would certainly mess with my head. They always say beware of home games, or maybe he's just lucky against you, I've seen that many times where 1 player seems unbeatable against you but then gives your chips to everyone else. Maybe you shouldn't try to isolate him for a while. Maybe you are over aggresive and he plays off of that. You must admit A8s isn't a great steal hand against an UTG unless he has no clue. Good Luck.
Just curious, is this at Turning Stone?
As for advice, keep betting you good hands and don't bluff. Also avoid isolating him preflop, like that A8s play you mention.
That's a hell of a lot of money to be down after two weeks, particularly if you're playing quite a bit of the 10-20. Unless this guy's gotten ALL of it there may be other leaks somewhere in your game.
As far as this kind of player goes-- I'd pay attention to whether or not he just plays like this heads up, or if he plays this way in multi-way pots as well. Some guys only play like this heads-up, figuring they 'have to keep you honest', but tighten up in multi-way pots, figuring that there are other sheriffs at the table.
Aside from that, I don't worry about these kinds of players too often. The way you get in trouble with these types is by pushing unimproved slicks and draws, and getting scared when you do flop a hand (like, for example, checking on the river when you flop top pair top kicker against a player who will call with almost anything). Bet 'em when you have 'em, and take the free cards when you don't. You'd be amazed how often you'll win with an unimproved KQ after checking the turn and the river.
This guy might be a great reader of people and you may be giving off tells check your self.
The guy might be a really good player and you might be under estimating him. Are you confusing aggression with loose/maniac play. He seems to be playing you like I would probably play a maniac.
If I were you I'd just avoid this guy or tighten up.
Hey Rounder,
I'd just like to say it was a pleasure playing with you in Reading, and thankyou for introducing me to this site.
I hope we can welcome you back to England soon, and perhaps we will be able to tempt into our little cash pot-limit 6 card hilo omaha game next time you visit :P
Anyways.... Im glad you got home safely..... without too much of my money in your pocket..... and look forward to future discussions on this message board.
Kind regards,
Keith
Keith,
I'd have liked to play in the PL HE games but since you choose to start the tournaments at the ungodley hour of 9pm it is just to late for a old guy like me to drive 40 miles to my hotel (on the wrong side). :)
I'll be back. I am real interested in the big one on The Isle of Man - and the other tournaments look real juicy in Europe.
You'll be seeing me back real soon.
MIKE
I posted a UK trip report and some hands on the tournament BB.
Greetings,
here are some hands where I am still not sure I took the right course of action. All comments appreciated.
1)10/20 "typical"
4 limp and I call on the button w/10h 8h. Blind call.
The flop comes 9h 8c 5h. All check to me I bet, 3 call and player directly to my right (who was stuck to the gills and complaining to no end about it), now raises. I thought to keep the most people in for my draw so I elected to just call (I think this is a mistake, as I strongly suspected he was on a flush draw which makes it very unlikely to come and if I reraise It will pbly become heads up...and I so I pbly have a better hand than him), i call and all call...
The turn is 2s. All check to palyer to my right who bets I call and 2 call behind me.
The river is 7h. A card I was very leary of. ALl check to player on my right who confidently bets, I reluctantly call, player in 1st positioin checkraises! Other folds and the player to my right goes all in for 10. I call (is a raise in order, as it very unlikely they BOTH have me beat but the 1st player was new and i thought it was unlikely hed reraise w/ o decent flush). Well the player to my left had Ah x h and the first player had a 6 for straight!
2)10/20 game w/one maniac 3 to my left and the game is on tilt.
In 4th position I raise w/ AsJs, 4 cold call (maniac included) as does the big blind. Flop comes J 8 4 rainbow w/one spade. BB checks I bet and all call.
Turn is another small spade. Check I bet 2 call BB checkraises. Now this player could easily do this w/spades as I suspect. I could just call but I doubt the flush is now coming and would like to get rid the field and reraise. All fold, to BB who just calls.
River is a small spade, he bets I raise he calls and he shows a small flush.
Is the reraise on turn correct or should I let more people in w/the nut draw? The 1) hand was in my mind even though it was a few weeks before and i was annoyed w/myslef for not reraising teh flop. Considering the temperment of the table I thought I could even get some cold callers even though I was getting a bit of respect from them...
3) Same 10/20 tilt table (this time I have fallen prey to tilt).
3 limp maniace raises button cold calls I decide to call w/ KhJc as it seems they are raising every hand. (A huge error I should fold even if the maniac is raising K 3 s, JTo and the like, and if I will play I should reraise if there is any chance I can thin the field otherwise fold). All call behind me.
The flop comes
Ah Jh 8h. I bet 3 call button raises, I call (and immediate get annoyed w/myself) as do the others.
Turn is 7c. I check (?) all check to button who bets, I mistakely raise all fold and he just calls. (Now it looks as if I have the flush but, there is no way the button will fold and this was the main idea w/the play).
The river blanked off, I bet he calls and lose to a small flush... (Horrible!)
I think my judgemtn was way off toward the end of the night as I hadn't played at tilted talbe in a long time and never at 10/20. I realize you need hand that play well in multiway pots even though your implied odds aren't as good if the preflop action is 3 bet or capped w/ 5 or more coming. And it is very hard to thin the field...
SOrry if I wrote too much. All comments appreciated, as are comments on how to play w/maniacs or tilted tables.
On the first hand when six of you take the flop, your bet after being checked to on the button having both a pair and a flush draw is okay. If it were just a non-nut flush draw I don't believe I would bet into 5 opponents but I think having a pair gives you some additional outs plus you may have the best hand. When check-raised by the guy to your right, I think re-raising is a bad idea. You almost certainly don't have the best hand, your draw is not to the nuts, you will not drive out anyone on a better draw than you, and you could get raised again. The rest of your plays were fine although when check-raised at the river by a player in first position, you have to realize that you are almost certainly beat but I think I would call because of the pot size.
On the second hand, when check-raised on the expensive street I don't like your re-raise. I believe you need a better hand for this move. Agreed you have top pair/top kicker with the nut flush draw but you could easily be up against at least two pair and possibly a set which gives the check-raiser the best hand and the best draw. Only a certified maniac would check-raise here on just a draw and even then these guys will check-raise their powerhouses as well since they get good cards just like the rest of us. Furthermore as you state why drive out other players at this point given your nut draw?
On the third hand, it was bad poker for you to be cold-calling raises with King-Jack offsuit against a large field regardless of what the maniac may or may not be raising with unless you were in the big blind. You should not even consider re-raising. You need to focus on the weakness of your own hand under these circumstances not on what one player may or may not have. If this were a steal situation or a shorthanded game than that would be different. On the flop, your bet is fine having both the nut flush draw and a pair but when raised I would just call like you did. With the Ace over card it is too easy for you to have the worst hand and I don't believe you want to necessarily drive out the other players anyway. Furthermore, it could get raised again by the original bettor. On the turn, of course you check when a blank comes. I don't like your raise unless you have some reason to believe everyone will fold which is very unlikely. I will concede that with you having the "King of Trump" so to speak a re-raise is very unlikely. When a blank comes, all you can hope for is a cheap showdown but one could argue (unconvincely in my opinion) that betting is your only chance of winning. I think you lost too much money on this hand.
Jim,
On the first hand I still think reraising on the first hand is correct, the player on my right was an OK player so we can assume his thinking makes sense and he wouldn't checkraise w/o anything other than a draw. If its a straight draw Im a favorite, if its a flush draw that bad in that he pbly has a bigger one than me, and it s good in that it is less likely the flush will show up.
Another point, you wouldn't bet say 9 h 5 h 2c flop w/ Th 8h on the button? I dont think I need a pair to bet here.
In the second hand part of the reason I thought to reraise is bc I seriously thought he was on a draw, and since his draw is semi dead (and thus unlikely to show up), I d rather win the pot now. Maybe Ive been quick to put peo[ple on draws these days but if I'm right I don't think reraising is that bad. Wouldn't I want to increase my chance of winning the pot since it is comparatively big?
As for the 3rd, I was kind of on tilt. I dont' usually play KJo. I was getting annoyed w/the seemingly unjustified raising, and pbly took unappropriate action. Seems one has to wait even longer in this type of game than usual and I was doing the opposite.
In a average low-limit game, where you have no information on the players other than the fact that some are much looser than others (pre-flop and after) how should go about calling one raise when the small blind is 1/2 the big blind?
For example are hand like J8s playable with 4 limpers before the raise?
How should you adjust your odds e.t.c
Sorry if this isn't very clear but im not sure really where you stand facing a raise that you cant have a good idea of what the opponent might call with. I tend to think that marginal hands should be folded as you still face reraises and will be at a positional disadvantage for the rest of the hand. With this in consideration letting $1 go in a 2-4 game isn't to bad
Here is my thinking on this subject. I know I am the lone ranger on this but it works for me.
I don't play in a hand for 1/2 a bet that I won't play for a full bet. As far as I'm concerned the 1/2 bet is in there and not mine any more I am not gonna play a bad hand in the worst position just cuz it is for 1/2 a bet.
Rounder this really isn't sound logic. You only call with cards you'd put a full bet in with? Why? You're getting twice the pot odds with the half bet! What if it was 1/100 of a bet to call? Would you only call then with cards you'd pay a full bet with? Of course not. The greater the odds the pot is laying you, the weaker a hand you should be willing to call with.
It never is 100/1 so don't make that silly arguement.
Like I said I'm probably the lone ranger on this so don't go getting your knickers in a twist over it.
It's not a silly argument. Ok, I've never seen a game where the small blind was 99% of the big blind, but with implied odds in a no limit game you do have such decisions. I like the $1-$2 blind no limit game at the Stratosphere. If I'm the LB and BB isn't aggressive, I call unraised pots with anything. It can't be too wrong; with a good flop I might get someone's whole stack. Ok, they might get my stack on a bad day, but then I sit on them and they never do it again :-)
Fat-Charlie
Rounder's advice might be overly simplistic but I think it is still good advice for the average player. Here's a hypothetical situation. Say your in the small blind and you have 6 limpers and you have J4 and decide to play your hand for a half bet. The flop comes J blank blank. The average player is unable to get off of this hand. He has top pair and top pair is top pair. He now becomes married to the hand esp. if there are no overcards on the later streets. This player is definitely better off had he not played the hand to begin with.
Bruce
OK Mr. "above average" player you played the J4 now you hit the flop (what do you want J44 flop) you are 1st to act what do you do now.
Reason I don't like playing trash is cuz I don't like putting myself in shitty shituations.
I wasn't suggesting that the 1/100 situation ever comes up in real life. I was simply extrapolating your logic to the extreme to illustrate the fallacy in your explanation. As far as the strategy you suggested, I don't think a new player will go far wrong following it. But I do think a new player should consider the problem with an eye to the implied odds he is getting with his or her call.
I am pretty particular about the kind of hands I call raises with. I get a kick out of the way you like to bash my logic - "average player" and "simplistic" - OK you guys go on calling raises with the J4's of the world and I'll go on mucking them. We'll see who wins in the "long run" LOL
:-)
Although I respectfully disagree with Rounder's reasoning sometimes in these situations I would like to point out a couple of considerations that would favor his point of view:
1. If the pot is unraised but has a lot of players in it that appear to give you good pot odds, this makes it harder for you to end up with the best hand. Occasionally you will make a flush only to lose to a bigger flush which will be very expensive. This is much more likely to happen when the number of opponents increases. When your draws are not to the nuts having more opponents is not necessarily better.
2. When pots get raised this usually means that there are some quality holdings out there making it harder for you to win without making a flush or a straight. In other words if you flop top pair it will be much more difficult and more costly for you to have it hold up as the best hand given the presence of a pre-flop raiser.
In many of these situations I don't believe that Rounder is giving up much by just folding weak hands despite what appears to be good pot odds.
Excellent points. I'd also add that there are a lot of hands that can't be saved by the pot odds in a 10-handed game. If you hold 93o your only real hope against a lot of active opponents is a flopped open set or two pair, 27-1 if I recall. And since you'll pay so much when you get snapped or outkicked, you need a lot more. There just aren't going to be enought bets in the pot to ever justify it.
In the situation you described I would call the single raise with j-8s,with 4 limpers in the pot,and the key words being AVERAGE LOW LIMIT,where anyone can have anything. I think rounders advice is solid,but something tells me his typical opponents are a lot tougher than yours!
Here are my minimum hands for calling a raise in the small blind expecting a 6 way flop AND no re-raise:
AQo - I won't shade this down Axs All pairs K9s Q9s JTs - Abdul's work suggest playing suited connector down to 54. I'm not interested. He also suggests Kxs and some others like KJ.
The only good thing about your position is that the action on the flop will likely check to the raiser and you can then pop it to thin the herd.
-Fred-
IMO, J8s is not a playable hand out of the sb for a raise. If there is no raise, you obviously should play it.
A more difficult scenario is where you have J8s in the bb and there is a raise in a multiway field.
I tend to call if the raiser is to my immediate left (i.e. the betting is closed when it is my turn to act)or if I stand to get some unreasonable action from some of my opponents should I go on to flop a strong hand. I tend to fold if the raise is close to the button. I do this because (a) there may be a reraise from one of the early position limpers and (b) more importantly, if the action gets automatically checked to the preflop raiser to bet, I have terrible position on the flop as I really can't be sure if the other players just "checked to the raiser" or checked because they have nothing.
I like the "Bob Ciaffone" rule on calling raises out of the small blind. The rule is that if you would not call a raise having the button with your hand then you should not call a raise with the same hand when you are in your small blind since having the button is worth half a bet. Now I am sure that there are exceptions but I think this gives you a good perspective. With regard to Jack-Eight suited, would you cold-call a raise on the button with this hand given 4 limpers? If yes, then call out of your small blind. If not, then fold from your small blind. Personally, I would not call with Jack-shit suited but it may be close.
Thanks all for the tips, its helped to clear some things up in my mind
The small blind is just another bad early position to me. I would not play J8 or even J8s in the SB with a total of 4 players unless I want to just vary my image. I would call 1 raise and possibly 2 if I thought there would be a total of 5 players staying with J8 and hope for a good flop. These runner, runner hands definitely show losses. Overall, I would say toss it and wait for better position. Position and high cards is/are thekey to HE. When patience and agressiveness meet, you will show a nice profit.
Although you have 1/2 a bet in the pot, this is not enough to change your calling requirements very much. You will be badly out of position for the entire hand, so you should only call raises with a decent holding. The rule of not calling a raise in the SB unless you would also cold call on the button is a pretty good generalization.
J8s is the same as J8shit when it comes to calling raises. Perhaps in the BB I would call, but in the SB I would fold unless perhaps there were 7 or more players, (even then it is probably a fold).
Position makes a big difference in HE so you have to play the SB very tightly. If it was 3/6 with a 1$ SB this would be even more true. You have some leeway if there is no raise and the SB is 1/2 a bet, in that case you can play some pretty trashy hands because you will usually be getting good pot odds to call. You just have to be pretty sure that the BB will not raise before you play trashy hands.
Dave in Cali
Other than taking the Lewes Ferry to NJ and getting to AC that way, there isn't anyplace to play in Delaware, is there?
They have bus trips from places nearby to AC. Also, the ferry is 26 only bucks and the ride from Cape May to AC is under 50 minutes if you obey the speed limit on the parkway. It's an easy trip, but make sure you can get on the ferry (i.e reservation or don't rely on the last one on a weekend)
I've been playing at a 9-seated 9-18 Hold'em game for several hours when an attractive middle-aged Oriental woman sits down in a recently vacated seat two to my right. She is wearing expensive sylish jewelry and clothes. Over the next hour and a half or so, I see her get beaten with QJ by KQ and with second-pair/ace kicker to top-pair/mediocre kicker. She has raised just once, in late position with ATsuited, and just called a raise from mid-position with QQ. I am on the button with KToffsuit. There are two limpers, then a raise by this woman, fold, I fold.
The flop came QJ6, 2-suited. (Of course a 9 fell on the river, nuts for me had I joined the fray.) She eventually won a decent-sized pot after betting the flop and turn and checking the river.. Can you guess her hand.
"...attractive middle-aged Oriental woman..." "Can you guess her hand."
Is this an exercise in prejudging players? I have no problem with that. If I were in the hand I would credit her with a wider range of possible hands than the average player based purely on your description. I would not fold a hand of medium value on the river under most circumstances. since she checked the river she obviously has some kind of hand, JT at a minimum although some goofy SoCal players will over play worthless pocket pairs. This is 9-18 after all.
In this situation I'm not going to try to guess and rely mostly on the strength of my own hand.
-Fred- ...willing to use all information regardless of it's political correctness.
AQ
AJ suited is the obvious answer. Any pocket pair is also a possibility, as is AK.
I'm going to say she had pocket 8s.
I also say A-Js.
Pocket aces. If I am right do I win some sort of prize?
Is that your final answer?
3
8,10 sooted!
Since you took the time to post this hand, I would have to guess that she did not have much and just decided to raise with something as bad as 72.
My original guess was the same as rounders, AQ. But now i think I have it figured out...she had K-10.
mike
scratch that...she checked the river....had to be AQ..
Could she have had the kt and tried for a check raise or was she in last position?
I'm not sure she is that aggressive. The 9 on the river and check makes me think she has the AQ - according to Sklansky I'm the worst analyzer of hands around here so I am probably wrong. :-)
Jeezzz. The "Q" key is not even close to the "G" key.....how did you do that??
She had QJ.
The Q in Guess was either a red herring or a valuable hint :+}.
Sounds like AK or chicken on the river with AQ. KT is not out of the question either, a rare live one is too nice to bet the nuts after they have "already won".
Pocket two's
I got some flack for "quess." Quess = question + guess a la James Joyce. I did forget to mention that both blinds folded (I think) when she raised pre-flop. There were two calls in any event.
I had two round-trip tickets to Maui waiting here had anybody pinned the tail (and if you believe that, I'll look forward to you anteing up for a little 3-card Monte) but, well, you all guessed about as well as I did. AQ came in first, AJ was next. The answer is J2suited.
I tried to provide as much as I could about her appearance and betting habits so you could approximate my perspective....
My guess was 72 or something as bad and I would think that J2s is pretty close to "bad". Did she keep on playing these type of cards the rest of the game?
J2suited is much better than 72suited. With J2 you can often (about 30%) hit a flop when jacks will be top-pair or middle-pair. Against two limpers, that is the best hand as much as 45-50% of the time I would guess. Maybe a computer simulation is in order.
I left soon after this hand.
I need some input on two hands. JJ and TT on the button when it's three bet to you. You're playing in a mid-limit game, with a couple of tight and loose players. Let's assume that the blinds will fold.
First scenario: Tight player raises UTG. Tight player reraises everyone folds to you. I will always fold under these conditions. Is this correct?
Second scenario: Loose player raises in early position everyone else folds. Solid player reraises in late position, it up to you. I will usually fold. Is this correct? I know that they might be trying to isolate the loose player,but so what.
Third scenario: Loose player raises UTG. Loose player reraises everyone else folds. I will call 80% of the time and raise the other 20%. It depends on how they respect my play.
Under the first two scenarios you are correct in folding every time since the likelihood of being up against an over pair is quite good. Even in those cases where you are not, then you are only a marginal favorite and when an Ace, King, or Queen shows up your hand is usually dead. This will happen most of the time.
The third scenario is less clear. The problem is that loose players raise with their good hands like the rest of us and you have two of them to worry about. It really depends on how loose they are and how the game has been going. You are still in trouble when an over card flops which will be most of the time. Are you likely to get severely punished when you have a second best hand once the flop comes or will they play passively? I will usually play but I would consider inserting a fold from time to time not just calling and raising all the time.
I think in the first and third scenarios you are ok. In the second I would consider playing depending on exactly how I felt about the solid player who reraises.
Also the loose player needs to be the kind of player who raises with all kinds of stuff, not the kind that plays every hand but only raises with big hands.
I don't quite agree with Jim B. that your hand is usually dead to an overcard here. You have position and if they don't hit the flop, they will have a hard time taking one off to actually beat you.
D.
Hi Dreamer, I feel you are correct in the first senario but if the solid player in the second example is constantly leaning on the live one, you have to make a stand so he dosen't keep taking you off hands. It all depends on the hands he's turning over. If he's showing big pairs and AK's, fine-leave him alone. When it turns to 55 and Ax - FOUR BET HIS ASS!!! Secondly, you should try to change seats to get yourself out of this spot. In the last example, forget about calling. Four bet and take the lead. If you call, you almost have to flop a set to win the hand as it will be one, and most likely two bets to go on the flop before you even get to make a decision. When you call here, anyone with QQ still feels pretty good about their holding. When you 4-bet you are in control on the button and you might even lose the original raiser which puts dead money in the pot. Also, this play will give you the image of an action player which can translate into lots of bets over the course of a session and the beauty is, most of the time you're not even taking the worst of it!! Mike Minetti
S & M recommend folding pocket Jacks when it's 3 bets (21st century, page 25). Also, Sklansky points out that the likelihood of the top card on the flop being either an Ace, King or Queen is over 50% (55.2%). I think you're saving money by folding pocket jacks or tens every time if it's 3 bets in front of you.
Hands 1+2 I would fold. Hand 3 I would consider playing but would occasionally fold. I would not reraise because pocket JJ or TT will often have to fold on the flop when overcards come. You will often be folding even though you know that the previous two players are very loose and may not have squat. But despite this, when overcards fall to your TT or JJ you are very likely beaten (and you only have two outs) so you will have to fold anyway.
Hands like JJ and TT play best with lots of players (their value coming from flopping a set) or when you can successfully isolate one player and get it heads up. Neither hand plays very well with three or four players for several bets, you will only lose $$ in the long run this way.
Dave in Cali
This is a hand I played recently, and after discussion with some friends I have decided to post it. Game is fairly tight and very agressive. My image in this game is very tight and unimaginative. I'm UTG with KsJs and call, middle position player raises(MP)two late position players call (LP1, LP2), BB calls.
Flop comes Jc5c2s.
BB check, I check, MP bets, LP1 folds, LP2 raises, BB folds, I reraise, MP folds, LP2 calls.
Turn is a 3h, I bet, LP2 calls
River is a 8h, I bet LP2 folds.
My thoughts during the hands were as follows. I checked b/c I knew the MP would bet automatically and based on the subsequent action either raising or folding. When LP2 raised I felt there was a very strong likelihood he was on a draw. I considered folding but felt I might have the best hand, calling seemed bad because then I'm out of position against two tricky agressive players. Raising seemed the best option, I might have the best hand, and it helps me gain some info that lets me know where I stand. It also might get me heads-up against an opponent that might be drawing. And there was a small chance MP would fold a better hand.
My bet on the turn is automatic, if raised I know I'm in trouble, after he just calls I knew he was drawing, and when nothing scary comes on the end, I bet.
At the time I liked the way I played the hand but after thinking it over for a couple of days I'm not sure. Comments?
You need to realize that tight, aggressive games are the worst games to be playing in. When tight, aggressive players bet, raise, or cold-call legitimate raises they are supposed to have good hands. Pre-flop limping in under the gun with King-Jack suited is correct but just barely. Make it King-Ten suited and you should fold under the gun in a tight, aggressive game. When raised and called in 3 spots you almost certainly have a bad holding plus being out of position. Unless the flop hits you hard you should plan on dumping this hand.
Your flop play seems strange to me. How do you evaluate your top pair/excellent kicker holding in this spot given a pre-flop raiser and 3 cold-callers? If I think my hand is good than I would lead with it. Instead you check (not my play at all) and then the pre-flop raiser bets and gets raised. Now maybe the pre-flop raiser has AK or AQ (versus AA,KK,QQ,JJ, or AJ suited) and maybe the flop raiser is raising on a come hand. But what is the combined probability of BOTH these things being correct? Suppose 50% of time the pre-flop raiser has AK or AQ and 20% of the time LP2 is raising on a come hand having specifically two big Clubs. Keep in mind that this is a tight, aggressive game and LP2 would not be cold-calling legitimate pre-flop raises with two little Clubs or something like King-little suited or Queen-little suited and probably not even Ace-little suited. This means that 90% of the time you are huge underdog and 10% of the time you are a favorite. Why on earth would you 3 bet? It could easily get raised again and you whole line of play is predicated on your pair of Jacks being the best hand which you were unwilling to lead with initially.
Given what happened your plays on the turn and river make sense but I really think you got lucky on this hand.
It is not easy to laydown the top pair,kicker, backdoor flush so I kind of like your play on the flop for the specific read you have: Very aggressive raiser bets automatically + aggresive player raises with a draw.
The turn play is right.
The river you should probably check, you have the player on a draw so this is good time to try and induce a bluff instead of a fold.
D.
In this type of game I don't like playing KJs UTG. However assuming you do play the hand I prefer check-raising on the flop and leading on the turn. I think you maximize your chances of winning by playing this way. Your hand and where you stand has been very clearly defined on the flop. You have gotten rid of the initial raiser and you are heads up against a draw. If you lead on the flop and the initial raiser raises, and the draw reraises, than what is your course of action?
If you lead on the flop, get raised by the pre-flop raiser, and then re-raised by LP2 you have a clear and easy fold in a tight, aggressive game holding a troublesome hand like K-J and a Jack-high flop. This is precisely why betting your hand on the flop is vastly superior to checking and raising or checking and re-raising since you escape at minimum cost. The only way it could ever be right to hang around is if the pre-flop raiser is raising your flop bet with just over cards AND LP2 is re-raising with AcKc,AcQc,KcQc, or AcTc. The combined probability of both these things happening is very small and it will be hazardous to your bankroll if you insist on dumping hard earned money in these situations only to find out that you were badly beaten in at least one spot and frequently two.
Had Atwood led on the flop with his KJs and there was a raise and reraise and he mucked his hand he would have laid down the best hand and he would have been outplayed. Check reraising puts a whole bunch of pressure on the initial better who has to fold if he can't beat top pair esp. with him being in the middle.
Bruce
But this is playing results and is a sample size of one.
I think you were stuck between a rock and a hard place with this hand. I disagree with Jim Brier about lead betting on the flop. I think if you are going to call on the flop a check raise is the best play ( or in your case a check re-raise). This puts a lot of pressure on the initial raiser to call with with AK or AQ and drawing out on you, whereas, he would have more than likely have called 1 bet.
However, having said that, I agree with rest of Jim's analysis. KJ is a hand that more often than not ends up making the 2nd best hand, especially in a tight-aggressive game. The initial raiser and LP2 could have easily had you badly beat, especially if the initial raiser was holding an overpair. He more than likely would have raised you on the turn. As you stated, if you were raised on the turn, you probably would have been in trouble, but probably couldn't fold because now the pot is too large unless you were fairly sure you were drawing dead.
Like I said between a rock and a hard place.
If, like you posted, your image is tight and unimaginative, it certainly won't stay that way when you start showing KJs up front. My image is that of an action player, so I choose to muck this hand in that spot most of the time. Two exceptions would be if I haven't entered a pot in at least two laps or if the big blind is really live. In either case I would raise, which is what you should do to exploit your image. Mike Minetti
Lead bet on the flop, fold if raised twice, because if MP raised, LP2 will not reraise with a drawing hand unless he has AcKc or Ac2c. If MP raised, LP2 call, just call, on fourth street bet, if raised, fold.
LP2, if he is a tight, aggressive player would not cold-call a raise pre-flop with Ace-Deuce suited given only two limpers and the pre-flop raiser in my opinion. If you are going to put him on a Club draw it would have to be AcKc or AcQc or maybe AcTc or KcQc.
Regarding whether to bet or check-raise the flop, I favor betting because the preflop raiser (who you knew would automatically bet) is on your left; he might raise your bet with an inferior hand, helping you thin the field. If the raiser/automatic bettor were on your right, I would usually favor a check-raise.
If you believed your opponent had a busted draw on the river, why did you bet? If you are correct, you would be more likely to win an extra bet by check-calling.
IMO, you should have probably dumped BTF given your description of the game as being tight and very aggressive. KJs is just not a strong enough holding here to bother with UTG. KQs would barely be enough but then when it gets raised and cold called several times you have to be worried that you are badly dominated.
On the flop you checked when you should have bet. Trying for a check-raise with this weak of a holding in this type of game is probably a major negative EV play. I would be very worried that someone else had an overpair or a hand like AcKc or AcQc which you would be only a small favorite over. Also anyone with AJ will have you badly beat and will certainly not be folding. I would have thought that YOU had at most five outs on the flop, perhaps only four since the Kc is probably not a good card for you given the multiway pot. Someone is probably on a flush draw with overcards. You are most likely behind. Three betting only costs you $$ and allows for the possibility of your getting raised again. Your biggest fears should be the person with AcQc (which has 15 outs against you), or AJ (which gives you 2 or 3 outs to win).
On the turn you pretty much have to bet if you think the other player still in the hand is on a draw. If you get raised here you are probably screwed with at most 4 outs.
The river bet I don't really like. If MP2 has an overpair he will certainly call if not raise. There are very few WORSE hands that will call you here so your bet has little value. However, there are plenty of BETTER hands that will call. The only hands you are going to get to fold here are busted draws which would not have called anyway. Check the river.
I'm sure you won a nice pot, but you did get pretty lucky. Next time fold BTF.
Dave in Cali
I played 40-80 holdem last night. The game played like a 3-6 game. The game was 9 handed and there were maybe 2 or 3 "solid" players. The main game was even juicier (my game was a must move game). One player was three betting preflop ~90% of the time with just about anything. Most of the time it was either three bets or capped before the flop and the action was typically four handed. Players were playing suited cards (connectors and non-connectors), non-suited connectors, and just about any pocket pair. The flops were typically capped on any type of flush or straight draw. Flops were also being capped by players with middle and bottum pair. On the turn the action slowed down. Players were checking and calling or if raised or check-raised they were mucking their hands if they had nothing. Obviously from my perspective I needed to make some major adjustments from my normal style of play. Seat location becomes very important. I want to be seated on the three betters left. Hand selection and how you play both pre-flop and from the flop on also become very important. I normally play with a tremendous amount of patience and have a lot of discipline. I really don't like to gamble. I like to think of myself as a solid player. However in this type of game I lowered my starting requirements quite a bit. I can go broke waiting for AA, KK, and AK. I will also be blinded to death waiting for quality starting hands. The overall quality of my opposition is so weak that playing more hands becomes imperative. KQo is a hand I normally don't play upfront or for a raise. Last night I four bet pre-flop twice with it and raised UTG with it once. Obviously this goes against the Jim Brier school of poker. I won two monster pots when I was up agianst KT once and KJ another time. In a game like this if you flop top pair with a half way decent kicker it's like the worlds fair. It becomes almost impossible to lay down the hand even if it is four bets to you by the time the action reaches you. AT, AJ, and AQ go way up in value. These become three betting and capping hands. Ace high, good kicker can often win a show down in heads up action. Ironically, I had pocket Kings once and I lost to T6o, when three bets on the button were called cold. I had pocket Aces once and lost and had pocket Queens twice and lost each time to pocket Kings. Anyway it was just another interesting day at the office.
Bruce
I think you have the totally wrong strategy for these type of games.
You need to play tighter and favor big suited connectors and big pairs. The unsuited big cards go down in value. The fact that your results for this particular session indicate something else is not so important.
If you were able to isolate some of the weak-raising players with KQ and AJo then it may not be that bad but you don't want to be caught in a 6 way capped pot with these.
BTW what are the driving directions to this game?
D
Capping with KQ and AJ if there is 9 way action is bad poker, but in a four way pot if your opponents are playing garbage and you have the best kicker will get you the money.
Bruce
The good players will come in with the right hands and the bad players will get dealt some good hands also. I can see no reason for putting in the raises yourself or cold-calling with offsuit trash big cards. I also doubt you can count on it being 4-handed, other players will come in and it will suddenly be 6 handed, 4-handed is 1 or 2 hands too many anyway.
The real value of an AJo against a trash hand is that you can win with your A high or make him fold. In these hands it aint gonna happen.
About the only time in any game I will play KQo or AJo after a raise is to 3-bet a weak raiser when heads up is a strong possibility. I would rather cold-call with a medium suited connector in those multiway pots you are seeing.
I think the key is whether your opponents are truly likely to have garbage. Against a bunch of loose limpers, AJo and KQo are reasonable raising hands. By the same token, if the players are so terrible that they are also raising and cold-calling raises with trash, I say go for it. However, once one or two solid players enter a raised pot, AJo and KQo are in trouble.
You raise some excellent points. Big unsuited cards with 9 way action are a recipe for disaster but with 3 or 4 way action esp. when one player is 3 betting automatically become very playable hands. If my opponent is three betting on every hand from my perspective if I am going to play the hand I might as well cap it and try to seize the initiative. What difference does it make if I put in three or four bets in before the flop? The extra $40 to play the hand is well worth it from a psychological perspective. My opponents think I am a tight ass so they wrongfully assume I have a group 1 hand. I just don't like playing small suited connectors in a capped pot unless I know it is going to be 8 or 9 handed. The same goes with small and mid sized pocket pairs. Even then I still am not real excited. It just adds a whole bunch more of volatility to my results. The hands I find to be most problematic in this game are pocket Tens, Jacks, and Queens unless of course you flop a set. They are very difficult to play when there is an overcard with a bunch of loose cannons. If you play big cards and have flopped a pair at least you have more potential outs if you are beat on the flop than with a big pair.
Bruce
Where were you playing?
do you think he is going to tell us? I wouldn't
Oceanside Good players may actually add some balance to the game.
Actually you won't get blinded to death waiting for premium starting hands. You are playing way too loose in this type of game. Your implied odds are not good so wait for the best starting hands. The key is having BIG pairs and BIG cards. None of that inbetween crap.
A couple of nights ago I was playing in my usual 5-10 dealer's choice game.
The game was Holdem and I was dealt pocket tens 2 away from the big blind. UTG raises. Now, UTG is a poor player, who raises too often on bad cards prelop (suited connectors, connectors, weak A's, and some other random junk, all done with total disregard of postion), and plays poorly postflop as well. I am seated to his immediate left because of these facts.
Based on my knowledge of the types of hands that this player raises with, I am pretty sure that my tens will be good enough to win the pot. I three bet to get the pot heads up. The game is very loose and a preflop raise will usually get at least 4 players, but my raises get respect and a 3 bet makes people think twice about small suited cards (a single raise is simple for them to play).
Anyways, I'm amazed, I do get the pot heads up. He just called my reraise. I flop top set with my tens and he bets into me. I just call. An A comes on the turn and I start raising.
Anyways, he had AKo, I won a monster pot, but I am unsure if my preflop play was correct. Also, would you slowplay top set head's up on the flop?
What do you think of my overall strategy for this hand?
In your special situation your play was good poker. I would play the same way against a maniac or a loose goose when I have a decent hand and I think I can isolate him with position. I also play the same way against someone who straddles. I think your slow play on the flop was good poker also in a heads-up situation with top set and it is right to wait until the expensive street to pull the trigger.
the only way I wouldn't slowplay any set heads up is if the board looked really bad such as 3 suited cards or a 3-straight on the flop. otherwise let him bet for you.
I'm in a 7-handed 6-12 game when I pick up Td9d in middle position. All fold to me. Seeing a weak-tight player in the BB, I decide to open-raise with my marginal hand. I am called only by the loose/typical player (LT) on the button. Flop comes AQ6r. I bet, LT calls. Turn brings a 4. I check (?) and LT checks. River brings a 3. I check (???) and LT showdowns KT to take the pot. Actually, I was momentarily confused/distracted after the river card fell; by the time I decided a bluff was indicated, I felt I had hesitated too long to pull it off. Comments welcome.
This is the problem with playing a medium suited connector in a shorthanded situation like this. When the flop misses you, you will frequently be trying to bet your way to victory since you don't have a hand to showdown. Once you decided to check on the turn you told your opponent you were weak so betting the river when a blank comes makes it hard to bluff him out. This is an excellent post because it underscores the futility of getting involved in shorthanded pots with small cards. You want an Ace or a King or Queen-Jack or maybe Jack-Ten not a medium suited connector. This is also why trying to steal the blinds with hands like Seven-Six suited or Eight-Seven suited is a bad idea. You have to ask yourself what am I trying to accomplish when I play in a shorthanded pot that is raised? I don't need to make a straight or a flush to win. Usually a decent pair will do it and sometimes even Ace-high. With a suited connector, even if you make a pair of Tens or Nines or Eights you are very vulnerable whereas when you make a pair of Aces, Kings, Queens, or even Jacks you are in much better shape. Of course you will hardly ever win with a suited connector if you don't at least pair. So now your only "out" is to pour a lot dough into the pot and hope your opponent folds. This is an expensive way to play this game.
Finally Jim and I can agree. In a loose game, don't try to steal the blinds from middle position with a hand like this. If you get called (and you likely will), it's going to be tough to play. Big cards rule when short-handed.
If it were checked to me on the button, I'd be tempted to just fold and let the blinds chop if it is a typically loose-ish game. I'd only raise if I thought there was a high probability of winning the blinds, and/or the players in the blinds were so predictable that I'd know exactly where I stood and all times.
Stu. you don't need my comments you know you missed 2 bets - maybe he don't fold on the turn but he'd be a fool to call you on the river.
We all know how timid the LT player is when the potential of his holding has deminished by the river.
Now those suited cards got you in trouble again didn't they. :-)
After both you and your opponent showed weakness on the turn and your opponent didn't seize the opportunity to bet when a blank fell on the river, you had, in my estimation, a better than 50-50 chance of succeeding with a bluff-bet. And it's doubtful he would have bluffed you back with a check-raise because the sequence you would have displayed of betting the flop, checking the turn with A & Q showing, then betting the river is consistent with a holding of a pair lower than ace or queen and higher than a 6; and had he held an ace or queen or, indeed, any pair higher than a 6, he would have most likely communicated that with a bet before the final opportunity arose for you to snatch the pot. On the other hand, KJ WAS the best hand one could have held with that board without making a pair....
Last night I met a few of the 2+2 posters and had a nice time playing at my "new" local club in Aurora.
It was a busy Friday night with the board chock-o-block full of names. I finally get seated about 10:45. I am on the 10-20 and 5-10 board the 5-10 comes up 1st they asked me at 5 am if ai wanted to play 10-20 :-)
I had to struggle all night hardley got a hand worth playing was down almost to felt of my $300 buy in but managed to end up a $213 winner on the night, after about 7 hours of play. 3+bb per hour. I'll take it.
Will be back today even though I hate the 40 mile journey and long long walk from the inconvenient car park and the low ceiling poorley lit smoke filled card room - Gosh I miss Arizona.
Rounder look for me there again, I had so much fun, and luck, that I had to go back today after a few hours sleep, and I do mean a few. As well it was a pleasure meeting you up there.
Kevin
Rounder-
I don't want to take up forum space with non-related topics, but I'm just curious. How does a typical Friday night game at Aurora compare with the games in Arizona? Also, feel free to e-mail me if you need any info about the games or area in general. kljcorp@speedsite.com
Rounder,
I had spoken to you about a month or so ago and have been looking for you at Hollywood. I am out of town until wednesday and then I leave town again Friday until early August. I may try to get out to meet you Wednesday or Thursday evening if you are going to be there - I have to confirm my schedule before I can committ. Hollywood definitely has its drawbacks but the games are not one as they are usually very good games. I look forward to meeting you soon.
Michael D.
PS - Did you take all of that one big fishes money - you know - Kevin (just kidding Kev!!!)
Hope you arn't talking about this Kevin Michael D.....
I don't know about y'all but Hollywood's card room is just this side of a dirty ashtray with tables and seats. It is nasty, the air filtration is sad. The whole casino is poorly maintained, and I am questioning if their facilities are up to city codes. If it wasn't for the nice 5-10 game I doubt that I would ever return.
Kevin
Kevin and I tangled a couple of times and I think he got the best of me - I did get him to lay down a winner yesterday but it was just revenge since he did a job on me Friday - I an not sure to be around much next week playing in a tues night tournament in Des Plaines and may be there on Wed. we'll have to see we have frinds in from England until Fri.
Bishop,
No it wasnt you - I was just giving my buddy at 10-20 kljspeedcorp a hard time thats all. He is the one that was discussin the 3 handed straddle with me about a week or so ago. He is a very solid player and a definiet winner and I was just having a go at him all in good fun. I hope/am pretty confident that he knows I was just teasing him.
Rounder - I was at the Desplaines tourny about a month or so ago - I do not think you were there that night as I looked for you. I went out about 5th or 6th. If I get back in town in time on tuesday, I will be there. Good luck. Look for a few buddies of mine - Claude - will be wearing dark glasses, Tom Reed, or Wimpy. Just as for Claude or wimpy and people should know who they are. Tell them you met me online and if I am there, they will point me out.
Michael D.
Mike I played it once - on June 6th made 5th place and never really had a run of good cards. Geesh wonder what it is like to get a run of cards - seems like I have to do it the hard way all the time.
Rounder,
The other night I was playing 8-16 and won a $500 pot after sitting down for 10min. That comes out to 187.5 big bets an hour! Your 3+bb an hour is nothing!
I won $250 pot in a 5-10 game yesterday after playing 4 or 5 hands AA full of J's 2 flush draws and a made tree top on the turm gave me the big win. Let's see that is about 150 bb rate.
But we are playing with numbers arent we. :-)
Rounder how much is the b uy in on that tourney on Tuesday in Des Plains, I wouldn't mind trying it out.
Kevin
drop me an email.
n/t
I'm trying out an expiriment. To help sharpen my skills, I have started reviewing my Paradise Poker hand histories. To take it a step further, I have annotated and posted these onto my website so that others can make comments as well. While this risks a little by showing how I play every hand, I hope the gains will be worth it.
In my annotations I am pointing out where a play looks so suspicious that it is either by and extremely bad player, or collusion. Hopefully, this will benefit is all in helping to identify collusive play without having to make a thorough study, and disclosure, of how experts should collude.
The hand history that I have just recently put up has one instance which looks very suspicious (hand #39).
So feel free to refer comment on any hand or on my comments? Here is one to get started. On the turn I was "afraid of trolls under the bridge", and it probably cost me the pot. Does anyone think that I did the right thing by checking on the turn?
-Steve
Seat 1: hannesblitz ($53 in chips) Seat 2: rastus211 ($166.50 in chips) Seat 3: Walter34 ($259 in chips) Seat 4: steve ($208 in chips) Seat 5: BARBER ($35 in chips) Seat 6: roadhand ($174.50 in chips) Seat 7: moneybags1 ($197 in chips) Seat 8: Chipster ($210 in chips) Seat 9: craigt2k ($129 in chips) Seat 10: stony ($208 in chips) BARBER : Post Small Blind ($1) roadhand: Post Big Blind ($3) Dealing... Dealt to steve [ 2h ] Dealt to steve [ As ] moneybags1: Fold Chipster: Fold craigt2k: Fold stony : Fold hannesblitz: Fold rastus211: Fold Walter34: Fold steve : Raise ($6) BARBER : Fold roadhand: Call ($3) *** FLOP *** : [ Ah Qd Jc ] roadhand: Check steve : Bet ($3) roadhand: Call ($3) *** TURN *** : [ Ah Qd Jc ] [ 7s ] roadhand: Check steve : Check *** RIVER *** : [ Ah Qd Jc 7s ] [ 8h ] roadhand: Bet ($6) steve : Call ($6) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $30 | Rake: $1 Board: [ Ah Qd Jc 7s 8h ] hannesblitz didn't bet (folded) rastus211 didn't bet (folded) Walter34 didn't bet (folded) steve lost $15 [ 2h As ] (a pair of aces) BARBER lost $1 (folded) roadhand bet $15, collected $30, net +$15 (showed hand) [ Th 9d ] (a straight, eight to queen) moneybags1 didn't bet (folded) Chipster didn't bet (folded) craigt2k didn't bet (folded) stony didn't bet (folded)
I think you need to format these like typical hands that or posted here.
I[cant]undertanda[*&%$#]wordotherwise.
D.
I agree with David. It would be much better if you notate the hands in a clearer format.
The guy flopped an up and down straight draw and caught on the river. Why do you think this is collusion?
Sorry about the formatting. I didn't think it would turn out so awful. It looked good in Excel, and I copied and pasted it into the message.
This is not the hand where I thought there was any collusion. I was referring to another hand posted on my website. The point being that public examination of such hands will be helpful. But the hand in this post is another matter. I am just looking for criticism of my play.
I'll try to fix up the format.
Seat 1: hannesblitz ($53 in chips) Seat 2: rastus211 ($166.50 in chips) Seat 3: Walter34 ($259 in chips) Seat 4: steve ($208 in chips) Seat 5: BARBER ($35 in chips) -- SMALL BLIND Seat 6: roadhand ($174.50 in chips)- BIG BLIND Seat 7: moneybags1 ($197 in chips) Seat 8: Chipster ($210 in chips) Seat 9: craigt2k ($129 in chips) Seat 10: stony ($208 in chips) Dealt to steve [ 2h ] Dealt to steve [ As ] moneybags1: Fold Chipster: Fold craigt2k: Fold stony : Fold hannesblitz: Fold rastus211: Fold Walter34: Fold steve : Raise ($6) BARBER : Fold roadhand: Call ($3) *** FLOP *** : [ Ah Qd Jc ] roadhand: Check steve : Bet ($3) roadhand: Call ($3) *** TURN *** : [ Ah Qd Jc ] [ 7s ] roadhand: Check steve : Check *** RIVER *** : [ Ah Qd Jc 7s ] [ 8h ] roadhand: Bet ($6) steve : Call ($6) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $30 | Rake: $1 Board: [ Ah Qd Jc 7s 8h ] steve lost $15 [ 2h As ] (a pair of aces) BARBER lost $1 (folded) roadhand bet $15, collected $30, net +$15 (showed hand) [ Th 9d ] (a straight, eight to queen)
Okay, I give up on formatting. I inserted a bunch of carriage returns, and it still didn't work out.
Here is the abridged version.
3/6 HE, I'm on the button with A2o. All fold to me, and I raise. Only the big blind calls.
Flop is AQJ offsuit.
big blind checks, I bet, he calls. Turn is 7 of the fourth suit. big blind checks. Fearing a big hand being slowplayed, I also check.
River is an 8. He bets, I call, he shows T9o for a straight.
In retrospect, I think I should have bet the turn, and folded if he raised.
Steve
I don't see anything wrong with your check on the turn here. Yes, a bet would've been correct had you known he was drawing. But you can't know that. With this board, you either have the best hand or are in deep trouble with your ace/worst kicker. Also, checking the turn may induce a bet on the end.
Your destined to lose no matter how you play the hand. I would bet the turn because your hand is very vulnerable. Your opponent, however will more then likely call and you will still lose except one more big bet if he leads and you call.
You wrote:
"I would bet the turn because your hand is very vulnerable. "
What do you feel his hand is very vulnerable to? He is either already beat (by a better ace, 2 pair, etc.) or his opponent has very few outs in which case a free card is not all that terrible. Otherwise, his opponent has a legitimate draw and would be correct to call anyway. Of course if you knew your opponent was on a draw you'd be correct to bet. But with this board, you can't be at all sure of this. A check on the turn also may entice your opponent to bluff on the end if he misses.
Did the small and big blinds often fold in this game?Trying to steal with A-2o is risky.
It was a close decision between raising and folding. I figured that I had about a 50% chance of stealing the blinds.
Ace-Deuce offsuit could easily be the best hand against two random hands. It most cases you are raising with the best hand and the best position.
I think it is close between betting the turn or checking the turn and there are compelling reasons for either action. Out of the big blind guys will defend against a possible steal raise with any suited King, Queen, or Jack and will call here if you bet hoping their pair is good or hoping to hit a hand. It may depend upon your opponent and his impression of you.
I think the play is ok.
BTW you can look at your formatting with the preview before you post it.
D.
Steve,
Use HTML tags to format your messages.
For instance, type br in between <> to get a line break and use p and /p in between <> to separate paragraphs. See online HTML guides for others.
KJS
If you are routinely raising with garbage hands such as A2o he could have thought that if he missed his open ender and hit a pair instead that those could be outs for him as well. I think betting the turn would have just cost you 6 more bucks.
Obviously it is important to know your edge in a game. I play in a casino environment where the games can sometimes change by the hour. In a 10 hour session you may find yourself playing in 4-5 completely different games. My question is how does one go about calculating his edge? I realize the explanation may be too involved to be posted on this forum. But perhaps someone can direct me to a book or other resource for this information. Also, if someone can give at least some insight or a brief outline, I'd appreciate it.
For instance:
Assume a 10 handed $10-$20 limit hold'em game with a $4 rake and $5-$10 blinds.
Pre-flop: There are 7 players who play poorly before the flop. 4 of these players play solid cards but are insensitive to position. The other 3 players play very loose (TXs, etc.) and are also insensitive to position. Of the 4 that play solid overall cards, 2 of them are insensitive to raised pots playing dominated hands such as AXs, etc. The other 3 players including yourself play solid pre-flop with the exception of 1, who probably plays too tight given the weak/loose nature of the game.
Post-flop: Although every street probably needs to be evaluated on it's own merits, in the interest of space, I'll lump them together.
3 of the players are very insensitive to pot and/or implied odds, ie- drawing to gutshots, pocket pairs and low pairs when obviously beat and without odds. 2 players while aggressive, probably bluff too much and are excellent check/raise candidates on the turn. Our 1 player who is too tight pre-flop, is also weak/tight post flop. 4 players don't use their position well and play passively once someone has shown strength.
As I am writing this it is becoming painfully obvious that calculating your edge is not at all a simple process with so many variables to consider. It may have been easier if I just asked: Can you catagorize mistakes and say that 1 mistake such as calling a pre-flop raise with a dominated hand for example equals X dollars per hour, etc.?
There are several obstacles which come to mind when trying to pinpoint one's edge versus a pool of various opponents. First of all, few people play the same way all the time. One loose player may tighten up when down, say, 1/2 the buy-in while another may let it all hang out. Someone who's been getting burned time and time again with a valid approach may begin to play too defensively. Even if you could determine with certainty how a particular player would play a given hand in a given situation, you can never tell for sure when the risk-loving player or poor player might be dealt cards which override your advantage. I remember playing in a 1-4-8-8 game in Vegas when a guy sat down the beside me (on my right) and proceeded to start raising pre-flop about every other hand pre-flop. I was getting dealt junk so had to bide my time before I could lower the boom. Meanwhile, he was overpowering the rest of the table. Finally I'm dealt KK, reraise his raise, and his AA fling my cowboys off their fire-breathing steeds headfirst into the gravel pit. Also, don't forget that before you can get a read on another player's habits, you are often involved in pots against this player.
I think it safe to say that you're doing quite well if averaging between 1.5 to 2.5 big bets per hour over the long haul. Other than that, you just gotta do the best you can with the limited data at your disposal at any given time.
I wonder if I am losing $$$ on AXs. First, I define AX as anything less than A9. A9 probably plays slightly better than A8 and considerably better than anything lower. Am I right on this?
Unless the game is ideal, ie- fairly loose AND passive, I normaly muck A9s and below from early position. From middle position, I will normaly call if someone else has limped trying to lure a multi-way pot. If it's folded to me, I sometimes call, sometimes raise. I am pretty sure that I am not too far off so far with my assessment of A9s. But here is where I think I may be losing....
From late middle position when it is folded to me, I normaly throw away AXs. My thinking is that it is still too early too raise with, and too late to expect a multi-way pot. What's probably more important is that the worst case scenario is now more likely. It gets raised behind me and I find myself heads up out of position against with a garbage ace. Yet, I see many good players play AXs from this position. Does anyone think I am giving up too much by folding here in most games?
In mid to late position with no one else either raise with the hand or pass. I would only raise if there is a reasonable chance I might steal the blinds or be heads up with the blinds otherwise I would be inclined to pass. If you raise and you have two players calling behind you, your better off not playing the hand to begin with because your probably dominated.
Bruce
I personaly feel that i have lost a lot of money on Axs, I now will play only A4s and A5s in late pos. with 3 or 4 callers in front of me and no raise. Because i have a slight chance of the wheel draw. I will occaisonly raise with A9s as a steal, but other than that i throw it away, maybe other people do better with it than me but it has not been to good for me the last 2 years.
i had A9s tonight. Late position. [3-6] No raises, couple ppl fold, I raise, about 4 or 5 call. I flop top pair [AJsomething-rainbow]. My buddy who I play Hold'em many times hit the ace high straight on the turn.[10] [hey, at least it wasn't one of those super pros, like u guys, taking my money]
Anyways, I'm still in there because I think he's bluffing, and I get trip aces on the river.
Man, those are hard to fold against someone you play with. Unfortunately, I was wrong w/ my read and he played KQo in the small blind.
Grrr...
Too many people like to draw frickin' everything in 3-6 !!!
Oh well, I was part of a jackpot that reeled me in 342 buckaroos! So not a bad night at all. Hey, I'm only 18 and gonna start working tomorrow at eight bucks an hour. [at least I know for sure I can't lose money working like in poker] But hey, 50 bucks an hour [played for 6 hours] isn't bad at all
So anyways, ace-nine, in 3-6, eck! The heck with crap! Ok, have a nice day. Goodnight.
I am uncertain about Ace-Little suited as well. I treat Ace-Nine suited as Ace-Little suited although some authors like Gary Carson maintain it is a much better holding than Ace-Little suited because in an unraised pot the Nine kicker can easily be the best when an Ace flops. I normally don't limp in with it from early position unless it is a very passive game with hardly any pre-flop raising. This is hard to find at the $15-$30 and $20-$40 level that I play at. In middle position, Bruce makes a good argument for either folding or raising with it when everyone else folds. I am just uncertain so I usually just limp in and hope to see a flop cheaply but this may be wrong. However, I doubt that it is wrong by much. From late position (the cutoff and button) I will open with a raise since I can easily have the best hand.
If I could get a rebate on half my money from playing AXs in mid-late and late position when I raise after everyone folds I would be rich. Like I said before if I have a reasonable chance to steal the blinds I'll give it a shot otherwise I just pass. In So. Cal. that doesn't happen too often in the mid limits. Let's say you are heads up against the blind who is a reasonable player and you flop an Ace. With Ace rag now how do you like your hand? It's very difficult to play the hand with any degree of confidence and I find I will just check the river if I don't improve further. Many players and I am referring to good players overplay Axs from the back. They have a snowball's chance of surviving in hell of stealing the blinds and they just attack relentlessly with this hand.
One other reason I like A-9s better than an ace with a very small kicker, has to do with the(few)occasions when you flop two pair. Those tiny kickers are so easily couterfeited(I think that's the term)on the turn or river, I HATE THAT!
-Don
I know I've seen this one before, but I just don't remember when.
I'm looking for a hold'em tournament software game that I've heard about - based on the WSOP. Anyone know what I'm talking about, or have any recommendations?
I have Turbo, but I'm looking for something with a little more "entertainment" value as opposed to a study tool.
Thanks.
Check Masque Publishing under favorite links to the left.
I was playing on Planet Poker last night at a 5-10 table and was in the big blind looking at JsTs. Utg limps, fold, Raise by MP, cutoff calls, button folds as does small blind. I call the raise. Flop is Jd Td 4c. I have two top pair with a flush draw on board. I bet out hoping UTG would fold because he knows there might not only be 1 raise behind him but if I'm betting into the raiser I could very well reraise as well. Worked perfectly, he called. MP did indeed raise and I put him on an over pair or a big Jack. Cutoff makes it three bets to go. Cutoff is the only guy at the table I know and he could easily be on AdXd, KdQd, or even KQo. I can't rule out a set either, but I cap it anyway to see if UTG will call three bets and he does. Turn card is a blank (6h). Now that it's expensive and the draws are still live I bet out. UTG calls, MP calls, Cutoff raises. I'm thinking more and more cutoff has a set, but with the straight flush draw he would probably bet the same way. I reraise and it gets called around. I feel a little better for about a second when the Ace of Spades hits on the river. UTG bets out!! I'm thinking he got to broadway. MP calls, cutoff calls and like an idiot I call as well. UTG shows KcQc for the nuts and the rest of us don't show. While I'm waiting for the hand history cutoff asks me if I could beat JT. I said I couldn't but I wouldn't have lost to it either. He understood. I get the hand history and see that MP was on AhJh.
Cutoff then says, "Well, at least we made them pay to draw!!" I laughed and said, "It will be a while before these guys messed around with us again." "Yes", he said, "We really taught them a lesson."
Bart,
Well played in my opinion. My experience in live games is that players will rarely bluff on the river in that spot; they are almost certain to be called. On paradise poker however, I have seen stranger and often even hopeless bluffs on the river so you have to call. He could also be (very thinly) value betting something like AK.
Better luck!
Regards/
Good play. You did indeed make them pay to draw. Most of the time they will miss and you will get paid nicely, this time they happened to have gotten there and you lost. No big deal. The important thing is not the result but whether or not you played it right.
Dave in Cali
I used to play the small blind versus a raise very close to the way I would if I was the big blind. and thus, it turned out (at least it felt like) I was calling too many raises in the SB, but was ok in the BB.
And so, I've changed my strategy - I've been playing the SB as if it was the button. That is, I know if I face a raise, that I only have to put in 1.5 small bets (as opposed to 2 small bets if I was on the button)....but I have the disadvantage of acting first in the next three rounds...so that makes up for the .5 small bet differential. And it feels (I can't prove it since I have not kept detailed records) that I have been doing a lot better overall.
Any thoughts?
Yes, this is the "Ciaffone" rule for calling raises out of the small blind. The rule is that you should not call a raise out of your small blind that you would not be willing to call from the button since the button can be worth half a bet. It is not axiomatic but it is a useful guideline for helping you make these decisions.
good to know that a good player agrees with this strategy!
In the "ATs problem" post presented by "JOE" Dan Hanson recommended I read his latest article in Poker Digest about the importance of thinning the field. I have read his article and it is very interesting and informative as always. However, I have a couple comments.
Dan presents a case where he shows how the presence of a secondary draw (a gutshot) hurts the best hand (top pair) and not the best draw(a flush). This leads up to his Concept #1: "Weak callers primarily benefit the big draw often at the expense of the best hand". I believe this is nothing more than Morton's Theorem re-stated. Morton's Theorem is a descriptive theorem which states: "When there are multiple draws competing on the flop then the beneficiary of flop bets is the best draw not the best hand". Personally, I don't believe that Morton's Theorem has much practical application in hold-em because of the community card aspect of the game and the fact that you frequently have overlapping draws. Nevertheless, I do believe that the late Mr. Morton should have been given some credit or at least a passing mention here.
In Dan's example he shows how the best hand's profit goes down by ninety cents if the gutshot chooses to stay rather than fold and that only the flush draw's profit increases. Since this is a $10-$20 game we are dealing with then ninety cents represents less than 0.1 of a bet. Now all of this was done with complete information meaning that we knew with 100% accuracy what everyone had. But in hold-em we have incomplete information and things only vary in their degrees of probability. Therefore, while it is interesting to be aware of this paradox, I doubt that in the real world we can cut the hash this fine within a small fraction of a bet. My point is simply that we cannot use this to justify check-raising with a questionable holding in order to perhaps eliminate other limpers who may be on weak draws especially since we may not have the best hand and therefore be on a draw ourselves (with very few outs I might add).
P.S: Not to be a nit but in the example given there are only 45 unseen cards not 46 since the example assumes we have top pair so one of our cards is a given.
As I simultaneously posted, I really liked this article.
I think the point is that since you might lose a little if the weak draw calls or at best break even it is better to check-raise and give them a chance to make a large error in calling. A lot of people's (wrong) intuition is that they want to keep these weak draws in.
The other major point the article makes is just how much better off you are to be the big-draw rather then the top pair good kicker when all the poor-draw callers come in.
D.
To be honest, I never even thought of "Morton's Theorem" when I first started writing that article. Morton's theorem was a little more formally stated than that, and not quite the same as the points I've been making. The notion that big draws benefit from weak callers is not original to Andy Morton.
In a second draft that I did, I had a sidebar on Andy Morton and Morton's theorem. I deleted it because I didn't know Andy at all (as compared to many other posters to these forums), and thought it would be presumptious of me to present his ideas in public. And as I said, the stuff I was talking about isn't really Morton's theorem anyway.
The main point in the article is that there is usually little to be gained from slow playing when the pot is even marginally large. I wanted to get across the notion that you don't gain as much as you think by inducing calls from weak hands, and you often lose money. I could have gone into a lot more detail on the dynamics of slow-playing, but the article was already too long. In particular, to consider the cost of a slow-play you don't just have to worry about the money you're losing by letting people attempt to outdraw you, but you have to factor in the loss of EV from letting the major draws pay less to draw as well.
I agree with you that there are often duplicated draws and shared outs which minimizes the EV-losing aspects of having the best hand when against big draws, and said so a couple of months ago in a message on this board. But again, article length considerations forced me to show some simple ideas to illustrate the concept. There are always enough exceptions and different cases in poker that any article you write could meander forever.
I really liked the latest article by Dan in Poker digest.
It very clearly shows what kind of hands benefit from calls in multiway pots.
D.
Thanks a lot for the nice words. For a new writer in the poker world, it's great to hear any feedback at all. Good feedback is even better. (-:
I read the article. Liked it. But I'm gonna reread it now so I can tear it apart. After looking at his photo in the PD I think Hanson is to handsome to be nice too. I'll get him!
Vince.
is there a place online to find the article? I don't have access currently to a public cardroom.
.
Dan hanson writes up a fine article. I'll give him some credit for not naming this idea after himself but must admit I was shocked that the originator of this multi-way pot idea was unmentioned. Is this step one towards incorporating it as 2+2 property? It somehow wouldn't surprise me. What's up Dan?
-Fred-
Who was the originator of the 'multi-way pot' idea? Are you under the impression that Andy Morton somehow invented the idea that drawing hands benefit from weak callers against made hands?
This is simple math. I did it without thinking of 'Morton's theorem' at all. There are no great insights here - just plain old, everyday math. Is it not obvious that when a person draws to a hand that can't beat a flush, that the flush draw has to earn about 20% of that money? So if there is a hand in the pot that CAN be overtaken by the other draw, he only gains after the first 20% is accounted for. If the player is calling correctly, it's very damaging to the made hand. If he's incorrect, the made hand only gains if the error is larger than 20% of a bet.
Morton's theorem was a a specific, explicitly stated concept that had to do with the range of pot-sizes in multi-way pots that caused two players to both lose out on a bad call.
Incidentally, I showed this article to four different people for proof-reading before I submitted it, and not one of them mentioned Andy Morton. His name never even occured to me until I had written the second draft, at which time I realized that there were some similarities. So I wrote a sidebar about Andy, but felt it would be inappropriate of me to include it because I did not know him at all.
I did not 'name this after myself' because I don't believe there was any original work here to take credit for. Again, this is simple math. I thought I was merely describing a concept that was already known by many players. If this is groundbreaking stuff I'd be shocked. I'm sure Sklansky has done this math decades ago. I thought it would make a good article because these details get lost in the shuffle sometimes and people forget about them.
Finally, what's this stuff about 'incorporating it as a 2+2 property'? I have nothing at all to do with 2+2, other than that I write messages on this board, own some of their books, and wrote an article for a magazine that has Mason as technical editor. Really, the paranoia in the poker community amazes me. I can absolutely, categorically state that at no time did anyone from 2+2 suggest this topic to me, edit out references to Morton, or do anything else to change the nature of the article.
I agree.
I was one of those who Dan provided with a draft for comment. The words "Andy Morton" never came to mind when I read the article.
Dan wrote:
"I thought I was merely describing a concept that was already known by many players."
Personally speaking, Dan is only partly right. I generally knew that it was not a good idea to slowplay even monster hands when the pot became even moderately big and you had multiway action. But I never really knew exactly why that was the case. At least, I never really put my mind to the reasoning behind this concept the way Dan has in his article.
Great article. Filled with practical "what to do" advice that can be readily and easily implemented at the tables.
Your defensiveness betrays your guilt. One sentence in you artice would have been sufficient.
-Fred-
Your defensiveness betrays your guilt. One sentence in your article would have been sufficient.
-Fred-
No, my defensiveness betrays the seriousness of the charges. I really resent the notion that I would steal someone else's ideas intentionally, especially someone who has passed on and is not able to defend himself. As I said before, the first draft of the article was already finished before his name even occured to me.
If I had changed the example in the article so that the gut shot was not making an error, the point in the article would still stand, and it would then have absolutely nothing at all to do with 'Morton's Theorem'. For example, if the gut shot calls when the pot is big enough that he makes $1 in EV, then the flush draw gains $4.00 and the made hand loses $5.00. Morton's Theorem has nothing to say about this conclusion.
As I remember it, Morton's theorem goes something like, "In multi-way pots, there exists a range of pot sizes such that a third caller can hurt the best hand, even though he's making a mistake in calling", or something like that. As such, it is at best a subset of the general concepts of unequal EV distribution in multi-way pots. In any event, it is simply a formal statement of certain logical consequences underlying the math. Again, this stuff way precedes Andy Morton, and it also available for discovery by anyone willing to do some grade 9 arithmetic.
When I was 12 I "invented" the electric relay because I needed it to make some project complete. I'd never see or heard of it previously yet I discovered it on my own. Perhaps the patent rights should be mine since Edison was dead.
I never mentioned Andy Morton if you'll notice. You brought it up and admited you noticed the similarity previously to publishing. One thing's for sure, Andy Morton won't be busting your chops about this. I'm sure you considered that.
-Fred-
Andy Morton was mentioned by Jim Brier in the thread directly below, and to which you were adding your comments. He was NOT the 'originator of the multi-way pot concepts'.
And if YOU will note, I have not claimed credit for anything. I specificially stated that my article contained no original concepts, and merely used simple arithmetic to illustrate how hands interact.
One thing's for sure, Andy Morton won't be busting your chops about this. I'm sure you considered that.
Comments like this are totally uncalled for, and offensive. And discussions like this can only produce losers and no winners once they devolve into character assassination. So consider this my last word on the subject.
Dan Hanson certainly needs no one to argue for him, he's quite good at it. However, when you malign the integrity of one of the most generous, knowledgeable and good natured contributors to this very valuable forum it simply says more about you than it does about him. Next time, do yourself a favor and pick an easier target. You won't come off looking like such an idiot.
...your ability to judge character and your willingness to review the facts before making accusations. False accusations are just the kind of thing that detracts from productive discussion and turns people away from further participation.
All that was needed here was one sentence with Andy Morton mentioned. That's it. If that's too much to expect then screw you all.
-Fred-
I was the big blind, he was the small blind in the heads up portion of a tournament. He had the button. His stack was about 4 big bets; mine was about 12. I had 86. He raised and I called.
Flop was 644. I checked and called.
All comments are welcome.
William
My first post kids.
I am on the button with K J suited (spades). UTG is strong tight agressive. One off the button is a very weak calling station. UTG raises preflop and everyone folds to the calling station who calls, I call, and blinds fold.
FLOP Jd, x, x (one of the x's is a spade)
UTG bets, calling station calls, I raise, UTG reraises, calling station calls, I reraise (cap), call, call.
TURN blank
Check, Check, I bet, call, call
RIVER blank
Check around. UTG has pocket Kings for the win, calling station no show.
Was I correct in making the flop four bets when the only hand UTG could have had that I could beat was Q J suited? Without the calling station in the hand I do not even call the preflop raise. Even though I was somewhat confident that I was beat on the turn with only two possible outs, I felt my bet might fold UTG.
Thank you for your input.
Frank D.
You'd probably do well to muck KJs in light of a preflop raise by a strong tight agressive player. You are probably badly dominated and you'll be coming up second most of the time. Post flop UTG makes his obligatory bet. Your raise is fine saying you have top pair, good kicker. His reraise says he can beat top pair. Your rereraise was not a very good idea. Dump KJ against an early raise, it's a loser.
I can't think a worse hand to call with preflop in this situation.
(n/t)
I agree with SammyB's comments. However, calling the raise pre-flop is only a small mistake since you have one limper and perhaps one or both of the blinds will play so you may get some multi-handed action on this which helps the suited aspect of your hand. On the flop I like your raise of his flop bet having top pair/excellent kicker plus a backdoor Spade flush draw. However, when you are re-raised you should just call and see the turn. If the turn is a King, a Jack, or a Spade you can continue with the hand otherwise you should fold if your opponent bets the turn.
What if your hand was AJs, would you still fold on the turn if bet into?
After being re-raised on the flop by the pre-flop raiser, yes I would fold because he must have AA,KK, or QQ for this play. What else could he have given all the action?
"Even though I was somewhat confident that I was beat on the turn with only two possible outs, I felt by bet might fold UTG."
If you are saying that you felt a bet might get a better hand than yours to fold, I disagree. If UTG has A-J, A-A, K-K or Q-Q, he's in to the end. You're lucky he didn't raise your turn bet or bet the river.
If you are saying that you felt a bet might get a worse hand than yours to fold, I would say 1) you don't want a worse hand than yours to fold; and 2) as you point out, it's unlikely that he has a worse hand than yours.
By the way, I agree with the others that you should have not played the K-Js to UTG's raise. I understand it's tempting to play when the calling station came in, but wait until you either have a better hand or you can get him head-to-head when you have K-Js. It's not impossible also that calling station had one of your jacks when he called all the action after the flop, so you may not even have had two outs.
If the UTG is as described, your KJs is exactly what he wants his raises called with. After the flop Mr. Fox is dead on, one of your Jack outs might be gone. The presence of the calling station means UTG is not likely on a semibluff which means u r dead in the water to a legitimate hand. Why fool around here? Why not wait until you have the calling station paying you off? Believe it or not the calling station might have had you too. Anyway after the flop you are roped and Mr. Brier's advice is sound. But I think I am beat here, and having four or three of my small bets in there when I am beat is not my style. How about just calling the flop and raising the turn if an out hits?
Frank,
I know this is a tempting hand to play but if the UTG player is tight agressive, you are going to get punished by calling 2 bets cold pre-flop with this type of hand. I cannot think of too many hands a tight agressive player utg would raise with that does not completely dominate KJs. It is nothing more than a trap hand that is going to have you paying off unless you get an extrememly favorable board for it such as a straight or a flush. I would not have called the raise pre-flop and put myself in this situation. No matter how tempting it is having the this hand on the button wiht one limper and the potential of the blinds, it is better to wait for a better opportunity when yo uare more likely to have the best of things. By the way - not that it at all matters given the situation you described - but what was the limit.
Hope this helps.
Michael D.
Mike:
The game was 10-20 and Sean was UTG.
Frank
I have not read the other responses, but here is my take on this hand.
"I am on the button with K J suited (spades). UTG is strong tight agressive. One off the button is a very weak calling station. UTG raises preflop and everyone folds to the calling station who calls, I call, and blinds fold."
You should have folded. The fact that your hand is suited only helps a little since there are only two players in, and calling a raise from a tight aggressive player who plays well with only a KJ is a terrible mistake.
"FLOP Jd, x, x (one of the x's is a spade)"
This looks like a pretty good flop and the backdoor flush does add to your hand.
"UTG bets, calling station calls, I raise, UTG reraises, calling station calls, I reraise (cap), call, call."
When the initial player reraises out of position like this it usually means that he has a hand that is better than yours. Unless he is very tricky, and will make this play with nothing, you should only call and be prepared to fold on the turn.
"TURN blank"
"Check, Check, I bet, call, call"
I would take the free card. You paid enough for it.
"RIVER blank
Check around. UTG has pocket Kings for the win, calling station no show."
What did you expect?
"Was I correct in making the flop four bets when the only hand UTG could have had that I could beat was Q J suited?"
There is also a good chance that he would have limped in with QJs. If that is the case, there is no hand that he can have that you can beat. That should answer your question.
"Without the calling station in the hand I do not even call the preflop raise."
When making your play/no play decision, your main concern is the original raiser.
"Even though I was somewhat confident that I was beat on the turn with only two possible outs,"
You will usually have 5 outs in this spot.
"I felt my bet might fold UTG."
No way. He might not like calling you down, but I can't think of a decent player who will fold in this spot.
Mason is right on the spot here, I couldn't agree more. Being suited will do you no good against UTG opener, except if you cross your fingers real hard maybe. You are better off calling with 65s and even then you'll be sorry all too often.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Oops another poor call by me,how many cold callers makes a call correct in this spot?
Frank, here is my take on the hand. I haven't read the other posts, so pardon me if I'm being redundant.
1) I would not call the raise with KJ suited. You said the raiser was a good aggressive player. If he is raising from that position he very likely has you dominated. This hand is shaping up to be a heads up match between you and the raiser. Your hand is too weak.
2) The flop illustrates how very weak this hand is. You've just flopped top pair, but you've been bet into by someone who may may very well have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or AJ to beat you. Unfortunately, you're pretty much married to this hand now, so I don't mind the raise on the flop. I would raise sometimes here depending on my read of the player. I don't like the cap because after the reraise I would say there's a 90%+ chance you are behind. I think you're throwing good money after bad here.
3) You've essentially "bought" a free card with the cap on the flop. Big pairs will often check to you now for fear of trips. I would suggest that should often take the "free" stab at the J or K, because this is likely the only way you are going to win.
Basically, all your problems stem from challenging someone representing the strongest hand with a fairly weak one. And if the betting gets really hot on this hand, there is a good chance you will be showing down the loser. KJ suited is a nice hand, but not shorthanded against a raise.
How bad of a play would it have been for UTG to either check/raise or bet out on the turn? It's nice he got 4 bets on the flop, but it seems to me he still lost a bet somewhere here since on a board of JXXX, a set is the only likely hand that beats him. From his perpective it's very possible that the poster could have a hand such as AJs or QQ. This also puts maximum pressure on the calling station. Comments?
Given your description of UTG, I believe a fold BTF is clearly in order. You are in danger of being badly dominated by AA or KK or QQ or JJ, and you are also a serious dog if UTG has AK, AQ, KQ, or AJ. What hands would he raise with that you could beat? Virtually none - given your description of him. You also did not have enough of a multiway pot to bother with your suited one gapper. Perhaps if you had 4 callers before it got to you, but not three-handed. You should have folded BTF.
On the flop, you raised UTG's bet and then got reraised by UTG. Given your description of him pre-flop, you had to have known that you were simply throwing away cash by capping against him. Perhaps you were charging calling boy the max to try and outdraw you, but more likely you were charging yourself the maximum to try and outdraw UTG. Even calling boy probably had more outs than you. Reraising the flop was major -EV.
Your turn bet was marginally OK at best, at worst it was another waste of $$ since UTG virtually HAD to have you beat (given the flop action). I guess you didn't want the draw to get a free card but I think you are the one who needed to draw cheaply at your small # of outs.
On the river your bet was marginal at best, but most likely a futile waste of $$. How many worse hands than yours would call? How many BETTER hands would call? Figure it out and I believe you had a check on the river when checked into.
Overall I think you majorly overplayed your hand.
Dave in Cali
sorry, I thought you had bet the river, but you did not. my mistake.
not betting the river was the one thing I believe you did correctly on this hand.
Dave in Cali
I am normally a 3-6 player and there isnt a middle ground in our room between 3-6 and 20-40 HE with a half . I wanted to related a hand I played this weekend and here what is thought about it.
I am the big blind in an 8 handed game. I have Q2 spades and my blind is raised. I have played the game on 7 occassions and I have never not had my big blind raised. When the action returns to me there are three others in the pot and I call. (I dont know if that is a good call or not). The flop comes QQ3 one spade. I check the orginal raiser calls. There is another call and a fold when it gets back to me. I raise. The orginal raiser calls and the other player folds. The turn is a 6 which makes four suits. I bet and am called. The river is a 9. I bet and am called. I show the queen and take the pot. Any comments?
I don't like the call preflop with 3 other players. With a 7 or 8 handed pot and if your blind is raised it becomes a marginal call at best with Q2s. If you normally play 3-6 and you decide to take a shot at 20-40, which probably isn't a real good idea to begin with, you need to readjust your play. Protecting your bankroll becomes very important. You need to avoid playing hands, which in the best of circumstances, have a slightly +EV because your chip stack becomes like a rollor coaster. Plus you probably don't have the ability right now to play these hands correctly because there is a huge difference between 3-6 and 20-40.
Bruce
Bob Ciaffone wrote an excellent article a few years ago about taking shots in bigger games in Card Player.
It's not against the law to bet a hand on the flop. Jim Brier will tell you this. It's damn hard to get 3 or 4 bets in on the flop when you check-raise but it happens all the time when you bet out.
-Fred-
Do yourself a huge favor and don't pay money to take a flop with Queen-shit suited. When the pot is raised simply muck your hand even in your big blind. The rest of your play is fine although I usually prefer to lead into a crowd with trips. However, in this case there is a pre-flop raiser who will quite likely bet and there is no draw out there so if the pre-flop raiser is to your left and bets you may get some calls and then when you raise some of the callers may feel tied in and call anyway but who knows? Your play on the turn and the river is fine since you are betting what figures to be the best hand.
Iowa Matt,
It sounds to me like you're getting more than 9-1 on your preflop call. Even if your only win is making the flush, you can call preflop.
It's about 7.5 to 1 to make a 4 flush on the flop. From there, you can expect to make money on future bets going into the pot since you're about 2-1 to make the flush on the flop and it looks like there will be at least 2 players postflop.
And don't forget, there's some chance you'll flop 2 pair or trips.
Puggy
I haven't read the other responses. But here is my take on this hand.
"I am normally a 3-6 player and there isnt a middle ground in our room between 3-6 and 20-40 HE with a half . I wanted to related a hand I played this weekend and here what is thought about it."
Generally, there is a big difference between a $3-$6 game and a $20-$40, but not always.
"I am the big blind in an 8 handed game. I have Q2 spades and my blind is raised. I have played the game on 7 occassions and I have never not had my big blind raised. When the action returns to me there are three others in the pot and I call. (I dont know if that is a good call or not)."
You should fold.
"The flop comes QQ3 one spade. I check the orginal raiser calls. There is another call and a fold when it gets back to me."
I assume you mean that the original raiser bet, not called. Also notice that his bet should be automatic in this spot.
"I raise."
This is fine.
"The orginal raiser calls and the other player folds."
This is unusual. Usually both players will call.
"The turn is a 6 which makes four suits. I bet and am called. The river is a 9. I bet and am called. I show the queen and take the pot. Any comments?"
Not really. This hand played in a routine fashion. Once you raised the original raiser was afraid of a queen. There is a good chance that he had a big pair. If you had known that, you would have preferred to wait until the turn to raise. However, based on your initial description of the pots always being raised, there was a good chance that all he had was no big cards which means it makes more sense to raise on the flop.
Mason,
Could you please read my above post and tell me where I went wrong in my thinking?
Puggy
Puggy, while it is true that you may be getting the correct odds to for flopping a flush draw, I think there are several problems:
1. Even if you flop a flush draw you still have a draw and not a hand. You will have to pay money to continue on with the hand. Basically what is required is for you to flop a draw, make your hand, and then have it hold up as the best hand. This is a parlay which requires more than just calling a single raise pre-flop. If you had a pocket pair, that would be different because you are getting the right odds to flop a set which is a made hand. This is why you should almost always call raises out of your big blind with any pocket pair especially once you consider both the current and implied odds.
2. Your draw is not to the nuts. This alone is not a major consideration but it is a concern and occasionally results in you losing a lot of money when 3 Spades show up on the board and someone has Ace-Little suited or King-Little suited. If 4 Spades show up on the board then anyone with the As or the Ks has you beat.
3. If you flop top pair you have no kicker which means that it will be hard for you to win. Not only do you lose to an over pair but you lose to anyone with a Queen. Given the presence of an early position pre-flop raiser, you really need to flop a two pair, trips, or end up making a flush in order to win.
Make the hand Ace-Little suited instead of Queen-Little suited and I would call because my draw is to the nuts and there is a reasonable chance that if I flop top pair I might win since I don't have to worry about over pairs and my only concern is being outkicked.
I occasionally play in a lively 40-80 holdem game where you have the option of playing what they call overs. Basically what this means is when you sit down to play or actually any time while you are playing you can decide to play overs and you get a button which is displayed in front of your stack. You also have the option to quit playing overs any time you so desire as long as you are not in the middle of a hand. The game plays like a normal 40-80 game as long as you have players with and without over buttons. If a round starts out with a player who doesn't have an over button the betting is 40-80 even if non-button players fold in the middle of the round. If a round begins with players who only have an over button the betting doubles to 80-160. Usually in this game anywhere from 5 to 6 players have an over button. I so far have not played with the over button for several reasons. The game is extremely loose to begin with and I have been reluctant to add any more volatility to my play. Secondly and more importantly, I really don't know for certain how to adjust my play with an over button. Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Bruce
S&M have a section on over buttons somewhere: I can't find it right now, but I think it's in one of the Poker Essays books, or maybe in HPFAP. Perhaps someone else can tell us exactly where that section is.
They basically say this: if only one or two people have over buttons, it's best not to take one. This is b/c the people who take over buttons are usually the loose ones, and they're usually trying to draw out on you. When they do, and you have an over button, you're the one who gets punished.
But if almost every person at the table has one, you should definitely take one. This is because you'll basically be playing an 80-160 game with smaller blinds. The one or two people who don't take them are usually tighter and gone when the flop comes. So on or near the button, you can play more hands, because if you get lucky and hit you can really make some money.
As far as how to adjust your play, I'm not so sure. Here are a couple suggestions/examples, I hope others will help me out here. 1 If you have a drawing hand on the flop, you might want to NOT drive out the players who don't have over buttons. You want it to stay "unders" so you don't get charged extra on the turn. So you might not raise (ie for a free card) here if just calling might keep in an "under button" player 2 If you have a big hand, you might raise in certain situations to drive out the "under" players. This way you can get extra money from the over players on the next round. Example: you have 99 and the flop comes A92 rainbow. There's a bet and a raise in front of you. Normally you might consider just calling then popping them on the turn. But if a reraise on the flop would drop all remaining "under" players, then do it. Then you get to play "overs" on the turn and get more $ out of the loose players. 3. Play a little looser with pairs preflop, especially if the "under" players have already dropped. Play pairs more often, if you flop a set and it's "big dogs" on the flop, you make a ton. Basically your implied odds go up. But if all the unders have dropped and you have a drawing hand (eg 56s) you might want to pitch it. This is because if it's big dogs on the flop, even if you flop a good draw you're going to be charged a lot to hit it.
Hope this helps a little. I also hope others will say more.
I found it: see "Playing the overs" in Poker Essays Volume II, p. 113
Playing with overs is similiar to playing pot limit holdem. Limping in gets paid off in a big way if you hit your hand.
Hi does anyone in here use Abdul Jalib's pre-flop strategy and flop strategy in low-limit games?
In his text, he states differences between his and S/M's strategy.
I was wondering if that meant that his strategy mostly applies to higher limits.
Any comments appreciated...
theprince00
I don't use eigther I have developed my own.
There is nothing wrong with reading and studying and reading and studying in between playing sessions. Perhaps as a beginner or a novice using a mechanical system has its merits, but poker is different than blackjack where a mechanical system (ie. basic strategy) gives you the best strategy. Poker has a humanistic aspect to it which no system can capture. Systems can be helpful as a general guideline but to follow one carte blanche rather than develop your own style of play will seriously hinder your development as a player.
Bruce
I fully agree it poker is an ART not a science.
You are romatically deluded. Poker is war, battled with scientifially engineered weapons. Abdul's openers are a fine example of one. You can use a rocks and sticks, if you want, though.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Actually you both have it wrong.
Science is art.
- Andrew
You mentioned "starting hands" in your subject, but starting hands have little relation with the differences, and the differences are not limit-specific. The differences in tactics stem from differences in high level strategic concepts. For example, I emphasize raising with the best of it to destroy the implied odds of your opponents, whereas S&M in many situations have advised flat calling with the best of it to manipulate the pot size.
Think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Isn't your page on preflop starting requirements geered towards tight agressive games? What if the game is loose, and passive to mildly passive, have you put together any thoughts on prelfop strategy for this type of game? If so, is it available on the net anywhere?
Mark Dodd
Beginning a few paragraphs after the main starting hand table, he talks about what adjustments to make for games that are either "too tight" or "too loose".
in games where you see many limpers with trash, I have found that following Abdul's stategy is very profitable at low-limits.
If so, where can I get it?
'
I think it is better in higher games. The smaller games are loose enough that you get little value out of limp-reraising. I think his stategy works best in the 20/40 to 40/80 range of games.
I was playing 4-8 HE at canterbury for most of this weekend, and had a fairly depressing finish.
friday + saturday i play mostly good poker, but am only about 150 up. Not great, but i will take it. The tables appear to be tight at first, but soon you notice that people will keep flush/straight draws heads up or in 3 way raised (and re-raised) pots, so it is easy to bleed them when the flush doesn't come, and when it does you can safely throw your hand away.
Anyway, i was about to leave the weekend 250+ up; not too bad. But a few of the better players at the table leave and we get 3 people from 2-4 (or 3-6) coming to play because all of those games are filled at the moment. Remembering the advice "do not leave the table when you are getting the best of it", i decide to stay for a little while longer.
A certain player interests me in particular: he is very happy, and he seems to be in a "gambling mood". This gambler manages to win a few pots, but never has to show down his hand, so we cannot see what he plays. He is fairly aggressive, so we wonder if it is just bluster or good playing.
The time comes to test this gambler when i have AKs in the small blind: i raise to drive out the bb and UTG because they are both good players, and because they know that i will not raise out of the blind without AA, KK, or AKs (we had talked about it earlier). A few people call the raise, and the gambler re-raises me. Soon enough, we cap it. There are 3 of us; me, the gambler and a weak player who is all-in. Flop comes QdQhJh. I have the flush draw, but the Th may be my only out, and i may be drawing dead to an ace or king. I bet, raise, re-raise, he re-raises me, i call. I check the turn, and fold after he bets when 8c comes. A ten comes on the river (i would have had broadway), and he shows down 6d3d!!!! Not even a pair! The guy all-in had A8s.
I am somewhat tickled about this; heck, i seriously loved it. Seeing this guy play some more just proved to me that i could make a killing because this guy would re-raise anyone with anything. The better players at the table are getting serious action from this guy, and have turned -200 into +200 from him alone. The gambler is breaking the weaker opposition mainly, while the better players bide their time and take it to him when they can. I just needed some cards...
...and then i look down to see AA UTG. Heads up, we cap it pre-flop. Flop comes Jxx rainbow. Beautiful. 4 bet the flop, and then i slow down by check-calling the turn and river because i think he may have something. JJ. He made a set. doh! I just need some cards...
...and then i look down to see AQs mid position. Again, we cap it between us. Flop comes KcJcx. So i have a gut-broadway and a flush draw, plus i feel that an ace will give me the best hand. We go back and forth on the flop and turn (4 bet both), and i miss all of my draws. He shows down QJ offsuit for a pair of jacks. AAHH! Must get more cards...
Q9h early position, see the flop for only 1 bet. Flop comes QQ7 rainbow. Gambler bets, all call (8 way!). The turn comes 4c, and him and i go at it. 4 bet it (i always ended up calling), and the river comes blank. Again, we 4 bet, and he shows down Q7 offsuit for the boat! GEEZ.
Those hands busted me out. I quickly mutter "whatever", picked up the remaining $17 in chips that i had left, and nearly ran for the door.
I know i played a little aggressively, but this guy had NO idea what was going on around him. I had him dominated in 3 hands, and severely beaten the first hand, but he kept re-raising.
Ah well, next time. =)
-Fist
Tough Luck Fist. My advice: Your self-judgment is right...you were a bit aggressive. I think you got a bit caught up in trying to beat "the gambler" and forgot that at times you must be cautious with even the best hands. None of your hands were a guaranteed winner under any circumstances...Granted, in the long run you would've taken his money, but you didn't have the long run...3 loses like that and you were out. Anyone can win 3 in a row but probably not 10 in a row to you. In addition, you know he's not going to fold, so there's no sense in raising him that much even if you do have him dominated....if he's going to stay in, he might just get his hit and beat you. He'll call your raise later anyway once you have nuts....might as well wait....and get a few more hands out of your losses...take his money little by little...not one chunk at a time. The longer you play against him, the better your odds as a better player :) just my opinion of course :)
Also, at times it is best to leave the table even when you are getting the best of it...unless you're playing no limit, you're still playing the luck factor quite substantially. One can only win to a certain point, then, just like the stock market, a depression is bound to hit. I believe this is an art and not a science. Also, to me, $250 is a hell of a take for a night on 4-8...us college students can find that cash handy...thats about 2 weeks worth of Bar money! Take it and run and be happy!...don't get greedy....:P... just my opinion of course...:)
I say play poker with an agenda...come in on low limit and try to win a couple hundred...if you do, put it in your poket, and just play with whatever's left over. but don't go under the limit...you're just asking to lose it on a bad beat... it only takes a few bad beats to take even the best of us college students out of the game for the night....
Your friendly critic,
Beefcake
just my opinion, of course :P (PS Poker is not the sure thing Starcraft once was...he he...)
A couple of points:
A good player who limps in UTG will not fold his hand if the SB raises.
How in the first example after capping preflop and putting in 4 raises on the flop can you throw your hand away on the turn for a single bet? That's poor poker. You are comitted to seeing the river card. I don't care if the board is paired. This is 4-8 holdem and you have no read on your opponent so play your hand.
Aces do get cracked. It's part of the game
With your AQs you gave your opponent way to much action. Capping on the flop headsup, perhaps OK in the heat of battle. But on the turn with one card to come you are a dog. Why give all that action when you have the worst of it?
Your final example you had three Queens lousy kicker. At some point you had to put your opponent on a full house or AQ. 8 bets on the river and turn is far too excessive. Your emotions appear to be getting the best of you. Aside from your first example your opponent every other time when you began capping it had the best of you(except the AQs when it was roughtly even on the flop). Just because he is playing junk and gambling does not mean he can't make a real hand.
Bruce
Thanx for telling me that i need to control my emotions and that this is not a 'bad beat' type occurrance. I need to hear that to improve my game, because i will get beat repeatedly down the road. It was just so tough to watch this guy re-raise everything in sight, and show down everything from the best to the worst. I will try harder next time to not be too eager to get in on it.
Fist
Instead of trying to win more against these guys, try losing less. You literally allowed this gambooler to bring you down to his level. Play better cards than him, play better flops than him, play HIM better than he plays you.
These types of opponents are very difficult to play against. They turn over garbage after garbage and you finally pick up a big starting hand after waiting what seems like hours. Unless you flop a monster in holdem big pocket pairs and big draws sometimes get shoved right up your a--. Learn, and it is very difficult at times, to control your emotions. Capping on the turn with a big draw or an overpair is not constructive to your play or bankroll. Your play is regressing to the level of your opponent. You are now the live one and he is getting the best of you. Don't get too discouraged and think of this as an inexpensive tuition.
Bruce
Why did you fold the ak on the first hand when you yourself said you guys did not know what he was playing because nobody made him showdown? You easily had the pot odds to call and make sure he was not bluffing. Why do you tell people at the table what you raise with from the bb? There is overdoing when it comes to being friendly at a table and telling people to your right what you raise with from the bb is too friendly if you are telling the truth. Just my opinion.
hey buddy, it sounds like you were being your old aggressive self again. I DIG THAT! some mistakes that i've learned:
-AQ shouldn't be raised preflop in llhe GENERALLY. it sounds like you got some folks out though so that was good. otherwise, i rarely raise with it preflop. you NEED to get a flop with that hand to win and you are better off disguising the strength so you can get queen's with the big kicker and nail someone to the wall. -AKs shouldn't be raised preflop for similar reasons GENERALLY -emotional/judgement. duh. i did this too saturday night when the 4-8 ring omaha game turned into a 4 person short handed. i thought i could bet my way out of a safehouse, but ya JUST CAN'T DO IT! i think we've all done it once or twice when we've been steamed. lost $80 in omaha in about 20 minutes =( -you're doin fine with the aggression, just remember that your sports car needs to use the brakes sometimes too.
j
A couple of posts down is a hand where UTG raised pre-flop with KK and got 2 callers. I'm curious about how best to play this hand from UTG's point of view.
The flop came JXX. UTG bets, a loose player calls, the button raises, UTG re-raised, loose player calls, and the button caps it at 4 bets.
The turn was a blank and UTG now checks and calls...
I feel a bet is in order and if he is going to check, it should be to check/raise. Granted, the button showed a lot of strength on the flop, but the only likely hand that beats him (the board is JXXX) is a set. I think that by checking, UTG is too likely to miss a bet with a very probable best hand. And if the button is truly that aggressive (i.e. he was not raising to slow UTG down, but was actually raising for value perhaps w/QQ), then check/raising seems to be a viable play for UTG. This accomplishes several things:
1). Assures him of collecting 2 big bets. And if he is called, can now check/call the river.
2). Puts maximum pressure on the 3rd player described as a calling station. You really want anyone who will fold to do so, since your hand is vulnerable to possibly 10 outs if each has a pair.
3). All but gaurantees him he is up against a set if re-raised.
Is my thinking flawed on this? Thanks for any comments.
I think you have to play this hand fast if you have the over pair. I am not so concerned of the set but the possibility of an A pairing up on the river.
I bet or ck raise the turn and bet the river.
The way he played it is way to timid considering the way the pre flop was played.
I don't like the way anyone played this hand.
Rounder is right. It must be great to live in a poker world where everyone is announcing their hand and never trying to confuse players with bets and raises.
But Kevin as the UTG player with pocket Kings, you have already announced that you have an over pair based on the betting sequence. You raised pre-flop, bet the flop and then re-raised when the flop comes Jack-high. Now given that everyone knows what you have and they are still willing to cap it on the flop and continue betting the turn you have to be concerned about two pair not just a set. I am not suggesting you fold but I think to continue pounding the pot with just one pair is seriously overplaying your hand. This is a classic mistake I see players making at the tables all the time. They fail to adjust their play in the face of repeated betting and raising when the board has not helped their hand and they have very few outs if they are beat. All of your reasons are oriented towards the assumption that you still have the best hand which may not be the case at all.
I agree, if the players are even moderately skilled.
Jim, sorry to change the sequence of your comments. I needed to do this in order to better clarify my thoughts.
You wrote:
"But Kevin as the UTG player with pocket Kings, you have already announced that you have an over pair based on the betting sequence"
This is no doubt true. But what is the button really announcing? Of course nothing is for sure, but we can pretty much rule out AA or KK since he would very likely have made it 3-bets pre-flop. And if the board were really as benign as JXX, it seems to me that all his raising may actually be a sign of weakness. Since with a real powerhouse like a set, he would likely wait for the expensive street (with position) to raise.
"This is a classic mistake I see players making at the tables all the time. They fail to adjust their play in the face of repeated betting and raising when the board has not helped their hand and they have very few outs if they are beat"
This is also true. But obviously was not the case here. I think this "classic mistake" was made more by the button than UTG. He (the button) obviously plays the hand he did have (KJs), along with AJs and QQ in this manner. It would help to know what XXXX was because he may very well play a strong draw in a similar fashion. And like I said previously, most players wait for the turn to pop a set with this board. I guess it comes down to how likely the button is to have a JX 2-pair. It's hard for me to put a reasonable player on this hand for 2 bets cold pre-flop.
"Now given that everyone knows what you have and they are still willing to cap it on the flop and continue betting the turn"
But here's my real problem with UTG's play. Before he bets the turn, he cannot know the button is willing to continue betting. Yet it seems to me that it's very important a bet gets made. Otherwise, how do you play the river out? Do you check and risk missing a bet on both streets? Or do you bet and hope your are not either bluff raised or legitimately raised perhaps by the calling station who was now able to make his 2 pair/straight on the river for free?
I think Dan Hanson's post provides the best answer. But let me address some of your points.
Initially it would have been reasonable to rule out AA given that the button did not 3 bet pre-flop. However, given that the button is now capping on the flop and willing to continually bet we have to now consider the possibility that maybe he decided to slowplay AA pre-flop. Mason Malmuth once wrote an article where he slowplayed KK pre-flop with several players in the pot. While this is unlikely it has to be reconsidered given the subsequent betting action. David Sklansky once posted a problem where you have AhAd and the flop is:AcKsQh and the turn is:2d and the river is:2s. You had raised pre-flop and your opponent cold-called your raise, you then bet the flop, bet and re-raised the turn against one opponent. You now get into a raising war at the river. At what point do you reassess your initial evaluation that he could not have pocket Deuces? How many raises would it take? I agree this is an extreme example but it illustrates the point which is that you cannot just rigidly rule out hands based on pre-flop action or inaction when there is serious betting and raising now being conducted.
Other possibilities include two pair which he would pound the pot with since he knows he has the best hand unless you happen to have a set of Jacks. Maybe he decided to come in on the button pre-flop with two suited cards and flopped two pair. Most players don't raise and re-raise an opponent who is marked with a good hand as a sign of weakness.
You are assuming the guy is rock solid pre-flop and then he his simply being tricky or deceptive post flop. Most players are really just the opposite. They tend to play too loose pre-flop especially on the button and but they usually tighten up once the flop comes.
When it is capped on the flop and there is a third player in the hand and I would not be concerned about missing a bet. I would be more concerned about having my hand hold up and losing mutliple doube sized bets on the expensive streets.
n/t
In this case, it really depends on who the player raising on the button is, and what the other two cards on the board are.
Consider: You raised UTG, then bet and re-raised a Jxx flop. What hand could you possible have other than an overpair or a set of jacks?
If the flop was J67, I might bet again on the turn on the assumption that the button raised for a free card, and when re-raised decided to cap it for another attempt at a free card. But that requires the right player to be on the button - against an average player, I think you have to give him credit for a real hand here.
If the player is weak/agressive, you might want to bet again because he's thinking only about his hand, which is a likely KJ or AJ. But if the button player has any poker sense at all, then he's either got you beat or is on a draw.
If I had a hand that couldn't improve (like flopping a straight with three flush cards on the board) I wouldn't mind betting the turn again on the assumption that I can fold if raised. That gives me maximum protection while costing me less than checking and calling twice more. But with KK, on the turn you have two outs against a set and 8 outs against two pair, so a fold is expensive.
I'd probably check and call. If the player checks behind me, I might check again on the river if I thought I could induce a bluff. Especially if there were two draws on the board and one of them came in. In that case, if I bet I lose if the player hit the draw but get nothing if he missed.
Dan- You wrote:
"Consider: You raised UTG, then bet and re-raised a Jxx flop. What hand could you possible have other than an overpair or a set of jacks?"
Agreed. But the button obviously could have the hand he did have which was KJs. And if he could have that hand, he could also have AJs, QQ or the same KK. He may also be using the cheap street to slow you down.
"I'd probably check and call. If the player checks behind me, I might check again on the river if I thought I could induce a bluff."
Obviously, I have much more to learn, because I would hate to play this hand in such a fashion as to risk losing a bet on both streets. While at the same time, giving 2 different players a free card to beat me.
Would you rather check and call to the showdown and wind up winning, or bet and get called to the showdown and wind up losing. My point is that you can not always maximize your wins in every situation. If you have an excellent read on the button player then you have enough information to play the hand the way you suggest. However, if you've read the thread below most of the regular posters who have replied do not play KJ or KJs in this situation. Therefore when they cap the betting it means a bit more. If the only reason they are doing it is to slow you down, and you want to bet some money that that is the reason then by all means bet out on the turn and the river and show them they can't push you around. If they do it to me and slow me down and I wind up winning a smaller pot than I otherwise would, I tip my hat and say, "Nice bet".
I would almost ALWAYS prefer to bet a potential winning hand and lose, rather than check/call and lose, or check/check and miss a bet.
It would be different if my opponent is more likely to bet a worse hand than he would call with. An example would be if I have been betting top pair and getting called the whole way and now a 4th suit hits and I have the queen of that suit. Now if I check, he may well bet a smaller flush as well as a hand that beats me. Otherwise, why would you rather lose by check and calling as opposed to betting?
I think you misread the first line of my post which was meant to be tongue in cheek.
Hey Kevin:
The player that concerns me here is the weak player who is just limping along. They could easily be holding J4 (assume one x is a 4) (Just because in there wonderfully logical mind "Hey it's suited"). I only mention this because most of the other posts are seeming to treat this as if it were heads up between UTG and the button. This is not the case. The player one off the button could hold as poor a hand as any two random suited semi-connected cards. So to him what are blanks could easily be two-pair. (I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying it has to be considered). Now on the button at this point, I agree with your thought process. AA and KK can most likely be ruled out because of the preflop action. Two pair is unlikely and would he really hammer a set this hard at this point? I would think AJ and regardless of the weak player in between us, bet the turn. If raised by the button at this point I would check and call the river. The way this hand played out made UTG $215 in profit. If he would have lost this hand he would have lost $100 played as it was actually played out. If he bets out and is just called the money remains the same. The maximum profit I see feasible on this hand at this point assuming the calling station comes along is $255, but only if the button does raise the turn again. Most likely, the button can only call the turn bet, and the pot will remain as it actually played. To check-raise the turn is putting yourself in a difficult spot only because you are so out of position. If the calling station still comes along for 40, uh-oh. If 3-bet here by the button you are putting yourself in the position to fold your overpair. Because of your position, bet the turn, If raised check and call the river. Your profit will be strong while your loss minimized if you do lose. Checking the turn to call him down is too passive, but only slightly so. Check-raising the turn is a touch too aggressive for just one pair against TWO players. These are just my thoughts.
Matt
n/t
K5o in the BB. Nobody raised so I saw the flop for free. (This is a tourney but we are still small blinds and limit betting before the break.)
The flop is K52. I check and a player bets. I call him and it's heads up. The turn is a Jack and I check raise him. The river is another Jack. I check, he bets and I call, not at all surprised to be beat by KQ.
At first I think I really blew it. Of course almost any board pair ruins my hand and by not flop betting or raising and re-raising if possible, I let him stay to draw out. But then I think I probably never would lose him anyway. Is this just a situation where I have to call all the way if he bets but not risk more money by raising?
Very typical for this sort of thing to happen with the BB. All you can do is play your 2 pair as strong as possible - since you didn't raise preflop he can't put you on a bigger K so you can't do much about it - it's the game we play. You got rivered by a guy with only a few outs. A Q or J are the only cards that beat you.
It's a lesson hard learned but still a good one. With the possible exception of being heads up, I don't think it is EVER a good idea to slow play two pair. I think it is just about the right strength to lead bet with. If YOU were the one with KQ in the blind I would probably checkraise with my top pair as long as I could count on someone to bet. IE if there were an aggressive player on the button.
-SmoothB-
There isn't much you can do. He got lucky, I don't htink you played it badly, checkraising the flop and betting the turn will pbly cause the other player to think and pbly call (all the way to the river).
DON'T SLOWPLAY!!!
Another dumb move by another greedy player gives me a giant pot....
I am 2nd UTG in a very loose fairly aggressive 3-6 kill game. It is a kill pot and UTG is the killer. I have 77 and limp to the 6$ kill bet. Three more callers and UTG raises his kill. There are six players for 12$ each counting the BB who is in the pot.
Pot is 72$.
Flop comes A A J rainbow. BB and UTG check. I check. I am planning on folding for a bet. The bet gets checked around. Still 72$ in the pot.
Turn is a seven, making a two flush. Now I have a full boat! BB checks, UTG bets 12$. I raise to 24$. (I challenge anyone to argue that raising here is not the correct play - I have to charge anyone with an ace the MAX to try and draw to their three or four outs). Two players cold call and BB folds, UTG calls. 168$ in the pot.
River is 9 making a flush possible (runner, runner). Checked to me, I bet. Button (cold caller) raises and UTG calls, I reraise. Though my reraise may be risky, I do not think anyone can beat a full house. Both players call. My boat wins a huge pot!
UTG throws his AQo into the muck face up and says something disgustedly under his breath about my two outer. I hang onto my 77 until I am pushed the $$. The river raiser had KQs and made the runner-runner flush.
Once again, I have to say "DON'T SLOWPLAY".
Look at what can happen. UTG should have immediately bet on the flop and I would have immediately folded. I guess my personal crusade against inappropriate slowplays is largely going unheeded, much to the benefit of myself! Yea me! Of course I KNOW all the super-geniouses on 2+2 forum would NEVER make this mistake!
Dave in Cali
You're right, they don't slowplay. They all go for the checkaise except for Jim, of course.
NEW DEFINITION
Slowplay, v.t., When a checkraise gets checked around.
I've been paying attention!
Same sort of loose, aggressive 3-6 game yesterday. I raise UTG with AhKh. FIVE cold callers, SB folds, but BB calls. Flop comes down Ad-Ac-9c. Am I going to give these palookas a freebie? Not in this lifetime.
I bet, get five callers. I realize that ANY card other than a King or the case Ace is a threat. Turn is an apparent blank. I bet again and get three callers. River is another non-club, and I bet again (could possibly have tried to induce a bluff) and they all fold. Guy to my left said he had pocket 7's and he paid me another $9 for the privilege of drawing to them. He missed, but you didn't, and for free yet.
If you get run over, you get run over. But at least make them pay for the thrill.
The correct move in this circumstance is to BET when you are in early position. This prevents the possibility of some moron with pocket sevens getting a free card that beats you (when it gets checked around). You are hoping that someone raises your early position bet so you can three bet and really charge the draws the maximum to try and beat you.
Good job.
Dave in Cali
Very well played. You earned every dollar in that pot and the player UTG deserved to lose every dollar.
Slowplaying in a loose I'll-call-to-the-river-with-anything game has to be the worst play in the world. I've seen many people make this mistake. Way to make 'em pay !!!
Well done! I esp. like your raise on the turn charging the flush draw double and punishing the raiser and anyone else who might be drawing. If you don't raise and wait till the river to raise you lose a lot of action. Also the way you played your hand it looks like you just have three aces and the flush draw winds up paying double on both the turn and river.
Bruce
"Don't slow play" is too generic. There are some games and hands that you do slow play although it is rare. The best material I have read on it is "Holdem for Advanced Players". They nail it to the tee.
The opportunities for CORRECT slowplaying are very rare. This was definitely NOT one of those opportunities for UTG. Correct slowplays occur when you have an unbeatable hand, by checking you allow someone the possibility of making a good second-best hand, and the free card you give has no chance of beating you.
There are some occasions where you might slowplay with less than the above criteria, but these would usually occur heads up in a tricky and aggressive game. In these loose multiway pot type games the opportunity for correct slowplaying almost NEVER comes up.
Dave in Cali
Dave in Cali Wrote:
". (I challenge anyone to argue that raising here is not the correct play - I have to charge anyone with an ace the MAX to try and draw to their three or four outs)."
Not to nitpick. Well... Ok to nitpick. AQ had 6 outs. 2 Q's, 3 J's and 1 ace. A different ace may have had 7. Still, very correct to raise the turn. Also, great read on the spade draw. He could've still been slowplaying AJ.
nevertheless, I still would not have played it any differently. If I got crushed by AJ then so be it, them's the breaks.
Well as usual all things depend on the game. I sure I can construct situations where the A's slow play on the turn has more expectation than betting. Theoretically he gave away less than (1/22 )(37/44) of the pot (the preflop pot) to you. Which isn't very much, thought he could concievable convince people to bet the flop, call on the turn when they are drawing very thin.
As for raising on the turn, one could construct one argument for just calling as you could get people who are drawying dead (flush draws st draws etc), to call one bet on the turn but maybe not 2 (and they would be tempted to play their hand stronger on the river). However you seem to players who will call 2 bets cold w/a draw in this situation drawind dead which I think is uncommon. (they are only getting 6-2 , and 8-2 on their calls (on the turn) which obviously aren't to the nuts clear folds!)
Not to you played badly, I think you played well, and some of your opponents played weakly (esp the cold callers on the turn). And checking the flop for the AQ isn't that bad as he isn't really giving that much up expectation wise but his variance does go up. (Im sure some people will disagree w/me, but that business as usual.)
If your heads-up with AQ or its three handed checking the flop perhaps might be justifiable. Astute players and even the live ones will smell a rat because of your preflop raise so you might as well bet anyway because that's what they expect.
Bruce
In this type of game I would NEVER slowplay the three aces on the flop. As I stated in a response to another post higher up on the tree, some situations might be constructed where three aces might actually have a higher expectation by checking. These situations would no doubt occur either heads up or with two opponents.
In the type of game I was in, it would be foolhardy to check that flop. Anyone with the other ace has three outs, plus several people could have different broadway draws. The combination of these possibilities means there could be a lot of cards which could come that would cost you the pot. No, I say bet and hope you get raised so you can three bet the flop. then bet the turn and river unless something really scary comes.
Dave in Cali
you wrote : I challenge anyone to argue that raising here is not the correct play - I have to charge anyone with an ace the MAX to try and draw to their three or four outs.
I won't challenge you but I like the raise for different reasons. If there's one thing Sklansky has said again and again, its "WIN THE BIG POTS RIGHT AWAY." That's a big pot, and you want to maximize your chance of winning it. If that means getting out straight flush draws (if the 7 is suited with the jack, which I guess it wasn't), or a pair of 8's, or anything, you want to do it.
As a bonus, you force the non-full aces into making an incorrect decision.
However, "Don't slowplay" is much too general. There are still plenty of times to do it, even low limit, and he might have been going for a check raise here.
Kudos on a sweet pot.
mth
40-80 holdem at HPC
I had just won a large pot with AA and the very next hand I get AA again towards the back in a 9 handed game. I raise and the player on my left calls and both blinds fold. My opponent is loose and very aggressive and is quite difficult to put on a hand.
The flop comes 7 8 10 rainbow.
Not the greatest flop in the world but I can also think of worse flops. I bet and he calls.
The turn brings a Jack with a flush draw.
Not a great looking board with pocket Aces esp. with a loose cannon who has position. I doubt he has pocket Nines because he probably would have reraised preflop but he certainly is capable of playing a hand like J9s,Q9s, or A9s. On the other hand he may have a hand like AJ, A10, or QJ with or without a flush draw which I can beat and I am a favorite with one card to come.
What is my best course of action? Do I lead or do I check and call/muck?
I chose to bet on the turn and my opponent raised. I chose to bet because if I had the best hand I didn't want to give him a potential free card. My opponents raise didn't suprise me. He plays very aggressively and he cetainly is capable of raising on the come. I called his raise after pausing briefly. I certainly don't like to be drawing dead but I also don't like to be runover by super aggressive play.
A blank came on the river. I checked and my opponent bet. I called. He quickly threw his hand into the muck. I never did see his hand.
Questions and comments are appreciated.
Bruce
You absolutely must bet! There is no question about it. If he raises then you have 2 options - call or fold. I would call, as you did. Then I would check call the river.
He is loose and aggressive so you can't put him on a hand - but he probably knows where YOU are. He knows you don't have a 9 so he can represent one. You hesitated before you called. That means that you are capable of making a pretty big laydown in this situation. If he knows that then he has a lot to gain by raising you.
In this situation I would call some of the time and fold some of the time. If you fold too much then bluffers will run all over you. If you call too much, people won't bluff you and they will only raise when they really do have you beaten.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB and I dissagree here. I think Check calling is the best play against loose aggressive or tight agressive opponents. When you check you look like you have a weak hand and your opponent will take the opportunity to bet to drive you out (unless you are a known Check-raising Basterd). When the opponent starts getting weaker and more passive I tend to bet since a raise from a weak opponent with this board usually means I don't have the best hand and I'm possibly drawing dead. So against a weak player I would possibly Bet and Fold to a raise.
You also have to think what your opponent puts you on. He probably has you on two big cards or maybe worse since you were in a steal possition.
One problem is that he may improve to the best hand then bet again and if he doesn't improve he can check behind you. It seems to me that by betting into this player he wins an extra bet when he beats you but looses the same when you beat him (unless he was on the draw).
If you check and call on the Turn you have a Problem on the River because you don't want him to take the Showdown for free when he has the worst hand. Though by not betting he may believe that Top Pair is a good hand and will bet it again.
My rule when playing with these Loose Agressives is too let them think they can run all over me. They end up betting too much and I collect from them.
CV
What is that saying about betting when you have no outs, and checking when you have outs? This is a case of it here.
I guess you really have to know the other player. If it were a tight passive player, a rock, or someone like that I would be history.
-SmoothB-
Most folks that hold a nine spot will raise you on the flop. So that leaves him a floped straight or he's just dicking around on the turn. You're not folding either way.
-Fred-
I would probably have played the same way.
When this kind of very agressive player calls the flop he has either a monster or close to nothing. I am almost positive he would raise the flop with a 9 in his hand. He might only call with a gutshot. He would probably also raise the flop with any pair.
I bet the turn because I want him to raise as he thinks I will release my hand with no outs in a SM way. On the turn his best hand I can think of is JQ unless he flopped a set or a straight. This turn play is better than a check-raise as he would release all his very weak hands and you don't want this. On the river he would call a bet with JQ and raise with a set or a straight and he might bluff raise. If checked into he would probably check down JQ and bet any other hands. Check-call is probably the best river play. Against a very very agressive player bet to induce a bluff raise is an alternative.
I like check snd csll on the turn and river with this type of opponent--notice that it is highly likely that he will bet a worse hand (or any hand) if you check, because he will read your check as giving up, but not very unlikely that he will be holding a hand that can beat you at this point (you didn't mention it, but he might be holding JTs, as a loose player in late position), and finally he might hold a hand that you can beat that your check will convince him is the best hand (like QJs or AJ or AT) and you might get some bets from him there.
However, if you bet, you can be raised by a better hand or a worse hand that might otherwise have gone for the bluff might fold. I think that this universe of hands is larger than the universe of hands with which he will a: call with a worse hand or b: bluff-raise with a worse hand.
Of course, in this instance, i would be dead wrong, but I think with this type of an opponent and that type of "bluff at me please" board a check and call is likely to win more money in the long run
Given your description of your opponent I would not have played it any different. Raise pre-flop. Bet the flop. Bet the turn. The board was scary but you cannot be certain that he actually has a straight. When he raises you, you pretty much have to just call him down due to his tricky nature. If you fold a big pocket pair heads up like this very often you will probably be losing $$. Fold in a multiway pot in a loose game but call down the loose cannon heads up.
Dave in Cali
now to see what the other posters thought...
Here an interesting hand from yesterday. I believe I played it too passively. The games 5/10 holdem fairly normal conditions.. all players quite good, not too loose not too tight.
Early position caller and mid position caller. I'm on the button with ATo, I call (I wouldn't call with A9o here). SB calls, BB checks.
rainbow flop: K 5 A
checked right round to me (on button), I bet, folded round to the mid position player who raises?? Now if he had a decent hand here, there's no way surely he'd go for the check raise? He couldn't guarantee I'd be after limping preflop so this seems like a "I wanna see if you've got an ace" type check-raise. Without hesitation re-raise. He calls.
Turn is an ugly 2nd King. He checks, I really put him on another King here (he's a fairly tight player and so I don't think he's playing a weaker ace). I decide to also check (fearing check-raise).
River comes another A (I'm full). He bets out I raise he calls - we split the pot when he shows A9s. I'm kicking myself thinking there's a possibity he'd have folded to a bet on the turn. Comments?
Darren.
When someone check-raises you on the flop he frequently has two pair because with an Ace he would lead at the flop since no one raised pre-flop and with a big Ace (AK or AQ) he would have raised pre-flop. I would not re-raise with your hand but just call. If he checks the turn, then I would bet figuring that my Ten kicker is good and if he had a second pair it just got overcoated by the open pair of Kings. Now all that being said, I don't know if he would have folded his Ace-Nine or not.
I agree that the check-raise you described is suspicious. A good player would be unlikely to check the flop in this position with a strong hand unless he had reason to believe you would bet. If you manifested a tell indicating you would bet, or you routinely bet at flops when everyone checks to you (which is terrible play!), then your opponent could have a big hand.
No matter how you played the hand you are going to split the pot. Most players in a small limit game are not going to fold top pair in that situation. He checkraised because you were on the button and felt like you were trying to steal esp. after seeing everyone else pass. He doesn't need a big hand to check-raise with, a lone Ace will do the trick. He also doesn't put you on a big Ace since you didn't raise pre-flop and feels like his 9 may play. From your perspective I would probably check with the King coming on the turn. You may be drawing to an Ace only, plus if you check there really aren't too many cards that will hurt you. Unfortunately you wound up splitting the pot.
Bruce
I don't see how you can reraise the checkraise. If I was in your shoes I'd suspect 55, A5s, AJ, AQ, or maybe even AK. I would say that most of the time you will be beaten. I would usually just call the player down after the checkraise. You have position though. If he checks to you after that, I would bet. I really think it is unlikely he has a king here. Bet to show strength if checked to. Fold if he checkraises again (unless he is a habitual bluffer).
I have searched through my extensive poker library for some helpful info on playing heads up limit poker, but haven't found much I can use.
Super/System doesn't say much, nor does TJ Cloutier's book on tournament play.
HPFAP 21st century edition has a couple of informative pages, but is far from detailed.
I have recently started playing heads up matches and I am not doing well. Any advice is appreciated.
-SmoothB-
Raise. A lot! Also check out Abdul's posEV site. You can find it under favorite links. There's a section on short handed play. I found some of it to be informative.
And give us some idea of what you are starting with.
Big cards go way up in value and coupled suited go way down in value in a heads up match.
Be interested to see what you are playing.
Rounder-
Certainly big cards go up in value since they can win on their own merit and middle or bottom pairs can come down to a kicker, but you're not suggesting to throw away suited connectors in limit heads up play, are you?
Sure am - I am not gonna play them (small to mid suited connected) to a raise heads up and will dump them every time. No future in it.
I agree. The last thing I want to do heads up is get involved in a drawing situation. Plus, these cards have no high card power so they aren't worth much.
Like someone once said - if you wouldn't play 2 cards unsuited, don't play them suited either. Being suited just gives you a couple of percent bonus - but you still have no high card power.
Smooth I have been saying that for a long time and gotten beat up for it on this very board. I still believe in the concept specially in short handed situations.
With all due respect.... HAVE YOU GUYS LOST YOUR MINDS?
You ARE talking about a heads up game right?. Not short handed. You against only one other opponent. Each posting a small and large blind.... You are dealt 98s or another middle suited connector in the small blind and you are throwing this hand away? It's just a hunch, but I think I know why you are not doing well.
I hope you can see through my humor. I'm not trying to be mean. It's possible I'm misunderstanding something. But if I'm not, what you're saying is absurd! In a $10-$20 heads up match it's costing you $7.50 per hand. You can't afford NOT to play 98s,87s, against what figures to be another random hand. To routinely throw these hands away is insanity! Any half-way competent opponent will make short work of your stacks.
I didn't get the for the raise part. But even then, I'm not sure. I do know that if you start throwing away too many hands heads up, the blinds will eat you alive. Since semi-bluffing is such an integral part of heads up play, sometimes just flopping or turning a draw is enough to win. I may be completely wrong on this... But I tend to throw away just enough hands to assure my opponent that I will not play any 2 cards, and then I will go ahead and play any 2 cards (for no raise obviously). With respect to raised pots, I think if you're too willing to throw your hand away for a raise, then an aggressive opponent is gonna raise you til your hair bleeds! I am talking strictly with respect to heads up play, not just short handed.
btw- Do you ever play (at Hollywood) during the day? I haven't seen you there yet.
Just got back to Illinois from Arizona will be a regular at Aurora - be there all times of day since I am trying to find the best situation for my game.
If you I am Mike G and will be on the board under that name.
I think I might have been raising TOO much. This is what I would generally do.
BLIND DEFENSE
I would defend my blind for a raise with any ace, and reraise about 20% of the time. I would also defend with any king down to 6 or 7 kicker, any queen with same kicker, and any 2 cards 9 or higher. I would reraise with any pocket pair and automatically lead bet the flop with them.
BLIND STEAL
I would raise preflop with any pocket pair, and pretty much any of the same starting hands I would defend the blind with.
ON THE FLOP
On the flop, I would bet out with bottom or middle pair (or small wired pair), 2 overcards, or any reasonable draw. I check top pair or better and then go for a checkraise on the turn.
If bet into, I will call with 2 overcards, any reasonable draw with 1 overcard. I will reraise with bottom or middle pair. As for top pair or better, I'll just call and then raise the turn if bet into.
ON THE TURN
If I'm still being bet into and still have nothing, I will usually fold, and will call with ace high about 20% of the time to the river. I will now raise or checkraise good hands.
This is how I was playing in a brief nutshell. The problem is that it seemed like my opponent caught a pair on the flop far far more than 1 time in 3. I think he was really catching cards, frankly.
Anyway, if anyone can offer any further comments or suggestions I would really appreciate it!
-SmoothB-
Sounde like you are raising to much and continuing in hands when you should be folding.
Maybe this guy has your number and it means you have to mix it up better. Bet out and raise on the flop with top pair sometimes and check raise with nothing sometimes too. Worst thing you can do is get read by your regular opponent.
I play in a game where most everyone (except checks the flop with a real hand and bets the turn. It is very predictable. They bet the flop with nothing. you know act strong when weak and weak when strong.
It is easy to beat this game - mix it up a lot and keep your pooinent on his toes.
1. determine the number of hands per hour you average playing headsup.
2. determine the typical or average rake the cardroom(s) you play in remove per hand.
3. multiply the answer in 1 by the answer in 2.
4. be nauseated over the huge amount of money that you are paying in rake when playing headsup.
even if the casino were only charging $1 per hand max, at 100 hands per hour( i'm thinking of online here, but you get the idea), that is approx $50 per player per hour. pretty steep mountain to climb.
Suited connectors go down in value bc you don't have alot of people to pay you off. You won't win a big pot if you make a flush/straight.
A 3o is a better hand than 98s shorthanded. Small pairs are Ok though as they can win on their own...
As some have mentioned shorthanded games can be very expensive ina casino bc of the rake. ALot of times your ego may want you to "teach some people a lesson or two" but its pbly better if you are playind shorthanded to play w/o a rake (eg in a private game), or aGree to pay the casino some fixed amt per hour as opposed to per hand.
I play against a dealer when he is off duty - no rake. I wouldn't play heads up for a rake unless it were 100-200 and I was a pro. :)
-SmoothB-
Heads-up play is an art even more so than a ring game. Live players and loose cannons tend to do better in heads-up play because they are fearless, relentless, have very vivid imaginations, and are very difficult to read. Selectivity with starting hands is not nearly as important as a ring game. Heads-up play in order to become semi-proficient requires many hours of play which can become quite costly. One of the most important things to concentrate on is being very selective as far as who your opponent is. You might be playing against some really tough opponents. Most players tend to shy away from short handed play so I suspect you might be playing against a very experienced short handed player which puts you at a disadvantage.
Bruce
Be real aggressive with your draws. You should be betting and raising with any gutshot, and probably even with backdoor draws if the flop is uncoordinated! Weak made hands (such as small pairs) are generally check/calling hands. Check raise bluffs are also important.
Here is a thought that may help. You want to value bet, bluff, check/call, and check/raise with reasonable frequency for any flop. So think of some flops, then think of which hands you might play each of these ways. So for instance to a flop of J93 rainbow, my mental chart might read something like this:
Check/call: any ace or 3; small wired pairs; about half the time with trips; backdoor flush draws with some other positive feature (such as a king, queen, or ten) Value bet: any 9, weak Jacks Check/raise: Strong Jacks, two pair, all open ended straights, and 54 (just to mix it up) Bluff: all gutshots Check/fold: the rest
By contrast, on a draw-infested flop such as JT8 with a 2-flush, I would only be aggressive with my stronger draws, since the weak ones are a dime a dozen . . . here there are a lot more legit hands, so I don't have to step out of line with the weak ones:
Check/Call: any 8, strong 7, or weak Queen; some straights at random Value bet: any J, T, or flush draw; any 2 overcards Check/Raise: two pair or better; draws with 12+ outs; draws with a pair With a 9, do any of the above more or less at random Check/fold: the rest
Lastly, on a draw-free flop such as TT3 rainbow, you have to be almost crazily aggressive. All backdoor draws need to be bet, check/called, or check/raised with this flop!
Notice how all 3 of these plans keep my check/folding percentage low (very important!!!)
William
On Saturday afternoon, I was playing in a loose $6-$12 game that seemed to alternate between very passive and maniacal.
I picked up JJ UTG and made it two bets to go.
The player immediately to my left (who struck me as one of the few solid players at the table), looked at his hand and hooted...
He quickly made it three bets and turned to me and said, "I hope you've got pocket rockets like me... And I *never* lie about pocket aces"
I had no idea whether to believe him, but while I pondered this, everyone folded around to me, and I just called his re-raise.
The miracle flop comes: J A J
"Holy crap," I thought. "I hope he DOES have aces".
I check, he bets, I call. I wanted to save the fireworks for the bigger bets.
Turn comes a K.
I check, he bets, I raise, he re-raises, and we go back and forth for 7 big bets!
Now I know he has pocket aces (pocket kings?). Maybe he thought I had AJ or KJ?
He eventually just called, as he must have finally gotten an inkling of what he was up against. The table was completely silent, which I found to be odd, since there were a couple of real chatterboxes at the table.
Comments on my play on the turn? Should I have waited until the river to fire with both barrels? I know this is an awfully nice position to be in, and I may be splitting hairs here, but I'm just curious...
River comes another K.
Possible uh-oh... could he have just been baiting me, and playing KK instead? After all, it could have been the TURN and not the flop that caused him to go seven bets, right?
I took what seemed to me to be a long time (~15 seconds) to decide whether to bet out. I decided I didn't want to cost myself a bet, and if he raised, I would call no matter what. Comments here?
I bet out, he just called, and I rolled over my quads, and he showed me AA. I stacked a nice pot.
This casino has no bad beat jackpot, so the poor guy was left with only a story to tell about having his flopped aces-full get cracked by flopped quads.
In addition to just wanting to tell the story (I've only flopped quads one other time, ever); I also wanted to solicit some commetary to see if anyone here would have played this hand any differently than I did.
Thanks,
Mike D.
With quads and a "live one" you better have the last bet until your stack is gone or you are misplaying your hand.
On the turn you think he's equally likely to have aces as kings? Then you become a 3-1 favorite to have him beat when the king comes on the river. I'm gonna lose maybe 4 bets on the river if he shows me KK.
-Fred-
Mike D.
The play of this hand is not that important, as it is a once in a lifetime event. What is relatively important is to get a feel for who is a "truth-teller" and who is "fibber" when they make comments about their hand.
At mid to low limit, you will see a player say something like "save your money" or something similar on the river. Depending on the player and the context (maybe you have had a friendly chat between hands), you will be able to save a bet or know when to call anyway.
Needless to say, you have no obligation to return the favor. The best poker is played hard but fair.
Regards,
Rick
I liked the way you played the hand. You are much better off pulling the trigger on the turn rather than waiting until the river because you might get cold feet at the river when the open pair of Kings shows up. This would cost you a lot of money.
Your so called "solid" opponent does not seem so solid to me since he shoots his mouth off about what he has and apparently likes to engage in table-talk while involved in a hand. This is the trademark of an idiot.
I liked your play up until the river. I would have bet out and just called a possible raise. I think that the odds you are getting on that last bet vs. him having quad kings justifies it.
I asked this before below, but I think it got lost in the conversation between DHanson and NJ Fred.
I can't get a copy of Poker Digest right now...is there a way I can find the article online somewhere? (I could not find it at the Poker Digest website).
Sorry, the article is not online anywhere at this time. I don't know if it will be put on Poker Digest's web site at all. I think the issue it's in is the July 15th issue (I haven't seen it yet), so you might want to check back on the PD web site after that time. However, I don't know if they plan to put it online at all.
email me your mailing address.
I always raise preflop with AKo. Is this a bad strategy? If so, when would you not raise? I play low limit so deception has no real value.
Also, I call AKs from early postion because it can stand more action.
Thanks
The one time I only call with AK is in the blinds. Anywhere else, I will either raise or reraise.
Against limpers I always raise with slick regardless of my position or the number of opponents. About a third of the time I will flop top pair/top kicker and about another 5% of the time I will flop a playable draw. However, you do need to play overcards properly by knowing when to get out when the flop misses you and how to adjust your play based on how many opponents you have.
I almost always raise with AKo or AKs except when I am in the blinds. In a very loose game if I'm on the button and maybe even the cutoff seat and everyone has called I may just call with AKo rather than raising. On the other hand if UTG raises and 4 or 5 players call the raise I may not reraise with AKo or AKs. In tight games I may fold AKo or AKs if it is three or four bets to me.
Bruce
If you raise and get a bunch of callers pre-flop, then certain hands which get a piece of the flop will now be getting correct pot odds to chase. Let's say you're playing 5-10, there are 4 limpers, you're on the button and raise, small blind calls, big blind calls, limpers all call. There's now $70 in the pot. The flop comes As Jh 6c (rainbow). Your competitors hold KQ, 44, J9, 7h8h, A2c, K7. All check to you and you bet. The KQ is now getting proper odds for its gutshot draw and the J9 can properly call too. The 78 has two backdoor draws and and the A2 has a backdoor nutflush draw. If they both call your bet, then there's a better than 40% chance that a club or heart will appear on the turn giving one of these hands a legitimate draw. With the implied odds, even seeing a turn-card with the 44 is close to being justifiable. When you bet the flop, let's say all but the K7 call. That means that when a 2, 4, 9, T, or J (10 cards) comes on the turn, your top pair will no longer be best. Additionally, when a Q, 5, any heart or any club falls, the odds of top pair holding up dip considerably.
So you can see that, when raising pre-flop with AKoffsuit, drawbacks may develop; and the strategy of simply calling against a large field pre-flop should not be automatically dismissed.
Deception always has a place at the poker table, regardless of the limits. If you are getting callers while raising with AKo or suited, DON'T RAISE. The reason you "should" raise is to lower the field. If you say deception doesn't exist, neither will buying a pot exist. They simply will not fold. So get in for cheap if you can and then once you hit a good flop you will get awesome action. if you miss then get out and feel good you didn't build the pot up. My *ONE* exception to this would be if i just sat down, and i wanted to show the table that i'm an action player. Then i'd raise preflop, and bet the flop regardless-then fold if raised again (with no improvement). There will always be one or two guys (at least) who will remember that. j
One example of not raising before the flop is when you are up front and want to reraise an agressive player in late position before the flop ,with weak callers in between,trapping them with inferior hands in a large mutiway pot,(the kind AKs wins).This play can be used to get dead money in before the flop if they tend to throw away mediocre hands for another raise and sometimes you can make it 3 bets before the flop and shut out limpers in the middle.If you have a bunch of limpers that always call anything but wont reraise obviously raise.AK off is different...I tend to raise before the flop and try to play shorthanded,but once in a great while Ill limp against tough players for deception.(if I flop top pair its harder for them to put me on nut kicker)
Mark I have always struggled with this commonly held view that you should avoid raising with the best hand becomes someone with a worse hand may be getting correct odds to continue playing once the flop comes. Should you avoid raising with AA or KK when you know there will be a lot of players who will stay regardless? If someone wanted to take the time they could concoct a flop and a specific set of hands held by the other players which would show that the odds for staying would be there given that the pot was raised whereas they would not if the pot had been unraised. So what? There are still many other flops and hand holding combinations that would make it right to have raise pre-flop. Suppose the flop comes Axx or Kxx rainbow and no one else has top pair? You will be glad you collected all those extra bets pre-flop from everyone since you don't rate to get much subsequent action anyway.
I think pot manuipilation is way over rated by the S&M's of the world. I play the big pairs really strong to thin the field and build the pot. If someone thinks thay have the odds to draw on my so be it they will only hit about 1/3 of the time anyway and I have all the other outs.
Works for me.
Ironically, I still PLAY the way you do. But I'm wavering. I have to admit that Caro et al have made a good case for not raising, so I've decided to challenge my assumptions and vigorously argue the other side. I think my fictitious hand is fairly representative. No one flopped two-pair or a set or an open-ended straight draw or 4-flush and still the flopped pair/best kicker appears to lose 40-50% of the time. In many of the games I've played in, several contestants not only play every suited combo and every pair regardless of position or number of entrants but every Ax and Kx and plenty of gaping wounds like T7offsuit. Then with any piece of the flop or backdoor draw, many will hunker down and see the turn whether for one or two bets. These almost random holdings combine with decent hands to often arm even seemingly innocuous flops like A 9 5 rainbow with some hidden fangs. And when neither king nor ace flops, with so many aces and kings being played, how can one confidently call or bet with just overcards? Too often what appears to be 6 outs is really 3 or 2.
Comparing AKoffsuit with AA and KK is somewhat disingenuous. After the flop comes, AA or KK will still be best over 70-75% of the time. After the flop comes, AKoffsuit will be best, with 4 or more other pre-flop callers, less than 30% of the time.
Agreed that AA and KK is much stronger than AK and I did not mean to be disingenuous. It just that when I see the kind of connecting crap and suited shit these guys come in on the urge to punish them with a raise is irresistable. I think the real key is learning how to play overcards and getting out when the flop misses you completely and you get heat.
One more problem with raising with big offsuit cards like KJ is that you magnify errors you might make on later streets, especially folding errors. These hands are tough to play in big pots, especially if you're drawing to overcards. Folding a 6-out draw when it would be the best is expensive in a huge pot, and calling when you're drawing dead is even more expensive.
Note that this doesn't really apply to AK, which plays much better than KJ or AT.
In my opinion, the pot-maipulation strategy only makes sense when the hand is marginal in the first place. A good case can be made for not raising with a hand like KJo after several limpers. It might be the best, but the EV gain from the raise is marginal, and if you pot-stick the limpers, the EV they steal back from correct calls and schooling can cost more than what you gained from the initial raise.
In that article in Poker Digest, I made a case for not raising with big offsuit cards after there are many limpers, but made this caveat: "This does not apply to very strong hands like AK, or in situations where your opponents are very bad and are calling with very weak hands". The reasoning is that AK gains a lot of extra equity when you raise, more than you lose from the later correct calls. And if your opponents are playing very weak hands you should raise with more hands both to punish them, and also because weak hands miss most flops or flop very weak draws, so you have less EV to lose from subsequent calls.
Does that sound about right to you?
"...weak hands miss most flops or flop very weak draws."
Weak hands (let's say 69suited) flop a pair or better as often as AK does. Raising gives these 5-outers staying power because they can mathematically justify a single bet on even a rainbow flop (not that poor players are aware ot this). And then, about 25-30% of the time, these hands will improve to either a better hand than your top pair or a hand with a reasonable draw (orig. 5 outs plus gutshot draw or flush draw). Sure, when you win the equity will be greater, but you will often lose more when you lose because of the added difficulty of reading made hands. All that said, I tend to agree with your point that the pluses outweigh the minuses, but I'm locking Mrs. Doubtfire in the kitchen as theoretical insurance.
When hands like 69s flop pairs, they are almost always underpairs to the board, and often they are pairs duplicated by players with better kickers, giving them only 2 outs to win. Sometimes they flop bottom pair against your top two, and are drawing to 2 outs. They are often drawing completely dead if they flop a pair. Any straight draws they flop are gutshots at best, and sometimes even those draws are dead.
Of course, any hand can flop a monster or a good draw, but these weak hands are more likely to be drawing thin if they have any touch on the flop at all. Or even more likely, they'll miss entirely and fold, and the raise you missed before the flop is money that is not coming back.
You are hammering home what's obvious, that hands like 69suited are vulnerable at every stage. Of course. The point I'm trying to make (apparently in vain) is that, when there is a large field calling with a pre-flop raise, and when these made draws hold up, they might win enough to offset the losses when the draws don't hold up. For example, if the pot is paying them 13, 14, 15 to 1 and they have an apparent 9 to 1 draw. Also, that the enticement induced by the raised pot will translate as less wins for AK when it flops top pair. And when the flop doesn't hit AK and the turn does, this made draw will be nullified at least as often as a hand like 69suited because more players play high cards than low cards, i.e., more players will hold AQ or AJ or AT or KJ or KQ or KT and limp in than will hold K6 or K9 or Q6 or Q9 or J6 or J9 or A6 or A9 and limp in.
In other words, continuing with 69suited after it pairs the flop may be no worse than continuing with AKoffsuit after it doesn't!
Yes it does. I was probably wrong in stating that it is always right to raise with big slick but I think it usually is. There may be certain line-ups and situations where calling would be preferable especially if you know that your opponents are solid players.
If three people have limped in front of you I would just call with AKos, because chances are good these people will call a raise and call any bet on the flop==and the blinds will probably call, and maybe another person behind you.
Almost any other time, i would go ahead and raise.
I think that sometimes you should raise with AKs first in in early position and sometimes you should call--you 're right, it can stand more action, and may even want more action, and it adds deception to your play if you don't always raise with it.
Note, you can also limp and reraise with the hand (AKs) if you get a lot of callers or are heads up.
I think it is important to just about always raise with AKo outside of the blinds. You probably have the best hand and therefore should make your opponents pay to outdraw you. A raise will also move out some dangerous hands. I'm thinking of the ones that make your opponent a broadway straight after you hit your hand. A raise also establishes you as the leader which can be a huge advantage in holdem, and in my opinion is in the long run much more beneficial than disguising it. In any event, a raise is something of a disguise anyway because it automatically makes people think BIG pair.
If you were ever not going to raise AK, I would say it should be in early position in wild games where there were always several people seeing the flop. I might also only call in late position once in a while where I know the players behid me are abusing their good position. You can sometimes get several extra bets from players like this if you don't raise preflop.
In the blinds I believe you should occasionally raise with AKo so people can't automatically put you on AA or KK when you raise your blind. Besides, you probably have the best hand. This is a high variance play though because you will create a big pot that people will chase. If you are the type of player that starts playing badly after being run over a few times in a row, I really wouldn't recommend raising AKo out of your blinds.
There is a 1/17 chance of being dealt a pair. So AK is NOT best pre-flop every other hand or so at a full table.
Mark, it is true that technically speaking a pocket pair is a better poker hand than AK however AK has far more playing power and is a better playing hand in most situations than any pocket pair lower than Jacks. This is because unless the pocket pair becomes an over pair to the board or flops a set it will frequently get mucked when bet into. If it happens to be the best hand it cannot be bet aggressively when over cards are present and therefore you cannot extract maximum value from it. With AK on the other hand you will frequently extract full value when you flop top pair and you can occasionally get free cards when the flop misses since you showed strength pre-flop plus you may flop a draw with your two overcards allowing you to play on and call any bets into you.
Mark, I think you're thinking of an all-in situation where the cards are "rolled". It's true that in this situation 22 is a favorite over AK (I believe it's in the order of 6/5). But real limit poker doesn't work this way.
Imagine yourself UTG with 22. Now assume that you somehow know that your opponent doesn't hold a pair. Flop comes 9,Q,A. What do you do? Let's say you check and he bets? Are you now committed to call him down to the end because your hand is a statistical favorite? Let's say you bet out and are raised? What do you do? Should you reraise?
It's not that hard to see 22 is at a huge disadvantage in the "real world" play of this hand. When I say AK is "probably the best hand" I mean in terms of how it will play. The only hands that play better in this context are BIG pairs (AA,KK,QQ, or JJ).
The AK does not outperform JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77 etc. if these pairs refuse to fold come hell or high water. A raised pot pre-flop encourages this faulty play more than an unraised pre-flop pot. Do you want them to chase even in a raised-up pot? Yes. Will you get shellacked when an apparent blank comes on the turn, you bet and are raised by the 555. Yes. When all the bad draws decide to chase, do your odds of winning decrease? Yes. When you win, will the pot be larger than if you hadn't raised? Yes. Will this additional money be enough to offset the expense of losing more frequently? Probably; that's what we're trying to ascertain. Would I prefer to get dealt 66 or AK on the button against 4 limpers with an unraised pot? I don't know.
If im #5 in give me 66's.
Would I prefer to get dealt 66 or AK on the button against 4 limpers with an unraised pot?
AK will make more money on average. A very aggressive postflop game will swing it in favor of 66, though, as implied odds skyrocket.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
AKo -- most overrated hand since Coke tried to come out with New Coke -- drawing hand only -- go cheap as possible. AKs -- better, of course -- Question? How many WSOPs were won with these Group X or supposedly great "starting hands"? Ask yourself how many times in a 30/60 has AA or KK really stood up -- Usually, only if you've played there before, the players know you AND you have established some "table presence" in the past AND they remember.
I am not quite sure if I understand your point. Limit holdem and the WSOP are two different beasts. AK suited or unsuited in my opinion is a very powerful hand. I agree with you that it is still nevertheless a drawing hand. Ocasionally it will win in a showdown in a shorthanded situation. The problem most players have with the hand is they don't know when to call it quits with the hand. Often with this hand I will pass on the flop. If you flopped nothing and there is no draw (I don't consider a pair draw to be a draw most of the time) and it is a multiway pot your probably best off passing. Too many players go all the way to the river with the hand when it is obvious they are drawing real thin. Most players are also very predictable with a raise on the flop and a check on the turn when babies come on the flop. AA and KK in 30-60 are monsters preflop and do very well for the most part in that game and most others. Sure they do get cracked from time to time but they are big money winners. I'll take my chances with them anytime.
More money is lost by weak players with AK then anyother hand. They over play it pre flop by calling to many raises or reraising the WRONG people then can't dump it when they don't hit their flop.
I say raise with it most of the time and call one raise from good players - of course loose maniacs must be punished with it.
Ok, i gotta report this awesome play that i did at the 4-8 he game the other day (canterbury). I sit down and immediately notice that the majority of players are middle aged (comparatively) from 30-55? This is younger than i'm used to, and a little bell goes off that this won't be the usual older gentlemen players i tend to play with (oh, by the way, i'm 21...youngest at the table). -i'm dealt pocket 9's when i get my first hand (bb). about 6-7 callers. i raise to establish an image to my fellow players (and see what they're made of of course)...flop is blank, i bet, am raised and fold. get a couple of comments from the players to my left and right who are probably used to young maniacs...however.... -3-5 hands later, i look down at AA. i raise, get re-raised, accidentally re-raise before the guy to my right calls (which he actually DID) and it is a four way pot. flop is 10xx rainbow. i bet-call, call, fold. turn is blank. i bet-call, call. river is blank. i bet, figuring one guy to have KK's and other to have 88 or something. call, call-i show my AA, guy to left shows AKo, and third guy shows (surprise!)KK. He was mad, but i had no scare with him, he was typical S&M hand player-as if he had HEFAP sitting in his lap (no offense guys, i read the book too-but i don't-and you don't-play by the book...he didn't recognize it as a guideline to branch from). I grab about 80 bucks and everyone is shocked because of my earlier play. (except this one lady who wasn't involved and knew exactly what i was playing).
The point is this-despite what Sprite adds tell you, Image is NOT nothing (at the low limits). Sometimes, it won't matter, but you gotta figure out when it does. That time it did. When i switched over to omaha, it did again. so, next time you go out, have a little fun with that first hand-i, and my friends, will definetly be scrutinizing it. mislead us =) j
>Image is NOT nothing (at the low limits)
It's almost nothing.
Actually not nothing is a double negative meaning it is something.
It is the post that is not nothing - one hand does not make anything - to estabish an image it takes a while not one hand and type casting players by age is really a big potentially costly mistake.
Sorry I opened this one.
Do you really believe that your previous play related at all to how the others at the table reacted to your AA hand? They appeared to play correctly with the hand they had. Image at low limits is worthless.
Also, why in the world did they show their losing hands after you showed your winner?
Guys-maybe i was a little bit unclear in my telling of the hand. my bad: 1. When is calling with AKo all the way "correct" in llhe with no outs in a 3-way pot? Sure, the KK guy was correct in calling, but not the other. I think there's a 50% chance he thought i was a punk. 2. I MEANT image IS something:i used the double negative on purpose, get it? 3. I agree that image is NOT TOO IMPORTANT at lower limits but I've noticed time and again other players typecasting guys in the game. I also agree that one play does not give someone the right to stereotype another player. But it happens. Much to my delight when some guy next to me leans over when I join and whispers, "this guy will call with anything". 4. If I made 2 big bets because of this, I'm happy-I only sacrificed 1 big bet earlier-also, nobody knew what I started with when I sat down, so (maybe) they got curious. AK certainly was. I was a little steamed when I first read the replies, but thanks for your criticism-I thought about the game all day and have something to chew on next time I go play. j
My only experience in this matter has been online, where it is even harder to establish an image. However even at 2-4 online some players who are a bit above the rest will notice things like you betting and raising on and past the flop when you miss it (i.e you raised pre-flop. his can help you a fair bit as they keep paying you off in later hands.
Arrash
$10-$20 Pot Limit hold-em game with 2 rookies in an otherwise tight game. I was middle position with TcJc and decided to gamble a little and made it $50 to go. Everyone folds except the 2 rookies in the blinds.
Flop is TT3. BB bets $100, I call SB folds. Turn is a 3. BB bets $200, I raise $1000, BB calls! I think he must have a Ten, so if river is a Jack I'll go all in; otherwise we split the pot. River is Queen, BB checks, I check. He shows K3o. Did I miss a bet? We both had about $800 left in our stacks.
He called a raise with K3???
I think you played it OK to the river - since you both had less then the pot in front of you I'd have to say he doesn't have the T or he would have gone all in - I'd have out in the last $800 and hope he called.
He played the hand really poorly.
He called 1000 with that hand! My god he's not just a Rookie he is a complete Poker Idiot. He should be playing 2/4 limit (no Rake) and he still will probably lose.
CV
What do you think? Of course you did.
I am having some problems with maniacs in the game I play in.
As a tight aggressive player (who still has a lot to learn), I have to admit that I'm not very popular with some of the loose aggressives that pop into my game. Some of them seem to despise me, which I find kind of flattering in a way. :)
Anyway, I will normally (but not always)only raise pre flop in early position with AA, KK, QQ, or AK. Sometimes JJ. In later position I will raise with other hands to throw people off.
Anyway, whenever I raise in this position and the maniacs that don't like me are in the game, they gang up on me. Recently I got tag teamed by 3 or 4 of them at once.
I got AA twice and KK once. Each time I came in for a raise, these guys capped it on every round. I refused to lay any of the hands down because I knew that they were just trying to get 'revenge' or something. Revenge for winning all of their money, most likely.
I won one of three of these hands - luckily it was the largest pot. Since there were 3 or 4 of them and only 1 of me, and I won 1 out of 3 of these hands, I came out a huge winner overall for the 3 hands. But the point is, what can you do in this situation? I got a lot of flack for 'not being able to lay a hand down.' This isn't true. I lay down aces and kings all the time when I know they are beaten. But here, I just had no way of knowing what these guys had and I knew that they just wanted to jam me out of the hand.
Is there any proper defense against this maniacal behavior? One time I tried to throw them off by raising with 98 of spades. I was reluctant to do this because I don't want to play this hand in a capped pot. But I figured that if I hit it big, it would teach them a huge lesson. I got really lucky and rivered a straight flush on that hand. The only lesson it taught them was that suited connectors are better than AA. :)
Any suggestions?
-SmoothB-
Here is my take on your post.
You let them isolate you - you have to learn to isolate the maniacs and you can't isolate maniacs if there are to many at your table.
If you are in a game with more than 2 maniacs maybe you ought to find a new table - it is my contention that a good player will have a really hard time beating a table full of maniacs it becoms a crap shoot - I don't like crap shoots.
So don't feel bad it your big pairs don't stand up when 4 or 5 go to the river with you - with that many collective outs and an unimproved big pair has little chance to win.
Table selection is key here - try it.
You have the best of it in this spot. Keep in mind your flucuations are just going to be higher. I would love to sit down with a table full of maniacs on a daily basis. I would give up my day job in a heartbeat!
Bruce
A couple of points:
Don't be concerned about what others have to say about your play and certainly don't let it affect your play. Do what your comfortable with and play however you choose to do so. It's your money so play however you want to.
I actually like your predictament. If I am playing big pocket pairs against 3 or 4 manicacs who are playing garbage just to deliberately beat me I have way the best of it. In this situation you will have to make difficult calls on the turn and river because they will be putting all sorts of pressure on you with anything. Don't let them runover you. You should win more than 1 out of 4 hands with a big pocket pair so long term your results will be better.
It also sounds to me like your play is very predictable. Try to change gears. I know this is very difficult to do. Try to use a little more imagination and creativity in your play. When you raise in early position everyone knows exactly what you have. You have either big cards or a big pocket pair and your opponents will play accordingly. On the other hand when the maniac raises in early position trying to put him on a hand is very difficult and playing against him becomes very challenging. You never know where he really is, while he knows where you are with a fair degree of accuracy.
Bruce
Bruce
Help me out here. You're in a game where 3 or 4 players are trying to punish you for playing only AA, KK or QQ up front. Where is the problem? Perhaps you'll need a larger wallet to hold all the C notes but other than that I fail to see an issue.
-Fred-
Well, the problem is that they cap the betting on each round, every round. This means that I have to hang in there and just call all the way to the river - I have no idea if one of them has 2 pair, trips, a straight, whatever.
Of course, I DO win quite a lot of the time. They will jam the pot and assume that ONE of them can beat an overpair, but sometimes they are wrong and I take down a huge multiway pot.
Here are a couple examples:
I have AA, raise preflop.
Flop comes rags - J 8 3 rainbow. Of course, I bet, raise raise cap before it gets back to me.
Turn comes another 3. This might be good if someone flopped 2 pair, or bad if someone has a 3. I bet, raise raise cap.
River blank. Check bet raise raise cap. One guy had 3 6 offsuit and I won.
Here's another hand.
I have 2 black kings. Capped preflop.
Flop comes 952 all spades. I have the king of spades.
I bet, raise raise cap. Turn comes a red jack. I check bet raise raise cap. River comes a red ace. Ugh. Now I'm in trouble. I was drawing to second nut flush which might not have been good if I got there, but now there comes the ace.
I check. Checked all around! My kings were good that time! That was a huge pot.
Here is another hand with the maniacs.
I have pocket tens. Manage to get into the pot for just a single raise.
Flop comes K 10 3 rainbow. Heaven!
Bet, raise, now i'm in last position and raise, cap.
Turn is a J putting 2 hearts on board.
Bet raise raise I cap.
River is a 9. Any Q makes a straight. I lose - one of the maniacs had Q 6 and made his runner runner gutshot straight.
-SmoothB-
I'll gladly play in a game like that. You have way the best of it. Just be mentally prepared for flucuations and bad beats, but you should get the money when its all said and done.
Bruce
This may not be your best game. It's certainly not one I look for. If it's your only choice then simply see the river with your big hands and scare cards be damned. It sounds like you already know this.
There is a dramatic decrease in the information content of maniac action. You play your hand based upon it's strength and that's about it.
-Fred-
1. Tell me where I queue to get in this game.
2. Ask them if they want to increase the limits.
3. Maybe occasionally throw in a few more raises with other hands in early position, this adds a little bit of deception to stop the maniacs trying to steal on a ragged board.
Hi,
I play in a loose/passive 2-4 HE. I define l/p as 5 or more players limping-in pre-flop for 70% of the time. During the other 30% of the time, there is a raise where over 50% of the time, 5 or more players call the raise.
In what position can I limp in with Ax suited, if at all?
Are there other criteria in this decision not mentioned in this post?
Thanks
In a game like this I would usually play Axs early and middle raise with it late 50% of the time. I'd call one raise with it late and in the blinds.
I would also raise with it in the blind and bet out what ever flopped if I read the table as missing the flop.
Axs is a powerful hand if played correctly but you have to know when to let it go.
Rounder,
I would like to know how you can read 5 or 6 players in a low limit game to miss the flop. Please elaborate.
Bruce
If there are several I can get a flop read on them pretty well if not all of them I will concentrate on the ones who are the action players.
It depends on what kind of low limit game it is. If it is one of those sleepy games where everyone sees the flop and there is hardly any betting or raising, Axs is a GOLDMINE. You get in cheap, you cut it loose if you don't hit. If you do hit, you draw cheaply, and when you hit you get paid off big.
This is the kind of hand that,in the right game, you can actually raise your draw on the turn with sometimes - in some games you might still have 5 people in to see the river. Nirvana.
Or, if it's A 2,3,4 or 5, you might flop a straight or a gutshot.
A fine hand, and people can't put you there when the flop comes 952 with 2 of your suit. Not that they will TRY to put you ANYWHERE - they are low limit players.
-SmoothB-
I have been getting pretty good at adapting to different types of games. I can easily handle wild games, full games, short handed games (3-4). But for some crazy reason I have a lot of trouble with loose passive 5-6 handed games!
I know this sounds crazy but its true. All 5 will see the flop, often with no raise. There will usually be a bet on the flop but rarely will it get 2 bet. Usually there is a showdown with 2 at the river.
This games sounds like heaven, right? But I can't make a dime! I strongly believe it's the rake because I don't see anyone else making any money either. With 10 % of the pot coming off each hand and only 300 in chips on the table, how can you beat such a passive game? Is it even possible?
I play my typical tight aggressive style but it doesn't seem to work. I can't put anyone anywhere.
Here is an example.
6 handed. I get dealt QQ in mid position. Early position player raises - he looks like a pigeon but I don't know him so I just call. We see the flop 5 handed.
Flop comes 5 4 2 with 2 diamonds. Preflop raiser bets - I have to raise to figure out if he has AA or KK or just AK or AQ. I raise, button calls both bets cold, he hesitates and calls. Ok, he doesn't have AA or KK.
Turn comes blank (9 of spades or something.) Check, I bet, both call.
River comes 9 clubs. Check, I bet, button calls, preflop raiser think a minute and folds. Now I KNOW he didnt have AA or KK because he is tempted to call his nut no pair thinking I missed the diamond flush.
Turns out the button had a3 offsuit and flopped a straight! That one cost me 4 BB. He never even put in a single raise. I later realized that he thought i had flopped a set, and he was going to slowplay his straight. But then when the board paired in the river he just called.
Anyway, I RARELY see anyone come away from this particular type of game a winner. Is this game beatable on a consistent basis?
-SmoothB-
The game is beatable and you should have re-raised pre-flop with your pocket Queens. You almost certainly have the best hand and you want all the other loose geese to pay through the nose to take a flop with their garbage. 3 betting might well have folded the guy who beat you.
Do you think the A3o would have seen 3 bets with that weak holding???
these games are not impossible to beat BUT you have to out play your opponents after the flop - I don't want to be critical but are you really tight aggressive.
If you are not raising 2 betting pre flop or coming out strong on the flop with a decent holding maybe you are playing a bit to passive too. You have to put the heat on to make it uncomfortable for to many to see you at the river. You ought to be leading and raising not calling in a game like this - these guys will sit back and call or take free cards all day - you have to make them think about it a bit more.
6 handed with early raiser and you get QQ, you have to reraise and try to get the pot heads-up. By not reraising you cost yourself the pot. You want to eliminate the Ace garbages preflop.
You might be right about the drop. If they are raking 10% and the game is passive without much action you are better off quitting or see if they will lower the rake. The house is the only winner because they wind up with all the money.
Bruce
What's the cap on the rake? If it's a 10-20 game with a $3.00 cap, that's fine even 6 handed. But if it's a 2-4 game with a 10% rake capped at $5.00, you're going to have a tough time beating it.
You should have 3-bet your Queens. In games like this, forget deception, forget slow-playing, forget everything except making everyone put in the largest amount of money possible, since on average you'll be the best player, playing the best hands in good position.
You may also be playing too tight. In 5-6 handed games, the blinds will get you if you play the same pre-flop strategy as you would in a 10-handed game. Since you're always getting 5-6 callers and the game is passive, you should be playing a lot of suited connectors, suited gappers with bigger cards (like 8Ts), etc.
In a game like this, I would raise preflop with EVERY strong hand, and with nearly every playable hand from late position. On the flop, I would often bet/raise on the come (i.e., with flush/straight draws) when I expect a few callers. The strategy here is to build the pot when you are a money favorite; this should help you overcome the rake.
I'm called to a new game 1-4/8/8 all tourist. I'm UTG and open call $2 with A7 suited. Bad call ? I'm sure, but I just want to get my feet wet and will get away if I flop anything but a flush draw. All call, everyone at the table, 11 callers. Bear in mind this is the 1st hand. Flop comes A77. SB, BB, and I check. Player right after me bets $2, ALL call, I call. Turn is the Ks making 2 spades on board. Same betting action except it's $4 now. I think it's time to raise but I fall for the slowplay syndrome hoping someone makes a flush and my full house can be paid in full. I call. River is the 3 of spades making a flush on the river. I bet, all fold to the cutoff (a young asian girl, she had just hit a $800 jackpot from a slot machine just outside the poker room, just before the game started), she raised, the button calls, I reraise, she reraises, button folds, I reraise, she calls. Then she shows me KK, she turned a full house ! I know,I slowed played this right into hell and back but somehow I think the end results would have been the same. Comments ?
I don't like the way you played the hand, although you're probably destined to lose no matter if you did anything differently. Your opponent with KK will probably take one off on the flop. You should have made your move on the flop by checkraising or perhaps the turn. Don't wait until the river. Make the draws pay to get there. Keep in mind although you flopped a fullhouse it is still the under fullhouse and anyone with a bigger pocket pair than 7's is drawing live and you are in an 11 handed game so your hand is still vulnerable.
Bruce
I don't think I agree with this advice.
Why do you want to make the draws pay to get there? You WANT them to get there. Also I would take a chance at someone hitting a bigger set if I could make a few more dollars on the hand. Looks like the pot was tiny. I don't care if I lose a pot this small. I'd rather win a nice big pot. I dont want to win no 12 bucks that one time in thousand when I flop a boat.
The odds of someone having an overpair to the sevens, calling the flop bet, and then hitting their set are very small. Oh sure, it can happen - like it did here - but the odds are small enough that Id chance it.
Checkraise the flop?? This would be crazy. Maybe checkraise the RIVER but NEVER the flop. Why do you want to drive anyone out? Checkraises are for when you want to LIMIT the field on the flop - in this case you want to let everyone in.
-SmoothB-
Perhaps you misunderstand me or I am not being clear. If a player is on a flush draw why wait until the river to checkraise when most of the time he won't get there. Checkraise on the turn and make him pay double. I don't care if he is drawing dead. If you have A7 and the flop comes A77 you do not have a cinch especially in low limit games. This game is also 11 handed. There certainly are players drawing to beat you with overpairs and with high cards if they catch runner runner. Do they get there most of the time? No, but when they do it is expensive and painful. What happens if you check and call on the flop and nobody bets on the turn? Now you have lost a whole bunch of action. Most players expect you to make your move on the turn with a checkraise. Why not mix your play and checkraise on the flop or maybe even lead on the flop.
Bruce
I think this puzzle is best looked at by considering the odds.
Ok, what are the odds that the following conditions exist:
1) Someone has a wired pair between 8 and K
2) That person will call a bet on the flop with an A out there
3) They will hit their set.
I think the odds of all of these things happening is substantially less than 5%. Just hitting the set ALONE is under 10%.
Now lets say that if you bet right out you'll win 12 dollars. But if you slowplay you will induce others to bet and can win that 12 and an additional 24. Plus you stand to lose 12 of your own money if you lose.
You take the chance and make it, you win 24 dollars. You take the chance and lose, you lose 24 dollars. (The 12 you'll have to put in plus the original 12 in the pot that you now lose.)
Just based on this alone it is by far and away worth the risk to slowplay.
Now, here is a different situation.
If the flop came 7 7 2 and you had 72, it would be wrong to slowplay. You have far more ways to lose. Someone can hit their over pair, or someone with a 7 can hit their higher kicker, or there could be a running pair higher than 7 that someone has one of. In this case I would not slowplay. Plus, no one can put you on 72. (I hope, for your sake.)
Anyway, don't be afraid to take a risk just because there is a remote possibility that it won't pan out. Play the odds and you'll get the money.
In this case, that remote possibility happened. But everyone has a story about someone losing a pot after someone hits their 2 outter. That's part of the game.
-SmoothB-
Your point is very well taken. It is unlikely with the above given hand you will be outdrawn, however my point is by check-raising on the flop or waiting until the turn, you are going to lose very little action. As long as a player doesn't have to call two raises cold he or she is there. This is low limit holdem and it is an 11 handed family pot. Your opponents are looking for every reason to call rather than fold . Why not jack them up and charge them double . If the flush draws get there you may get added action from them ( they may even raise when they get there ). By slow playing on the flop and turn you run the risk of the whole round being checked. I am not overly paranoid of being outdrawn, but if you take into consideration that your hand is vulnerable to a certain degree, especially with 10 other opponents, and the fact that you will lose few opponents by checkraising, I think this is the best course of action.
Bruce
I realize I should have checkraised the turn or possibly even the flop. Maybe she would even drop her KK on the flop to some agressive play. But who knew she had it ?
The only other time I have flopped this hand, I bet it, the entire table (6 players) dropped like I had sprayed tear gas. A tight passive game, which I remember hearing, "You can't get paid on a flop like that !" So here I decided to slowplay. Entirely different type of game. Bad decision making in both as the opposite play was called for.
The next hand I caught a set, played very fast and lost to a gutshot (1 remaining player)on the river. I left the game at that point. 1 rack lost in 2 hands. Great game, if you're patient enough to get lucky then lucky enough to get the money !
PS: For the guy with the seating question, when it's going like this, is when I change to my carseat !
I don't think slowplaying was so bad. You have a great hand on the flop and you want to have other players put as much money into the pot as possible. By raising early you are telling everyone you at least have a 7 and many players will fold. I also think you are right that the results would not have changed if you bet heavy. At this limit (or most limits) I doubt very much that the woman would fold KK. So when the K comes on the turn you're beat regardless of how you bet on the flop. I think when she reraises a second time though you have to be concerned about KK so your second reraise was probably a little agressive but other than this I think you played the hand pretty well.
Now for a really bad story: Yesterday I lost with AA to some fool that cold called two bets with 2-4o. A three came on the river for his straight. Now that's bad!!!
Man, that isn't even the start of it. You think that's a bad beat? I've had my aces cracked by almost everything you can imagine. Including 72 offsuit.
In fact, I've had a SET of aces cracked more times than I'd like to think about by these BS hands.
-SmoothB-
You've crippled the deck! Nothing wrong with waiting until the turn to come out of the weeds.
I´m not exactly sure when to use implied odds and when to use pot odds. Is it like family pot - implied odds, short-handed pot - pot odds, or what?
Pot odds are the odds that the pot is giving you. IE if you have to call a 20 dollar bet and there are 200 dollars in the pot, you are getting 10:1 odds on your call.
Implied odds include the money you expect to win on future rounds when you make your hand. For example : lets say you have one card to come, and you have a 4 flush (2 in your hand, 2 on the board.) You have roughly a 1 in 5 shot to make your hand.
Let's say that you have to call a 20 dollar bet and there are 100 dollars in there. You are getting 5:1 odds on your call - your call is marginal at best.
But if you assume that your opponent will call YOUR 20 dollar bet on the river when you make your hand, you can actually expect to get 120 dollars, or 6:1 odds. Now the call is correct.
So, to recap. Pot odds are the odds your call is getting given the money in the pot right now. Implied odds include money you expect other to put in later after you make your hand.
-SmoothB-
Regarding the pot odds example with $200 in the pot and the missing $20: Why are the pot odds 10-to-1 and not 11-to-1? I mean when I pay the $20 there will be $220 in the pot, so the ratio should be 11-to-1, shouldn´t it?
greg writes: "Regarding the pot odds example with $200 in the pot and the missing $20: Why are the pot odds 10-to-1 and not 11-to-1? I mean when I pay the $20 there will be $220 in the pot, so the ratio should be 11-to-1, shouldn´t it?"
No (but an understandable mistake). The ratio is what you are going to win v. what you are risking. That $20 is only included in the pot for purposes of your calculations for the NEXT round of betting.
Pot odds are the odds you are getting at the time you have to call a bet. Example:
It is the second round in holdem. BTF, two players limped and you called. The SB folded (assume 1/2 a bet) and the BB checked.
The flop is: Js 10c 3d. You hold Qh 9h on the button. You have an open ended straight draw. The BB bets. Both other players call and it is up to you to call, raise, or fold.
If you count the bets in the pot so far, there are 4.5(BTF) and 3 (on the flop) for a total of 7.5 bets. You are therefore getting 7.5:1 POT ODDS on your bet RIGHT NOW. These are simple pot odds and do not consider implied odds.
Implied odds consider future bets that an opponent might put into the pot.
Here is a good example of when to use IMPLIED ODDS:
You are on the button and hold JsTs. Two players limp and you limp, SB calls, BB checks. There are 5 small bets in the pot.
The flop comes Qh 8c 6s. Notice that you have a gutshot (inside) straight draw. You need a nine to make a straight (and most likely win the pot). SB bets, BB folds, one player calls and the other folds. Now it is up to you. With the two additional bets that have been put in the pot, there are a total of 7 small bets in the pot and it costs you one bet to call. The odds of you making your straight on the next card are about 11:1 against. Therefore you need at least 11:1 POT ODDS to make a call correct, right? Well, now we can consider IMPLIED ODDS.
Implied odds can be used here to justify calling even though you are not getting the correct pot odds on your bet to make a call correct. Implied odds consider the future bets that your opponents might put into the pot, beyond that which is already there.
So... if you can reasonably expect both of your opponents to each put in another big bet on the next round, you are really getting 11:1 implied odds on your call on the flop (7 small bets + 2 big bets = 11 small bets). You might be getting even better than that since they both might hang around and call another bet on the river....
Implied odds ALWAYS requires that there is another round of betting yet to come. Implied odds allows you to sometimes draw to a hand when the current pot odds does not warrant it. The reason you can do this is because you expect to make up these bets on future rounds of betting.
I hope this at least gets you started on the right track to understanding pot odds and implied odds. There are other types of odds that you should also consider, but I am not discussing them here. For a more detailed and thorough discussion, read "Theory of poker" by DS. Highly recommended. Most of the top posters on this forum are thoroughly familiar with that book. You will probably have to read it several times to completely understand it (as most of us have).
Dave in Cali
p.s. the first example will be presented in a post by me. Can you decide what the correct move is and why? Most of the forum readers will probably agree and say the same thing. However, the reasons behind this are beyond the scope of this post.
Thanks to everyone answering my queries. One last thing: should you not distinguish between the money you have put in the pot and the money put in the pot by the others? I.e. when you win a pot of, say, $300, you don´t actually "win" $300, but $300, minus all of your bets from that game. All answers welcome.
Ah, this is an excellent point. There is absolutely no difference between the money you put in and the money others put in.
Too many players say 'Well, I have a lot of my own money in that pot, I can't fold now.' This is wrong.
Next time you are in a hand and you are considering a call/raise/fold, just pretend all the money in the pot just mysteriously appeared there. You don't know where it came from. Now all you have to do is try to decide whether it is worth risking some of YOUR money to get THAT money.
-SmoothB-
Once your $$ goes into the pot, it is no longer YOURS.
You have to make each individual decision based on the EV of that particular situation. Sometimes you may have a +EV on one round, indicating you should play on, then have a -EV the next round, indicating a fold.
Example:
You have 98s and limped on the button. Multiway pot.
Flop is 6 5 K rainbow, giving you a gutshot draw. The SB bets and almost everyone calls to you. There are a total of 9 small bets in the pot when you have to decide whether to play. Although the pot odds are slightly short RIGHT NOW, the implied odds make calling more than correct. (notice it cannot get raised). This call would have +EV. You should call.
On the turn, an offsuit duece falls. The SB bets again. All but one fold, then it is up to you. There are 6.5 big bets in the pot RIGHT NOW. The implied odds here do not come close to making up for the nearly 11:1 odds against your making your gutshot. Even though you have already put two bets into the pot, the EV of calling here is negative. You should fold.
It is certainly possible for you to put a whole bunch more $$ than this into the pot and still wind up having to fold. Basically you win at poker by only playing when you have a +EV, and folding when your EV is negative. This may change from round to round. A call may be correct now but a fold be correct later. We try to choose the plays which have +EV or the highest EV and fold when our EV is negative.
I hope this helps. Read TOP for better understanding of this subject.
Dave in Cali
It is the second round in holdem. BTF, two players limped and you limped on the button with Qh9h. The SB folded (assume 1/2 a bet) and the BB checked.
The flop is: Js 10c 3h. The BB bets. Both other players call and it is up to you to call, raise, or fold.
What do you do and why?
I will post two responses which will continue this post...
You called and the BB bet out on the next round. One player folded and the other raised.
What are your pot odds (and implied odds) and what is the correct move for you now?
the turn was a blank
Ok, so right now there are 7.25 BB in the pot. You have to call 2 BB so that gives you 3.675:1 odds - based on pot odds alone it would indicate a fold. HOWEVER, you can assume the BB will call a bet here, and assume both will call your bet on the river (assuming they check to you). In this scenario you are risking 2 BB to win 10.25 BB so the call is very marginal at best.
Now, you have to consider the fact that the BB might repop it. This would make a call even worse.
You also have to factor in that the BB might be on the same draw as you. Not impossible. This lowers your ev a tad.
I would say fold.
-SmoothB-
If you folded... D'OH! Your BAD.
If you raised...
All other players in the hand called. Turn is a blank. On the turn the SB bets out and another player raises. What are you pot odds and implied odds, and what do you do now?
Now, there are 9.25 BB in the pot. You have to call 2BB so you are getting 4.625:1 odds. But factor in that the BB will now call, and that both will call your bet on the river if you get there, and you have 6.125 odds - good enough to call.
Call.
-SmoothB-
...remember that your King out is not to the nuts, and that you are squeezed between the bettor and the new raiser. Being in the middle is no fun at least in poker. This is assuming the "blank" on the turn was not a two flush card. God bless Q9suited.
I would strongly doubt that either of these two players has a gutshot draw to the nut straight if a king comes. Betting and raising the turn? Not if they're any good they won't be.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB, Agreed its unlikely but not impossible that the BB has AQ, two overcards with a gutshot could easily keep betting on the turn on a semi bluff draw, especially if the flop was unraised. I threw this in because, as you pointed out, it is a fairly close call. If AQ was indeed under the bed this time, that would leave you with 4 live outs. Of course this could be solved by not playing Q9suited in this situation to start with.
.
Knowing the limits would help. In a typical low limit loose-passive game, I would call since seldom will you force more than one player out with a raise, IMHO. While you do not have pot odds to continue the straight, with the three to the flush and an overcard, folding is wrong. Call in a LL game.
In a 10-20, raise. If you don't improve and there is a bet, fold.
I have not read the other posts and would appreciate comments on my anaylsis.
Thanks
To clarify, I did not state the type of game. I suppose it would make some difference at times, but in this particular scenario I don't think it makes that much difference. One consideration might be the propensity of the players to raise / reraise on the turn since that makes a difference here.
My analysis:
On the flop you should raise. You have 8 solid outs plus a backdoor flush. Your raise might get you a free card on the turn. You are also getting more than the correct pot odds to call the flop trying for the straight. Raising here could be a value raise, since there are three other players in the pot and two more cards to come. Of course there is the possibility that you might get reraised but that is a chance I would be willing to take in this situation.
So... it turns out that if you raised the flop you did not get reraised....
But... If you did not raise the flop then the pot is considerably smaller on the turn....
On the turn your decision is close.
If you raised the flop, the pot odds are barely enough if the BB calls, but with implied odds you should consider calling. However, you might get reraised again (if the BB reraises, you might even get capped by the other player). If this happens your odds are destroyed and you will wish you had folded. I would decide how likely a reraise is, but my tendency here would be to call. If I was very likely to get reraised I would fold.
If you did not raise the flop then the pot is even smaller. You will probably wind up having to fold, especially since the possibility of a reraise exists. The pot is not big enough to pursue this draw and still have a +EV.
If the turn had given you a four-flush then you would definitely have a call either way since you would have more outs! Making the turn a blank makes your decision much more difficult. If the turn had made a two-flush in a different suit than yours, I would be slightly more likely to fold since now there are two of your outs that might make someone else a flush.
Dave in Cali
You are not afraid of a reraise on the flop - you welcome it. You want to cap this pot. Plus, by capping the flop most players would put you on 1st or 2nd trips and might not see your draw, so you might get a free card on the turn.
The play on the turn is puzzling because, even though you came out raising on the flop, and the BB called, he has decided to bet out again. Maybe that blank card helped him. But suddenly the mid position guy is raising. Did that blank card help him too?
Anyway, I think my analysis agrees with yours - except I would cap on the flop if reraised.
-SmoothB-
"You are not afraid of a reraise on the flop - you welcome it. You want to cap this pot. Plus, by capping the flop most players would put you on 1st or 2nd trips and might not see your draw, so you might get a free card on the turn. "
True, you don't mind the pot getting bigger when you have a good draw, but if the reraise were to knock out all the other players, it would not be good for you. You need callers here to make your raise correct. As long as there are three other players in the pot besides you, you welcome additional $$ being put into the pot. If the pot got reraised and everyone was still in, I would also cap it. If it got reraised and everyone folded, I would just call.
"The play on the turn is puzzling because, even though you came out raising on the flop, and the BB called, he has decided to bet out again. Maybe that blank card helped him. But suddenly the mid position guy is raising. Did that blank card help him too? "
Good questions. I made the whole thing up so I can't answer them. However, it did make it somewhat less than perfectly clear what the correct moves were, didn't it?! Actually, if it was perfectly clear, there would not be much of a debate.
Good job with the analysis though....
Dave in Cali
You don't WANT your bet to drive people out. If your bet drove people out of the pot you might not want to make it. But since they all already called one bet, they will almost certainly call another. In fact, you would really like the better to reraise you so that you can cap it. With three callers, you are definitely making money on this play.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB has a point about this being a value raise. You WANT the pot to get capped as long as there are three or more players in the pot (all of which will call all bets). You are getting more than the correct odds to pursue your draw this way, so you want to maximize the amount of $$ that goes into the pot for your +EV play.
However, if you thought your raise would drive people out of the pot, then you should not make it. You don't want to lose callers here.
Dave in Cali
I have given a lot of thought to this matter because, as most of us know, playing with maniacs can be one of the most profitable situations in poker.
But the problem is OPTIMIZING your winning potential. All of the good players know that it is senseless to 'play back' at maniacs when you have nothing. Just wait for quality hands and you will get the money.
But how can you make some money while waiting for AA KK and AK suited?
AA and KK are negative implied odds hands. That is, they have a lot of value before the flop, but tend to lose it as more cards come out because they are difficult to improve. You really only have 2 outs to improve.
Now, a team of 4 maniacs will all start out behind you, but they have far more outs and chances to improve. Assuming that they are the kind of maniac who WILL lay a hand down when they know they can't win, you will find yourself alone on the river when you win and jammed on the river when you're beaten. Huge fluctiations, and not much profit.
In a sense, what I am saying is, when you enter the pot with AA you have by far the best of it, but you also know that you must call all the way down to the river even when you lose. If you know that you must call even when your opponent has 2 pair or something else better than you, you have negative implied odds.
What is the solution? That is tough to say. Maybe ignore these games altogether?
I have a theory that 3 maniacs working together, but not colluding, can always win at holdem using a formulaic approach to ramming and jamming. Of course simply betting the max on every round won't win them anything.
Anyway, perhaps it would actually be better to play hands that can flop huge, and cut them loose if they don't. For example, play medium to big pocket pairs, but cut them loose if they don't flop a set. Can anyone recommend anything else?
What is a good maniac defense strategy? Is there one? I know that Sklansky recommends only playing AA KK QQ AK suited. But does that mean that you must play these hands to the river? What if you have QQ and an A and K come on the flop?
If I were on a team of maniacs, and played in a 40-80 game, and knew that everyone else were only playing these cards, I can guarantee you that we could beat the game.
Supposeldy in a truly jammed game, like I'm talking about, just playing these hands will compensate for the blinds you have to pay while waiting for them. Is this true?
Let's look at this further.
What if 3 maniacs played this way at a 5 handed table - them and 2 others. Is there ANY way that those other two could have any shot at beating the game?
Any feedback is appreciated.
-SmoothB-
Smooth,
I've played quite a bit with maniacs and have had a great deal of success...at least at hold-em. Omaha is often different (at least more boring). If you raise it up with your great hands (Groups 1 and 2 probably) then you make them pay pre-flop. You also tend to isolate them. I've been in very few situations where there are multiple maniacs at a table.
If you want to mirror the multiple maniacs situation than merely look at the play money tables at Yahoo or Paradise Poker. Those games are super easy to beat if you are patient. The more maniacs at a table -- if you can stand the fluctuations -- the bigger the pots will be when you have a big hand stand up.
In short, if you isolate maniacs and play tight, it should not be hard to win.
also as the game gets shorter it becomes more correct to play looser and more aggressive. i would think a 5 handed game with 3 maniacs would not be something i would ever want to be in .
brad
I agree with your theory. I have lots of (negative) experience playing in these heated games in the SF Bay area. I often find myself surrounded by these freaks, and know of no other way to play them other than tighten up. But as we all know, you can't read these guys nor scare them out, and there's no hope of bluffing. So what this leaves us with is a game where we just hope to get good cards and then hope that they hold up. There's no real opportunity to make plays, other than starting hand selection. I don't think this is the type of atmosphere that many serious players care to operate in.
So, unfortunately, I think the answer is to find another table.
I violently disagree. If one is playing premium hands while the maniac is essentially playing random hands, in the long run, the premium hands will win. This is, of course, assuming one is playing with enough reserves to withstand a surge of luck by the maniacs... I would love to play a game with myself and 8 maniacs...Granted, I may only win 1 or 2 hands over a two hour period, but I would take home HUGE pots while the maniacs simply exchange their money between themselves randomly. At worst, I simply fold and lose my blinds for two hours...a loss that can easily be made up for in only one hand with all 8 callers/raisers. Maniacs are the simplest to play against. Period.
Beefcake
just my opinion, of course....:P
Question 1:
You are in the BB. The SB raises. You defend the BB with 76 of spades.
Flop comes K 8 5 rainbow. He bets. What do you do?
What are your pot odds for the straight draw?
Turn comes a blank. No flush possibility. He bets. What do you do now? What are your pot odds and implied odds?
Do you see now why I think suited connectors are no good heads up? You do NOT have the odds to call on the turn, but you did (or thought you did) on the flop. If you factor in negative impled odds, you can see that the original call on the flop was WRONG.
Remember, you have no high card power, so can't count on a pair being good if it hits. Plus, it might make him a straight.
This is the same situation as no limit poker. Let's say that you have the exact same flop with the same hand, and you are on the button in no limit.
Your opponent bets 1/2 the size of the pot. You gladly call because the pot is giving you 3:1 odds on your 2:1 shot. But this is incorrect. You really only have a 5:1 shot.
When you miss on the turn he can make a bet that is too large for you to call, and you must fold. In this case you have to assume that your opponent is no pigeon, and that he will not call your all in bet if your straight gets there.
To summarize, I think small suited connectors have no value heads up. 65 suited is only marginally better than 72 offsuit. Of course I know that simulations will say something different, but you will not have the correct odds to draw, so you can't look past the flop. Therefore, I see no difference between these hands.
-SmoothB-
I think you have a decent holding here. Against a preflop raiser in limit heads up they could be on A10 as easy as AK and there are plenty of raising hands(not to mention bluffing hands) that the raiser could have that don't contain a pair above 8's or a K. In this situation, a semi-bluff raise has a good shot. If he's sitting on no-pair, he'll fold either immediately or on the turn. If he's got a big pair he'll re-raise, you call and see if you hit on the turn for 1 more small bet. IMHO waiting for cards and waiting to hit don't do much for the bankroll.
Just my 2 cents.
It pays for the BB to be aggressive in this situation. The SB most likely doesn't have a Pair of Kings if he is playing correctly, meaning that he is likely to raise with anything that has above a 50% chance to win against 2 random cards Preflop, and to bet almost anything on the Flop. I'm assuming that the BB has a Tight Image.
So the BB is likely to have more than just the 8 sraight draw outs since making any hidden pair is also a pretty good hand. The best play would be to either Raise on the Flop or wait to raise on the Turn as a Simi-Bluff.
I would suggest making the Short Handed part of HPFAP-21 a must study. I should go back and read it again myself when I get a chance.
CV
It's a known fact that suited connectors play better with more callers, especially small ones, therefore if I was BB, everyone folded then the puck raised I would most likely fold with small suited connectors. If I did call and the flop gave me an open end straight draw I would check raise the flop, bet the turn regardless of what hit. This way you may win the pot right there if the puck was raising position. If the puck hit his high pair or held a monster he would probably reraise you. In this case I would see the river and if I missed then fold. I would not try to bluff the river, cause if he called the turn he probably really has something. This is how I would play it, right or wrong technically this is my style. I don't get too bogged down on whether the pot warrents a call or raise or fold. I play mostly intuition and it has served me very well. My 2 cents worth. Comments welcome!
Not sure what kind of games your talking about but if this is a mid limit game or above, forgot pot odds/implied odds here - this is heads up you need to think if you have a situation where you can take this pot off the aggressor. Re-raise and take control of the hand.
Ooops I read a bit fast and didn't notice that you were playing Big Bet poker, but the strategy still applies.
CV
Smooth, I look at this very differently from you. You gotta bluff raise a lot heads up -- and open ended draws are the perfect hands for it. So the way I see this one is: I raise. If he reraises, I may or may not raise again, depending on whether or not he is the type who can put in some raises then lay a hand down. Against this type of player I will ever raise the turn! Here is a hand I played heads up against a player of this sort once:
I had T3s. I don't remember if there was a raise before the flop. Flop came with a flush draw for me and nothing else. We went to 4 bets, which was the cap. Turn missed my hand. He bet and I raised. He folded. Devil take the hindmost!
I'm not saying you should play this way all the time. But you need to do it pretty often!
William
Incidentally I also raise preflop a lot with small suited connectors heads up. Here is my reasoning:
1) I need to raise preflop a lot heads up. 2) I can't only do it with big cards, or my opponent will find it too easy to steal at small flops after I have raised 3) I don't think just raising with small pairs is enough. My raises will still leave me with big cards too much of the time. 4) Therefore, I raise with small suited connectors. If I flop a draw I will play it very aggressively.
William
I think there's a little confusion here as to what you mean by heads-up - if you're talking about a full-handed ring game, where you just happen to have ended up heads-up then I agree, that stealing with suited connectors isn't wise. But if you're talking about one on one hold'em then I have to disagree. In this situation you're often playing the cards, not necessarily in a manner suitable for the current hand, but in order to maximise profits on subsequent hands. As an obvious example, if you only play high cards preflop, and are not aggressive with your draws, then your opponent can confidently bet into you when rags flop, regardless of his own holding.
Keyser
Keyser
I recommend reading (semi-bluff) in THEORY OF POKER, the odds when you raise on the flop are not just the odds of your straight completing. You must consider the chance that your opponent will fold a hand that has you beat.
Consider the play of the hand if your opponent held A-Q. Not only do you have 14 cards to *pull ahead* of A-Q, but your opponent has a very difficult call. By just calling the flop you reduce your own ability to win the pot because your opponent doesn't have to make any decisions about the strength of his own hand.
Keep in mind, if you wait until the turn to put in a raise, (like another poster suggested) the chance of your opponent folding has to be higher. Not only do you have to commit more money, but your chances of making a straight have diminished.
I agree with you in general. In a low limit game where blind stealing is not that common i would fold most of the time.
However in 10/20 and higher you must play a little more tricky or you will get your blinds robbed. So i really like the check raise then bet the turn if you have any kind of hand or big draw.
SmoothB,
I haven't read the other responses but the short answer is that your 65s has a lot of value heads up. The value is in making your opponent fold. In your example, you're opponent doesn't even have to have a pair, let alone a king to bet the flop. Raise him here on the flop or on the turn to see how he reacts.
You may have as many as 8 + 3 + 3 = 14 outs. The least number of outs you have is 8. Plus, you may get him to fold a pair.
Puggy
I responded to one of your posts further down but you may have missed it since it was heavily nested between others.
I think you are undervaluing mid-suited connectors here. Mainly, because in a $10-$20 heads up game it is costing you $7.50 per hand to play! You can't afford NOT to play these hands especially for no raise!
I also think you are overlooking a very important aspect of heads up play. Namely, because semi and outright bluffing play such an integral role, you don't necessarily need to complete your draw to win. Often times just flopping or turning a draw is enough to win if a). you play it correctly, and b). You have a good read on your opponent.
Your logic makes perfect sense in a full ring game but not a heads up game. This is because in a 10 handed $10-$20 game, it is only costing you $1.50 per hand to play (not $7.50) and you can afford to be more selective about your implied odds. In heads up play, pot and implied odds go out the window since your main objective is simply to win more and lose less than your opponent, using whatever measures it takes.
"You are in the BB. The SB raises. "
I would not defend with 76 even if it was suited.
That would pretty much eliminate the need for further analysis.
there was a thread a few weeks ago that discussed what to defend the BB with, whether against a SB raise or a button raise. The consensus was pretty much that it wasn't worth defending with cards like 76, even if suited.
Perhaps someone would like to elaborate further....
I like the idea of your post and you bring up some good ideas but I don't think defending the BB with 76s is a good idea.
However, IF I had defended and that flop came and he bet, I would certainly semi-bluff raise and hope he folded.
If it were no limit then the situation is very different. You would have to call any flop bets after considering whether he would call a big bet if you made your straight. You have to estimate your implied odds more so than calculating your current pot odds. Your opponent's likelyhood of calling a big bet is a key consideration here. Suited connectors are some of my favorite hands in NLH because you can sometimes win a very large pot against the right opponent.
Dave in Cali
When cards are running bad,not getting starting hands flop misses playing in the only game in town 3-6 even playing tight leaking 200-300 hundred in 4-6 hours.Is it a good idea to change seats or does it matter.Do players who log hundreds of hours have a prefference
If it's a full moon move two seats to your right. If it's a crescent moon move three seats to your left. However, if it's a leap year everything is void.
May the stars be with you,
Bruce
seriously, if you dont have a concrete reason for being where you are (left of maniac,etc), then you may as well move. perhaps table dynamics (relative seating positions of players) of which you are not aware are at work.
in any case if you start thinking your cards are not random, worried about adequate shuffling, etc, its time to leave.
brad
I would rather change tables than seats, but if that is not a option and i am running exceptional bad i may change seats if for nothing else than peace of mind.
Usualy however i only change seats to get better pos. on some player. In general i do not believe it helps that much. I might call for a set up thou.
I was playing $20-$40 in one of the side games at the Orleans tournament this evening when the following hand came up. I was on the button with the AdTc. Seated on my right is Roy Cooke in the cutoff seat. Everyone folds to Roy and he opens with a raise to $40. I just called. The small blind folded and the big blind called. The big blind appeared to be a conservative Oriental man in his thirties or forties but I was unfamiliar with this play. There is $130 in the pot and 3 players.
The flop is: Td9s6h.
The big blind checks. Roy bets $20. I raise to $40 with top pair/top kicker. The big blind now re-raises to $60 and Roy makes it $80. I folded since I figured between the big blind and Roy I could be looking at two pair, a set, or a straight which means I have very few outs and it could get capped by the big blind. The big blind called. There is $330 in the pot and two players.
The turn is: 6d
The big blind bets $40 and Roy calls. There is $410 in the pot.
The river is: 9d
The big blind bets $40. Roy thinks a minute and calls. Roy wins with the QdJd for a flush at the river. The big blind had the Ts8h for Tens over Nines with an Eight kicker. I folded the best hand on the flop.
My questions are:
1. Should I have re-raised pre-flop? 2. Should I have weathered the storm and called on the flop? 3. If I call on the flop and the big blind just calls. What do I do when the turn is bet by the big blind and called by Roy?
All comments welcome.
1) yes re-raise, this is definitely a raise or fold sitution. You put Roy on a possible steal or you would throw your hand away.
2) Call in CA throw away in Vegas.
3) Take it off, but this part is getting too hypothetical.
D.
When the cutoff raises and you have the button either reraise or fold. Calling is not a strong play. If you don't think you have the best hand then you shouldn't play your hand. If your not sure you have the best hand and your opponent is a top professional than you may be better off passing. He will certainly be very difficult to outplay.
Had you reraised pre-flop you would have been heads-up against Roy and would not have folded the best hand on the flop. However you still would have lost because Roy is going nowhere on the flop with a straight and backdoor flush draw.
You should have folded before the flop.
Why would you call a raise with a weak hand like AT offsuit?
Please! AT on the button when the cutoff raises is like the Worlds Fair. With Roy Cooke raising you aren't losing much by passing, however.
Bruce
REMEMBER: "When in doubt - get out" You have nothing invested! You can't lose a chip! Another hand will be dealt in a few seconds. If you can't play the hand with confidence - fold. How can you play AT with confidence against a great player that raised. Just because he open raises in late position doesn't mean he can't have a premium hand or you may have him beat now and he draws out on you (Like T.J. was in the WSOP two years in a row)
REMEMBER: You want to be (a) the first BETTOR or (b) the RAISER
(c) A CALLER is a "weak sister" Be AGGRESSIVE or DON'T play the hand.
EXCEPTIONS: If you have a small pair, Axs, or suited connectors (54s or bettor) and 4 or more players have limped in front of you (no raises) of course you would call.
On the other hand if Cooke limped in the cut-off seat, I would certainly raise because I know he doesn't likely have a good ace. He would still won the pot but you would have made the correct play.
The correct play is what you should concentrate on - don't be results oriented.
Bob,
After I wrote my post below, I can’t believe how many advise folding. I only have time for one post so I’ll pick on you ;-).
You wrote: “I can’t believe REMEMBER: "When in doubt - get out" You have nothing invested! You can't lose a chip! Another hand will be dealt in a few seconds.”
What you have invested is the best position over a player who is very likely on a steal raise with a somewhat worse hand on the average. If this situation has a positive expectation then you are giving that up.
“If you can't play the hand with confidence - fold. How can you play AT with confidence against a great player that raised.”
Roy is great but he has to respect Jim’s raises. If it was an early raise then it is an automatic fold. But a raise first in from the cutoff should be a weaker hand then Jim’s on the average
“Just because he open raises in late position doesn't mean he can't have a premium hand or you may have him beat now and he draws out on you.”
Of course he can have a better hand. What matters is his average hand strength, what he thinks of your play, and your control (or lack of control) over him.
“REMEMBER: You want to be (a) the first BETTOR or (b) the RAISER “
But a three bet is a valid power play in this spot.
“(c) A CALLER is a "weak sister" Be AGGRESSIVE or DON'T play the hand.”
The other reason to be aggressive is to get the blind out. An ace high can often beat Roy without making a pair.
“If Roy would have limped in front of you (no raises) of course you would call.”
I doubt Roy has ever limped in the cutoff seat when first in.
“The correct play is what you should concentrate on - don't be results oriented. “
I don’t think Jim is results orientated. But I do think he needs to go out on a limb a bit more and put some fear into his opponents. Or maybe do a mind meld with Vince Lepore ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Besides K-10, and Q-10, I can't think of too many hands I'd rather NOT have in this situation than A-10 for exactly the reasons elicited by the hand you played.
The good news is, it doesn't cost too much to fold on the flop as you're going to lose ~64% of the time against those two hands.
Jeez, I can't believe you just flat called the raise pre-flop. This is clearly a fold or re-raise situation, but I think you already knew this. Sounds like you wanted to see the flop before committing to a course of action.
Look, this is probably none of my business, but it looks as if Cooke's got your number. Even if you had re-raised pre-flop and got rid of BB, I still think Cooke makes you lay down your hand on the turn. (But then what the hell do I know, I'm just a broke low limit player).
I'll join the chorus and suggest that ATo is not enough hand to call with. My minimum for calling a legitimate raise is AQ and against a steal I'll 3-bet every time, the hand value being less important than the naked aggression.
I'm curious what a conservative player such as Bob Ciaffone might suggest. My guess is that he'll fold it pre-flop.
How do you like Roy's 4-bet on the flop? Worked pretty good, didn't it. He buys himself maybe 3 more outs and maybe a free card.
-Fred-
Excellent point about Roy's 4-bet; it shows the difference between Roy's play on this hand and Jim's. Roy did indeed put himself in a position to have additoinal outs and a free card,whereas Jim's play put him in a weak position on every street.
Jim,
I'm a little behind on email and stuff so I'll just stick to the pre flop play without reading the other responses at this time.
Roy should have a wide range of hands when he raises first in out of the cutoff seat, including worse aces. He has to have you pegged for a tight player and probably knows as much (or more) about the big blind as you do. So if anything, Roy will be raising with more hands than he normally would in this spot. You have an ace-fair kicker and a tight, conservative "unimaginative" image in Roy's mind (I'm loosely quoting from his column of a month or so ago where he ironed your aces on the river with his queens).
This situation is crying for a three bet to get head up with Roy and put the pressure on him. Your average hand should be much better than his and you should be willing to go to the river with all but the worse flops if he gets aggressive (the fact that he would have beat you again is immaterial).
Right now I think the main weakness in your play is that a top player who plays with you a fair amount can narrow your holdings down a little too much and he will force you into making errors. I think you need to be more aggressive with what you may consider borderline hands to cover your moves with stronger hands.
Anyway, good luck against Roy in the future and put the heat on him when you have a reasonable chance. He can’t hold over you forever.
Regards,
Rick
Rick & Jim,
I agree with Rick's advice. I don't know Jim's playing style from a hole in the wall, but if Cooke actually thinks of Jim as a tight, unimaginative player, this hand represents a good opportunity to take advantage of that (mis)perception. Besides likely getting the pot heads-up, Cooke would have to ponder this reraise from a "tight/unimaginative" player and come to the conclusion that you have a strong hand. This would likely put you in the driver's seat for the remainder of the hand.
Jon I.
Here are my comments. I have not read any of the other responses.
"I was playing $20-$40 in one of the side games at the Orleans tournament this evening when the following hand came up. I was on the button with the AdTc. Seated on my right is Roy Cooke in the cutoff seat. Everyone folds to Roy and he opens with a raise to $40. I just called. The small blind folded and the big blind called. The big blind appeared to be a conservative Oriental man in his thirties or forties but I was unfamiliar with this play. There is $130 in the pot and 3 players."
You should have reraised. If the player in the big blind is moderately tight, an experienced player will factor that into his play and thus be more inclined to raise with a marginal hand.
"The flop is: Td9s6h.
The big blind checks. Roy bets $20. I raise to $40 with top pair/top kicker. The big blind now re-raises to $60 and Roy makes it $80. I folded since I figured between the big blind and Roy I could be looking at two pair, a set, or a straight which means I have very few outs and it could get capped by the big blind. The big blind called. There is $330 in the pot and two players."
This is a tough spot. If Cooke has the big hand you are giving him credit for, why would he want to reraise and get you to fold?
"The turn is: 6d
The big blind bets $40 and Roy calls. There is $410 in the pot."
This sort of confirms that Cooke's hand may not be as good as first appeared.
"The river is: 9d
The big blind bets $40. Roy thinks a minute and calls. Roy wins with the QdJd for a flush at the river. The big blind had the Ts8h for Tens over Nines with an Eight kicker. I folded the best hand on the flop."
It sounds like you got manipulated into making a (theorectically) costly mistake. Didn't you complain that in a Cooke article that he characterized you as a "tight unimaginative player." I don't mean to sound "mean," but I suspect that not seeing all the possibilities makes you come across to an expert as someone who is tight and unimaginative. In other words, this hand shows that your card reading skills can still use a little improvement.
"My questions are:
1. Should I have re-raised pre-flop?"
Yes, See above.
"2. Should I have weathered the storm and called on the flop?"
By reraising on the flop the storm would have been different and I suspect that you wouldn't be asking this question.
"3. If I call on the flop and the big blind just calls. What do I do when the turn is bet by the big blind and called by Roy?"
Probably call and possibly raise.
Again this hand comes down to your failure to reraise before the flop. We state in HPFAP-21 that if the pot is raised, no one else is in, and you are not in the blind, that there are very few hands that you should call with. Usually fold, otherwise almost always raise. (There are a couple of exceptions, and if you can expect a multiway pot there are some additional exceptions. But I don't want to get into them here.) This hand is a very good example of the fold or reraise situation. If you believe that the raiser will still have a fairly narrow range of raising hands even give his late position, your hand should hit the muck. If you believe the raiser will have a fairly wide range of raising hands as would be the case here (because of the tight big blind), you should reraise. If you are not sure and the raiser plays well from the flop on you should probably fold.
Mason wrote:
"This is a tough spot. If Cooke has the big hand you are giving him credit for, why would he want to reraise and get you to fold? "
If Roy has an over pair (other than AA) wouldn't he want Jim to fold AT? What if Roy flopped a set? Would he want Jim to fold a hand like Ks Qs? Or would Roy's 10 outs (set vs. Ks Qs) justify letting him continue even though the pot is starting to get big?
I couldn’t agree more that pre-flop this is a raise or fold situation and if your opponent is tough and tricky (translated plays better than you) go ahead and fold pre-flop. The big mistake playing this hand was the call pre-flop and it led to all of the other problems.
I’m not being mean either but I have a lot of problems with this statement with Jim from a previous post:
“This is hand is informative because it shows that a top player like Roy Cooke plays his hands in a straight forward manner when faced with a simple situation like this one. He took control of the hand when he thought he had the best of it and backed off when he got some heat. Also note that he avoided any check-raise or slow play nonsense.”
I guarantee that if you play like this against decent players they will destroy you in the long run.
This is one of the best hand analyses I have seen. I see now that I should have definitely re-raised pre-flop. I suspect that the big blind would have folded with Ten-Eight offsuit. If this happens, I think Roy will call and I will get it heads-up. The whole hand would play differently but the key point is that I would be playing the hand correctly on the flop and beyond and not making any mistakes (theoretical at least). In the actual hand I obviously saved some money because of Roy's drawout but that is irrelevant.
If the big blind decides to call with Ten-Eight offsuit, then who knows what would happen? If he bets the flop and Roy raises I will still be in a quandary. I would probably fold my top pair/top kicker because there are three cards in a straight zone (T96) and it is being bet and raised to me. If I am behind I am playing with hardly any outs and if I am ahead there has to be a ton of outs against me plus it could get raised and re-raised again.
Thanks!
Very unlikely big blind would bet the flop if you had made it 3 bets pre-flop.
Jim,
Pre-flop, I like re-raising against an average cutoff stealer. Against a strong player like Mr. Cook a fold isn't bad, but I don't think taking a stand is a bad play either.
On the flop, I think your fold was reasonable. As you said, all this action suggests one or both of your opponents have you badly beat. At first glance, I thought the BB overplayed his hand on the flop. Looking at it more in depth, I think the BB either consciously or accidently made a very good play (3-bet). If he reads that one of you is on a draw and the other has top pair better kicker, and feels his 3-bet has a decent chance to fold (or help fold) top pair better kicker, I like his 3-bet a lot. Also, this works to some extent as a semi-bluff since he has a gutshot.
Caddy
"The big blind appeared to be a conservative Oriental man..."
Jim, he appeared to be Oriental?
I guess what you're saying is that he could have been something else, right? Norwegian maybe?
The fact that he was Oriental was completely irrelevant and should not have been mentioned. Point well taken.
Pardon my impudence, but quite frankly, when you are up against a player that you have never seen before, their race can be a statistically valid clue as to their style. Therefore, mentioning that he is Oriental (and your noticing that he is Oriental) is completely valid and one of the steps towards making a good first read on someone.
Same as mentioning their age, gender, appearance, mannerisms, and so forth..
M.
Age, gender and race are clues only if the "statistically valid" clues as to what their age, gender or race mean are indeed statistically valid. Usually, when someone mentions that an oponent is Asian or Oriental, they mean that they suspect they are loose or agressive because Asians like to gamble. If this it true, then the fact that they are Asian is relevant. If it is not true, then it is not relevant.
In this case Jim said the man appeared to be conservative. Therefore, unless Jim had another sterotype in mind, the observation that he was Oriental is irrelevant and gratuitous.
Now observation tells me that an unusually high proportion of gamblers in the casino I play in are Asian. My observation also tells me that their style of play, at least in the games I've played, is not appreciably different than the style played by non-Asians. Does anyone have any statistically valid evidence that the one should play hold'em differently against an Asian person than against a non-Asian?
Mr. Fox,
I appreciate your reply. Before I get to your questions, I would like to explain that the main motivation for my reply is that there is a stigma attached whenever we make a preliminary assessment of someone based on their age, race and gender. In this day of political correctness, we walk on eggshells, and it appeared to me that Jim was being chided for his decision to make a racial observation.
Thus, I was attempting to tell him that "it's all right" to make "prejudicial" observations because you are not attaching a positive or negative stigmata to them, you're simply assessing what type this player is *LIKELY* to be.
Now having said that, I have a handful of "stereotypes" which help me get a first-read on a player. If I see an attractive female in a middle-limit game or higher, I will assume she is a strong player. Likewise, if I see a young Oriental, my first instinct is "Loose/aggressive" and if I see an older Oriental, my first instinct is "loose/passive". These are based on my experiences, of course.
I am willing to do a more statistically based analysis, if we could find some way to quantify the player types. However, I feel somewhat secure in a saying that a friend of mine, a very strong player in his own right, once told me:
"The profitability of the game is correllated to the number of Asians present."
[Incidentally, this friend is Chinese :) I think this speaks volumes both to the power (and the danger) of such statements.]
Cheers.
Charles.
Very well thought out and well written response. I would make the following points:
1) We tend to walk on eggshells today because of all the years when it was OK to break the eggshells. I'm not sure it's not better that today we walk on eggshells instead of people causally being called "chinks" and "gooks."
2) We tend to sterotype those we do not like rather than those we do. I often hear people say something like "I was scared walking down the dark street because I saw a black man across the street." Now it may well be true that, as a percentage of the respective populations, blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than are whites. But it may also be true that whites are more likely to commit so called white-collar crime than blacks, but you never hear anyone say "I was scared to order that book over the internet because the company is owned by whites."
3) There is no factual evidence, other than people's feelings, that Asian players are more aggressive or play badly compared to non-Asians. As I said in my original post, if anything, I would say that, in my game, exactly the opposite is true. One should make sure, when making a comment about an ethnic group, that the statement is true and not just a feeling. And this is precisely because so many comments and worse things than comments have been inflicted on people who are members of those ethnic groups simply because they are that.
4) Of course one can say whatever one wants to. But since Jim said the man appeared to be a "conservative older Oriental", any of the inferences that many might feel about Asians were not relevant, and thus Jim's remark was gratuitous, and he reconized it as such.
Anyway, this discussion is not so much about hold'em as about other things, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you, even though this is the wrong forum for this conversation.
Jim,
I think Mr. Who Flung Poo was just teasing you in regards to your choice of phrasing, and not as to whether the guy at your table was Asian. For instance, if you had said "The Oriental gentleman in the big blind appeared to be conservative...", then Mr. Who Flung Poo probably wouldn't have responded. But you said that he appeared to be Oriental, like you weren't quite sure.
-Larson
I think he means: How can one appear to be Oriental? He is either Oriental or he is not. I think he was just having some fun with the way in which you phrased it. Come to think of it, it is kinda funny.
.
I'm sitting one seat to the left of a tight agressive UTG who calls. I have TT and call, all fold to cutoff who checks (he had just posted as a new player) sb calls, BB checks.
FLOP 2c 4h Td. UTG checks and I bet out. Cutoff calls, sb raises, fold to me. I reraise, all call.
Turn Qs.
sb checks, at this point I put sb on AT, JJ, KT, or maybe JT. I bet, cutoff raises. It's likely that cutoff could have QT. KJ is another possibility as I've seen him raise on the come before. sb calls, I reraise and cutoff caps it. So much for KJ. QT is still strong but now I'm thinking he might have caught a set.
Now, this guy has seen me play and I'd be surprised if he hasn't put me on a set.
River is the 7d. No straights possible, No flushes possible.
sb checks and I bet.Cutoff raises. At this point I think he might have smooth called his QQ, because he isn't afraid of me at all. sb calls.
Raise or call?
Pop it one more time, then back off, especially since the sb called - you might get two extra big bets, and you likely have the best hand - I put him on AA or KK, or AQ. If he has QQ, then too bad. It really depends on your assessment of how aggressive he is.
I put him on AA or KK, or AQ.
Huh? Does he really expect to win this pot with 1 pair? Few players would fold any of those hands, but there's a lot of room between a crying call and a raise.
Fat-Charlie
Should have checked called the river based on the activity so far. You have to make a crying call hope for a smaller set AQ or QT. A fold at this point is a mistake the only hand that beats you is a set of Q's.
Maybe he is just bluffing representing the Q's some players are quite capable of this sort of move.
If he has QQ why didn't he raise you on the flop? If this is this hand, he'll just have to take some more of my chips. I re-raise once more and then just call.
Hey Kids.
In keeping with Kevin's response I think it is highly unlikely QQ would check his preflop post and also call the flop. The purpose of checking the preflop is to unload on the flop. A player holding pocket 22 or 44 would cocievably play the hand in this fashion.
Therefore, RAISE AGAIN!
Frank D.
Raising again is quite clear since your opponent's failure to raise pre-flop and on the flop denies pocket Queens which is the only hand you cannot beat. By the way, a set of Queens is the minimum nuts in the game of hold-em once all the boardcards are out. At any rate if you get popped again you can just call. I wonder what the small blind is hanging around with?
I believe that you should have raised pre-flop with your pocket Tens when just one limper comes in ahead of you. You almost certainly have the best hand and should force others to call two bets cold especially when there is a late position poster in the hand. It is bad poker to be giving free flops to late position posters and the blinds when you have a good hand like this.
Normally I would raise with my TT but this particular player UTG was an excellent player, tricky and tight. Since he didn't raise and just limped I figured him for AJs, KQs, AJ. However, if you feel it is proper to raise a solid UTG with TT, I'll give it a try. As it turned out I just called the raise on the river. Cutoff had flopped a set of 2's and sb had T4s. I was quite surprised that cutoff gave me all the action with bottom set. I thought he knew be better. With no straights and flushes possible I couldn't imagine what he thought I was raising and betting out with in light of his reraising. Gave him too much credit I guess. Thanks.
But Bartholemew he quite likely has AJ or KQ since he only limped but your pair of Tens is still the better hand plus you have position over the guy. If the flop comes with big cards you can see how he reacts and play accordingly. Keep in mind that about one third of the time you will have an over pair to the flop which means you still have the best hand. The other two thirds of the time you will still have a great number of flops that miss him and give you the best hand.
"I'm sitting one seat to the left of a tight agressive UTG who calls. I have TT and call, all fold to cutoff who checks (he had just posted as a new player) sb calls, BB checks. "
Raise BTF.
"FLOP 2c 4h Td. UTG checks and I bet out. Cutoff calls, sb raises, fold to me. I reraise, all call. "
Your strategy on the flop is fine. I believe when you flop a set in early position that you should bet out and hope to get raised so you can three bet. This way usually produces a larger pot for you than when you try to check-raise or try to get fancy and raise on the turn. No, I say bet the flop, reraise if you can, then bet the turn and river.
"Turn Qs."
"sb checks, at this point I put sb on AT, JJ, KT, or maybe JT. I bet, cutoff raises. It's likely that cutoff could have QT. KJ is another possibility as I've seen him raise on the come before. sb calls, I reraise and cutoff caps it. So much for KJ. QT is still strong but now I'm thinking he might have caught a set. "
I think your hand reading is right on the $$ as to what he might have, except for the set. The only set he could have caught that beats you was trip queens, and he did not raise BTF or on the flop. I say he doesn't have the queens.
On the river, I say raise him again. I just can't believe that he has QQ in the hole. If he does, then I guess you pay him off. Other than QQ, you have the 2nd nuts and it doesn't seem very likely that you are beat. Go for the cash and raise him again.
Dave in Cali
Many of the posters here use aliases, the creme de la creme do not. Jim Brier, Dan Hanson, Rick Nebiolo, The Feeneys, The Authors, Louis Landale, Dan Rubinstein, David Steele, Vince Lepore, Chris Alger, and many others tell you who they are and how they think. Does this come back to haunt them at the tables?
I use a handle but almost everyone knows who I am.
I share info as freely as I can and I don't think it has ever hurt me at the tables and I have played with a lot of the posters here.
Mike Guzaldo
I was wondering the same thing, Plenty of people here have been helping me out, and a couple of people that I play against are helping me to become a better player. I appreciate this, but I wondered why, one told me that helping people helps reinfoce the fundamentals that all players need to be aware of. And the only real damage is that they are taking a true fish out of the game. There are plenty of tables all over for people to play on...
Kevin
Kevin,
It is like when my son was unable to out fish or beat me at pool - he'd say Dad you tought me how come I can't beat you I'd say "son I have tought you all you not all I know" :-)
BTW my son can now out fish me and I can't play pool at his level eigther.
A lot of people just are helpful with others look at S&M and a lot of pros who have put their secrets in print sure they make some money - (I have been in the publishing business and the overheads are great so profits are hard to find.) But a yearning to make the game better and players better is thier simple reward.
lol
.
Great question! Probably best asked of people like Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, etc.
I think the answer is that the fundamental and tactical aspects of poker are all pretty straight forward. That is to say, the real "expert" in this game makes his money from the intangibles such as reading hands, decpetive play, and raw natural talent.
This is no doubt why Sklansky and Malmuth can continue to play with players, many of whom they have taught through their books, and continue to beat their brains out!
I presently have two people that I am coaching in poker. They have both become better, to the point that they are now net winners instead of contributors. By helping them they will continue to play and therefore they add to the pool of poker players. We are rarely in the same games, but it does happen. On occasion they beat me, but so what? That is part of the game and it is a compliment to me that I have the skill to teach them to become good enough that they have the potential to beat me. I wish them both great success with their playing and hope to have this opportunity in future years with others.
Last night I was in a $10-$20 Hold-em game, pretty tight with one loose player. I'm middle position and get dealt pocket 9s. Player to my right raises and I call with one caller behind me.
Flop is 9K9. Pre-flop raiser bets $10, I call as does the player behind me. Turn is a blank. Raiser bets $20, before I act I see the player behind reach for his stack and grabs some chips to call, so I just call the $20 as the player behind me. River is blank. Again Raiser bets $20, again I see the player behind me reach for chips so I just call and so does he. Raiser shows AKo. I show my nines and everyone howls. Player behind mucks and gets razzed about drawing dead so he leaves the game shortly thereafter.
I don't think I could have extracted any additional money from this hand. Maybe I'm wrong? In any event, it was fun to see the reaction and listen to the comments after the hand.
You probably did as good as you did, unless the loose player will call a raise with KJ.
The problem you have created is that by establishing a pattern of slow-playing monsters you are openning yourself up to speculative reraises those times you DO raise. Perhaps these players don't have the guts, but I assure you there are some 10/20 players and lots of 20/40 players who will give you a play. If so, don't adopt the position of "raising to slow them down" since this presumes you fold if you get reraised.
- Louie
I think you should raise on the turn. The player yet to act could be play acting which guys do all the time and even if he folds you will almost certainly get called by the pre-flop raiser who also bet the flop and the turn. If the pre-flop raiser has big slick, which is quite likely based on the betting, then you will get a crying call at the river as well. Occasionally, the pre-flop raiser will have pocket Kings and you will win a ton of money by raising at some point. But if you never raise then you never get the chance to take advantage of seriously holding over somebody once the flop comes.
Jim,
Isn't it better to wait until the river to raise? In your scenario a big bet is lost because the original raiser will probably check and call at the river.
Raising on the river still gives you a chance to get into a raising war with KK. You even have a chance of an overcall from the third player because the pot is now large. Since the original raiser probably makes the crying call, and the last player probably folds, you still win the same number of bets as the slow play and one more than raising the turn. Plus, you might get the last call from the third player for 2 extra bets.
Fat-Charlie
You could be right Charlie but my problem is that I like to strike while the iron is hot and you never know what the river will bring. It could be a card that scares your opponents from betting. Suppose the river is a King and your opponent was betting AA and the other guy was on some kind of draw or had a middle pair that was higher than Nines but lower than Kings. He may well just check and call on the river because of the two pair now on the board.
Maybe the better players can tell me where my error is, but if I have pocket nines in middle position in a tight game and their is a raise in front of me, my options are reraise or fold. With middle pocket pair, raise in the tight games, call in the loose games, right? (to avoid the dreaded 3-4 callers).
M.
After reviewing the responses, what I learned was to have raised at least once somewhere before the river. I would have come out with at worst the same amount of money as I did by just slow-playing and at best would have got some reraise action.
Thanks for the insight.
cb
IMO, given the way the hand played (and the way you played it), I would have raised the river. Since the later position player was going to call anyway, you were pretty much assured of one more bet if you just called. BUT - you had to think that since the bettor had been betting the whole way, he would probably call your raise. Therefore, you would still get that one more bet either way. However, if you raised the river, BOTH players might call, in which case you would make more $$. I think I would have raised the river.
Jim's case for raising the turn has merit too, his plan of action might have made you even more $$ depending on the players....
Dave in Cali
fairly loose game, with no extremely tight players. One maniac in this hand. I have J8 off in BB. 5 callers to me and I check. flop comes J-8-7, rainbow. I bet and get 4 callers. turn is an A. I check, intending to checkraise. UTG (the maniac) bets, one caller to the button who raises. Having my game plan thus disrupted, I muck. the other two call. was this a good muck? I'll post the outcome after this.
river was a jack. it was checked around and the button showed A8. he lost to the caller's A-Q. UTG did not show. I'm convinced that I made the right laydown on the turn, but a friend asked what I mucked and I told her. she said it was probably right, but she wouldn't have layed it down. someone else at the table overheard the conversation and announced loudly that he couldn't believe I layed down two pair. the rest of the table then chimed in that I made a bad laydown, since my J's full would have won (never mind that I was drawing only to the jacks and that an 8 would have cost me big time). I still think it was correct, and the table's reaction was proof that I was in a good game.
Your last sentence makes this is one of the rare useful "the outcome" posts.
Yes, lots of people judge these decisions based on whether you would have won or lost the pot. Judging decisions based on how it will help you make FUTURE decisions seems like an obvious but rare objective. Bless 'em.
- Louie
If you only want to judge based on outcome, why not play every hand to the river. You will never lay down a winner. Obviously, that strategy will cost you lots!
Strictly based on outcome, I layed down pocket dueces today in a 20-40 game, on the button, when it was 4 bets to me. The flop was A-7-2. The turn was another 7, putting a flush on the board. Of course the river was the fourth duece. Should I have played it? Of course not! Would I have won a huge pot? Yes, but that would bite me in the wallet if I played in that manner.
You should bet the turn. You cannot afford to have it checked around with three cards in a straight zone (J87) and this many opponents. If raised I think there is enough money considering what you could collect at the river for you to call assuming that you are beat which you may not be.
forgot to say that it was low limit, and that an ace was probably out there. wouldn't have tried to checkraise if I wasn't pretty damn sure someone would bet.
But if no one happens to have an Ace than the Ace becomes a big scare card which will inhibit betting.
Obviously, you bet the flop with top 2 pair and a coordinated board. You get 4 callers, which could be anything from overcards to gutshots to underpairs. Anyone with a flopped str8 or trips should be raising now to drive out opponents, IMO.
An Ace comes on the turn. I would still bet out. To me, this says,"Yeah, I see the Ace. I'm still betting because I can beat a pair of Ace's." Now, this might inhibit the maniac from raising, but if the button raises, I would slow down, especially if he is a reasonable player. Given the size of the pot being created, I would still call the raise, but check-call to him on the river unless I fill up. Can't let someone with a late-position Ace push you around, low limit or no low limit.
I'll take a peek at the outcome now.
Poor choice, considering the available information.
The button could be trying to isolate the maniac, and might make that raise with a lone ace.
Would either player be likely to slowplay a flopped straight?
I would probably call or even reraise depending on my read of the button. If the maniac has a hand, that's the chance you've got to take.
RERAISE RERAISE RERAISE
That's my move, slow play flopped straight is unlikely and I would have put the raiser on a lone ace with good kicker. But like another poster said, I would not have gone for the check raise in the first place. If you bet out and someone raised then you are advertising that you can probably beat the Ace and if someone raised you then, then probably someone has you beat. What you did gave you no info on really where you stood compared with the raiser.
Why didn't this maniac UTG raise the flop? Where is a good maniac when you need him? ...seriously, although I don't argue one bit with most of the posts, however...I would say it was a good fold. Why? Because when you think you are beat, I don't think you will go far wrong folding, especially when you are jammed between live players who may reraise and squeeze you. I don't think you will be at low limit for long with that thought process. However, don't advertise your fold. This is an invitation to be run over.
Backdoor, check out my outcome post (if you haven't already). I didn't mean for anyone besides my friend to hear about my muck. I guess there's no secrets in a cardroom. BTW, I usually do play higher (I guess you did read the outcome post, huh (lightbulb just went off)). Usually 9-18 to 20-40. I got into the 6-12 and the 15-30 wasn't moving (plus the game was really nice), so i just stayed there. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on, but i do want to say that I did think i was beat with very few outs. If one of the others had aces up or a set, I could have had only two outs, as either my jack or eight may have been counterfeited. if two or three of them had aces up I could have been drawing dead. The scary part is that, if one of my outs did come, I wouldn't have been certain that it was good until the cards were turned over. so I would have hit a two outer. no big deal. I wouldn't want to live my life drawing to uncertain two outers.
Checking the turn when you have two pair and one overcard comes is bad poker. You have several possible straight draws and if you check you might give someone with a straight draw a free card who would have otherwise folded to your bet.
Bet the turn, if raised once, call. Remember, you might be beat, but you might not, plus you still have a few outs to make a full house.
Dave in Cali
The raising hands that beat you: T9, AA, JJ, 88, 77, AJ, A8, A7.
Rule out AA for sure. Too vulnerable not to raise with on the flop. AJ would have raised the flop too. T9 is unlikely, but certainly possible. JJ, 88 and 77 are unlikely to be slowplayed given that there are callers on the flop and the texture of the flop, but it's possible (88 less likely because of your 8). So the only real hands I'd be concerned with are A8 and A7, most likely with a flopped backdoor draw.
Revised list of likely raising hands: T9, A8, A7.
The raising hands that you beat: Since this is a loose game -- AK, AQ, AT, A9, A6-A2.
As you can see, there's a lot more raising hands you can beat than those you're losing too, and you can outdraw all three of the ones you're losing to (the only one you can't outdraw is the AA). Folding here is a bad play. I'd raise, but a call is probably OK too.
Here is a hand that occured in a 15-30 HE game.
I open raise in middle position with TcTd. All fold to the button, one of the most solid players in the game, who three bets. The small blind, a fairly loose player calls the bets and the big blind folds. I call the bet.
The flop comes Jd 7c 5s.
SB bets. I fold.
My reasoning here was that I have respect for the player on the button and I give him credit for a good hand. Also, I don't think he would three bet me without a solid hand.
The button raises. The SB reraises, and the button caps the betting at 4-bets.
Turn is the 2c. Board Jd 7c 5s 2c. SB checks. Button checks.
River is the Jh. Board Jd 7c 5s 2c Jh. SB checks. Button checks and takes down the pot with two nines.
The reason I posted this hand came from the previous discussions about being somewhat unimaginative playing the hand. I feel even though I folded the best hand, my play was correct since the SB could very well have a Jack and would bet it, and I didn't want to be caught in the middle of a raise. So I folded.
The issue here though, is the jack on the flop scared me a little bit (as an overcard to my pair) and had the flop been 8 5 2 then I would've put in a raise to see where I was at and maybe check and call all the way.
Any comments?
Well I usually ask myself what would the raiser be 3 betting with in that position. (I think you over rated this guy) Could it be anything from AA to 77 including AK AQ. Since I beat most of those hands I will raise the sb to see what happens. I am sure he was trying to buy it from the sb once you mucked and if you had raised the sb he would have folded if he is as solid as you think he is.
You gave this guy a lot more credit than he deserved.
As usual Rounder is dead on. You have to shake the tree at least once to see if any coconuts drop.
I think that in hindsight I did give a lot of credit to this guy. But at the same time he had not played a single hand in that session (1 hour or so) and I have played with him a couple of times and is a very solid player. I think he read me as having a big ace and decided to three bet me with his medium pair.
I think the hand would've played a little different had there been no overcards to my pair.
If someone 3 bet you before the flop I would put him on a better hand then pocket 10s. But given the flop I would have check raised to find out where he really stood. If he had big pockets then he probably would have reraised you again. It's unlikly he has a hand like AJ since he 3 bet before the flop. If he just called your reraised then you probably have him beat (I would put him on AKs or AQs). Bet the turn and he might even fold, but if not, maybe he's playing intuition, and he raised on the turn then I would fold (he just out played me there). But he has to put you on a stronger hand then his if you reraised the flop and he would play passively at best if not fold.
Ray,
The problem here is that the small blind came out betting the flop and I was caught in the middle. As it turned out, the betting was capped on the flop and somehow I was glad I was out of the hand, to the point that when I saw the hands it didn't bother me at all that I had folded the best hand.
Carlos
Carlos this is an interesting problem. Here are my thoughts.
Pre-flop you did not raise from early position or from middle position after someone else limped in. You opened with a raise from middle position which means you do not have to have a premium hand to do this. In other words a good player will frequently open raise from middle position with any medium pair, two big cards like Ace-Ten or King-Jack, and sometimes even with Ace-Little suited. Now a good player on the button will realize this and frequently re-raise with a hand like pocket Nines or AK or AQ which he might not 3 bet with normally in the face of an early position raiser. Of course he will also 3 bet with his good hands as well like JJ,QQ,KK, and AA. So you need to recognize that pre-flop his 3 bet does not always mean he has a bigger over pair than you do.
Now all that being said, when the small blind calls 2.5 bets cold and then leads into the 3 bettor with a Jack-high rainbow/raggedy flop I would have folded like you did figuring you are playing two outs at this point. Furthermore, you could call and then face a raise by the 3 bettor who also may have a better hand than you. Between the bettor and the 3 bettor you are almost always beat and you do not have enough outs to continue plus you are facing the prospect of further raising. Have no regrets, you played correctly.
Somehow I felt it was the right decision.
I didn't want to be caught in the crossfire and the fact that a loose player from the blind had called 2.5 bets cold made things a little different. Had the SB folded. I would've most likely checked and called the whole way.
I was thinking about how important position was in this hand. If I had the pocket tens in the button, I think the outcome would've been different.
Just in case you guys are curious, I'll post the SB holdings later.
Carlos
Jim you'd be correct except the sb was described as a loose sort. I'd like to see what happens if I call or raise the sb on the flop. Based on the flop betting he has rated his players a bit wrong the sb is more than just fairly loose and maybe the button is solid and rated the sb just right - the post flop play was very weak on both their parts.
I think he folded a bit to soon.
But that is just me.
I still agree with Rounder, Carlos, although, if you think you are beat then folding is never wrong here. However a Jack high flop for pocket tens is half decent. Raising the flop will solidify your position, and put the pressure on the button. If it comes back capped then let it go. The small blind could bet out with any pair or even a gutshot straight.
"I think he folded a bit to soon."
Okay, so when is the right time to fold? What ended up happening was that the button raised, the SB made it three and the button capped it. How good do you feel about your pocket 10s for four bets on the flop with an overcard present and no realistic draw? The button completely overplayed his 99 and the SB also overplayed whatever the hell he had, so unless they have a great history of making these wild re-re-raises, it was a good laydown in the face of eminent danger. The button didn't play his nines any different than he would have played them if they were aces, and therein lies the danger.
I think if he were between the sb and button and raised the sb the button just calls. I am thinking the button puts the sb on being a loosie goosie so he is trying him out - as evidenced by the weak play on the turn and river.
Hell maybe I fold it on the flop to but it is a marginal call and if I am in for 3 sb already and with that flop I want some play for it.
Hell maybe I fold it on the flop to but it is a marginal call and if I am in for 3 sb already and with that flop I want some play for it.
Maybe it's a marginal call now, but what are you going to do when it comes back to you and you have to call 2 more bets cold? Then on the turn?
And yeah, you're in for 3 small bets but you only have 3 opponents. There's only 10 small bets in the pot. Faced with the prospect of calling one bet now and possibly two more by the time it's my turn again, I hate calling. (But I agree raising is better than laying down.)
Sb's bet on the flop was very unusual. Most people will check no matter what the flop, figuring the player who 3-bet pre-flop will bet the flop, which is what happens most of the time. I would suspect something is up when sb bets. In 15-30, I would have expected him to check-raise if he hit a jack, or had an overpair.
So this is a case where you'd expect either a bluff from sb or a very big hand that he wants to be raised. Even loose players make big hands. But even if he's bluffing or semi-bluffing,given the fact that A) there is an overcard on board, B) Carlos could get sandwiched between the two agressors, and C)even if he had the best hand at that point, there were a lot of cards that could come on the turn and river to beat him, I think letting the hand go was correct.
I agree with Carlos's play here. The jack poses a HUGE problem for him. Plus, this hand can get very expensive fast. Sometimes, you lay down the best hand, but this is much better than continuing with a bad hand.
I don't think you played this wrong. I have experimented with playing this scenario in different ways. I either fold or raise - the absolute WORST possible thing you can do is call.
The SB could be betting anything from a set of jacks to a gutshot. But I think he was betting an open ender, if you ask me. Maybe he had 86 suited.
If I decided to raise here, I would
1) First pray that everyone else dropped
2) Watch the original better very carefully when he calls.
If he seems a little stunned when you reraise, he doesn't have a pair of jacks or better (most of the time). He got caught semibluffing. Or if he hesitates a bit before calling. Then again, his hesitation may mean that he has a pair of jacks but has a bad kicker, or is worried that you have an overpair. If he is a good player he might fold for a bet if he doesn't improve on the turn.
Keep in mind - if the SB is a good player, he might feel that the pot is big enough to take the chance that you were both raising preflop with big unpaired cards like AK, KQ suited, etc.
To be perfectly honest though, I find myself losing more times than I win when I raise here. But I don't have hundreds of examples to draw from.
-SmoothB-
It is better not to post the results of the hand until later.
My thoughts: It seems the sb flopped a straight draw, or maybe middle pair. He would have to be an over-aggressive player to bet out into two tight opponents who raised and three-bet before the flop, and then cap it. With prior knowledge of this, you should regard his flop bet with less respect. You may have given the original raiser too much credit for the reasons Jim described. A raise is definately worth considering, particularly if you have a tight, conservative image. However, a fold is the best play because you would have to have a 30%-40% chance of having the best hand to raise. Given the only hands that the button could have that you can beat are AQ, AK, 99, 88; and the additional probability that the sb has you beat; it is not even close. A raise is better than a call because if you do have the button beat he likely has more than 3 outs.
The fold is probably correct but I find your comment about the overcard Jack interesting. While it is certainly possible that someone outdrew you when the Jack hit, this is unlikely. Your opponents likely have a pocket pair or a big Ace such as AK or AQ although I suppose you can't rule out AJs.
But most of the time, the Jack on the board is really a non-issue for you. I would think that if the sb had had AJs, he would be going for a checkraise of the button as opposed to betting out.
Thanks to everyone that responded.
I think there was a good deal to learn from this hand, since I believe the call was marginal due to the fact that I didn't believe the button would reraise me without a pair. At this point the only pairs I could beat were 88 and 99, with JJ, QQ, KK, and AA dominating my TT, AJ was a remote possibilily for the button, but not for the loose player in the SB. Also, my position was bad, one more reason my decision was to fold.
The SB has an 86s for the open ended straight draw on the flop, and as I had mentioned the button had two nines.
Carlos
"AJ was a remote possibilily for the button, but not for the loose player in the SB"
Why is it not possible that the SB could have AJ?
Whats happening at the Diamond Club. I am heading back east to NYC and wondering if the Hanleys have any tourneys planned. PocketKings.com
As of yesterday 11 JUL the Diamond Club was padlocked by the NYC police department.
I'll keep this one short and to the point. 6 way action on flop capped. 5 way action on turn 3 bets from all. Board is Ks Js Qs Qh
River = 9s
Well here is the kicker......... The guy with the straight realizes its no good so he shows his two cards to the table then proceeded to flip them over and throw them in the muck. He held the Ac10s!!!!!!! He didn't even notice it!!!! nobody said a word until the cards were mucked and dead....... Then of course we didn't hear the end of it for a while. If anybody has seen a worse play then this I'd be surprised :-)
WOW
.
You can't be serious, this isn't even close to the worst play ever.
Seems to me like a "oversight" than a bad play , in that he didn't realize what he had. I'm sure almost eveyrone had a straight one time or not and didn't realize it. Some people aren'te even aware when they have straight flush draws as most of the time they don't matter...
Too bad for this poor guy though...
Here is a REALLY bad play from omaha. This just shows you what can go wrong when you don't fully understand the rules of the game.
The board showed T T T K T. Quad tens on the board with a king.
One guy bet, a couple others folded. Finally, the guy in last position who had been betting all the way, stared at the board for a minute, and said "well, that card really fuc*ed up my hand, I can't beat an ace kicker" and mucked face up. He had 2 kings in his hand - he had the mortal nuts!
He thought he was playing holdem where any ace would win. He would have been playing the board. But he forgot that you must play 2 out of your hand - he had kings full of tens and the other guy had trip tens with ace jack kickers.
-SmoothB-
Even though I'm incredibly ashamed, I have to post the play I made that was similar to this in Omaha8. I wasn't aware of the rules either and I bet the whole way with what I thought was a straight flush. The board showed 9 10 J K of hearts. I had the Queen of hearts. Good thing nobody had Ax of hearts or I would have gotten into a raising war and probably lost all my money. I even announced when the hand was shown down that I had the straight flush. Needless to say, I felt about as small as I could have. I left shortly thereafter.
Really wish my hold-em game didn't break up.
yes, omaha can be quite confusing. I once had A2 in my hand and the board was 2478X, and I thought:" I´m using A2 from my hand, so logically I must have the nuts low" (doh!). I capped on river and lost to a 35XX hand, but luckily it was a home-game and I didn´t lose much.
Stay away from omaha/8.
It looks like this was more of a brain fart than a truly awful play. However, the results are the same, our hero was probably very embarrassed.
Abdul,
Thank you for your "Hold'em Preflop Strategy" web page. I just read it yesterday, and your statement that "Most players raise with their best hands, limp with their worst hands, and you can exploit this by deftly sidestepping their raises and punishing their weak limps with raises of your own" really struck a chord in me and I think I have discovered a major way to improve my game as a result. I think I have been too "suspicious" in general and am calling and even raising raisers thinking they're on a bluff or steal, when in fact they have a legit (and stronger) hand. I have read only Sklansky/Malmuth and Jones and find your insights refreshing and needed. And for anyone like me who didn't know about this page: http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html
Fully agreed on all counts. Abdul's treatment of before the flop action is the most exhaustive and thought-provoking treatment on the subject I have read, and I feel it is the premier treatment on pre-flop strategy. A hearty thanks from me as well.
His site is listed under our "favorite links".
.
I played a most unusual hand yesterday:
A tad too loose and very aggressive player opens with a raise 5 off the button. I reraise immediatelly behind him with AJs. Another aggressive player caps it behind me and we take it three way to the flop.
Flop is 753 rainbow. Opener checks, I check, and to my amazement the preflop capper checks it too.
Turn is a deuce, bringing a fourflush on board, but not in my suit. Opener checks, I check, capper bets. Opener folds and I check-raise. He calls.
River is another five. I bet, he thinks and calls. I flip over my ace high, jack kicker. He mucks.
Now who here played good poker? I'm not so sure it was me. Comments anyone?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Where do you find these opponents? I suspect the first is armed with a stick and the second a stone. I think you played it very well, given the checks on the flop.
I'm not sure, but it's apparent your game selection choices are excellent.
Pre-flop I like your re-raise with AJ suited only because you are playing the player more than your hand. Under normal circumstances I would just call but I think you should try and isolate a loose, overly aggressive player who opens with a raise from middle position. It is unfortunate that a third player entered the picture with a cap no less. At this point there is 7.5 bets in the pot.
On the flop, I think checking is the best play. When the capper checks, this would tell me that no one has an overpair to the board. You could easily be up against AK or AQ however. Everyone knows that this flop should not have helped anyone given the pre-flop action.
On the turn, how can a four flush be on the board if the flop was rainbow? I will assume that you mean a two flush was now on the board. I would dismiss the possibility of a flush draw. You have perhaps 10 outs with any Four for a wheel, an Ace, or a Jack. I think a Jack might be your best out since someone else could easily have an Ace. When the capper bets there is 9.5 bets in the pot. I don't like the check-raise because it is costing you 4 bets to win 9.5 bets and you could get re-raised. I think I would fold because you almost certainly don't have the best hand and you have only 4 clean outs with any Jack. The other problem with your play is that if he calls and a blank comes you will be committed to follow through with another double bet on the river since under the circumstances your Ace is probably too weak to survive a showdown. I think you are risking too much money for what is basically a small pot given the lack of betting on the flop.
On the river, of course you bet since someone who makes it 4 bets to see a flop with only two opponents should be able to beat your Ace. His call and subsequent muck are incredible. If he cannot even beat Ace-high he should have either folded or bluff raised you on the end. His call makes no sense to me.
Mr. Brier, Curious, how do you dismiss a flush draw? I would suspect he had a King high flush draw (Perhaps KQsuited). Don't ask me to explain why he called the river.
I guess if you assume he had specifically King-Queen suited of the same suit as the two flush on the board, yes it is a possibility but it just seems remote to me.
On the turn, how can a four flush be on the board if the flop was rainbow? I will assume that you mean a two flush was now on the board.
Yes, there was a two-flush on the board. I mistyped.
I don't like the check-raise because it is costing you 4 bets to win 9.5 bets and you could get re-raised.
I don't like the check-raise here myself, it's much more cost effective to bet out. However, I chickened out given the 3-way capped pot. So I checked, he bet and when the opener folded, I couldn't give it up anymore, given my (wrong, yes I know) assessment of the opponent. I believed I could make him lay down his AK.
His call makes no sense to me.
Exactly. He had KQs.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
PREFLOP: If your opponents are going to give you this much action, you might want to play tighter. Playing tight will certainly be a winning strategy, and it may also be the best strategy. Given the presence of somewhat maniacal opponents, hands like AJs can easily get pushed out of the pot even when they are best, and when they're beat they're often drawing very slim and are forced to pay maximum price.
FLOP: Correct.
TURN: Your play on the turn is brilliant, and should be a normal part of your arsenal. Once the pot becomes heads up, you can try to represent that your check meant strength instead of weakness and take a shot at the bloated pot. The pot is 7.5 big bets, and you are risking 2 big bets to win it. If he folds more than 1 time in 5 right there, you make an immediate profit.
RIVER: Jim Brier advised, "On the river of course you bet..."?! I'm usually a big advocate of betting the river, but I don't like the bet there. It is certainly wrong in retrospect, unless the opponent would call with enough even worse hands (that he could hold at that point) to make it a value bet. If you check, your opponent should check AQ, AK, and maybe some mediocre pairs, and of course he'll call with all those if you bet. Your bet has close to a -1 big bet expected value, at least against a typical player. So on the river of course you check, and then call if there is even a 1 in 12.5 chance your hand is best, or you could consider a second bluff (check)raise if there is a 15% chance he would fold (including some winning hands.)
-Abdul
I think your play was great. More gutsy than I would have been. I know what was going through your mind:
Ok, he checked the on the flop. Now a deuce comes and he bets? That deuce could not have helped him. I know he's bluffing so I'll checkraise him and get him to lay down.
He called, which you probably didn't want to see. But then you bet again on the river, which was mandatory, and you were probably really unhappy to see him call. But you won anyway. Good work!
If he had been thinking a little harder, he should have put you on a busted checkraise attempt on the flop. So he should have folded for your checkraise. OR, he could have realized that the 2 didn't help you either and repopped you.
What would you have done if he had reraised the turn? Interesting hand though. Wish I could think this quickly while I'm actually in hands!
-SmoothB-
If the capper was capable of realising it, I think bluffing a busted flop check-raise would have been a good play - but I think this would have required a bet on the turn - not a checkraise.
Keyser
What would you have done if he had reraised the turn?
It's a mandatory fold then. He could have flopped a top set, he could be stupidly slowplaying aces or he could be letting me know he knows I'm full of it and he's not laying AK down (a 3bet on the turn with AK would be a goot play on his part even if he suspected I could be checkraising with an overpair).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Hmmm...strange hand indeed.
Can't fault your flop play (obviously). One can find fault in capper's flop play.
On the turn, it's a virtual cinch that the fellow to your right ain't got nothing as he checked twice. He couldn't be going for a checkraise with a big hand because neither of his opponents have shown any indication that they will bet. If you bet, your only worry is that the fellow to your left may call you down on the turn and river with AK or AQ...but you know what...most guys with AK or AQ will bet the flop here given the size of the pot.
So, I would likely put the capper on 77 or a goofy hand like QJs or something that he just couldn't fold preflop and figured what the hell "if I am going to call, I may as well cap it".
Accordingly, I would bet the turn.
Having checked, your checkraise is a reasonable play because the fella probably has either 77 or absolute doodoo. If he has 77, he'll let you know.
Now, he calls the turn.
The river card is a blank but is in fact not a bad card for you (beats everything except an Ace, Jack or 4 and it may even be better than an Ace or 4).
That said, the river bet is not exactly an obvious one. It's either bet or check and call. In my experience, very few players will be induced to bluff in this spot because they fully expect you to call. While many players will call you with AK, there are some that will fold on the river. I would do the same that you did and bet.
So, In answer to your question, I don't know who played good poker but your play was definitely better than his.
Occasionally we get a post that should be entitled "Don't Try This At Home". Other times we get a post that should be entitled "Oooh I am so proud of the way I played this hand and how it came out that I have to tell people but I don't want to appear to be bragging so I'll couch the story in the form of a question". For some reason, no one ever uses either one of those titles even when both might apply.
You read me wrong, father. I was clear in my post that I feel I made a mistake somewhere in the play of the hand. It was so unusual I had to post it and fer sure wasn't trying to brag about it.
Here's what I think:
My preflop reraise with AJs was borderline (but a tad on the negative EV side, I think, a loss I expect to recoup playing good postflop and/or in the future hands, I thought, romatically deluded that there is God and one gets rewarded in life for all the good deeds one is doing), since the opener was in the habit of steal-raising regardless of position and was too often out of line, but I nevertheless risk exposure to players still behind. Surely enough, I got popped from the back.
I planned to check-fold the flop, 'cause it looked hopeless.
I check-raised the turn because the opener folded and I was headsup against a no-pair hand now. Surely no sane player will slowplay a big pair in that spot. I hoped to make him lay down his AK or AQs. I failed miserably.
On the river, the pot was big enough for me to take another stab at it in hopes of him busting out on the flush draw he may have picked up on turn. The menace called and I showed the hand for advertising value, certain it's a loser. To my amazement he flashed KQs (same suit as my hand, so he was not drawing to a flush) and mucked.
As Louie pointed out, my mistake was in reading the opponent wrong. I thought I can make him lay down his AK, when in fact he was incapable of such a fold. I will not bluff at him again. I will not stick my head out preflop anymore for anyone. Not when out of position, that is.
There's a lesson to be learned here: When exploiting one's opponents, one has to be damn sure of what one is doing or else one gets major egg on one's face. This one turned out OK by a fluke.
I try to live up to your expectations, dad, but it's oh so hard. I would do anything to make you love me, but you have such high standards.
---
Izmet Fekali, the preflop-fuckups-get-you-in-all-sorts-of-trouble guy.
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
The fact that he called you on the end does not prove you played it wrong. Mike Caro and I agree on this point. Just because he called with a worse hand than you thought he would, does not mean that he wouldn't lay down AK occasionally in the exact samwe situation.
Interesting point. But you do think I went wrong at some point, don't you? (I do.) Where?
While it's true that I am a quintessential Abdulian player, I still value your opinion and I hope this is clear to the participants of these forums. After all, I made my first steps in poker under your wing.
Would you care to answer?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
This is one reason I dislike a 3 raise limit.
IMO, I don't see how you could have played the hand better. Betting the turn to represent a hand like pocket 10's might be an option. I think you have a better chance of getting him off a hand you can't beat with the check-raise and a follow up bet on the river.
I might also suggest a long term training program, whereby you rid him of the tendency to 3 bet you with hands such as KQs. (Tongue in Cheek)
Wierd Hand. When you say Five off the Button I think you mean that he is only third off the Big Blind? I think your Re-raise may be just on the turning point. I wouldn't re-raise with anything less and if I didn't re-raise I would fold. I'm assuming that you don't expect a muitiway pot if you just call.
Ok here is a thought I haven't seen yet.
On the Turn. Since you don't have a hand and you don't believe your opponent has a hand and is betting to pick-up the pot, hence your Check-Raise, I believe you may have missed an opportunity to end the hand on the turn. The only thing that was different after the last player bet was that you didn't have the information that the First player would Fold for a Bet.
I only mention this because I get in these positions myself. I check on the Turn and my opponent bets then I think "Hey my hand is at least worth a Call!". I just wasn't thinking ahead of the action. So on the Flop and Turn I try to keep in mind that saying that somebody said once. If my hand is worth a call or even almost worth a call had I checked and my opponent bet then I should bet myself if there is some chance that everyone will fold and I'm not worried about a raise.
Later, CV
IMO,
the pre-flop three-bet was questionable against a tad too-loose player, particularly if he plays tighter in early position. I like the way you played the remainder of the hand. The opponent on the button played the hand horribly. How could he just call on the river if he could not beat AJ-high? If he didn't believe you, he should have raised.
allan
I like skp's response. Its hard to image what he must have thought YOU had; unless of course he mis-read your hand and layed down the winner.
Its hard to believe you made no mention of the 3-bettor's betting habits. The likelyhood that this hand is an anomaly is very low. So "no", this is not good poker since you didn't notice it before. If you HAD then you would have "known" you were betting for value on the end.
- Louie
Please critque all aspects of my play on this hand.
10-20 game. Players unknown. full table. I am in 3rd posi after the BB. no2 limps, i have A2spades, i limp. 2 other limpers and then the button raises. sb folds, bb calls raise, no2 calls, i call and other limpers also call. take the flop 6 handed.
Flop - Ah Jh 6s
bb checks, no2 checks, i check, one limper bets and button calls. bb call, 2 call, i call, one limper folds . now 5 handed
turn - 2c
bb checks, 2 checks, i check, limper checks, button bets. bb fold, 2 fold, i call, limper calls. three handed.
last card - Kc
i check, limper checks, button bets, i call, limper folds. button has QT offsuit.
I would have bet on the flop to see what kind of resistance I got. Doesn't seem to me like the raiser would have reraised you. On the turn I most definitely would have bet out - you definitely had the best hand at that time and a bet on the turn may have gotten the button to fold. But, by now there would have been about 9.75 big bets in the pot (assuming you bet the turn.) I did the math quickly so maybe I am off by a bit. It would have been a marginal call at best for the button to call with his gutshot.
-SmoothB-
1)the noose was on when you played A2suited out of position. 2)the noose tightens when there was no bet or check raise on the flop, you have a good flop for junk- top pair and a backdoor flush to the nuts. 3)on the turn you are getting rope burn, you have the turn of your life (a spade is second best), and a bet or check raise is in order (depends on the flop reaction) 4)i would check call the river too Anyways what do I know? I just like hands that have backdoor potential, hence the nickname.
I don't like the way you played this hand at all. Pre-flop I would not limp in from early position with Ace-Deuce suited. To play this hand I want several limpers and some reasonable assurance the pot will be unraised. When you come in from early position like this you have no idea how many players you will have and what it will cost you to take a flop.
With five opponents and the pre-flop raiser yet to act I think checking a weak Ace is prudent. With the two flush on board you will not win the pot outright by betting into 5 opponents and you could easily get raised. Now when the action comes back to you there are 17 bets in the pot and it costs you 1 bet to take off a card. You have only two clean outs which are Deuce that is not a Heart. I don't see how your Ace can be good with all those opponents calling a raise pre-flop and a bet on the flop. The Deuce of Hearts could easily give someone a flush. I might go ahead and call because of implied odds and the remote possibility that the Ace is good but keep in mind that the two flush is very dangerous because even if one of your miracle Deuces arrive there could be redraws against you at the river.
On the turn it was criminal for you not to either bet your two pair or check-raise. This is a big pot and you caught the best card you could hope for. The last thing you want is to let others in cheaply or have it checked around with the two flush on board.
On the river, of course you make the crying call.
I agree with you on : not playing the A2 suited in early position. As for on the flop, here you either have to check and fold, or bet out. You just can't check and call here. If you got raised then you have to call and peel one off. Luckily you caught the 2 on the turn and could have bet out again.
But, with all this action it is likely that the button would have folded and you would have won the hand.
You could check and fold, but frankly you don't get a flop much better than this one 75% of the time.
I guess the real lesson is don't play A2 suited out of position. Now if you had the button, it would be a different story. There were 6 in the pot, that's enough to justify a call. And you would know if it had been raised or not. (Definitely don't raise with it or call a raise to play it.)
-SmoothB-
As for on the flop, here you either have to check and fold, or bet out. You just can't check and call here. If you got raised then you have to call and peel one off.
Check-call would probably be the worst play if our hero didn't have the backdoor draw to the nuts. That adds two outs. Given him already having 5 outs at two pair or better, a 7-out call which closes the action is fine.
Our problem is if there's a better ace out there and a heart draw out there. Then the two remaining aces aren't outs at all, as one is in another hand and the other just traps you. If there's a heart draw, then the 2h is not an out. So there could be as few as 4 outs--2 for the backdoor flush and 2 for the non-heart deuces. But since the pot is so big at this point, it's still a call.
No way Terrance,
I deem this as a 2 outer giving only 1 out to the backdoor. I give more reasoning in my post below.
This is a must fold if you need to overcall. The 2 is just two weak (I made a pun).
If you know NOTHING about the game then assume its tight and throw this cheese away. But surely you've seen 5 hands and know its going to be 5-6 handed before the flop; probably good call. Probably good flop call.
Turn bet by button is suspicious. If he has a lagit hand to bet then its a big Ace which makes an IDEAL hand to raise the flop. Unless he's a slow-play kinda of guy in which case you made a marginal "just" call. All-in-all this seems like a brain dead time to raise.
Worst cards seem to be a Jack, Heart, or King. I wouldn't check after raising the turn but I can understand why some would.
Heck of a raise by the QT. Keep a mental note on that one: likes to raise late. Heck of a turn bet by button: likes to bet when checked to. Check raise this guy often.
- Louie
Heck of a raise by the QT. Keep a mental note on that one: likes to raise late. Heck of a turn bet by button: likes to bet when checked to. Check raise this guy often.
Unless I'm reading the post wrong, the QTo is the button. You make a great point here about noting his action. Given his preflop raise and his hopeless semibluff on the turn, this one looks like a loosish-aggressive type to me. Check-raise often indeed!
Agree with most of the posts. The biggest mistake is not betting the turn. What other card would you want? You are already afaid of another Ace with better kicker, so an Ace is not what you are looking for. You aren't in there for a runner runner flush, right? Don't go for a card that you cannot bet or raise with if it comes. If you would play the turn this way, then it would have been better to fold the flop.
Don't draw to a hand you don't like.
- Louie
... unless the pot is huge.
I am a relatively new to HE and only play LL HE. I see names above that I respect and whose opinions I incorporate in to my game. With that caveat, more looking for comments, here is my analysis.
BTF: In low limit, you probably get in for one best. Not so often in higher limits. This is a judgement call but probably shouldn't have played it.
On the flop: Fold. It's cheese. You didn't hit the flop. You have 3 opponents yet to act, one of whom is a raiser. Should another spade flop, you're still not made.
I would appreciate comments on this analysis.
Thanks
Before the flop your analysis makes a good point. If this is a low limit game where no one ever raises before the flop then limping in with Ace-Deuce suited is not bad. But the key is that you have a reasonable assurance that the pot will not get raised. In a $10-$20 or higher game this is almost never the case but in a low limit game it is sometimes the case.
On the flop you do have top pair with no possibility of an over pair so your hand is not cheese. However, you have 5 opponents and a pre-flop raiser. This is a common but difficult situation. With two players checking to you it is close between betting and checking. If another Spade comes it is true that gives you another flush possibility to worry about. Checking and folding may be right but with 17 bets in the pot, calling one bet to take off a card cannot be too far wrong.
The most glaring error here is not betting the turn when you catch a second pair.
n/t
I concur. The hand is only cheese when someone bets, which they did.
There is a good reason to check call. First, since he has Ace /no kicker overcards are not a problem. Plus, there is a backdoor flush which has a little value. I would not cold call a raise here, but if there is a bet and a couple calls, the odds are there to see the turn.
It's a tough spot to call. The pot is not huge altough there are 6 or 7 BB in there. There was a preflop raise and callers making a better Ace a big possibility.
Raise maybe, but call, no way. Callers are losers, Bettors are winners.
It's a good analysis but not a deep one. It's cheese but why?
Preflop your call is marginal since you are in early position. A2s is just not that good of a hand even though it looks pretty.
On the flop I don't really like your check-call. Bet out and see if it gets raised. Call one raise but fold if it gets popped more than once more by the time it gets back to you.
On the turn you make two pair. Checking here is a major mistake because someone with a gutshot could get a free card, plus there is still a flush draw out there. NO FREE CARDS. BET THE TURN. If it had been bet in front of you, raise. Your two pair is a strong hand here and you played it passively like a 95 year old calling station. BOO HISS.
River time I guess your check and call is fine. Betting would invite a raise but checking may induce a bluff.
i believe if you had bet the flop you may have won the pot. The flop bettor would have probably raised you and the gutshot may have folded. On the turn your check was dangerous. Don't give free cards in this situation.
Dave in Cali
p.s. now I can read the other responses and see what they think!
I agree with everything except the bet out on the flop. I like check-fold. Betting out is number 2 and check call is a distant 3.
Betting out leaves you even more difficult decisions on the turn if the 2 doesn't hit.
10-20 game. Players unknown. full table. I am in 3rd posi after the BB. no2 limps, i have A2spades, i limp. 2 other limpers and then thebutton raises. sb folds, bb calls raise, no2 calls, i call and other limpers also call. take the flop 6 handed.
You did end up with good implied odds, but your
not in a very good position to play A2s.
Flop - Ah Jh 6s
bb checks, no2 checks, i check, one limper bets and button calls. bb call, 2 call, i call, one limper folds . now 5 handed
Since your kicker is so weak, I think your play
here is correct.
turn - 2c
bb checks, 2 checks, i check, limper checks, button bets. bb fold, 2 fold, i call, limper calls. three handed.
You must either bet out or check raise here.
last card - Kc
i check, limper checks, button bets, i call, limper folds. button has QT offsuit.
I would have bet the river.
I'll make my comments before reading the others...
I wouldn't play A2s this early unless I knew more people were coming (eg the game was fairly loose and passive), I really don't want to have to see the flop for a raise.
On the flop I think you want to either fold or thin the field depending on teh action. Although once you call you are getting 17-1 on your call and you may even have the best hand. I think this is OK, though Id be tempted to bet on teh flop...
On the turn you must assume you ahve the best hand and act accordingly. If you are sure the button will bet a checkraise would be good, if you are not sure you will be good even if you hit your 2 pair on the turn you should have folded ont eh flop. I'd bet here but this depends on the players! I think bet/vs checkraise is dependent upon the propensity of one the players behind you to bet. The larger the more often Id go for the checkraise. Checking and calling is not good as you give the draws which a pretty big underdogs against you a relatively cheap card...
I think you have to call on teh river. The most likely draw is the flush and only a turkey would stay this far w/a gutshot unless he happened to have QhTh.
But you should have raised the turn!
I've been on vacation, hence the late response.
1) Fold preflop unless you know the hand will be multi-way and un-raised (loose-passive).
2) On the flop. Tough spot, weak ahead of you but unknown behind. Either bet the Ace or be prepared to fold once it comes back to you. If someone bets you need either a 2 or a backdoor flush (which we'll count as 1 out). The 2 we'll count as 2 outs because you may be beat by AJ, and there are redraws to a better 2 pair and the straights (notice how poor the 2 is). The flush potential is also there. Better count this as 1 out only.
3) Turn. You must bet this hand OR go for the check-raise if you KNOW the 1 player behind you will bet. You were given a chance to knock out any straight draws behind you but did not take it (Unfortunately the better was hoping to buy the hand in the face of so much weakness and had the draw).
4) River. You must call here as you did.
I was in the small blind with AA in a 5-10 game. There were two limpers and I raised, the big blind re-raised, everyone else folded and I capped. The flop came K-rag-rag. I checked planning on check raising. He bet, I raised, he re-raised. I mucked my AA. I was almost certain that he had KK. He was a fairly tight player who bet his good hands aggresively. I hadn't capped a pot pre-flop without AA or KK all night.
In retrospect, I think it's possible he had AK. But i really think that the only probable hand was KK. What else would he three bet the flop with after three betting pre-flop. AK is also unlikely since I have two aces.
Anyways, any commments would be appreciated.
I think you made a bad laydown. If this guy is smart, and he had trip Kings, he would smooth-call your flop check-raise and bang you on the turn for a double bet raise. Heads-up, he would have to show me his cards before I would lay down the bullets. Now if a K showed up on the turn or river, that might change things, but not until.
You panicked, if your opponent had 3 kings, the correct play (for him) would have been to smooth call your raise and hit you on the turn with a raise.
Possible for him to have AA too it does happen. AK is also a possibility. I need more than that to dump AA.
I think you have to call to the river here or play aggressivally but a muck is not called for on the flop.
I respectfully disagree with everyone. You have described this player as tight-agressive. All the players responding are tight-aggressive and they are saying that that is the way they would play AK from the BB on this hand? With that betting pattern? I don't think so. He raised a check-raise expecting you to fold? No, he expected you to call because he is holding KK and he knows you have bullets. Good laydown.
I think you gave up way too easy. Just because one person makes it three bets does not mean it is time to fold your AA. He could easily play that way with AK. I have seen several instances where two players have AA and that would also account for that action. When he reraises the flop, check and call to the river.
Dave in Cali
I think you gave up too soon on your AA. You gave him too much respect on raises on the cheap street. If he does have KK, I bet you he would wait until the expensive street to get his raises in. You may have let go a winner.
Memories memories...one of my first few games starting out in the casino, at a 3-6 table. Two cats, capped it pre flop, and got into a raising war when an ugly flop hit. A king turned. Aces bet, trip kings raised, aces folded.
Aces showed his hand and the table, more so me, was in shock. I was like, wow, that's some damn discipline, where can I buy some of that...
Trip kings, being the nice guy he was, showed down his hand, and he did trip up.
Good laydown. I wish I had discipline like that
Let's do this the DS way. There's 1 way he could have AA, 6 - AK , 3 - KK. So you are 2 to 1 favorite to have the best hand. 1 out of 9 you will tie. When you mucked you had 15-1 pot odds to call. Looks like a call.
However, you were playing the player, and if you know him and he knows you not to get out of line in the blinds and you believe he will not play like this with AK for fear of you having KK then you are justified in folding. NOT so soon ! Since you know each other well it's not implausable for him to represent KK on the flop. Most will set you up for a raise on the turn with KK after your checkraise with no draws on board. One alternative is to call and bet the turn. If raised then fold. You would have a much better idea but it will cost you another 1.5 bets. If an A turns you should now check raise and bet the river.
All in all I have found that flop raises can be meaningless from a later position heads-up. If you ever seen him get tricky with underpairs, just check call.
But if he will play like this with AK suited on the flop the the suits of your AA and the K as well as the two rags come into play and get to complicated for me. Any rag over a 8 might provide a set to him as well.
There could be a lot more going on with this hand, your evaluation and past hands history with this guy are important. Just my humble non-expert opinion.
Even against an LOL (Little Old Lady) this woulld be too tough a laydown. Pocket rockets is almost always a through ticket in heads-up situations like this. He could have AK or AA which are far more likely than KK. At worst you play it like a little girl by checking and calling but you cannot fold.
I´m not going to comment on whether that play was right or wrong, because there are better players who have already done so. I´m just writing to warn you of the unimaginative "oh no, what else could it be" mode of thinking. Once I played stud (home game) and had a pair of aces showing in my three up-cards. I bet and the player to my left who had ATJ raised. Everyone else folded, and I made the "mistake (?)" of folding, too, reasoning that he wouldn´t raise a possible two-pair with less than a straight. Afterwards he told me he had had JJTTA, but that´s beside the point. The actual mistake, as I saw it, was that I got cold feet instead of thinking the situation through properly, and I believe you made the same error.
Routinely call this down unless you really know your player. Even if you DO know your player, call one last time.
Bad 4-bet: just call and nail him on the flop with a check-raise, hehehe. Bad check-raise: since you got the last bet in before the flop then bet this hand out.
BTW: If you have AA and the board is Kxx, there are 3 ways he can have KK; one way he can have AA; and 6 ways he can have AK.
- Louie
to answer your question directly...yes it was a stupid mistake and a terrible laydown. Let me know when and where you plan to play next...
If you let the table know you made this laydown you can expect others to come after you in the future with marginal hands. Once after laying down pocket kings i had to call 3 river bluffs within the next two hours. Try to gain from this mistake.
Thanks for all the responses, except for Al's. Give me about 2 months playing this game (i'm a begginner) and I'll take you on.
In retrospect, I kinda knew that it was a stupid laydown and just figured that all of you guys telling me will allow me to not make this mistake in the future.
Mike,
Just a note. Yes your lay down was wrong but I like your rational and thinking in this case. If you have only been playing 2 months I think you have a future in this game - It takes a good player to lay down a good hand - any ahole can hang on and call a loser to the river and I like your ability to dump a big hand just don't do it in these circumstances again OK.
Mike, if you want to survive playing this game you will need to develop a sense of humor in addition to some playing skills...
Besides the computations for the likelihood of his various holdings, you also had a two card redraw with two to come. Sometimes, especially in heads-up situations you will be forced to go to complete a hand even with strong doubts. I think there was enough uncertainty in this situation to pay it off. Looks like you are certainly on the right track though towards developing the skills needed to read your opponents!
Now these are the type of responses that I like. I still think it may have been a bad laydown in the long run. At the time, I was thinking that he would probably know that I had Aces and would only re-raise my checkraise with kings. If he had Ace King, he wouldn't think that I would lay down my aces, therefore he wouldn't re-raise me with an inferior hand. I figured that AK, KK, or the other two aces were the only hands he could have. I decided on KK and made my laydown. In the long run, though, I don't think I should make this a habit.
This was a bad laydown. You must routinely call this hand down. Almost all players will play AK as you described and only a few players will play a set of Kings that way. I am not a fan of good laydowns but let me give you an example of what I believe was the correct play for the game I was in.
Bellagio's
Last night, Thursday.
15-30 Holdem.
Game Type: Loose Aggressive
Position BB:
Hand: A,A
Pre-flop action: Mid position raiser. Late position reraise by an old man that was the tightest player in the game. I made it 4 bets and was called by both raisers.
Flop: K,Q,x rainbow
BB: Bet.
Mid raiser folds and late raiser calls.
Turn: blank.
BB(me): Bet
Late raiser: Raise.
I turned my Aces up and folded.
There was a slight chance that he had the other two Aces but if that were the case I believe he would have capped preflop. If he had A,K he would have raised the flop. I could only give this guy a set. I showed my hand for advertisement reasons. I played in this game for less than 3 hours and won $1400. I was hit with the deck for a while and the action was great. The odd thing about this post is that if someone else posted it I would have said that the laydown was incorrect. Yet I still think I made the right play.
Vince.
So, what exactly are you saying, here? Your saying that you would tell someone else that the laydown was incorrect. But your saying that you played the man and not the cards, so this makes it correct. Well, isn't that what I did? I think your example proves more than disproves that mine was a good laydown, even though I'm not fully convinced of it myself.
Mike:
"skadden.com?" How do you find time for poker? ;-)
Probably a good laydown. Just remember some tight players play the crap out of their big hands because they wait so long for them, and others will wait and wait and then go nuts with something like tens. But if he can only have AK or KK, your aces make that an even money proposition and with AK he'd have to be worried both about KK and AA, so his 3-bet on the flop strongly suggests kings. So while KK isn't a certainty it's more likely than the 80% or so you'll need to have a positive expectation for this hand. (But I would have folded on the turn, if there).
Another way to justify calling is if you don't pay this guy off now, you'll have to pay someone else off late becaue if they know you can lay down top pair or an overpair, you're going to get raised a lot by lesser hands.
Chris
a big pair like you obviously did But I think your , certain breed of player that waits for big hands and can't let them go
I think I missed some bets in a 15-30 game at the Bellagio recently. I had 6c 6d in the small blind, 3 people limped in mid-late position, I called, the big blind checked. The flop came 9s 6s 4h. I bet, the big blind folded, the three pre-flop limpers called. The turn was the Qd. I check, planning to check raise, but everyone checked behind me. The river was the Qs, making a three flush on board, and giving me sixes full of queens. I checked again, and to my astonishment everybody checked behind me. How should I have played the hand?
Judging by the message I just posted about laying down aces, I may not be the best one to respond, but I'll give a shot.
I'd say you should lead the whole way. If someone had a queen, you would probably hear from them on the turn. The check on the turn is not horrible, though. If nobody bet on the turn, there must not be a queen out there, so you should bet the river. The second queen shouldn't change things for anyone if the first one didn't. I'm not sure what hand you thought people were going to bet in this spot.
You probably would not have extracted that much more money from everyone since they obviously didn't have hands, but maybe you could have gotten callers drawing to a straight on the turn.
That's a tough one since the game is usually pretty tight and I've seen the whole field go down for a bet on the turn. You certainly don't want that. To maximize this pot, you have to bet somewhere (obviously), but the problem is where. Without prior knowledge of the river (of course), I would probably lead most of the time on the turn, but I don't think the checkraise is too bad a play. You're acting like most players who flop a marginal nine when an overcard turns. The only problem is the flush potential is still there and you are vulnerable. Your options on the river are to go for the checkraise, like you did, or to bet out. By betting out, in hindsight, your results couldn't have been any worse than they were. If you bet out, though, you are hoping for someone with a flush to raise you so you can make it three. The problem here is that you may not get a call from a second pair that may have bet out, given the paired board and the flush on board. I think I would have gone for the checkraise on the turn and bet at the river. The way you played it, wasn't too bad, though, since you obviously didn't miss out on too much action. As a side benefit, i think your checks on the turn and river were given a lot more respect later in the game.
Bet the flop. Hope to get raised so you can three bet. You played this fine but no one obliged your plan and raised you.
On both the turn and river you should bet. You are in early position and the other opponents have indicated that they are going to play passively here. You won a very small pot with your set and subsequent full house. You have to collect SOMETHING on every round when you flop a set. Getting greedy and going for a check-raise cost you big. SOMEONE would have called your bets and you would have made more $$.
Dave in Cali
Hugh,
I haven't read the other responses yet, so this is unbiased at this point.
You should bet your sets out of the blinds most of the time. For one, your bets with strong hands will provide cover for the times you are stealing small pots when you show them that you will bet big hands out of the blind. So I like your bet. (Note: The one exception would be flopping a set when the flop is something like a K 8 3 rainbow after a small un-raised pot. Here there is too good a chance all will fold (since a good king would generally raise pre flop) and you want the action so let them catch up a bit.)
If you bet the flop, bet again. The queen does not make enough draws or hands to make a bet from another player a big favorite, especially given you bet the flop. In addition, what if the bet came from late position? Do you really want to narrow the field here with a check raise?
Not betting the river is insane. If they didn’t bet the turn when the queen came, they won’t bet the river when the queen paired. Bet and hope for a call or two.
Regards,
Rick
Hugh I do now know if you missed any bets or not since it looks like no had anything. Nevertheless, with this many opponents and a two flush on board I would expect to get action on the turn so I would bet and hope to collect something from anyone on a flush draw or anyone who happens to have a Queen. Now assuming I bet on the turn and got called in more than one spot, I would then check the river when the third Spade shows up and invite someone with a Spade flush or a Queen to bet so I can now raise with my full house.
Once you decide to check the turn and it gets checked around it is pointless not to bet the river. You may induce a call based on suspicion that you are trying to steal.
Didn't read the other responses.
Strategically the check looks perfectly natural since you will be checking in this spot lots of times after betting the sb (such as K6) and getting 3 calls.
The problem with this check is that unless the opponents are reasonably aggressive, they will gladly check their pair of nines figuring they're getting a "free" card. Also, if someone hit the Queen they may very well raise allowing you to 3-bet.
Looks like a reasonable check-raise on the river: if they didn't make the flush then they probably don't have enough to call the river since they didn't have enough to bet the turn.
Bet into passive callers, check-raise assertive ones.
- Louie
To me this looks like "mistake no1: check when you should bet", one of the eight possible mistakes in poker (see david sklansky´s essay).
Trying for the checkraise on the turn was overly risky, but not betting the river was a HUGE mistake. There was no reason at all to think someone might bet when the top card on the board pairs, and makes a flush possible, when no one had earlier shown any strength. When you bet here, people will put you on something like Qx, or the flush, and you might even get raised by a big flush if you're lucky. Generally when the river card looks like it made somebody's hand, a checkraise won't work and you should just bet. The only time a checkraise on the river works is when you make something like a non- obvious straight draw, and check into someone who has been betting strongly earlier who you suspect has 2 pair or a set.
Well, folks you've been waiting and finally it has arrived. David Sklansky's Big Book of Humor. The driest wit this side of Death Valley puts finger to keyboard to bring you the most misunderstood comic genius of our time. Like many you'll be scratching your head and saying, "I don't get it!" But, that does not mean it wasn't funny. Implied odds are that you'll love it. Look for it wherever thirst quenchers are sold.
10-20 at the Taj -- moderately tight/aggressive game. I'm in the SB with JJ, all players fold to player to the right of cutoff who raises. Cutoff and button fold to me. I call and BB folds. In retrospect, I think I should've raised -- would that be the correct play? I don't know much about the raiser.
Flop comes Qxx rainbow. I check, hoping to check-raise. Sure enough, pre-flop raiser bets, I raise and he re-raises! I call and plan to check call the rest of the way. Is this correct? Should I have just bet?
Turn and river are both blanks -- no straights or flushes on the board. I check call both times.
Raiser shows AQ of spades and I muck.
Comments welcome.
Rahul
I would have put him on a Big Q with the flop action.
You are stuck - muck or check call you only options.
You played the hand OK. You got stuck when the raiser got lucky on the flop. If you know your opponent better you would know with more certainty when to muck and when to call.
I think you should 3 bet with your pocket Jacks from the blind when someone opens with a raise from middle position since they frequently don't have a premium hand. Many good players will open with a raise from middle position with AJ, AT, KJ, KQ, 99, 88, etc since they may have the best hand and want to get it down to just the blinds if they choose to play.
I would bet the flop representing a Queen and see how he handles it. If he raises my flop bet I would probably call and take off a card. If it is a blank, I would check and then fold if he bets. You need to be able to get away from these hands when you have a second pair in the face of a pre-flop raiser who keeps showing strength. For those enrolled in the check-raise school, go ahead and do the check-raise thing here but when re-raised you have to call and plan on folding if a blank comes on the turn and you are bet into. I think you lost too much money on this hand.
I did lose too much money in this hand but so many times, my opponent will turn out to have AK and be forced into betting the turn and river (representing a big Q or bigger pair) hoping I'll fold. I think check-calling is ok if I believe this to be the case.
Jim, I agree with most of post, but...
What card is NOT a blank on the turn in this situation? I only see two Jacks as possible non-blanks. Is this worth a call, only to fold on the turn?
How about a Queen? You have represented a top pair of Queens on the flop with your lead bet and I would bet the turn if a Queen comes. Frequently your opponent will fold right there. The other reason for calling and taking off a card is that he may back off on the turn. Many players take jabs on the cheap street then freeze up on the expensive street especially if they have AK.
Routine 3-bet unless you can tell the BB is about to fold anyway.
If you called then check the flop; if you raised then bet the flop. If you bet and get raised you can easily call it down unless its Mother Theresa betting.
Your check-raise would have had a lot more going for it if you could confidently interpret his reaction to it; which in this case you could not.
- Louie
NT
1. Your first instinct is correct, JJ should be
3 bet against a late position raiser heads up.
2. When he went over the top of you after you
check-raised, it's apparent he has a queen. Fold
on the turn unless you hit a third Jack.
Here is a hand i played last night i thought many players have problems with including me. I'm in the SB with pocket QQ and middle position playerlimps in for 10. This player happens to be one of the best 10-20 holdem players in the area and aggressive. I decide to call thinking i can make more money later since were heads up pre-flop. Flop comes 9 6 3 with two hearts. I bet he raises i reraise he raises again i call. The turn card is a blank. I check he checks now i know he probably has hearts. River card is a heart i check he bets and i call . He shows me TJhearts. Should have i went to war with him on the flop and did i make a mistake checking the turn? Being a tough player i thought he might have limped with AA or KK since the game was so tight and thats why i checked the turn. What do you guys think?
One thing you did not make clear was how it became heads up. It sounds like you were the BB not the SB since you checked BTF. I will analyze your hand based on this assumption. If this is wrong, put up another post and clarify.
I think the biggest mistake you made here was not raising BTF. When a very tight agressive player limps UTG, then perhaps you might think he has pocket KK or AA. But when he limps in middle position you should not automatically give him credit for a big hand. When you are expecting to be heads up, you should definitely raise with your QQ since you probably have the best hand. Charge lesser hands to play against you.
I do not see any particular problem with the raising war on the flop, but it does seem that his aggressiveness has made it somewhat difficult for you to play against him. He successfully manipulated you into checking the turn and giving him a free card. One alternate strategy you may have considered was just calling his reraise on the flop and then betting the turn if a blank hit. You don't want to give free cards when you have a big overpair and there is a draw on the board, even if you are heads up. We'll see what the other posters think on this one.
On the river you have no choice but to call and pay off. I would not fold here.
Dave in Cali
You need to raise this hand headsup out of the blind preflop. You would get immediate information as to whether he has AA or KK. After his reraise suckered you for a free card, and the flush being the only draw, why call the river, seeing that you understood your fate before the call.
You can't assume a good player has a big pair after he limps in, if you are intimidated by him just limping you have already lost the war.
Often when you don't raise a good hand, preflop, it becomes more difficult to play later. (Can't remember where I got this, but it's true). He though you had a pair of 9's and that he had 6 additional outs. That's why he fast played you for a free card, also to find out if you had a set. If you had raised preflop then reraised the flop I think he would have got in line. Maybe even folded !
How can you blame him for calling on the river? At this point , it's almost mandatory that he does. I agree that he should have raised pre-flop after it was heads-up.
"The turn card is a blank. I check he checks now i know he probably has hearts. River card is a heart i check he bets and i call . He shows me TJhearts."
Sooner or later a good player stops calling to verify his reads! This call is not that bad, my only problem with it is, he knew he was beat and still called.
I once wrote here that " Calling dead is a nessecary evil that all players go through until they learn to trust their reads." I stand by that statement although this one is a tough laydown. It's remotely possible he was on a str8 draw with 78. Our guy went from thinking AA-KK, to Flush draw to I don't know, I'd better call ?
Clint
I certainly appreciate your comments,however i did not care for your tone. When playing a holdem hand you better not put a man on a hand and then not change your mind as the hand develops. I f you do that i can assure you won't be playing holdem long. The call on the river was definitely a crying call and yes i thought he was on hearts, however with no overcards to my queens i made the call.I might add one other thing in regards to this game i played in last night. I limped with Aces twice because the game was so tight and was head up both times. Having said that i did play the hand wrong and thats why i posted it to help myself and other players when these situations come up again. Thanks Ice
Sorry, no harm meant in the tone, yours was not a terrible play. The double raise semi-bluff is unuasual and common only to good players but you did recognize it. Having said that, if you still had him on AA-KK would you call the river ? If he had these hands or 99-QQ, would he check the turn ? If you can't put him on an overcard bluff or smaller pair, why call. I know QQ is too good to give up with no overcards. That's why I recommend you represent a big pair when you have one against a player you respect so that he plays you for it (respects you) making your read much easier. One reason you respect him is that he won't bluff the river after you have bet and raised the flop.
I'm no expert, and your milage may vary.
Clint
Thanks for your response. If i had him on AA-KK i would still call the river. I would not like the call but with no overcards to my pair he is going to have to show me the AA-KK. With 99-QQ he is definitely goin to bet the turn. So on the turn when he checks i figure him for the hearts and make the crying call. Sometimes you have to payoff heads up or you will begin to appear as though with enough heat you'll drop your hand. IMO you don't want the image of a player who is easy to get off a hand or these aggressive players will run all over you. Thanks Ice
It wasn't exactly a free card. There were four small bets in there by each player.
His re-raise is no semi-bluff (mentioned in later post) but is an attempt to set up a play later by representing a set. He lost this value by not betting the turn which could have been a spot where ICE could have folded. At this point he must be on a draw or crazy for not betting his 2 pair or set.
He made it 4 bets on a draw. WOW - I will never understand the turn check. They go nuts on the flop but love to check the turn.
Of course he could be on a set too. I play it careful here.
Your reraise on the flop also concernes me - it is apparent he is looking for a free card on the turn and you gave it to him.
I think you played the hand all wrong - raise preflop so you know where you stand, call the raise on the flop bet the turn and check call the (river crying call) with the 3rd suit out there.
Hey Larry - Michael D here (soccer/sucker Mike),
I am just a bit curious as to who this player was. I have some definite thoughts on the hand but will tread carefully here as I think there are a lot of variables.
Pre-flop - Against a small field or heads up I would probably raise unless I was trying to lay a trap. Laying a trap here, especially against an agressive player is not a bad idea in my opinion
Flop - I think you played the hand well. I would have bet, called the raise and reraised, and then just called the 4th bet. (Seems like this was an awful expensive free card for him)
Turn - I would definitely 100% have bet the turn here. The only exception was if I was going for the check raise against a player I know will ALWAYS bet - but heads up given the situation you described, I would not take the chance and I definitely would have bet. If I got rasied I might consider folding or seeing the river and unless I make a 2nd pair or hit a Q, then folding on the river. I am sure many here will disagree with this statement but I dont feel it is too far off base if I would have raised from the blind pre-flop and taken that sort of heat heads up on the flop.
River - I would not have paid the hand off after he checked the turn.
IMHO if he is truly one of the best players in our area, he would not have limped with AA of KK in middle position. In the type of game you are describing, very tight, I feel a solid player in middle position when faced with a situation where he is the first to enter the pot besides the blinds, does enough pre-flop raising with goup 3, 4, & 5 hands so that when he does raise his overpairs people will give him action most of the time not knowing at all what to put him on. I must emphasize that raising once or twice with marginals hands is usually more than enough. I would use the possible examples of QJ suited or A9 suited preflop when no one has entered in this spot - when players see this, he will definitely get action on his overpair in future similar situations. I am therefore just questioning how solid this player is and how correct his decision was to limp. I do not think a preflop raise on his part would have been a bad decision at all given the type of game you described. I do not think a fold here is a bad decsion either - hard for me to say not knowing who was in the game.
The only reason I am going into this sort of detail about my opinion of how solid this player was is that I have a bit of a hard time with calling him on the river based on the action. I do not know what kind of read you had on this player but I cannot imagine a hand he is checking on the turn then betting on the river when the flush hits that I can beat except maybe, and for me it is a small maybe, A9 suited (although if I had this hand in his spot, I would have raised pre-flop and then bet the turn to see if I got checkraised and find out where I was at exactly - if I get called I just show down the river. If I get checkraised on the turn, I lay it down) I feel his flop play was terrible unless he thought you were being over agressive with a little or nothing or a possible draw and he was trying to steal, or he was trying to set up use for his position to win with a bet on the river if a blank hits - not sure what his thinking was.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts, take them for what they are worth. I am really interested in knowing who the player was and who else was in the game. If you dont want to post it on the board but still would not mind sharing with me who it was, please fee free to email the info to me. Thanks.
Michael D.
Mike-
Agree with pretty much all you say, except that the strong player's flop play was terrible. I'm wondering if you would go into more detail.
Consider that sb elected not to raise pre-flop, yet he still figures to have some type of coordinated cards unlike if he were the bb and could've had anything in an unraised pot. So sb may have a hand like A9, K9, 98, a flush draw of his own, etc. If so, this flop does not look terribly dangerous to the strong player (SP). He has 2 overcards, a flush draw, and some straight possibilities. More importantly, he may also have 16 overcards that will serve as scare cards on later streets if he misses and the sb was indeed playing a 9 or a draw. Seems to me this is a matter of tricky play not necessarily bad play. Of course, to always play hands like this is probably wrong. I'd be interested to hear you thoughts. Thanks.
Kevin
You should have bet the turn if you really believed he had a flush draw.
Pre-flop you should raise with the best hand. Force the big blind to pay money to take a flop and the limper to pay more as well. Your pocket Queens is almost certainly good and you don't want the big blind to get a free play with an Ace or a King in his hand and then I have an Ace or a King show up on the flop.
On the flop I lead with my big over pair like you did. When raised, I would re-raise and then call when he pops it again. I would not put him on a flush draw but two pair or a set.
On the turn, I like your check and when he checks I would assume he was in fact on some kind of draw.
On the river, I would check and call as you did.
Your only mistake was not raising pre-flop. Against a good player it is best to take control of the hand early when you have a good holding out of position and make him show you a better hand.
I play in a home game that is for relatively low stakes compared to the posts I have read here (1-2). Every once in a while, the guys and I go out to the casino nights for whatever local charity is having a fund-raiser here in the Cleveland area. They mostly play 3-6 at these functions. I'm having a hard time at these charity functions because, believe it or not, the guys at my home game are very good players. We've been playing for 3+ years and have re-re-read most of the great poker books. We just don't have the money to play higher stakes. Usually it is 1-2 with 8 players. I beleive the home game plays more like a 10-20+ game after lurking around this forum for a while. I can't raise to thin the field EVER at the charity functions. I watch everybody play like crap, but with 6+ players calling pre-flop, the combined odds of the chasers are killing me. Should I abandon all semi-bluffs and other plays that work in my home games and play strictly Lee Jones style or what? I'm interseted in responses. I'm sick of working hard at the 1-2 to win cash against better players and then throwing it away to inferior players at the higher levels. It takes a long while to make back what I lose in the higher stakes even though I'm a consistent winner in the home game. Any suggestions?
I try to be more aggressive with my strong holdings (big pockets etc.) That way, I make the calling stations pay to meet me and if they miss then I get paid off more handsomely then if I played the hand normally. I'm also more selective when it comes to playing starting hands. IE: tighter in those maniac games.
But to some extent you are right, when there's 5 or 6 callers chasing you to the river someone is bound to hit. I'd like to see what other posters have to say.
Casino play is pretty loose (read: bad) at the lower limits, but I imagine at these "charity functions" most of the players are not at all poker players and the game is incredibly loose.
In these games, I would raise only your big pocket pairs and perhaps AKs and AQs. Don't raise based on your position preflop, don't raise for "free" cards, and do away with all semi-bluffing.
Press your big hands hard and be prepared to throw away mediocre hands against a large field, especially when you can depend upon lots of senseless raising.
It's my guess that most people are there for a good time and they won't be paying much attention to your playing style. The pots should be big enough that one win will pay you many times over for several folds on the flop.
Yes, I guess that's very much Lee Jones' style!
I would add that the atmosphere is probably light and plenty of chit-chat going on...this is a great gambling mood, and don't do anything (ie whining about bad beats) to mess it up!
I play a lot of low limit home games with 5 and 6 callers all the time. I almost never bluff against more than 2 players, and i usualy just bet top pair and big draws, or i just take the free card instead of just betting because you will almost always be called on the river.
Low limit with a lot of bad players is hard to beat,2 or 3 is not bad but 5 or 6 is tough. Just play solid with no tricky moves, if you think you have the best hand bet if not check, it will keep your vairance down and be prepared for a lot of bad beats.
DAVID SKLANSKYS THEORY OF POKER HAS A EXCELLENT LINE THAT IS USED MANY TIMES. AND I THINK IT APPLIES HERE. 1. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR OPPONENT HAS 2. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR OPPONENT THINKS YOU HAVE 3. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR OPPONENT THINKS YOU THINK HE HAS. MANY PLAYERS WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE AND WILL ONLY PLAY THEIR HANDS IN LOW LIMIT POKER, BUT IM SURE YOU CAN RAISE A FEW OF YOUR BUDDIES OUT OF POTS WITH A BLUFF BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO FIGURE OUT YOUR MOTIVES. DECEPTION, ILLUSION AND INSTINCT WORK VERY WELL ONLY WHEN OTHER OPPONENTS ARE THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES YOU ARE. THE CARDS ARE MEANINGLESS
I think the problem you are having here is that you are not used to playing "no foldem holdem". It sounds like your game is filled with somewhat better than average players, and you are used to your opponents having at least a couple brain cells per cubic inch of head space. Welcome to low limit casino play. No brain cells needed, just some chips and the ability to say "call".
In low limit, raising to "thin the field" is somewhat of a misnomer. It is also somewhat futile. Raising UTG may in fact thin the field, from 9 down to 6 or 7. This is the way it is. you don't raise with AKs because you are trying to reduce the # of opponents, you raise for value since they are playing hands which are SO much inferior (on the average). Flop bets and raises may do little to thin the field also, as people will play any pair, any draw (even backdoor), and any one overcard. another FACT is that ANY two suited cards will be played ALL THE TIME. I guess you didn't know it, but 72s is a great hand!!! Or at least you would think so by watching the players in low limit games!
Get used to it, in very loose games you get drawn out on a lot. You also don't do as well with hands like top pair, top kicker. the reason for this is that everyone is playing and many people are trying to outdraw you. Implicit collusion.
so, what can you do about it?
First off, play more drawing hands yourself. hands like QJs or 76s are much more valuable in this game than in a tight 10-20 game. AKs is a goldmine. you want to play hands that can WIN BIG POTS. Big pairs are nice, but they will lose 2/3 of the time or more. Get used to it. Pairs of all sizes make $$ in loose games by flopping a set and getting paid off big. The key to loose games is to win big pots when you play, but get out when you are likely to lose $$. Perhaps easier said than done, but you will get used to it. Eventually you will see that these games are the easiest to beat over time, much easier than tighter, more aggressive games. However, you will sometimes get drawn out on over and over, substaining a fairly large loss. This is inevitable.
The most effective strategic adjustments are to play more drawing hands, play more pairs, and make your raises for value more so than for thinning the field. If you really want to thin the field, you may have to check-raise more, or sometimes wait for the turn to raise. Be careful though, sometimes loose games are also very passive, so trying for too many check-raises may cost you. Charge your opponents as much as possible to play against your good hands. Raise BTF with big suited connectors. don't put as much value on hands like AKo. (I'm not saying to ignore them or not to raise, but keep in mind that in multiway pots, drawing hands are getting implied odds from big unsuited cards). Learn when to fold (it's different in loose games).
Keep in mind that you usually need a HAND to win the pot, and that bluffing and semi-bluffing are not as effective in loose games. (I almost NEVER bluff in very loose games. it is futile, you will almost always be called. Bet for value more. Again, you will almost always be called. Raise for value with your big draws.
Hope this helps.
Dave in Cali
I goofed. duplicate submissions....
D'OH!
I think the problem you are having here is that you are not used to playing "no foldem holdem". It sounds like your game is filled with somewhat better than average players, and you are used to your opponents having at least a couple brain cells per cubic inch of head space. Welcome to low limit casino play. No brain cells needed, just some chips and the ability to say "call".
In low limit, raising to "thin the field" is somewhat of a misnomer. It is also somewhat futile. Raising UTG may in fact thin the field, from 9 down to 6 or 7. This is the way it is. you don't raise with AKs because you are trying to reduce the # of opponents, you raise for value since they are playing hands which are SO much inferior (on the average). Flop bets and raises may do little to thin the field also, as people will play any pair, any draw (even backdoor), and any one overcard. another FACT is that ANY two suited cards will be played ALL THE TIME. I guess you didn't know it, but 72s is a great hand!!! Or at least you would think so by watching the players in low limit games!
Get used to it, in very loose games you get drawn out on a lot. You also don't do as well with hands like top pair, top kicker. the reason for this is that everyone is playing and many people are trying to outdraw you. Implicit collusion.
so, what can you do about it?
First off, play more drawing hands yourself. hands like QJs or 76s are much more valuable in this game than in a tight 10-20 game. AKs is a goldmine. you want to play hands that can WIN BIG POTS. Big pairs are nice, but they will lose 2/3 of the time or more. Get used to it. Pairs of all sizes make $$ in loose games by flopping a set and getting paid off big. The key to loose games is to win big pots when you play, but get out when you are likely to lose $$. Perhaps easier said than done, but you will get used to it. Eventually you will see that these games are the easiest to beat over time, much easier than tighter, more aggressive games. However, you will sometimes get drawn out on over and over, substaining a fairly large loss. This is inevitable.
The most effective strategic adjustments are to play more drawing hands, play more pairs, and make your raises for value more so than for thinning the field. If you really want to thin the field, you may have to check-raise more, or sometimes wait for the turn to raise. Be careful though, sometimes loose games are also very passive, so trying for too many check-raises may cost you. Charge your opponents as much as possible to play against your good hands. Raise BTF with big suited connectors. don't put as much value on hands like AKo. (I'm not saying to ignore them or not to raise, but keep in mind that in multiway pots, drawing hands are getting implied odds from big unsuited cards). Learn when to fold (it's different in loose games).
Keep in mind that you usually need a HAND to win the pot, and that bluffing and semi-bluffing are not as effective in loose games. (I almost NEVER bluff in very loose games. it is futile, you will almost always be called). Bet for value more. Again, you will almost always be called. Raise for value with your big draws.
Hope this helps.
Dave in Cali
After the worst poker sh--kicking I've ever taken, I've got a lot of stuff to mull over.
So here's the first in what's likely to be a long series of hands I'm going to post here for scrutiny/advice...
This hand finds me in a somewhat tight, moderately aggressive mid-limit game.
PREFLOP
I'm on the button with AKo. One early position limper, folded to me, I raise. SB calls, BB folds, early position calls.
7 small bets in pot.
FLOP: Ah Td 2d
Early position limper (EPL) bets, I raise, SB cold calls, EPL calls. I've tentatively put SB on diamonds, EPL on a weaker ace. I've got the Ad, so I don't mind diamonds coming onthe turn, since I'll have a reasonable redraw.
13 small bets in pot.
TURN: 5s
Checked to me, I bet, SB raises, EPL folds.
What am I up against? Set? Two pair (AT)? Do I call to the end, or do I pitch here?
Results to follow...
Last time on "As the Button Moves"...
I have AKo on the button.
At the turn, there's 6.5 big bets in the pot, and the board is Ah Td 2d 5s. I bet when it is checked to me, and now the SB, who has called raises cold both prior betting rounds, raises, folding the only other player in the hand.
...and now the thrilling conclusion...
I'm a stubborn SOB, so I call.
10.5 big bets in pot.
RIVER: Q (offsuit I believe ... memory is a little fuzzy)
SB bets, I call.
SB turns over ... 4c 3c for the bike?!? Not expecting that at all.
QUESTIONS:
1) When checkraised on the turn, call or fold?
2) How was my play on the river?
3) What if it was the Qd? (I think a fold is now clear---I don't think the player would have folded for a bluff raise on the end.)
4) Was the SB as out of line for playing his hand as he did as I think he is?
All comments, suggestions, or projected rotten fruit greatly appreciated.
Dave
1) When checkraised on the turn, call or fold?
I think this is a clear call. You just can't be throwing away AK in this spot every time someone check raises you.
2) How was my play on the river?
Well consider that you raised pre-flop, raised the flop, and called a check raise on the turn. It sure looks to me like you've got a hand and are going to call the river. This might be the best reason of any, to fold. I think it comes down to knowing your player.
I thought you said this game was moderately tight/aggressive? This character's play, and the number of pre-flop callers, belie this evaluation. Was this hand an aberration from the norm? See the long thread below re: pre-flop approach with AK on the button and many limpers. Not even your raise on the flop could budge this guy. I wonder if that would've been the case had you refrained from raising pre-flop. We'll never know.
If you call the turn, you must call the river when the queen comes...even if it is a diamond. The SB certainly played like a loose fish. Terrible!
The SB certainly played like a loose fish. Terrible!
How bad would SB's play have been had he held 3d-4d instead of 3c-4c? 3d-4d seems likely once you're check-raised, and it would yield the same result. 2 pair and sets probably shouldn't slow-play with a diamond draw on the board. If he's not aggressive up front, an A-5 was possible; he didn't want to get raised by a big A but now figures 2 pair is the best hand.
Fat-Charlie
I still would not like the preflop call with 3d4d, though the post-flop play would be better.
I still would not like the preflop call with 3d4d, though the post-flop play would be better.
I agree; I don't like it either. After re-reading this thread, I think A-5 suited is very likely (not dianonds). Calling pre-flop is reasonable, and not betting the flop with top pair is timid but understandable given the position and no kicker. Once he makes 2 pair, he does the right thing.
Fat-Charlie
Question # 1: Fold on the turn. the odds against you having the best hand don't support having to call here and on the river. If this was at the river, call.
Question #2: Once you decide to call on the turn, there is very little that you can do but call the river.
Question #3: See #2.
Question #4: I think he was out of line. How far depends on the blind structure, but there was not nearly enough money in the pot or opponents to justify taking one off here out of position with two babies.
you just got beat by maniacle trash. It happens all the time at low limit poker. I hope it doesn't happen so much at mid limits.
1. call him down. sometimes you will lose but often your opponent is raising with a draw, weaker ace, or something else. folding here would be giving up too much. sometimes you will be beat but whatever....
2. you have to call, the pot is too big. with 10.5 BB in the pot, you only need to be right less than 1 in 10 times to make a call here correct.
3. more inclined to fold but not always. depends on my assessment of opponent.
4. cold calling a raise in the SB with 43s is simply bad poker. playing the gutshot with a two flush on the board is suicidal.
5. Rotten fruit projected at SB.
Dave in Cali
1. See my post below. In general I would fold but it would depend on the player.
2. "In for a penny in a for pound" once you make the decision to call on the turn, I think a call on the river is mandatory.
3. Folding would be clear if the Qd shows up giving him a flush possibility which means even if he was sem-bluffing he got there. Furthermore, he would be concerned about you having a flush.
4. The small blind should not have called a raise with Four-Three suited with only two players in the hand.
Fold when the Qd falls?! We seemed to be in agreement that the SB's check-raise was very unlikely to be a semi-bluff. He also has little reason to believe our hero now made a flush. I think it is too late to fold now. [We both favor folding to the check-raise on the turn against most opponents.]
Allah frowns upon those who consider folding here.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
You have played your hand is normal fashion. SB should reason that you have a big ace. If he is a not too tricky player I would fold. You're 2 big bets from the finish line and you don't really know if you are drawing live. There are many players against which I would not fold. So, it depends. That's my final answer.
-Fred-
The decision on the turn all depends on the opponent. Some players would never raise with a hand that couldnt beat AK in that situation, and its all about knowing which players these are. I say against an opponent who seems to play normally (Meaning doesnt ever bluff or semi bluff on the turn in a multi way pot) in a limit like 10-20 or 15-30 the chances are about 80-90 percent you are losing after the turn raise.
I haven't peeked. So either you folded and would've won or donated two more bets to his whatever. SB called your pre-flop raise and cold-called but didn't reraise your flop raise. I would've figured him for the flush draw too. When you bet the turn and he raised, you're forced to reevaluate. Now it would depend on your perception of how capable he was of the checkraise semi-bluff on the turn + your estimation of what it would take to overpass him on the river.
I say the results before I prepared this post but I made my mind up instataneously when I read the original post.
You have one pair. The blind hand now has six cards. His probability of making two pair or better is substantial. He clearly puts you on at least top pair, but stil check raises you. Dump the hand. You are being asked to put up two double sized bets to see if he was semi-bluffing you. Dump the hand.
Frank
Seems to me hard to believe you should drop it here unless you ABSOLUTELY sure he has trips (and only trips as you have odds to continue if he has 2 pair). I think for a lot of people its business as usual for a semibluff raise w/ something like a pair and flush draw. I think you have to call him down.
There's a strong possibility that he has two pair here, yes, but do you have the odds to continue if he has two pair? If he has a ten and a two in his hand (more on that unlikely possibility later in the post) you have six outs to improve, out of 46 unseen cards, which reduces to 6.66 to one. At this point, the pot contains 9.5 big bets, so a call (if he has two pair without an ace) would be profitable.
However...What would be his most likely two pair, given the board? Probably Aces up. Granted, the chance of aces up is reduced by the presence of the ace in your hand, but even very loose players in a mid-limit game rarely would play 5-2 or 10-5 or 10-2, and seldom for a raise (even from the blinds). so if he has aces up--like A-5 suited-- you have only three outs-- the other kings--and thus do not have odds to draw, being a 14 to one dog.
More likely, he has a set, because the non-aces up two pair are so improbable and you have an ace in your hand, and he did call a raise cold on the flop, quite possibly lying in wait with what he figured was a profitable moneymaker, not the kind of hand (like bottom two pair, or even top and bottom or top two) where you would want to knock out the middleman (Early Position limper) in a hurry by checkraising your raise on the flop.
The wheel that he showed up with was certainly out of line, but the fact that he raised when a straight became possible meant that you had to consider it, and the 4-3 at least is more probable than 10-2.
so in most cases you are drawing as a 14+ to one dog (against the most probable two pair, or are drawing completely dead (as in the set or straight cases), although there is a slim chance that he is giving this much action with a worse ace (say A-Q) or even the same ace as you, there is the remote possiblity that he played a weird hand that you have six outs to beat, and there is the possibility that he is bluffing. But how great is that possibility?
I think it's pretty remote in this spot, because you almost certainly have a big ace, and even a maniac wouldn't think he could blow you off the hand after you have shown so much strength--as very few players can get away from big slick when they've raised with it twice--and you could even have a set of Aces or Tens, judging by your play thus far.
There is a more likely type of bluff that he could be running: He could be semi-bluffing with a draw of some type, but most players wouldn't try the check-raise semi-bluff against someone who has represented such a big hand and has not been afraid to bet it.
AND if he is semi-bluffing, with say, a gut-shot straight and a flush draw-- K-J or K-Q of diamonds, then twelve out of 46 times he will get there to beat you anyway...so this cuts into your odds calculations a little bit when you consider the possibilities of a bluff.
If you add all the rosy possibilities up, therefore, and deduct the possibility that he is semi-bluffing but will beat you on the next card, and compare the likelihood of those possibilities being the reality to the possibilities that for you are not so rosy being the case, do you have a profitable call here?
Considering the fact that you will almost certainly have to call the river if you call the turn, because now the odds against a bluff or semi-bluff will look good in comparison to the pot size, I don't think the chances of you drawing out on his two pair, having the best hand now, and not being beaten on the next card if he's on a draw, are greater than the five to one effective odds that the pot is offering. (two big bets to win about ten and a half big bets.)
Fold, but fold quickly, as if you're hand wasn't that good to begin with...And maybe you might have to make a bad call the next time some one give action, just to show people that you will play sheriff once in awhile.
Five outs you have if he has 10-2, not six. Plus I suppose the possibility that the five could pair, and give you the best hand...
Your figures make no sense.
"If he has a ten and a two in his hand (more on that unlikely possibility later in the post) you have six outs to improve"
Wrong. If he has a T2, our hero has 8 outs NOT 6! (2 aces, 3 kings, 3 fives)
"so if he has aces up--like A-5 suited-- you have only three outs-- the other kings--and thus do not have odds to draw"
What about the 3 tens?
"More likely, he has a set, because the non-aces up two pair are so improbable and you have an ace in your hand,"
Even if you hold an ace, it is still more likey for an opponent to have a 2 pair than a set.
My biggest fear in this spot would be that the raiser is free rolling with Ad Kd, or has something like Kd Qd. Either way, I think the poster has a clear call on the turn. Now if he does not help on the river, he can re-assess. The bottom line is that if you automatically fold this hand, you run the risk of being pushed all over the place in tougher games.
i don't think there is anyway this guy could have T2 or T5, so that's pretty much my point.
You're right, you do have eight outs if he has one of those highly unlikely hands. But you wouldn't know which outs you'd have, and couldn't play it that strongly.
I'm not saying you should fold every time someone raises you on the turn, but if you can't do it sometimes with a big hand, when you're big hand figures to be in big trouble, you will lose a lot of bets unnecessarily.
.
Well I peek after posting. Well you got unlucky, he called on teh flop w/ only three outs (maybe 4), getting only 10 to 2 on his call. And then he caught a miracle. Even withe implied odds he only was getting 16 to 2 on his call. What can you say? He made a neg EV play and got paid as a result.
And calling w/ 4 3 s in the SB in a 3 (maybe 4)way pot is bad news. Now I would be tempted if I was the BB but I think most posters here would fold.
Given the strength you had shown during the hand, there is little chance the SB's check-raise is a semi-bluff...(unless he's a maniac). If he is quasi-reasonable, you are facing two pair (AT) or a set; if he is a loose fish, you are probably drawing dead to a made straight. [Actually, if we assume that ELP did NOT have an ace and that the SB has AT, AA, TT, 22, or 34, there is a 48% chance you are drawing dead. If ELP did fold an ace, it is much more likely you are drawing dead.] So you have 0 to 5 outs with 9.5:1 pot odds. I would favor folding against most opponents.
A couple minor corrections. I should have typed: "So you probably have 0 to 3 outs with 9.5:1 pot odds." (not 0 to 5 outs) I also neglected the possibility that a loose fish could have A2, making it a bit less likely you are drawing completely dead. I stand by my conclusion, however.
I think that if the small blind is a reasonable player, you probably should fold.
There are now 17 small bets in the pot, and it's two small bets to you. Your odds are 8.5 to one, so if there is close to any chance tht he might be bluffing, you'd want to call. However, remembr you will have to callhim on the river too, which cuts into your odds significantly. The pot is really laying you 19small bets to 4, so your odds are less than 5 to one.
You cannot beat any legitimate raising hand here, so either he must be bluffing, or you must have good outs to suck out on him (which probably means hitting the kicker king--43 to 3 against--he wil have an ace most of the time he has two pair, and some of the time he will have a set.) So compare the odds that he has two pair out of the universe of possible hands (a set is pretty likely too, multiply it by the odds of hitting your kicker, and add that to the possibility that he is bluffing, and you will see that you should probably fold.
Which is tough to do, and you won't want to do it always because then people will start to take shots at you.
Call him down. He has something like As10s or (if this is 5-10 or lower) As2s. This hand does not indicate a leak to me. Sometimes you get beat and have to call.
Call him down. What are you going to do, fold? NOT. If you fold here you are giving up way, way too much.
Dave in Cali
Alot of people recommend folding... I think if you start folding in situations like this you are going to RUN OVER. People are goin to raise on the turn w/all kind of nonsense draws you will think he must ahve a set, or two pair and I may not have odss to continue even against 2 pair.
But you if you start folding routinely here and the players pick up on it you are asking for huge troulbe.
so if i am goin avoid troulbe i should always call when raised?
What if the player is weak tight, but check raises?
I think that even if he is a typical player, the chances that you are beat/will be beat and don't have good enough (if any draws) indicate that this is a fold.
I think that a lot of people blindly recommend calling here in this spot, without considering the particular circumstances of your hand and his hand in this spot, just because you don't want to get run over.
I think that sometimes you can get run over if you stand in heavy traffic, and this players behavior here and the possible combinations of hands he could reasonably hold indicate that his most probable holding is a Mack Truck.
You are probably beat since he could have two pair, maybe a set, and maybe a wheel. It is rare for a player to semi-bluff with a check-raise on the expensive street. With 17 big bets in the pot you are getting better than 8:1 to play against two pair if his two pair are not Aces-Up which would then give you 5 outs making the call marginally correct. However, if he has Aces-up you only have 3 outs. Against a set or a wheel you are drawing dead. It would depend on the player but against most opponents I would fold.
"With 17 big bets in the pot you are getting better than 8:1 to play against two pair if his two pair are not Aces-Up which would then give you 5 outs making the call marginally correct. "
Against a suspected small two pair you have 5 known outs (A A K K K) and 3 mystery outs when the board pairs low. Gamble up!
-Fred-
I had great cards the other night and was faced with the important (and pleasant) problem of extracting maximum value with very good but not always invulnerable hands. I'm curious to see how others would have played these two situations.
1. I'm dealt aces on the button. Three limp, I raise, the blinds and the three limpers call. The flop comes A-K-8 with two diamonds. All check to me, I bet, SB folds, BB raises, one of the limpers calls. What's the best play?
2. I'm in the big blind with a suited queen. Multiple limpers, followed by a late position raise, which I call. Six see the flop, which is king-high with two of my suit. I'm first to act and check, everyone else checks to the raiser, the raiser bets, I call and two others call after me. The turn brings the on-suit ace, giving me the nut flush. Three questions:
A) Check or bet? B) If you do check, and the raiser bets, call or raise? C) If you do check-call, and the two behind you call, and a blank hits on the river, how do you play then?
1) I would re-raise. You get two more small bets and the pot is now big enough for them to keep paying you off either with their worse hand or their draw, which they're going to keep drawing to anyway. Keep betting and raising unless and until they make you see the error of your ways.
2A) Bet. The Ace can help someone who will call, but might check behind you if you check. You might even get raised. Save your check-raises for when you want to eliminate opponents; here you want them all to play.
2B) I would call, hoping to trap the two limpers drawing dead.
2C) Bet. There are no more cards to help the limpers. If they can't call your bet now, you'll get nothing from them.
1) With a set of aces, someone raising you and a caller trapped in between, keep raising. You want the potential draw in the middle to pay as much as possible, and you also clearly have the raiser beat. In a perfect world, he'll have a big enough hand that he'll call you all the way down.
The other option, of course, is to call and check-raise the turn. This is good if and only if you are pretty sure that the BB will bet out next time. Note that the limper in the middle called two on the flop cold -- this pushed me toward just raising and assuming that he'll stick around.
2) A) Look for tells. Lean toward betting, but the first thing you should do is see if you can figure out what the action behind you might be. It's often more obvious when such a scary card shows up.
B) Call to try and trap the people behind you.
C) I'd be inclined to bet here, unless you're damn sure that the original bettor will bet. Checking down the nuts here is really dangerous -- often this will get checked down.
- target
1. Just call this raise and raise the turn if it's not a diamond. The raiser probably holds AQ, A8suited, or 88. The limper is drawing for the flush.
2. This is a difficult decision because it will look to the others like someone reeled in the flush. If you check and the other bettors are the wrong combination of timid and savvy, it may get checked around. But I would risk it. The ace + king on the board have likely helped more than one besides yourself. The pre-flop raiser could easily have AAKK, AAA, or KKK. If it's checked to the flop bettor, and he bets, just call and hope one or both of the limpers calls. If you're lucky, one of the original bettors will have caught a flush and will bet the turn and the button will raise with one of the above hands. Depending on the turn action, if the board pairs on the river, you might decide to just check and call. If a blank falls and the turn was raised behind you, check and raise. If the turn was checked around and a blank falls on the river, check again. Someone's sure to bet; then pounce.
1. I'm dealt aces on the button. Three limp, I raise, the blinds and the three limpers call. The flop comes A-K-8 with two diamonds. All check to me, I bet, SB folds, BB raises, one of the limpers calls. What's the best play?
Smooth call then bet/raise/reraise on the turn
2. I'm in the big blind with a suited queen. Multiple limpers, followed by a late position raise, which I call. Six see the flop, which is king-high with two of my suit. I'm first to act and check, everyone else checks to the raiser, the raiser bets, I call and two others call after me. The turn brings the on-suit ace, giving me the nut flush. Three questions:
A) Check or bet? B) If you do check, and the raiser bets, call or raise? C) If you do check-call, and the two behind you call, and a blank hits on the river, how do you play then?
Lead bet into a large field on the turn.
If you do choose to check, then check raise.
Lead bet on the river unless the board pairs.
1. You should re-raise since the pot is already large and the flush draws will keep paying.
2. "A suited Queen" should be no worse than Queen-Nine suited.
2A. You should bet since the Ace will usually guarantee action. The pot is large and people will be tied in. You don't want it checked around and miss a round of bets. Some fool with a card in your suit may hang around not realizing he is drawing dead.
2B. You should raise. You will usually get at least one call from the bettor.
2C. You must bet because the risk of it being checked down at the river is simply too great. Given the way you have played it so far you will usually get callers.
1. Reraise. Get the $$ into the pot NOW before another flush card comes. Charge them the max to try and draw out on you. if the flush comes, you still will have ten outs to win. Some flush cards might make you a full which would be even better. If it is checked to you on the turn, bet. Don't give free cards, even if another flush card comes.
2.
A. Bet B. Raise. C. Bet out. don't risk it getting checked around.
on the second hand, you did not mention what your suited queen was. Just because you are in the BB does not mean you should necessarily call with trash like Q2s. QTs yes, Q9s, probably, if it can't get raised again, Q2s, fold.
Dave in Cali
Re 1.: If I was on a flush draw in the BB I would call rather than raise, because raising most certainly will exclude players from the pot, so I´d put him on two pair or a set of eights and the caller most likely on a flush (or perhaps only one pair?).
Because of that constellation I´d call and raise on turn (unless a third diamond has appeared in which case I´d call because a) you still could have the best hand and b) you can improve on river and win a giant pot) to trap the caller between you and the BB. After your call on flop, the BB most probably would bet again since you have shown weakness. The caller would call again if on a flush-draw but no doubt also with only one pair since he has also cold-called the flop-raise. Then you would raise. The BB can´t really hurt you now: If it reraises it will likely make a possible four-flush fold so that a third diamond card on river no longer can hurt you, and you can cap it afterwards; if it calls, the limper will probably call too with only one pair "for the size of the pot", because he no longer can be raised. If he´s got a four-flush, he´s still not going to make a flush more than 1 in 5 times.
Hand 1: I just called the check-raise. My thinking was that my call would virtually guarantee a bet on the turn, and the guy in the middle would be likely to call it since the threat of the whip-saw is less. This seemed more important to me than punishing the case-ace or a gut-shot draw for a small bet. A blank fell on the turn, the check-raiser led, the limper followed, I raised, at which point the check-raiser folded and the limper called. Another blank hit the river, and the limper called my bet and then mucked.
Hand 2: I did check the turn, and the original raiser bet. I felt that with three flush cards on the board, a call might induce the players in between us to call and draw dead to a weaker flush, and this was better for me than try to hit the raiser for another big bet when this may have induced everyone to fold. Two players did in fact call behind me (after checking their cards). A blank hit the river. Here, I think a bet might have been the best play, but I had a pretty good read that the raiser held a betting hand, so I checked it. The raiser bet, I raised, the other two folded, and the raiser called and then mucked.
Hello All,
This is my first post after lurking for a while. I am a part time player but serious about learning holdem and have the resources to start at the middle limits where the games are good around here and the collection doesn't wear you down as much as in the 6/12 or 9/18 ($3 or $4 dead drop!). Of course, I have read most of the S&M material along with the Bob Ciaffone, John Feeney, and Roy Cooke book.
I had been playing a very loose and passive 15/30 holdem game for about an hour. The players did not know me that well and my guess is that my image was that of a reasonable recreational player based on my looks and somewhat open but serious style. By "open" I mean I have shown some bluff and a few marginal calls or raises but I am not continuously out of line (I think).
In the big blind I am dealt a 5d 4c. All limp and the cutoff seat raises. The button and small blind call. I call since there had been no limp reraising up to that point so I figure to be getting 17 to 1 on my call. I would think even Rounder would agree with this call but one never knows.
The flop comes Ks 3s 2s. The small blind checks. I BET! My reasoning was as follows:
- With the exception of the spades, the flop was uncoordinated. Since I had the top end straight draw, I doubt I would get action from any hands other than the flush draws, made flushes and sets listed below.
- If a small flush is out there, they will surely raise and I can let go of my hand now. I would pay a small price to get away from my hand at the right time.
- Other likely raising hands would be a king with a good spade, a set, or an Ace of spades with any kicker. I would fold to this raise but how bad can it be since I can make my hand on the turn and still get beat on the river? This is especially true if I am up against both a set and a high one-card flush draw.
- My bet should force out medium high one card flush draws given the fact that I am betting into a late position pre flop raiser.
- Note that this bet was not a semi-bluff since I felt that there was virtually no chance that all would fold. I guess you could call it a "Probe Bet" to gain information about my draw.
After I bet, three fold, two call, the original cutoff seat pre flop raiser calls (thank God!), and the button and small blind call. There are now 12 big bets in the pot.
The turn is a 6h. After the small blind checks, I bet my nut straight into this scary board and five opponents. All fold except for the small blind who just calls. I would categorize this player as somewhat loose, not too tricky, and not very aggressive.
BTW, after discussing this hand with one top player over coffee, I agreed that I should probably fold if raised and there was one cold caller. I believe if I got head up with a raiser, the pot might be big enough to call the turn and check and call the river (but I'm not sure if another spade came).
The river is the 2h. The small blind checks unenthusiastically. I decide to bet for value since I believe a full house would have to bet and the big flush would have already made his move. I think a small flush would only call. But I also think I would get calls from any king (most likely a king with a decent spade), middle pairs, and even an ace high since this guy would be the type to "keep me honest" if he could do it cheaply.
Questions:
1) Are there any arguments with my pre flop call?
2) Was my bet on the flop reasonable or unreasonably reckless? Keep in mind that I would have folded if raised.
3) If I was raised on the turn after making my straight, would it be right to call it down assuming I was now head up with the raiser? Remember this was a big pot and of course it would depend upon who raised.
4) On the river, was I correct to bet my hand for value?
5) Should I ask shorter questins?
Thanks In Advance,
Spitfire
I've never been a fan of betting "for information," since the information elicited is often ambiguous or misleading. In this case, your plan to bet the flop and fold to a raise is particularly questionable IMO. There is a good chance your bet would be raised by someone with only top pair or the ace of spades, making your fold a big mistake. I think you should check here, and hope your "loose-passive" opponents let you see the turn cheaply.
MJS,
This bet was more than just for information. I believe the bet could slow down drawing hands caught between my bet and fear of the preflop raiser. In addition, since it did get it heads up on the turn, I may have been able to steal if I missed on the river. When the pot is very big, I figure you got to take some risks.
Another thing I don't like about check calling is that if I don't bet, I lose the chance to slow down the action, I lose any chance at stealing later (however small), and I would probably have to fold to a bet on my left and the same number of callers, since I would have to fear the bettor already has a flush and the callers have redraws. When I bet, at least I know the bettor does not have a flush :-)
BTW, later in the post I did mention that had I been raised on the flop and it became heads up, I would take one off. If I was raised and someone cold called, I think I would fold. It seems the combination of being beat and getting beat are just too great
Spitfire
"I believe the bet could slow down drawing hands caught between my bet and fear of the preflop raiser."
Someone with a draw can't raise if nobody bets! Your bet might also allow someone to raise with a made hand to pressure the preflop raiser and players with a singleton spade into folding.
"In addition, since it did get it heads up on the turn, I may have been able to steal if I missed on the river."
My criticism was only in reference to your bet on the flop, which was called by 5 players. Betting the turn is nearly mandatory IMO.
"Another thing I don't like about check calling is that...I would probably have to fold to a bet on my left and the same number of callers, since I would have to fear the bettor already has a flush and the callers have redraws. When I bet, at least I know the bettor does not have a flush :-)"
Players will often slow-play a flopped flush, especially when expecting the preflop raiser to bet for them. Since you were the bettor, you don't have to worry about the bettor having a flush, but you do have to worry about the callers having one (especially early position callers).
MJS,
"…Your bet might also allow someone to raise with a made hand to pressure the preflop raiser and players with a singleton spade into folding".
But I would be right to fold to a made hand! BTW, I don't think a singleton ace of spades would raise from early position in this game I do think all flushes except perhaps the nut flush would raise on the flop.
"Players will often slow-play a flopped flush, especially when expecting the preflop raiser to bet for them. Since you were the bettor, you don't have to worry about the bettor having a flush, but you do have to worry about the callers having one (especially early position callers)."
In this game, I think the flush would raise on the flop unless it was the nuts (which may wait until the turn).
BTW, if I had checked and the pre flop raiser bet with the button and small blind folding, would it have been right to check raise with a weak draw? That is a raise that may get out some middle spades and the pre flop raiser would be unlikely to have the spades. But there have been too many check raise threads lately and I don't want to drive certain posters crazy.
Spitfire
May I rephrase MJS: Betting to "get information" is only good if the information is reliable AND you can use it.
In this case, IF you are SURE you won't get raised except by a flush THEN the info is reliable AND you can confidently fold; and so it would qualify as a "good" bet to get information. If you had the Ace draw then even if the info was reliable you can't really use it (you will of course call the raise) and so it wouldn't qualify as a good bet to get information.
(0) If you have been there an hour and made a couple bluffs and several marginal calls then I would say you were playing pretty loose. Expect the opponents to be suspicious when you DO bet. Even without this suspicion you can expect a stiff King to call your flop bet.
(1) Good enough call.
(2) You have a weak draw, may be drawing dead, and your image isn't going to let you bull this one through. You can also expect players to raise YOU more liberally than they would others since you "have bluff" and don't need a flush to bet out; except perhaps in THIS passive game. WOULD you bet out if you made the flush, or would you check, hehehe? Betting to drop ALL stiff spades is unlealistic: the Js is going to call. Not good, not terrible bet.
(3) Once I made the straight I would be VERY reluctant to fold for a single raise unless its Mother Theresa who raised. Additional callers make the call MORE desirable (bigger pot) than less desirable. Show the straight down.
(4) Routine bet for value on the river. Tough for you that he made the full.
(5) Probably.
Your recital was refreshing clear, especially for a new poster.
- Louie
Louie,
"May I rephrase MJS: Betting to "get information" is only good if the information is reliable AND you can use it."
Good point! But getting information was only part of the reason (see second post under MJS). I realize the information may have been unreliable to an extent.
"In this case, IF you are SURE you won't get raised except by a flush THEN the info is reliable AND you can confidently fold; and so it would qualify as a "good" bet to get information. If you had the Ace draw then even if the info was reliable you can't really use it (you will of course call the raise) and so it wouldn't qualify as a good bet to get information)."
As I later stated, I would call a single flop raise because of the chance it represents a hand such as the ace or spades with an offsuit kicker in my opponent's hand. But this was discussed later over coffee with a friend. I admit I could have made the mistake of folding in the heat of battle.
"If you have been there an hour and made a couple bluffs and several marginal calls then I would say you were playing pretty loose. Expect the opponents to be suspicious when you DO bet. Even without this suspicion you can expect a stiff King to call your flop bet."
Not that loose! Maybe "skp" loose (e.g., small pairs up front), but not "Jim Brier" tight. My bluff was one semi-bluff I gave up on the turn in a small pot. I'll be more precise next time.
"(2) You have a weak draw, may be drawing dead, and your image isn't going to let you bull this one through. You can also expect players to raise YOU more liberally than they would others since you "have bluff" and don't need a flush to bet out; except perhaps in THIS passive game. WOULD you bet out if you made the flush, or would you check, hehehe? Betting to drop ALL stiff spades is unlealistic: the Js is going to call. Not good, not terrible bet."
I would only "bull it" if I got head up. Given the presence of the king of spades on board, I would call middle spades the ten of spades on down to the eight of spades or so. But I think an early position JsTh (played in this game) would fold to my bet.
"(3) Once I made the straight I would be VERY reluctant to fold for a single raise unless its Mother Theresa who raised. Additional callers make the call MORE desirable (bigger pot) than less desirable. Show the straight down."
I'm confused here (isn't Mother Theresa dead?). Yes, the pot is bigger (but not so much relatively, given the bets pre flop), but I would think a raise and several cold calls would indicate that I was already beat and way too vulnerable if not.
"(4) Routine bet for value on the river. Tough for you that he made the full."
Who said he made the full house? I won the pot! After calling, the small blind looked mournfully at the chips and silently threw his hand in the muck. The rest of the table grumbled and pointed at me. I would guess the SB had an ace of spades with the offsuit kicker, or a king with a half decent spade (e.g., Kh Js).
After this hand, I tightened up on my bluffs and semi-bluffs for a while until my opponents were replaced by fresh meat ;-). Then I "bulled" another one but I lost my notes on that one.
"Your recital was refreshing clear, especially for a new poster."
But I am an experienced lurker :-).
Spitfire
My comments about "getting information" where more general than directed at the play of this hand.
You are not confused; Yes Mother Theresa's dead. That makes it even LESS likely she's the one that raised and makes showing down your straight even more routine.
OK, more people calling the RAISE cold may increase the chances someone has a flush; I erroneously assumed you meant players calling your bet BEFORE the raise.
OK, so I said he had a full in order to be able to say "I knew that" in case I was right. Its and ego thing.
Dare I suggest that after going out on a limb and getting "lucky" that your psycological dominance in increased such that semi-bluffing is MORE profitable than before since they are more likely to call than fold (at least call "one time") AND more likely to call than raise; you can thus bet more often with impunity. The key to this phenomenon is winning that lucky hand.
- Louie
Hi Spitfire and welcome to the 2+2 forum. Your post is very interesting and for what it is worth I will give you my assessment.
1. Five-Four offsuit is not a playable hand pre-flop and should be folded unless you are getting a free play in your big blind or you are in your small blind which is 2/3 of a bet and many players simply limp in so you can toss in another $5 with maybe $60 or $70 already in the pot. When the pot is raised you have a clear fold pre-flop. Had your little connector been suited the call would be more acceptable in my opinion.
2. Once the flop comes and it is all of one suit you need to realize a few things:
2a. Whenever the board flops all of one suit and you do not have a card in that suit you are severely handicapped.
2b. You could be drawing dead
2c. The presence of a flush draw kills some of your outs. Specifically the As or the 6s gives you a straight but probably gives one of your numerous opponents a flush.
2d. Even if a non-Spade comes on the turn that gives you a straight there are flush redraws against you at the river so when your miracle card arrives you won't win all the time because a Spade can still show up at the river giving someone a flush.
2e. With this many opponents and a flop of K-high that is single suited you cannot win the pot outright by betting and you will frequently get raised.
2f. Typical players with a big Spade (A, Q, J, maybe even a T) will stay and play.
2g. For the reasons listed above, your flop bet was a very bad idea since you have no hand and a draw that can easily lose. You have too many opponents and the board is simply too dangerous for you to be pursuing a straight draw. I would check and fold if anyone bets.
3. If you get raised on the turn after making your straight against one remaining opponent you should simply play it like a little girl by checking and calling. Of course at this point you will never fold but you can easily be beat or get sucked out at the river.
4. On the river, yes you should bet since your lone opponent has not shown any strength and worse hands will call.
5. You questions are fine and your post was excellent.
In my opinion of the 5 questions that were asked by the poster, one of them was much more important than the others. I consider the 5 4 with this flop to be an automatic check and fold situation. Its probably a good rule of thumb to follow that in a multi player pot, never play a straight draw with 3 to a flush on board, if you dont have any cards of that suit. I learned this many times the hard way when I first began to play holdem. I have flopped a made straight in that situation with 3 flush cards and been forced to fold due to the action, why get involved with just a draw? I think its important because I think its a mistake that could cost one a LOT of money over the long run. To be in situations often, where you could very EASILY be drawing dead from the flop on, is not an envious position to be in. Also I wouldnt play the 5 4 for the raise before the flop, but I suppose some players would perhaps disagree?
(n/t)
1) Are there any arguments with my pre flop call?
Your call was weak. Perhaps if you were certain to be getting 17:1 with no reraise yes, but normally 54o should be ditched in the BB for any raise.
2) Was my bet on the flop reasonable or unreasonably reckless? Keep in mind that I would have folded if raised.
IMO, reckless. Betting a straight draw into nine opponents with a one suited flop and a preflop raiser is suicidal. You would have to fold for any raise, so why bet into nine players? Someone surely has at least one spade. You have AT MOST 6 outs.
3) If I was raised on the turn after making my straight, would it be right to call it down assuming I was now head up with the raiser? Remember this was a big pot and of course it would depend upon who raised.
Perhaps you would have to call it down, now that you had gone this far. I bet if you were raised on the turn you would have a sinking sensation (rightly so).
4) On the river, was I correct to bet my hand for value?
Yes, given your description of the SB's reaction.
5. No. Your post is fine. Your play of this hand... well...........
Good post.
Dave in Cali
5) Should I ask shorter questins?
Re 4.: I think you should read the "bet when you should check" part of david sklansky´s "8 mistakes" essay. On one hand, you showed good reading skills, on the other hand, only the most terrible opponents will call on river with a pair of kings, so that play was rather marginal IMHO.
Apart from the fact that I also wouldn´t have played 54o, I believe that your overall decisions were close and that you´ve been VERY lucky this time. I mean, from all the things that could´ve gone wrong, you could´ve been beat on the flop, not counting all the other possibilities.
I agree with your call before the flop. Your bet on the flop is a tad questionable - but I like your style!
Your arguments on why you played the hand the way you did are well stated and very interesting.
My question to you is - where is this game? I love loose-passive! Most of the games I play in are moderately tight-aggresive.
Keep coming up with unique ways to play this challenging game called Hold'em.
Falcon
Falcon,
Thanks for the compliment. But then you wrote:
"My question to you is - where is this game? I love loose-passive! Most of the games I play in are moderately tight-aggresive."
Are you kidding me? Let all you smart guys on the forum know where my gold mine is? No way Jose!
Spitfire
P.S. Actually, tonight I was in an aggressive, somewhat tight game. They get like that sometimes. But my pair(s) really held up tonight so I got them again.
I know the odds of flopping all one suit are about 5 percent. But what are the odds of flopping exactly 2 cards of the same suit? Thanks in advance
If my math is correct...
Chances of flopping exactly 2 cards of the same suit is ~36.7%
After the first card is determined:
next card same suit = 12/51, then third card different suit = 39/50
probability of this instance: (12/51)(39/50)
which equals 18.35%
The scenario could also be reversed:
next card different suit = 39/51 then third card same suit = 12/50
probability of this instance: (39/51)(12/50)
which also equals 18.35%
for a grand total of 36.7%
You forgot something.
12/51 x 49/50 first and second card to be suited
+
39/51 x 24/50 third card to suit first or second
=18.35 + 36.7 % =55.05%
without the knowledge of hole cards of course
If you dealt the flop on it's own (you did not deal any hole cards). The chances of two cards of the same suit appearing in the 3 cards are about 62%.
There are 78 * 4 combinations of two suited cards, multiply this by the 39 remaining cards and divide it by the 22100 combinations of three cards.
If you hold two of a particular suit the chances of two of that suit appearing on the flop are about 10%.
the results of the above calculation is 55%. If 20 cards are dealt containing 5 of each suit the chances are almost the same.
Ignoring what is in your hand, anyone of 13 cards can be the first card. Anyone of 12 remaining cards of that suit can be the second card. So this is 156 combinations (13 x 12). However, since the order is unimportant between the first and second cards we have to cut this in half so there are 156/2 or 78 combinations of two suited cards of a particular suit. Now this can go with anyone of 39 cards that are not of that particular suit so the total number of flops containing exactly two of a particular suit is 78 x 39 or 3042. Now there are 4 possible suits so the total number of flops that contain exactly two suited cards is 4 x 3042 or 12,168 flops. Now there are 22,100 possible flops ignoring what is in your hand. Therefore the percentage of the time that the flop will contain exactly two suited cards is 12,168/22,100 or 55.1% which is most of the time.
This is = P(2nd card is of the same suit as the first)P(3rd card of a different suit)+ P(2nd card is of different suit as the first)P(3rd card makes a two flush)= (12/51)( 39/50) +(39/51) (24/50). Which is a little more than 55%.
P(A) is the probability A happens.
ALternatively one could count rainbow flops, and 3 flush flops and then substract.
P(rainbow flop)=(39/51) (26/50)
P(3 flush flop)=(12/51) (11/50)
This is a serious question...are u guys able to figure out stuff like this on the spot at the poker table? if so...sheeish, i should quit poker. this sounds worse [better for you] than counting cards at the 21 table. ok bye bye have a nice day. i'm gonna go watch xmen. and then go try to win some moola tomorrow at the indian casino. wish me luck! for luck, is still 99 percent of my game. ok, bye.
Oops, Jim is right, 55% chance of a flush draw on the flop is correct.
This repeats oldman, but might be simpler : Pr(first and second match, but not third) = 12/51 * 39/50. [12 of 51 match, then 39 of 50 don't]
Pr(1st and 3rd match, but not second) = 39/51 * 12/50. [39 of 51 don't match 1st, then 12 of 50 do]
Pr(2nd & 3rd match, but not first) = 39/51 * 12/50. [39 of 51 don't match 1st, 12 of 50 match second].
These are all mutually exclusive events, so the probabilities add, and you get 55.06%. John M didn't account for 2nd and third matching. oldman clumped the last two events as one. Jim and Dave looked at the problem combinatorically. I just thought this was a bit easier.
mth.
But please do notice that I prefaced with "If my math is correct..." LOL
Just trying to exercise brain muscles I haven't used in ten years. I'll do better next time! Thanx for the correct formula. Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong all this time!
see subject
If there is a 5% chance of flopping all of one suit, and 55% chance of flopping 2 of one suit, then there is about a 40% chance of a rainbow flop.
1/4 X 12/51 or about 12/204 (or 3/51)
How tough is the higher limits - compared to the mid-limits?
Let's say on a sliding scale...that your typical 20/40 or 30/60 game is a 5 between a 1 and 10 (10 being the toughest), the typical 3/6 game is a 1. Given this order, and no bankroll problems, how tough is the typical 9/10 handed 80/160, 150/300 games in Vegas & LA?
The reason I ask is because I've recently been playing in a 80/160 game, and it doesn't seem all that much tougher than the 40/80 games...and just a little bit more than the 20/40 games. The game is a bit tighter, but once you get your mix of fish in there, its still good.
It matters little how tough the toughers are, it matters big how fishy the fishies are. This is the prime principle of game selection, and you can quote me on that.
But primarily, what matters most is how fishy one is himself, but we tend to ingore questions like that, don't we?...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Game selection is everything, but if you want to talk "typical Vegas," then if 3-6 is 1, 8-16 is 2, 15-30 is 3, and 30-60 is 5, then 80-160 is 4. Compared to 30-60, in 80-160 the fish are much juicier, the typical regular is much weaker, but the best players are tougher and pose a danger. If your game is not nearly on par with the best players - if you have any tells or weaknesses in your game - they will be able to steal pots from you that should have been yours.
-Abdul
Thanks Abdul, coming from you, this is interesting. You rate the 30/60 game tougher than the 80/160 game...but I assume you are rating it for someone with the skills as yourself ... since you wrote "If your game is not nearly on par with the best players - if you have any tells or weaknesses in your game - they will be able to steal pots from you that should have been yours. "
So it seems like if your game is on par with the best players, then 80/160 is better than a 30/60 game, relatively.
However, what if a person's game is not as good as yours. For example, say I'm a guy who can average $50 in the 30/60 game...is the 80/160 still better on a relative basis? What if I'm a guy who can average only $10 in the 30/60 game....then is the 80/160 still better, or does it now swing the other way?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. A player averaging $50 per hour in the $30-$60 should be able to almost hold his own against the toughest $80-$160 players. A player averaging $10 per hour in the $30-$60 might get his butt kicked in $80-$160, even if the table were stocked with some pretty big fish. The reason is that the best $80-$160 players are able to take maximum advantage of the mistakes of a weak player. I can't find any good way to phrase this, but it's usually best to be the best player at the table.
-Abdul
I have found some of the "fish" in the 80/160 game are really poor players and some of the worst players in any 20/40 game too, but they have money and will always gravitate to the highest limit game, as long as it is 6 handed or more. So if the highest game is 80/160, they'll play that...if its only 40/80, they'll play that.
If the average Bellagio 30-60 is a 5 The AVERAGE 80-160 is a 6 1/2. I think you would admit this youurself with a little reflection. I believe you are subconsciously rating only those 80-160s that you play in or at least consider playing in. Often the game is so bad (Where evey single player coud beat a typical 30-60) that both you and I pass over it so quickly that it is almost invisible. But for the sake of your rankings (and to make sure the readers of this forum doin't get the wrong idea) those games need to be included.
David said he was disappointed that I didn't respond to this, so now I will, a bit late and buried.
Yes, what he says could be true. I only play very live 80-160 games, and so of course my perception could be skewed.
However...
The big 80-160 fish tend to be bigger fish than the big 30-60 fish. I get players who have almost never played poker before in the 80-160, but I just don't see this in the 30-60. The regular 80-160 fish are *much* tougher to bag than the regular 30-160 fish, however, since the regular 80-160 fish are much more aggressive and intelligent.
If there's a table comprised solely of typical 30-60 players who think they are pros, my reaction is "yikes." If there's a table comprised solely of typical 80-160 players who think they are pros, my reaction is somewhere between "yum-yum" and "hmmm", depending on whether there are any of the very best players in there. It's not uncommon to get a WSOP champion or other big tournament player in the 80-160 game, yum-yum.
-Abdul
ex-newbie I have played very little high limit (a few hours of $40-$80 at the Mirage about 3 years ago) but what I have observed is that high limit is a different game because the games get shorthanded. To begin with they normally only seat 9 players instead of 10. A few players frequently lose a lot of money in a short period of time so the game is shorthanded with less than 7 players a very high percentage of the time plus there is frequently not much of a waiting list for these big games. Shorthaned games are very much a crapshoot since you are constantly putting up blinds, having to play a lot of marginal hands, there is lots of betting and raising going on, and the swings are enormous. Most mid-level players will simply not play when the game gets shorthanded and they wait for the table to fill up before resuming. The high limit players don't have this luxury. Some of the players are quite good but many are simply players with a lot more money to lose. What is interesting is that high limit ring games frequently bankrupt many tournament superstars.
Jim, I was playing 4/8/8 last night at the Flamingo and this player I respect said if you can play holdem at 4/8/8 you can play at any level and that he plays the same game no matter where. Another player and I looked at each other and stated we change our games a lot depending on the limit. I'm not sure if he was just saying that for the tourist but I lost some respect for his game immediatly. I think you have to adapt to whatever game you are in but the probability of 15/30 players behaving like 3/6 is nil ! What's your take on this ? Excluding the wooden top with too much money and time on his hands.
I've played in a lot of 3/6 and alot of 20/40 and 40/80 games....and to me, its not close. In the 20/40 and higher games, you'll typically get 1 or 2 guys who are poor players...seeing lots of flops, calling lots of raises, but in the 3/6, you see 4-5 players like that
There are several mega-fish who regularly contribute to the 15-30 game(s) where I play. When these fish happen to show up at the same time, it is like a loose 3-6 game with $5 chips!
The biggest difference between low limit hold-em players and the mid-limit players is that the mid-limit players are more aggressive and willing to raise more pre-flop.
Jim, what kind of a bankroll would you guess a player like Phil Hellmuth must have to play in those $400-800 games, where he admits to losing $70,000 and up per-session SOOOOOOOOO often?
-Randy
Hellmuth is sponsored and usually staked like most tournament superstars who play in tournaments or live games. In addition, he has been a high limit prop for Bay 101 where they pay him a high hourly wage to play in their big games. I honestly don't know how much session bankroll you would need for a game like $400-$800 but I would think $80,000 or about 100 big bets would be right because they are frequently shorthanded with all pots getting raised so you would need about 100 big bets to play in an 8-10 hour session I would think.
The good players are much better in an 80-160 game compared to a 15-30 game. They are more aggressive, they put more moves on you, and are much more difficult to read. When the pro raises UTG his criteria for raising is a whole lot different than Jim Brier's ( no disrespect intended ). The pros reading skills are excellent. Good luck trying to bluff him. The bad players still play bad, but their play is different than the live one playing 15-30. Their play tends to be more aggressive and they tend to be much trickier. They eventually throw their money away, but not like the idiot at the 15-30 who is much more passive and checks and calls and rarely gets out of line.
good point...that's what I've been experiencing too as the difference in the poor players in 80/160 and 20/40. The 20/40 bad players are calling stations...while the 80/160 bad players are more along the lines of maniacs.
Re LA: I've only played a tiny bit of 20-40 in LA, but think the 80 games there are markedly tougher on average. However, they are only a little tougher than the 40 games. Much as Abdul said about Vegas, the best 80 players are VERY tough, tougher than the best 40 players. The 80 games are - sometimes - the kind of game no one who is careful about game selection would go near. But, often enough, they contain enough weak and mediocre players to make them beatable. I agree with Bruce's comments about the nature of those weaker players (typically).
I'm just finishing up an article in which I talk a bit about this. One of my points is that a solid winning player at a limit like 20-40 should have a good shot at winning at a limit like 80-160 as long as he works his way up limit by limit, since each limit more or less provides the training ground necessary for success at the next. Also, with a little game selection, you could ease into a limit like 80-160 by first playing only when the game is not that much different from what you're used to at a limit like 30-60. There are a number of posters here who I'm sure would do fine at 80-160 if they had the bankroll and a game available.
Jim Brier is right about the importance of being able to play short handed if you play higher. But I disagree about it being a crapshoot -- at least if you are good at short handed play and there are one or more players in the game who aren't so good at it. Good short handed players tend to do very well short handed.
I haven't played above 80 in LA, but the comparison kind of breaks down there, as the games at 150-300 and up are usually mix games. They do of course contain some very good players.
One of the biggest problems playing 80-160 in LA esp. at the Commerce is team play with a common bankroll among the members.
Bruce
So far, I haven't run into anything too suspicious. It's true that some of the players are friends, and no doubt there is some shared money in play at times. But other than a tiny bit of soft playing I haven't seen any "questionable" play. But I've only been playing in that game for a while, so I'll see. As I mentinoed in a previous post, I also think that some of the regulars, who I think are pretty honest, must serve to keep tabs on that sort of thing. The more you play in it, the better you get to know the relationships among players. That makes it easier and easier to know what's going on. I did see a couple of players joke about, but then seem truly to consider splitting the pot after one had raised the small blind out, and his friend in the big blind had called. To his credit, a prop stepped in and told them they couldn't do that.
Of course, friends who openly discuss chopping pots or slow-play with eachother are not the type of colluders who pose a real threat.
True. But I haven't seen reason to suspect more.
I play 3-6 and 6-12 hold'em, about 50 to 70 hours a month. Taking the advice of several people on this forum, I've been keeping detailed records of hands played and win-loss records. What I've discovered is that my results are largely determined by the outcome of a few hands per session, and the game has become sort of "mechanical."
For example, if I hit a couple of straights and flushes, maybe a set or two, and have a few AK or AQ hands hold up, then -big surprise- I come out ahead. The reverse of course is also true. Say I have AK and flop an ace. While there are other factors involved, whether I take that pot or not almost always depends on the A-8 not hitting his second pair, the flush and straight draws missing and nobody nailing a set.
Has anyone else ever felt stuck in this kind of rut? I'm not dismissing the importance of other aspects of the game, which do save or bring in additional bets, but usually I feel there's only so much you can do in a low limit game where most players seem not to know how much money is even in the pot.
I know I'm oversimplifying all this, and I'm not implying that the game has become boring- I'm working hard on reading hands and people, which is endlessly fascinating. Just kind of, well, mechanical. See if my hands hold up. See if I make my draws. Go home ahead or behind.
Any thoughts or comments will be much appreciated.
What you are observing is true for the higher limits as well. Your session results will be dominated by how often your hands hold up versus how often you get sucked out, how often you make a draw and what the other action happens to be, and whether or not you are getting your fair share of cards. I don't view this as being in a rut. Discovering tells, reading your opponents, psychology, image, etc. have a place for sure but in full tabled limit poker you usually need to show the best hand to win the pot. This means that you usually have to start with the best hand or have a good enough draw based on the pot size (current and anticipated) to merit playing.
As an aside, Fred Hamilton was/is one of the best bridge players in the country and he lives here in Vegas. He has been playing both $15-$30 hold-em and $5-$10 pot limit hold-em. He made the comment to me one time at the World Series that the problem with limit poker is that you have to have the best hand to win. I said, "That right Freddie, welcome to the world of limit poker."
At the 6-12 level you should find plenty of opponents (though probably not most of them) who won't automatically look you up when you check-raise on the turn or make other aggressive moves, especially when they're stuck. Some portion of your profits should come from getting these players to surrender pots. Watching for these situations requires a lot of concentration and patience, but it makes for a more interesting and rewarding game.
I have played a lot of 3/6, 4/8 here in Vegas. The game makes more sense at 10/20 & 15/30. Not that bad beats go away but at least S&M make more sense. Move up when you can. You need a challenge to improve after a certain point. Then you have to break bad lower limit habits. From my experience a 6/12 game in most places (Cali) plays like a 4/8 game here. 3/6 in Cali or Vegas is a cruel joke. If you can't elevate, roll with the punches. Good luck.
I think your correct, individual session results are basically indicitive of what bigs hands you win with.
Over time you'll win your fair share with sets and flushes and you'll lose your fair share - especially at these lower limits where many loose callers might be getting the correct odds to outdraw you.
However every now and again a poor player will play a hand like A9o out of position, you'll take the flop with your AK and you'll get called down to the river when you make top pair. As long as you aren't the player playing and calling with the A9o "in the long run" you'll start to eek money out of the game - whether this is enough money to beat the house at the lower limits is another question.
i agree with you.
i was in a 3-6 game a few days ago and it was a kill pot. [6-12]
anyways, this maniac,[i guess not really maniac, but very loose, very agressive] with a ton of chips, was in early position, and made it 12 to go, everyone else folded, and i was to his immediate left w/ A7 spades. I made it 18 to go, hoping to get it 3 handed or heads up. Rest folded but the killer called.
flop is jack-x-x with one spade.
small blind didn't do any 'acting.' [he almost always acts weird/differently when he has a hand and wants to get suckers in the pot. so i bet, killer took some time, finally called, and small blind called.
turn is a 7 [no spade]
anyways, if it's 2 or 3 ppl, i usually try to bluff, and works most of the time; thought i don't know why i tried it in this pot since there wasn't that much money in there. [i've only been playing for a year so haven't gotten to that point of being able to figure out odds on the spot and the size of the pot]
moving on, river is another rag, no flush/straight possibilities.
SB checks, I bet, and killer finally folds, i hope sb foldes cuz that's basically my only out. [what else can he be calling with]
killer calls and turns over ten-jack off... i mean...sheesh...read some posts up in here for a book...ten jack off raising in early position?!?!
With his stack of chips, I gave him some credit that he would be one of those kinda guys that would be able to lay down a hand. I mean, I've laid down quite a few really good hands, [multiway of course] and most of the time i saved money by folding.
So my point is, u really do need to have the best hand, or a hand for that matter, to win pots.
And i'm just a kid, 18. Usually when u guys see young ppl raise and look all happy w/ their cards [like wut i was doing in that hand] don't u fold immediately for the 'sucker' MUST have something?
That brings up another hand i tried to bluff in, it was also a kill pot, i had ace-king suited, and some bum decided to called a capped pot in last position w/ jack-five off? sheeish!!! why the heck do u call that??!?!?!? just cuz it's a famous hand?!?!?
anyways, it was 4 ppl, and as usual, i bet, everyone calls. [flop didn't pair me but plenty of draws]
turn is a five
i come out betting again. everyone calls.
river is yet another blank. NOTHING hit.
yet, i keep betting, finally, these 2 ppl fold, and the dude w/ jack-five calls.
and he takes down a massive pot. like i said...i fold jack five off every stinkin' time in a raised pot w/ already 3 callers, if not less...and this guy's about 30...can't he do the same!?!?!
are young, new kids that easy to read!?!? sheesh.
anyways, if any of you pros out there can give me some pointers within' this post, i'd appreciate it.
it seems like the only times i come up is when i'm catching good cards. and when i lose, it's because i got caught bluffing. and it's happen to me many times, but i still try to bluff.
maybe if enough of u guys yell at me and help me out when to and not to bluff, i'll actually remember.
i've gotten to the point where i consistently fold ace-ten off, jack-ten, even jack-queen, off, IN 3-6, of course in early position...just because of the many posts i've read about how they make second best hands...
am i playing too tight, esp since it's only 3-6? i want to learn how to get away from these hands because according to the books and u guys, it's 2nd best hands most of the time and are usually dominated.
but heck, there's bums out there they love these cards and raise with them in early position!
grrrrrrrr....ok, thanks for reading. i just needed some place to vent. have a nice day. bye bye.
Realize that many (if not most) of the players in lower limit games are there only for fun.
Some get their kicks from drawing out on better hands, some know how to play "correctly" but don't (that would be boring), and some don't know any better. Many have been playing for years and have seen every conceivable hand win, so they figure rather than being bored they'll take a stab at it.
Very few at lower limits play "by the book". Most only play their cards (and often poorly), disregarding what opponents may have. The short term luck factor may make them winners on a particular night or in a particular month which reinforces their playing habits.
Lower limit poker is very straightforward in that the best hand will nearly always win. Fancy plays will just lose money. You bet with your good hands, and fold the rest.
I personaly have a practice if I am the last man standing with any kind of hand and my oppent is under 30 i call, you would have too show me some very good play before i routinly fold against your bet. Try playing a couple of sessions where you never make a pure bluff with nothing and no draw. Young people just do not get a lot of respect at the poker tables, so do not hardly ever bluff and your variarence will go way down.
While many LL games fit this pattern, many do not. I have been in many LL games where most of the players are reasonable or at least trying to improve. Poker is fun, but why risk a lot of money while learning to play well? True, at some point you nneed to move up to learn, but many of us would rather have fun without risking the house.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is you MUST observe and understand the character of the game you're sitting in. It may not fit the pattern John describes. There are plenty of tricky LL players who enjoy putting moves on you. There are also plenty of fish in search of a hook.
Fat-Charlie
some would say that making it 18 with A7s is also a maniac move. Pick your spots more carefully. Sure, he had j-10o but what if someone behind you has pocket 7's or Ace/.big.
Fox
If you play according to the books, you won't be playing many hands, and of those hands that you do play, very few will flop anything worth continuing.
So, yes, you're nightly results will mostly depend on a few big hands. It is because of this, I think, that many otherwise good players go on tilt and become losing players. To play poker well, you need to have the perseverance to sit through many folded and/or losing hands without becoming emotionally involved.
If you read Mason Malmuth's books, you will learn about the tremendous fluctuations involved in poker. He claims that a professional (winning) poker player could likely be a LOSER in any given year. I find that hard to believe (not doubting him, though), but it does give you an indication of fluctuations in the game.
So while most of the game depends upon your few good hands holding up, you must then concentrate on the extra bets you can win (or especially) save to differentiate you as a "winning" player.
...from everyone, especially Jim Brier and Chris Alger, whose posts I always read and learn something from. Chris, your point about check-raising is very true for certain opponents; I LOVE when you make a move and you can see the wheels spinning and the possibilities and probabilities being calculated, and you sort of look at each other and you both know what's going, and amazingly, this all takes place in a matter of seconds...
Unfortunately, in the games I've been playing in these moments are relatively rare. Tonight I won a big pot right before I left, turning a boat after flopping a set of queens and getting a lot of action from a flush and the trips, and I ended up about $480. But it's funny: while I was happy, of course, for the winning session, I didn't feel like it was because of my stellar play or anything. And similarly, when I lost the past two weekends, I didn't really feel I was playing poorly.
Still, I love this game.
I found myself stuck in a similar rut when I lived in Vegas, and ground out 5.75 an hour for about 800 or 900 hours (playing about 25 hours a week for the better part of a year) in 3-6, 4-8, and 1-4-8-8 (by far the most profitable) hold em games, before I got bored and started looking for further challenges. So I switched and when I could I played 5-10 stud at the mirage and discovered I could earn about $20 an hour there--so far so good. Then I got into some higher limit holdem and stud games (mostly $10-20) and blew a nice bankroll of a couple or three thousand dollars in no time at all. The problem was (and still is for me a lot of times) that I am not as good as I wish I was, and I end up playing too often in tough games at stakes that are too large for me. I do this because low limit poker played well is boring.
And also because I'm a moron.
SO BE CAREFUL
Playing 8-16 recently and had pocket aces twice with similar flops.
First hand. I have pocket aces. I raise late. Button raises. Most people including the blinds call the raises. There is 6 people in. Flop is 3 spades. I don't have the ace of spades. Little blind bets. I call and the button calls. Turn pairs the board. Little blind bets and I call and the button calls. River is nothing. Little blind bets. I call and the button folds. Little blind shows the q7 of spades for a flush.
Second hand. I have pocket aces. I raise late. No other raises, 4 callers. Flop is 3 spades. I have the ace of spades. Little blind bets, I raise. He calls. One other person stays in. Turn is a king which pairs the board. Little blind bets. I call. River is nothing. He bets, I fold and he shows a King for trips.
Should have I stayed as long as I did in the first hand? I figured little blind might have the ace or king of spades and was betting the draw. When he bet the river I probably should have dumped my hand.
How about the second hand? I didn't think he had the flush and I was correct.
Thanks for any opinions.
Ken
On the first hand you should have capped pre-flop with pocket Aces. I would have raised the flop bet with my big over pair since flopped flushes are hard to come by and I want to charge everyone who stays for the privilege of drawing. I would have stayed to the end as you did.
On the second hand I would play it the way you did but I would have called the river bet because with pocket rockets in a heads-up situation I want them to show me the better hand although with a three flush on board as well as a big pair your fold is understandable.
I watched a 5/5 Pot limit hold em game that was spread at the Orleans tourney. I was wondering what a basic strategy is for this game. Anyone have a basic plan? Im thinking about trying it out.
I was able to stand behind the player who was winning the most in the game and he would come in from any position with virtually any type of hand and would even call the opening $20 raise with hands I thought were pretty crappy.
Since I was standing behind him, I was able to see his cards. I saw him call the opening raise with kd8d, 2d3d, 67, qj and others I cant remember. He also won a pot in which he had called the 5 blind in early position with A8 offsuit and won after being bet into pretty heavily, he check called him all the way.
Mike Paulle was in the game and looked like he did well in a short period of time.
In another note, Ive sat down in two 10/20 games and one 6/12. They were both pitiful in my opinion. I left after 30 minutes in each of the games because they were so tight. I only saw one hand go to the showdown. Most hands went raise, folf, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, next hand. I won all my hands by raising. I guess I could have loosened up and tried to steel blinds, but it was just too damn boring.
I left and played a $40 satelitte and had a lot more fun(especially since I won it)
Has anyone else been to the Orleans tourney? Have you found the games to be good or bad?
thanks
I suggest Bob Ciaffone's Pot/no Limit book, and there's always Doyle's bible. I haven't read TJ's book yet. Anyway, Doyle likes aggeression and picking up pots nobody bets at. Bob is less aggressive and seems to like trapping opponents.
For aggression: you're getting good implied odds with many hands because once an opponent gets involved, his whole stack is at risk. You're also maximizing the "being there" value of hands; just by being in the pot you may get the chance to out-play an opponent.
For a more passive style: you spend less time with your dick on the table and are less likely to earn the nickname of Stubby. Once you spring a trap, opponents are reluctant to mess with you; Lorena may be your middle name.
Fat-Charlie
In big-bet poker, a weak limit player with heart is going to BEAT a solid limit player with no heart. Get heart, THEN look at your hand.
Raise-and-take-it games are very profitable. You need desperately to be on your best game so you can manage your stealing frequency such that they kind-of suspect you but not enough to do something about it. You should get 40 hands per hour. If you steal 1.5 times more than your share that's $22.5/hour in a 10/20: pretty good, eh?
- Louie
I was in the big blind and checked with 34 of hearts. The flop came Kxx, with the xx being hearts. Under the gun bet, everyone folded, and I called. The turn was the King of hearts. He bet, I raised, he called. The river was a blank, he checked, I bet, and he deliberated for a while, and finally called.
Should I have raised the turn with such a small flush? Should I have bet the river?
This guy was capable of betting out on the flop with anything including middle or bottom pair or a flush draw, but I put him on a king.
Your narrative is confusing. Pre-flop you got a free play in your big blind with no one raising. How many opponents took the flop with you? If only one or two I would consider leading at this flop having a flush draw since they may all fold and you have outs if you are called.
On the flop, I assume you checked first and then called the under the gun flop bettor which is fine.
On the turn, he cannot bet until you check so I am assuming that you check-raised which is fine.
On the river, again how can he bet before you have acted?
The answer is that you should bet or raise the turn and bet the river depending upon who is supposed to act first.
Sorry, screwed up on that first post. There were three people including myself that took the flop. I chekced the flop and called the under the gun.
Then I check raised the turn. On the river, I bet out.
Sorry about the confusion.
Might as well bet if you are going to call anyway. But a lot depends on what XXX are and whether he could have filled on the river. Your turn checkraise was good, ballsy but good. Know your player. How did he react to the checkraise ? That's going to tell you where he is, if anything. I think you made two extra bets here, he might have checked the river. BUT in my opinion you have to lay down to a reraise or raise on the river.
Your analysis ability will improve when you routinely get the narrative straight the first time. Practice.
For those who don't think a flush with one pair on board is worth one raise head's up when there has been no raises so far ..... get a night light.
Well played, except the part about not betting or raising the flop. But it sure LOOKs like he has a King (he's UTG) and so will be showing this hand down, so I can't fail you for not raising.
If he'll bet any pair and any draw then intuitively you can (and did) see that there when he bets there are lots more pair hands than flush draw hand, especially since you have two of that suit.
- Louie
He had 99?
40-80 holdem at Commerce
UTG limps; he is seemingly an action player who I was unfamiliar with. He had been playing for about 1 hour.
I am in the middle and everyone passes to me and I raise with pocket Jacks. Everyone else folds.
The flop comes J22
UTG bets and I raise on the flop. UTG reraises. I raised 18 more times before I finally stopped with UTG getting the last raise in. Blank comes on the turn and river. I check and call on the turn and river. UTG turns over J2s.
At what point do you stop raising your opponent?
Bruce
He bets anything you raise with jacks full. He must think you have either A)Top Pair B)An over-pair C)2 cards higher than a Jack.
His re-raise signifies he has top-pair or better, maybe a Bluff with overcards.
Your next re-raise means you at least have an overpair.
If your opponent now re-raises you again he has to have at least two Aces in the Hole.
Now your re-raise signifies that you must have Jacks full since you shouldn't be raising in middle postion with any two card combo that has a "2" in it.
If your opponent now makes an other Re-raise you have to think he has got two "2"'s in the hole, or is just way out of line. I would call it down from here.
So, the way I see it, if it gets to 7 bets on the flop you should be beat.
CV
40 on flop...18 raises...if my math is correct...that's almost a grand right there. holy cow. what's the usual buy in for this kinda game? someone spot me up and i'll play! ok have a nice day. bye bye.
that's why u don't play jack-2. too bad dorks in 3-6 don't listen and read!!!! grrrr, ok bye.
Most players buy in for a rack. The game is played with ten dollar chips, so that translates into one thousand dollars in chips. The minimum buy in is ten times the big blind, four hundred dollars.
Bruce
" Against observant sane players its easy: when you have reasonably represented your hand and the opponent raises anyway. See CV's post.
Otherwise, after about 10 raises. Or 18. I don't know. If its against a real aggressive player you can easily go to the felt since there are lots more weak raising hands than nuts.
What trouble's me most about this is that you've played with him for an hour and the best you can do is the mild analysis: "seemingly an action player". If he likes J2s UTG then he likes LOTS of other hands in other positions. If he put in all that money then surely there have been other hands he's overplayed. Either he suddenly snapped or you need to pay more attention.
BUT WAIT!!! Notice that JJ and J2 are both EQUALLY the 2nd nuts. Maybe he's just a tad bit less disciplined than you and would have stopped at 19 raises. Can you see where I'm going with this? ..... :)
- Louie
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt with my description of him and trying to present the hand with some degree of objectivity without being totally biased. He had gotten out of line twice previously since he began playing. Once he overplayed pocket Aces and the second time with the dumb end of a straight he gave maximum action on the turn and river, but certainly nothing like the hand with me. I came real close to raising him again on the river, but I kept saying to myself, "What else can he have?". I was dumbfounded when he turned his hand over. I felt like I lost the hand. I flopped "gin" and I allowed my opponent to get the last raise in.
Bruce
Its important to mention he's grossly over-played his hand a couple times. "Seemingly an action player" is much different than "mego-maniac". Heck, I'm "seemingly an action player" but you had better not go more than 4 raises against me.
If he's willing to go to the felt with 2nd or 3rd nuts (even if he doesn't understand "nuts" in holdem) then: there is one way he can have 22 and two ways he can have J2 (AND he may very well have raised pre-flop with 22 and can still, I suppose, have AA or A2) then you are getting AT LEAST 2:1 for your money. Certainly go to the felt if you have $$ in your pocket. Perhaps go half way if you cannot rebuy to insure you get another shot at him.
The trick here is to notice if, while wielding a big non nut hand, he has EVERY failed to get the last raise in.
- Louie
Eighteen in this spot seems kind of like a lot...After five or six raises, you could stop, let him bet it on the turn, and put in a big raise and see what he does.
I think you're right about the action player thing--that's clearly a good read!
Nither one of you had the nuts, I would say you both played foolishly to go 18 raises.
Coyote
Funny thing is, after there are more than 22 bets in the pot, he actually is getting proper odds to call (based on what each of you held).
I stopped after 4 raises with pocket AA on flop of A44. then check called out vs 44
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 11:14 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Nichelson (chris_nichelson@ltsc.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 2:06 a.m.
Posted by: kanscoyote (kanscoyote@webtv.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: cazz (pcazzola@interfold.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: TONY G (tonyg49@mail.idt.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
I wonder in some weeks back to play 15/30. Lots of empty seats so I don't let them guide me to the table full of sun glasses, headphones, poker ball caps, and old men. Instead I sit into a nice game with 2 open. 2 regulars winning big, a loose aggressive player, 2 tourist, the rest wannabees. I take seat 5. (I'm an unknown in this venue) I hadn't got my chips unloaded yet before the "vulture" sits down in #6 from another game. He has about $100 but borrows $100 from his girl friend right away. I started feeling like a target and decide to wait for my blind. Not much happened, a couple of raise/folds. Now I'm BB and have AK. Vulture raises before the cards are out. No callers, I repop, so does he. I call. Flop came A93 two diamonds. I bet, raise, reraise, reraise, I call. Turn blank, I bet,he raises all in. Well he showed me A9 spades. I'm out of $200 my first hand, umm , not the plan.
In SB now, I 'm looking at A5 offsuit as cutoff and button call. Then I had a revelation. These players don't have an A or they would be raising me out of my chair already. I raise, vulture reraises, everyone drops. Flop, I don't remember except A and 2 rags. I bet he raises I reraise, he calls. Turn is another rag, I check he bets, i checkraise. He calls. I bet the river,(call), and show him my big old A5 to get better than even now.
I post this not to say how great my play was but ask what you think of the thought process on both hands. If "vulture" had a bigger A he was gonna have to show me. The only thing I can figure him for is big pair in hand #2 and thinking I'm on tilt now. I might have been ! "Vulture" now scrams and I settle down for a modest win since Mr. Aggressive didn't respect my raises anymore. Comments Welcome.
You should have seen the vulture comming and "move left, young man, move left".
Nice read of vulture having an Ace when he looks at one card and raises.
Even if no other player has an Ace or a Pair I don't think A5 is much of a favorite at all. The fact that it is the "highest hand" before the flop doesn't count for all that much vrs 3 opponents: you have to improve to win.
I think you overplayed both hands. Its hard to believe your Ace-stiff won the second hand.
Are you sure Vulture is a "vulture"?
- Louie
Hand 1- You were very unlucky that the vulture flopped two pairs, but nevertheless you overplayed your hand.
Hand 2- I don't like your raise with A5 in the SB with three other players. You probably have the highest hand, but you have poor position and you need to improve.
Bruce
I can't fault your play of the AK hand. I don't like your preflop raise with the A5, however. In addition to reasons mentioned by previous posters, I would be suspicious of the vulture's open-limp from the cut-off seat; he could be slow-playing a big pair in hope of winning more than the blinds (which seems confirmed by the subsequent action). Your preflop raise could also reduce your action when an ace flops.
Sorry for the confusion. I'm in #5 , vulture #6, filling the table. He played the first hand with me from utg and the second from the BB. On hand 1 he raised before cards were completely dealt out to the button. In hand 2 his expected reraise helped eliminate two limpers. Yea, he got lucky the 1st , I got lucky the 2nd. I call him a "vulture" because he seemed to be walking around looking for a the live ones. He paid the $15 blind before I got involved and didn't seem to work anyone else like this. Yea I think anyone raising the blinds with A9 suited under the gun has bad intentions. A Weaky was also in seat 4. "V" left after hand 2 but not the casino, just to another game. Maybe A9 suited IS a raising hand utg in some circles. Either way I was happy to have him gone.
Sounds like a pissing contest. But, it looks like everything evened out.
I have a few questions in this post. I am playing a lot of shorthanded holdem as of late and am wondering about certain strategies. These questions are based solely on theoretical aspects and are ignoring the whole idea of occasionally varying ones play.
Q1 - If it is a 3 handed game, is it always incorrect to call as the button preflop. I tend to only play hands that I raise..
Q2- If it is a 4 handed game, Is it always correct to open with a raise if you play from the cutoff seat? If not what hands would you smooth call with? In 4 handed I almost always open the pot with a raise as well
Q3- Now...in 5 handed I believe its getting trickier. But still should I always open with a raise as the UTG? I still will do this if I play as the button or cutoff, but what about when you are UTG....What would you guys say??
Opinions appriciated! Also... how much stronger does your hand have to be to raise from the cutoff than from the button position. I will raise any ace from the button, what should my kicker be to raise in the cutoff for example....
There is no trick. Always raise as the bring in.
Pretending several players have folded and play 2+2 full game starting hands is a great way to start.
- Louie
Having said that, there ARE certain types of opponents who play so predictably that flat calling them with many hands is very profitable.
This question is full of pitfalls. It's so dependant on the opposing players' tendencies it's un-answerable. Most players are not very good at short-handed games, if they are- find a better game.
You said "opinions appreciated" so, here's mine. I play a lot of shorthanded hold-em. In fact I look for shorthanded opportunities and consider it a strong point of my game. BTW, my favorite situation in poker is on the button in a 3-handed game. As far as "ignoring the whole idea of occasionally varying ones play.", I don't think you can ignore that because it is a huge part of shorthanded play. Example, sometimes I'll call on the button with a big hand, or fold a normally raising hand, (Axo), based on recent prior action. Meaning: If you raise on the button in a 3 handed game every time you are going to get re-raised from the blinds more often. Also, it is easier to get a line on your play while playing shorthanded since the hands come so much quicker. In a 4-handed game I would play the cutoff position almost like the button in a 3-handed game. That depends on the player on the button. If he is agressive and at all deceptive you have to be careful not to be too agressive as cutoff. Generally I find a 5-handed game to play much differently than 3 or 4. I'm not nearly as agressive in a 5-handed game though I am still probably more aggessive than most.
40-80 Holdem at HPC: Very loose game being played at a fast and furious pace. There are three solid players. The rest of the field consists of loose cannons.
UTG limps. The next player raises. He normally plays well, but has had three big hands cracked and is on tilt. The liveliest player three bets it. I am in the cutoff seat with pocket Nines. The button appears to be folding. The big blind hasn't thrown a hand away in this type of situation since Jimmy Carter was president. The limper will more than likely call.
I think I probably am up against an overpair. If not it's unlikely pocket Nines will hold up in a multiway pot and I'll need to improve. I figure I'll have including myself 5 way action. If I flop a set and it holds up I'll win a monster. If I am up against and overpair I run the risk of being up against a higher set.
What should I do? What is my best course of action?
Bruce
Raise with AA, KK, AK, call with QQ, AKs, AQs and KQs. Fold everything else. You describe the other players well, why don't you describe your image as well?
while I tend to agree with the above response. This is a hand that could easily win in a showdown w/o improvement in a game as you describe. It is also easy to release this hand on the flop if threatened by the board. However, this hand if it should improve will more then likely lay you much better profit to see the flop 11 times in same game then what you would save folding it 11 times. With loose cannons like this and one on tilt when you improve you will probably win 15 big bets or more, especially if they do a little betting/raising for you. I've seen this before and these type players will often not even notice you or think you to be on a draw and will 2, 3, and 4bet AK, AQ, when an ace hits. 80 % of the time in this situation when an ace hits if I'm so lucky to have my set hit too I will make a large profit letting them raise-reraise, and I will finally "pop it" once on tiver just in case they actually do have AA.
My opinion this game......see the flop.....play it well after.
Your presumption of being up against a higher pair is hopeless. Even non-tilting solid players are favorites NOT to have a pair when they raise, and obviously loose cannon's don't need a big pair to 3-bet.
If you flop a set can you expect the opponents to eventually invest 10 times your investment, or 30 half bets? Yes, I think so considering the loose cannons in the game.
Even though 99 is going to win fairly often without improving, you may need to presume to need the set in order to avoid calling multiple raises later when there is a single over-card.
Call.
- Louie
A set of nines has the highest chance of getting cracked compaired to other sets. Entering a capped? pot with zero invested, with no guarantee of 5-1 pot odds is simply gambling. Isn't that what you'd expect of your opponents?
What will you do when the flop comes 7 7 4 ? Are you in a +EV position? Maybe, but you'll be putting in a few more bets even if it's wrong because the pot is big.
If you had already invested one bet and it came back capped I'd suggest a call, otherwise dump it. If it's correct to call then it is by only the smallest of margins, you're dumping very little.
-Fred-
You are describing a situation where you will probably be getting large enough implied odds to make your call correct, but it is close. You are putting in $120 before the flop. You need to make approximately $1100 profit those times that you flop a set and it holds up. $600 of that will come from action before the flop. If you believe that another $500 is there, your call is correct.
Note: the $1100 figure is based on having a winning set about 10 percent of the time.
Mason, Since there is 5-way action for 120, isn't the profit 480 pre-flop with 620 required after?
Responses were appreciated. A couple of points:
My opponents perceptions of me range anywhere from being a tight but aggressive player to a rock, depending upon who you poll.
The tilt player had pocket Queens.
I called pre-flop and it was capped by the big blind. UTG called so it was 5 way action before the flop.
A dream flop came: 955 with two clubs.
UTG led, tilt player raised, three better made it three bets, and I capped it. Four players including myself put in four bets on the flop.
A club came on the turn. The three better preflop bet and I raised. Tilt player called and three better called.
A King of hearts came on the end. It was checked to me and I bet. Tilt player check-raised and the other player called and I called. I thought about raising, but I just called.
Tilt player made a desperate bluff at the pot with his pocket Queens and the other opponent showed 56s.
Only in America!
Bruce
Congratulations!
Imaginge how you'd have felt if you'd thrown the damn thing away...
Last nite, 6-12 game in nor-cal bay area. got into good 6-12 game but suffered 5 "nice hand" situations by the big underdogs. Now I'm stuck 1 1/2 racks and 2 "live ones" leave game and were down to 5 handed, I pick up a couple small pots, then we are when a off duty dealer steps into game. She has dealt to me enuf to know much of my game however I also know her to play way too many hands and call too much. We are down to 4 handed and I pick up pocket aces in BB. she is SB. button folds she calls as she has not let a hand go in 20. I raise. (I tend to play a little passive ONLY raising with pocket pairs above jacks, and AK.) I expect that she'll call with any pair after flop or any real draw. Flop is rags rainbow (not important what) I bet, call, Turn brings 2nd heart, I bet, call. river another heart she bets I disgustingly call to see her K4 hearts and she takes pot with no draw no pair on flop.
for the next 1/2 I win a few small pots but up against her she stays with rags and keeps calling. when the game breaks she is down 1/2 rack and I've not moved in either direction.
Is this to be expected of shorthanded play?...
Am I putting too much value on my hands?
While I'm respected by many players for my play, It seems the live aggressive players are the ones I can't beat. after game broke we sat in 3-6 for a while.
A regular 10-20 player sits down. when he's UTG pre flop he raises. Games is realtively tight passive. I have button and KK. I three bet. BB calls we see flop 4 handed (someone in middle called). Q high rainbow rags on flop I bet 2 callers,
turn rag, I bet, 2 callers,
River ace UTG BETS!\
damn....I call he shows A2os !!!!
I can't beat these type players?.....6-12 to 9-18 I usually do ok. I'm tight...my brother says sometimes weak tight, which is probably correct but I get so tired of huge underdogs drawing out w/o pot odds.
I don't seem to mind it if they are getting odds or they play a grp 1-4 late even if it is raised, and draw out. usually I will lay down on flop or at least by turn if I don't hit my hand.
should I change my game? Is this just part of variance?
I have looked over my books for month of JUNE.
I averaged $23hr in 6-12 games.
But in 3-6 or O/8(4-8w/kill)my numbers were much lower. in factI was winning in O/8 untill I took a bad losing session in a very very live game which left me in negative for the month for O/8.
All comments welcome!
Q#1 In short-handed play, the limit essentially doubles ie. 6/12 becomes 12/24 because the blinds go by so often. Large increase in fluctuations.
Q#2 I don't think you put enough value on your hands, especially short-handed. Playing tight is fine, but I think you need to raise more pre-flop. Here is an example. In a 4/8 hold'em game, I'm dealt A-10 of clubs on the button. UTG, a friend of mine, raises, everyone else passes to me. I've seen him call with weak hands at times, but I feel that since he raised he has either a big pair or (most likely) a better ace. A $3 drop is taken from the BB (blinds are 2 and 4) so there is not much money in the pot. I think for a few seconds, then fold. Sure enough he shows down AQ.
Same cardroom, different 4/8 game. We're 7 handed. Again, I have A-10 on the button, this time offsuit. Two players limp. I am pretty sure they are both weak. I raise. Both blinds call, as do the limpers. Flop is Kh 10c 9c. Checked to me, I bet. SB and one limper calls. Turn is the king of clubs (I have the ace of clubs). Checked to me, I bet. They both call. River is a blank. Both check. I feel that at least one of them is on a draw, so even though I am 90% sure I have the best hand, I don't value bet. My hand is good. Didn't see limper's hand, but SB has J2 (both red). Three outs on turn!
If you don't ever raise with lesser aces and medium pocket pairs you aren't going to get enough value for your hands and you will be too predictable.
One last thing. In those smaller limits that you seem to be frustrated about, the drop and tokes play a very large factor, much more than most people think. The only reason I play 4/8 all the time is because the club I play at gives the players $30 at certain times of the day (players who take this "special" must play three hours).
As for having trouble beating bad players, short term suck-outs are part of the game. I raise with AK early position. 5 or 6 players call. Flop is A J 9. First player checks, second player bets, I'm next. Normally I would raise but I just call. Everyone else calls. Turn is a 10. Same action as on flop. I am quite confident I have the best hand, so I raise. Everyone folds to the checker who calls, as does the bettor. River is an 8. Same action as on flop and turn. Normally I pay off on the river but I know that against this player the only way I could have the best hand is if he misread his. Checker has Q9, Bettor has AQs.
The main point I want to make here is that after the turn, there are 9 cards that kill me (2 9's 3 K's and 4 8's), and 33 that don't (42 unknown cards). Disregarding the money in the pot before the turn, on the turn I am a 3 and 2/3 favorite and I am getting 2 to 1! I was a favorite on every bet I put into the pot. This is how money is made.
Would say more, but feel that I've taken up too much space already. Hope this info helps.
Falcon
$10-$20 with a straddle button. I am in the straddle with QJo. UTG who is tight but not tough (TP)calls the $20. Loose aggressive player (LAP)in middle position calls, and a normaly very solid player (SP)calls $10 in the BB.
The flop is J93r
SP bets, I raise, TP calls $20 cold, LAP makes it $30 and SP caps at $40. I fold, TP folds, LAP calls.
Turn is an off Q
BB checks, LAP checks.
River is a blank
BB checks, LAP checks. BB shows KJo, LAP shows AJo.
My questions are:
1). Does anyone disagree with my fold with 18 bets in the pot? (I discount $5 due to Chicago area rake)
2). Did SP overplay his hand?
#1.You were beat in 2 spots and hittin your kicker could have made a straight or worse,your redraw is usually history here so pot odds are meaningless if you dont think their any good.#2.Im not saying he played it perfect(I may have tried to shut out players with a ck pop on the flop if I thought I could get the late position player to bet and I make it 2 cold to everybody else.) No,he saw the turn and river for forty and charged drawing hands (if there were any )the max on the flop.He also shut out a hands like QJ,pocket pairs,guts,overcards,or other combos that would make somebody suck out for one bet .I think you were in a tough spot.Once he got rid of everybody he ck'd it down.Just my take on it.
SP surely has you beat and didn't flop 9s+3s; so you correctly presumed you had AT BEST a 3 card out to a non-nut hand. 9:1 is not enough.
SP isn't going to get away from this hand against LAP, so its well worth one more $10 bet to get you out of there. Besides, he can EASILY have both you and LAP beat. Since he's obviously going to at least call its a routine cap to put pressure on you; ESPECIALLY since you are getting the right odds to take your 3-card draw for one bet but not for two.
Just like its correct to make unlikely bluffs into big pots, its correct to make unlikely raises if it increases your chances to win, even a little.
- Louie
Well played by everybody, except for LAP failing to bet the turn and river.
Thanks Louie. Excellent analysis. Can I pick your brain on 1 more aspect of this hand?
Namely, what should SP's thought process be if LAP does in fact continue to bet the turn and river? There were a total of 4 players in for $20 on the flop and the 2 that folded were not exactly loose fish (although I do swim a little :>)). Obviously, neither of us (the folders) had QT. Given this and the fact he is looking at 2 jacks himself, doesn't this increase the likelihood of a set or a minimum of QT for LAP? Since SP cannot even beat AJ how clear is his call on the end? On the other hand, it is also likely that SP has QT, QJ, or J9. So are you saying that LAP bets the end for value? Thanks again Louie.
Kevin
Lets look backwards. I bet and raise with top pair 2nd kicker and get reraised by what is logically only a better hand. I call, call, and fold the river. If this is the "correct" way to play the hand then I will do it often.
If the opponent knows I will routinely call-call-fold when I am "obviously" beaton then surely he's going to take lots of shots at ME. Wouldn't you? It only costs him a couple/3 extra bets to win the entire pot, and appears to have an excellent chance to do so.
This means its correct to rarely fold solid hands heads-up, baring some disaster like runner-runner over-cards 4-flush. This means its usually correct to go ahead and bet for value on the river with the minimum hand you "obviously" have (AJ in this case) since the opponent is supposed to make the routine hope-he's-out-of-line call.
But you have a good point that the existence of BB raising decreases the chances SB has a Jack, and AJ can easily be beat. THIS may be a reason to check it on the river. But betting it sure enhances the times you take the shot with the busted 4-flush since the opponent knows you WILL bet marginally on the river. In which case .....
Louieisms: (1) "Good hands are ones that win show-downs. Litterally". (2) "In limit, almost ALL big pots should be shown down"
- Louie
Hi Louie. You made a comment about limit poker that in limit all big pots should be shown down. I for one agree with this statement and can not emphasize how important it really is to limit poker. I violated this rule in a monster pot with a pair of KKs and would have won the pot but i did'nt call the 20 on the river. So i for one will not violate that Louieism it will be a lot richer as a result. Thanks Ice
Your fold was quite correct. I believe the big blind over played his hand by capping the betting on the flop with his top pair/excellent kicker. It is too easy for him to run into AJ or two pair with this strong betting which means he is playing with hardly any outs.
The LAP isn't so aggressive if he failed to bet either the turn or the river. He should bet the turn when his opponent shows weakness by checking and if he is worried about a check-raise then he should clearly have bet the river when he is checked to a second time.
Hero is in the BB with A8o
Average player on the button open-raises, LB folds. (Heads-up)
Button is the type of player that would raise with any pair, ace or two big cards.
What are my wisest options and why? (a) fold (b) call (c) reraise
Hero just calls and the flop is K 9 8r
What is my best play now? (a) Bet (throw a rock and run) I have bottom pair and an overcard.
What if he raises on the flop? (b) Check raise and bet again on the turn if not 4-bet on the flop? (c) Call (d) Fold
Comments please:
Since you didn't reraise on preflop you really don't have any idea what he is on - I give you a 50-50 chance of having a winner now.
I'd be using my player reading skill to see if he hit the flop and proceed accordingly.
Normally I'd bet the flop without hesitation. If he just calls I bet the turn if he raises I consider dumping the hand.
Call the steal raise from an average opponent. Bet your bottom pair on the flop, and if raised, call. Lead on the turn most of the time. If a A or 8 turns, consider a check-raise, but just lead if another K falls and see if you get raised.
You've defined the player which can also define your best action: Fold!; let them have one-and-a-half small bets and get on to the next hand and round. If they try to steal again in the next hour or so and you have A8 or better, RERAISE and play because you've set them up to try to steal. Of course, they may have gotten lucky again and have that pair or two high cards but usually a rereraise will tell you that. Don't call a stutterer unless they're a proven aggressor.
If 3-betting will cause him to be predicatable after the flop then 3-bet; in fact 3-bet with any hand you are willing to call.
If calling, then check-raising the flop will cause him to be predicatable then do that (no matter the flop).
If calling, then calling him down unless you make a pair will encourage him to bluff away then do that.
- Louie
PS: Any ace, pair, or two face cards is NOT stealing.
I would call with this hand and neither fold nor re-raise. I think you can profitably defend with Ace-Eight offsuit in this situation because you are getting 3.5:1 on your call to see a flop.
I would bet the flop representing a King and having some outs if I am called with my bottom pair and Ace over card. With a flop of King high in this situation some players will frequently fold but it depends on how they view you. Since my image is tight, I find leading here profitable. If I get raised, then I call and take off a card. If it is a blank I will check. Frequently my opponent will also check. If it helps my hand, I will frequently go for a check-raise if my opponent is aggressive with good follow-through on the expensive street otherwise I wll bet.
n/t
Personally, I would have let him take it before the flop. However, once called, I would also bet out on the flop. The texture of that flop is screaming semi-bluff.
I usually avoid playing 77 88 or 99 UTG unless I'm in a game with many multiway pots and little preflop raising. My reasoning is that it may get raised behind me and unless I flop a set, I'm in an uncomfortable situation with lousy position. Is my thinking flawed? Am I losing money in the long run by not playing these hands?
I think these hands play better heads up. About 1/2 the time I will raise with them early and then bet it out on the flop - whatever the flop it - hoping to win it there of get a guy trying to draw out on me.
It works for me and I prefer the mid pairs in heads up pots.
I agree with Rounder that you could raise and the "half of time" is defined by who's playing and how the game is going. Ideally, none of the players have a higher pair or will want to play two high cards, and you'll get it down to the big blind and perhaps the small blind. However if you do get called (by a non-blind) or reraised you're probably dominated and have lost at least 2 to 3 small bets.
Conversely if all ten players call you're getting good odds but still hoping a higher pocket pair isn't calling along.
It's always safer to just say fold and then watch and learn.
They may be profitable if you can confidently (and often) win with them out of position with the likely over-card. If you cannot do so confidently, then let them go in the tighter games.
I.E. play them against inferior opponents.
- Louie
An expert player may over the course of his career show a small profit with these hands UTG. You are not losing much by passing with these hands. Average players lose a ton with these hands. If you are in an extremely passive game they play fine. In tough games when you are playing mostly for multiple bets and you are out of position with more then 3 opponents you are a dog. The nice thing about poker is another hand is always around the corner.
Bruce
I have played $10-$20, $15-$30, $20-$40, and $30-$60 on the East Coast, the West Coast, the Gulf Coast, Arizona, and Las Vegas and I don't know of any game that I have ever played where I would not limp in with a medium pocket pair under the gun. This is not a raise or fold situation at all. It is not true that you have to flop a set to win. There are thousands of flops that make your middle pair an over pair to the board and give you the best hand. When I limp in and a few others limp in behind me, I find that even on flops that are Ten-high my middle pair can be played as if it were top pair for profit since frequently those who limped did not have top pair when the flop is Ten-high or Nine-high when I have Eights or Sevens or Eight-high when I have Sevens.
None of the published authorities that I know view this as a raise or fold situation at all. Not 2+2, not Ciaffone, not Krieger, not Jones, or anybody. I think you are losing money in the long run here and giving up too much.
Jim,
What about when it is raised behind you?
Or raised and three bet?
Do you continue?,
If not, isn't this money wasted?
If so, don't you find yourself dominated quite often?
Not having knowledge of future action seems to be the defining characteristic of playing hands UTG. If you limp with so-so holdings (hands you only want to play against other limpers) aren't you risking too much when others don't follow your plan?
KJS
PS. I have never played as high as you, if that matters in this case.
If it is raised behind me I call since at that point I am getting correct odds to take a flop. If it is raised and re-raised behind me then I fold since my hand was not good enough to raise initially so I usually will not call a double raise afterwards. The likelihood of being up against a bigger pair is too great when it is raised and re-raised pre-flop. But in many cases others just limp in behind me.
I can't remember the last time I folded 88 or 99 UTG. If the game is loose and passive, these hands show a good profit. If the game is tough, they may be breakeven, but they have great value for deceptive purposes.
It's important in tough games that your opponents never be able to outrule a flop as having hit you. If all you'll play is AK, AQ, and AJs, you're in for a world of hurt against good players when the flop is 556. But if you'll also play 66, occasionally you'll be able to put through a a tough player who has an overpair and thinks he's way ahead of your overcards.
You do have to be able to play them well, but the only way you'll learn to play them well is to play them and study hard. If you just avoid those hands, you'll never learn to use them to your advantage.
If i come in first in early pos i raise with any pair 88 or higher, if i come in first in late pos i raise with 55 or higher ,if i play ,or i fold ,i do not call with small pairs in late pos. if first in. It is a good way to very your game if you hit it and get to show it.
Hopefully you raise with them in the tough game and limp in the loose-passive game? Because in the tough game a limp is likely to produce the worst-case scenario isn't it? 2 or 3 opponents in a raised pot.
Depends on the game. If there's a reasonable chance that I can steal the blinds, sure. But I'll limp with them too. Raising has its own hazards in agressive games (like someone 3-betting you with a bigger pair).
These hands play fairly well in just about any of these situations. Pocket pairs hold their value fairly well against any number of opponents, if you can play them skillfully. Sure, sometimes you'll be stuck in a bad situation, but if you fold them you'll often miss profitable situations. The question is whether or not on balance you'll profit. And if the answer is very close (it usually will be - these hands aren't big money makers or money losers UTG) then it's essentially a freeroll to add deception to your game.
One caveat - if you play them very badly they'll cost you a fortune. One way I see guys lose a ton on these hands is when they flop a minor overpair and refuse to pay it down even upon evidence that they are up against a bigger overpair. For example, let's say you raise UTG with 77, and the guy next to you 3-bets. The flop comes up 642. This is a tough spot to be in, and you really have to know your opponent to play well here.
In your example, with 77 and a flop of 642 I like leading on the flop. If I get raised I will call and take off a card. Any 7 or 5 keeps me in there otherwise I am gone if I check and my opponent bets the turn. Once in a great while I get faked out by AK but normally most players will check it down on the expensive street after 3 betting pre-flop and raising with it on the flop since they want a cheap showdown with their over cards. But it all depends on the player.
I think there are lots of ways to play this hand, depending on the circumstances. Which is why it can be tough to play. (incidentally, my message above should have read "LAY it down", not "PAY it down". Sheesh. One little letter different, and the meaning is completely reversed.
I think you are on the right path. Due to the very large chance of overcards hitting the board and a small chance to hit a set, these are not good hands in the first 3 seats.
Oooh!! I'm so proud of the way I played this hand but I don't want to brag so I thought I'd . . .
Anyway, I'm in the cutoff with ATo. Fold to the unstable gentlemen on tilt to my right who opns with a a raise. He is almost out of chips. I'm thinking about the Jim Brier/Roy Cooke hand where Roy was in the cutoff and what Mason said. So, I raised. Sure enough button, sb, bb all fold and it's just me and Mr. Tilt. He reraises, I call. Flop is A T 4.
He bets, I raise him all in and win the pot when my AT outkicks his A5s. Small blind makes mention of the fact he would have made a flush but folded to my raise preflop.
Good things happen when you read 2+2.
The title of this post was inspired by DS.
I don't think you need much "prestigeous" advice to 3-bet a loose raiser from the cut-off seat.
- Louie
I've been saying all along more good things happen when you bet and raise than when you check and call.
I wanted to know the latest on the Diamond club situation, Anyone out there know, Lucky, Hollywood Mike, Manhattan Mike,Shep, Montana Mike, Hy, etc.
40-80 Holdem So. Cal.
Nine handed game, fairly loose, but somewhat tighter than usual. I am in the third hole and open by raising it with KQs. The cutoff three bets it and the button calls. The cutoff is an action player, not quite a maniac, but pretty close. He plays real fast before the flop and even faster on the flop if he has a piece of it. If he has no piece of the flop he will typically pass if there is any heat. The button likes to play speculative hands and will play just about any pocket pair. The blinds pass and I cap it. I normally don't cap with KQs in this situation. I don't put the button on much and the cutoff can have anything. I may have the best hand so what the hell, lets cap it plus my cap will complete the raising . I also want my opponents to wrongly put me on Aces or Kings.
The flop comes AJ10. I flopped broadway and I also have the nut flush draw.
I bet and the three bettor raises. The button folds. I put a total of 6 bets in on the flop. My opponent, however gets the last raise in. I was concerned that my opponent may have flopped a set. With me having a flush draw it is unlikely that he has one. He could also have two pair or perhaps AK or AQ. Needless to say, I decide to see what happens on the turn.
A Ten comes. There is no flush. I check and my opponent bets. I call. A blank comes on the river. I check and my opponent also checks.
My opponent turns over AJo.
Should I have played my hand more aggressively from fourth street on?
Bruce
He can have AA(3), JJ(3), AT(6), JT(6) or TT(1) or 19 hands that can have you beat. He can also have AK(9), AQ(9), AJ(9), 27 hands, plus may have KJ(9), QJ(9), 98s(4), or some little flush draw. Looks like at least 27:19 or 3:2 in your favor, not counting his possible lesser hands.
Don't under estimate the desire of action players to give action. I'd say raise if he'll gamble with the pairs+gut draws, otherwise you played it fine.
Odd he didn't bet for value on the river after you flat called the turn.
- Louie
The fact that he didn't make the routine bet on the end indicates to me that he ISN'T such an action player; meaning you played just fine.
"Looks like at least 27:19 or 3:2 in your favor..."
Louie,
Do you figure these mathematical situations out often enough, away from the table, so that you can roughly(and quickly)deduce where you're at in the heat of battle(odds wise)? And if yes, how important is it for a newer player like myself to practice figuring all the hands that beat me vs. all those I beat, so I can mathematically pit myself against another in the middle of a hand?
One more question, if the third guy on the button had not have dropped out, would that 3 to 2 estimate you gave bruce have been different?(Does that make sense?)
-Don Martin
Yes, I used to work out a lot of situations for the reason you suggest. Doing so the night after an actual memorable hand makes it MUCH easier to remember. Since I generally pay it all off it doesn't do me nearly as good as it does the more "finesse" players who can and do make more great lay downs than I do.
As a new player you certainly need to practice doing this up to at least the point where you are confident you CAN do it at will. The major reason is to appreciate that many poker situations often come down to shear number comparisions.
Doing it also lets you notice that there are almost always lots more weaker hands than strong hands; so if the opponent will bet a hand more than slightely worse than yours, your hand is probably worth at least a call (there routinely being more hands slightely worse than your than slightely better).
In my counting notice the huge difference in outcomes if the opponent isn't going to raise with two pair.
So if you have a weak flush and the opponent will raise with a straight or better, it doesn't take any counting to notice that your hand is surely worth a call.
Not sure what to think about the 3rd player. At best he has 2 cards to beat you (hitting his two pair when nemesis DOESN'T hit his two pair) OR 3 cards to tie. Sounds to me like in this example you prefer him to draw slim. In fact, if he DOES call then surely he has some cards nemesis needs and so cannot be used to outdraw you (if nemesis has a set then you WANT the 3rd player to have 2 pair).
- Louie
- Louie
.
When you flop the nuts and know you cannot be free-rolled because you also have the nut flush draw, you should keep raising until either you or your opponent is out of money. So what if he has a set? You are the favorite and should just keep pounding away. Furthermore, if he happens to have the nuts as well he may be too stupid to realize that he is getting free-rolled.
I was watching a $20-$40 game at the Mirage about 3 years ago and two players got into a raising war on the turn and the board was Flop: AdJhTs and the Turn was: 3h. One player ,a woman, had KcQc and the other player had KhQh. The woman ended up going all in on the turn having put in about $1000 worth of repeated raises. With her out of money they both turned over their hands. Well ,you know what happened. A Heart came on the river giving her opponent a Heart flush. When she realized what she had done she actually broke down and cried.
I better pack my bags and move to South Cali!!!
CV
Can you explain more?
bruce,
I'm putting myself out on a limb by posting since some of the best have already answered and I haven't read them yet. But how can I learn unless I expose my thinking?
I'd get more raises in on the flop but your thinking is interesting and I hope the others comment.
On the turn, I would lead into him again. If he calls the turn, I would bet the river unless an ace or a ten comes. I just don't want to give a free card to an AK or AQ which I think might check here.
If he raises the turn, I would call him down but I would be crying inside. OTOH, I've been running so well I would probably get the royal flush on the river.
Spitfire
You missed at least 2 bets. Most of the time it pays to lead with your big hands. Against a maniac or over-aggressor, it almost ALWAYS pays big to lead with your big hands. I'd have bet on 4th and either called or reraised (depending on how I perceived his reaction), then bet out again on the river regardless.
Actually, you must have had a straight-flush draw, not just the nut flush. Anyway, I would be scared too when the 10 falls on the turn. Your opponent would have to be thinking the same things about you that you are thinking about him. I would definitely bet out on the turn. You implied this player was pretty aggressive. If he filled up, surely he would raise. He sounds like an action sort of guy, so if he didn't fill up, he would still call. Sounds like ample information to gain from 1 big bet.
But I think it's a very close call, so I don't think your play was bad. In fact, if you knew more about your opponents than what you wrote, it may have been exactly correct.
Played in a 6-12 game tonight and watched one guy go through about $2700 before staggering for the door. It was just brutal to see him spiraling downward into serious aggravation, sadness and depression as he called for rack after rack. Reminded me of the one thing I've been doing this past year that's helped me the most- get up and leave when things are running bad. It's hard as hell for me to do, and so basic that it probably doesn't need to be mentioned, but I throw it out there anyway. I believe it's done more for my overall results, and sanity, than any other changes I've made.
Anyone else have any "secrets" to share? What has improved your game the most this past year? Looking forward to any responses- thanks.
Well when you are running badly that isn't necessarily a reason to quit. If you are tired, making poor decisions, or the game is tougher then you like to play in those are good reasons to quit. Running badly in and of itself is not a reason. If the game is good and you aren't a victim of tilt then you should continue to play and hopefully recoup some or maybe all your losses. Of course you may lose more but that has nothing to do with being up or down at a particular time. It goes both ways, for example I have been stuck plenty in a good game and continued to play because I was a favorite in the long run, but just a couple nights ago I was stuck about $450 in a 6-12 game and I felt like playing more but the game was sort of tough so I decided to come back another day. But if the game had been easy pickings I would have certainly played more. This logic has helped me because I am now thinking of poker as one game- not a bunch of individual sessions.
As most people would benefit from, the actual most important thing to improve ones game is constant study and thinking about poker. I constantly try to improve my game and plug leaks.
Thanks for your response, Goat. I agree with everything you wrote- in theory. It's just that my personal results have been that when my cards aren't holding up and I'm missing my draws, even when the game is great I usually can't dig myself out of deep holes. I've looked carefully at whether this is a function of playing worse when behind, tilting or not making proper adjustments, but I don't think this is the case.
I surf a lot, and some days the waves just aren't there, even when the forecast says they should be. You can feel it beneath you in the water. I find something similar in poker, and now just leave when things aren't flowing. It's been working for me.
What "findtheriver" says is true, but not because of streaks or luck or anything else. It has everything to do with perception, both the perceptions of those watching you lose, and the perceptions you have of your play.
In particular, most of us think we play well even when we are losing. The problem is that we don't adjust our play to compensate for others perceptions of us. The upshot being, we usually play worse GIVEN the table conditions, when we are in a losing streak.
- Andrew
Biggest change I have made about 2 years ago is not playing drawing hands out of position and not drawing unless the pot odds were way in my favor.
I also quit pealing one off just to see what I can get going.
I learned the money I didn't lose was as good as the money I won.
Not playing Q9o J8o and these types of hands early/middle. I used to try and limp with these types of hands but have learned that they lose alot of small bets. Also gettin a better handle on pot odds/implied odds has been a big help.
Best of it !!
MJ
If you're a young lookin' kid, like me, who according to a poster here that people under 30 don't get any respect, DON'T BLUFF! [3-6 game]
These people will call you [me in that case] with anything since 'they're there for fun'!
Also, when a person comes to a table and exposes a FAT WAD of cash to put into play because he's come to have fun and gamble...STAY at the same table with that guy. This guy dumped 500 bones in a few hours, and after I was up a little bit, I decided to switch tables in fear that they had picked up on tells on me, and also my cards weren't as good anymore. I ended up going to a tougher table and lost my profits, and found out from another local that I talk to a lot that those guys dumped even more money after I left. So, my point is, don't let those fat juicy fish outta ur sights!
Another really good tip is bring some sort of reading material, a picture maybe, anything that can take your mind off poker for a few minutes when the going gets tough. It seems like everytime I get up and collect my thoughts, I come back and play better, and in turn, the cards are better. I usually bring a couple letters that girls wrote me... =)
Ok, have a nice day. Bye bye.
I have one: Watch the winners at the 20-40 online games. Takes a couple of hours but you will know who they are.
Watch them very carefully.
1.Watch them play tight pre-flop. So tight...and almost never limp in, always raise. 2.Watch them play agressively any time they have any edge. No slow play here, raise raise raise. 3.Watch them dump a pre-flop raising hand and the flop misses them and they are the dog. They do not peel another. 4.Watch them give up blinds 3 or 4 rounds in a row when the pot is raised and they have nothing. 5.Watch them not chasing. Never chasing with junk and not enough outs.
Then go back to 1.
It is quite amazing. There are (a few) people I have watched many times in 20-40 whose stacks simply always rise. It is free lessons.
And 1-5 above are only the basics. I have seen good solid play win, win and win more.
Mark
When on a long losing streak, tighten up. Real tight. Don't bluff. Stay aggressive with premium hands. People are going to call you because they have seen you losing a lot of hands. Don't leave a game because of your short term results, leave it if you are playing poorly, tired, too many good players, etc.
When you start running good again, you can loosen up, but do it correctly, not just playing anything. If you start taking down pots you can start to selectively bluff again.
Which players do you think are the best 20-40 online? I play it sometimes on paradise but haven't found anyone that just blows me away with their skill, although there are some who always seem to have a lot of chips.
Hey King,
email me your email address, I will tell you. There are 4-5 players there whose stacks always increase. Always. They are tight, agressive, tough. I know who two of them are by their id's; Paradise isn't lying when they say world-class.
My own game has gotten so much better after watching them play...
Mark
Another unusual hand, played against a bunch of loose Italian fish. These guys will play anything for a single bet. Futhermore, they will play any suited hand (as well as any two big cards, including JTo) against a raise, even 3 cold, as they feel this is an opportunity for a big pot. They have no concept of position, odds or domination (there is no way anyone will dump ATo for three bets cold). This is the $10-20 bunch that inspired my homepage and over the course of a year and a half made me earn MORE than two big bets per hour in this 5% rake game with $25 cap(!!!).
I left this juicy game after the casino management started charging $20 per hour (I could avoid much of the rake with tight play, but there is no escaping robbery with time collection of this kind). A couple of friends with a gambler's itch dragged me back there to play for fun this weekend. It was a $15-30 game now. Same old faces and same old idiotic play.
I play tight for a couple of hours and drag two or three pots with hands like AQ and co. They are showing ol' Izmet some respect, I thought, as they were often dropping on the flop against me. Here is the interesting hand:
UTG opens with a raise and the next guy cold calls (with 97o, I found out later, see what I mean?). I'm next with 44 and I call. Note I shun my Abdulian coat dis time as I am trying to exploit the loose cannons behind, I *know* they will come in. Lo and behold, there is 7-way action to the flop.
It comes 632 rainbow. UTG bets, next guy calls and I raise with my pair gutshot. The field behind folds fearing the Fekali cold blue stare (I guess), only the button and UTG call and the next guy folds flashing his 97o.
The turn is a 9. As one nine is out, I feel good about my hand. I bet and both remaining daredevils fold.
I think the hand is interesting enough to merit some discussion. There are two debatable instances in my play: the preflop cold call and my raising on the flop. Still, I feel this was good poker (against this particular lineup, of course). Also, I'm curious, how much do you think am I missing by not playing this particular game? It costs me about $25 and an hour to drive to this casino, the game is played for 5.5 hours only on a particular evening (before they close it for the night). The food and drinks are free.
Anybody?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Also, I'm curious, how much do you think am I missing by not playing this particular game? It costs me about $25 and an hour to drive to this casino, the game is played for 5.5 hours only on a particular evening (before they close it for the night). The food and drinks are free.
It sounds as though you could average $300 a session. You have to ask yourself some questions: What else can I be doing with my time? Is the drive there pleasant? Is the food and drink any good? Then, to arrive at the final answer, ask yourself, Are there any cute cocktail waitresses?
Izmet,
”Another unusual hand, played against a bunch of loose Italian fish.”
Can a half Italian hard rock who does like the taste of fish a bit be allowed to provide his two cents?
”This is the $10-20 bunch that inspired my homepage and over the course of a year and a half made me earn MORE than two big bets per hour in this 5% rake game with $25 cap(!!!).”
With tight but imaginative play and a great game I can believe this. At least the huge rake is only taken on the huge pots. And it drives the rake sensitive rocks out of the game.
”UTG opens with a raise and the next guy cold calls (with 97o, I found out later, see what I mean?). I'm next with 44 and I call. Note I shun my Abdulian coat dis time as I am trying to exploit the loose cannons behind, I *know* they will come in. Lo and behold, there is 7-way action to the flop.”
Since we have met and played you must know how much I like and appreciate a pair. In a game this good, I can’t see throwing away any pair in this spot. With your cold call, you have given the remaining hands even more reason to come in.
”It comes 632 rainbow. UTG bets, next guy calls and I raise with my pair gutshot. The field behind folds fearing the Fekali cold blue stare (I guess), only the button and UTG call and the next guy folds flashing his 97o.”
Is the “Fekali cold blue stare” as fearsome as the “Fekali enema”? The thing I like about this raise is that you can be sure that UTG (assuming he is somewhat sane) has no better than an overpair to this board, and probably has overcards. If so, you put quite a bit of pressure on UTG. You also define your hand a bit by the reaction of the players behind. What I don’t like is the caller between you and UTG. He could have you in a tough spot. But is worked out as he did a rare call/fold.
”The turn is a 9. As one nine is out, I feel good about my hand. I bet and both remaining daredevils fold.”
This is a perfect blank for everybody. Probably below what UTG holds, and not connected in any way to the hand on the button. Good bet even if you didn’t see the 97o flash his cards.
”Also, I'm curious, how much do you think am I missing by not playing this particular game?”
It sort of depends on how much you like being around Italians.
Regards,
Rick
I do not understand your raise on the flop. Given the texture of this game, wouldn't you expect your raise to usually be called by more than 2 out of 6 opponents? Due to the small chance of stealing the pot, the primary value I can see in this raise is that it may cause someone to muck a 5, giving you two additional outs. Is this worth the cost of the raise?
If by raising I lose half of the field and their overcards, I'm a happy camper. That nine on the turn would have felt like a finger stuck where sun don't shine, had one player not folded it to my raise on the flop.
Note that the field (it's the same ten or twelve faces every time) has learned to somewhat respect my raises over the past year and I was very aware of that. They will not fold on the flop for anybody else, and will tell you that themselves.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
In the thread regarding moving up to higher limits, Jim Brier made a statement that I've heard others make, and I feel nothing could be further from the truth. He claimed that short-handed games are a crapshoot. Poker is a game of decisions. Those who make good ones are winning players. When the game gets short, you get to make 5X as many decisions-what could be better? Maybe I'm missing something, but my numbers show that short games are by FAR the most profitable. What is really frustrating is when the game gets down to four-handed and a (regular) "player" makes a stupid comment,such as "I'm not gonna play if it's just us four" or "the blinds come around too fast". I wish they would just leave without comment-some of us have been waiting for this opportunity. Also, while I'm on this rant, I wish dealers wouldn't "ask" the next player if he/she will take the blind and just assume they will as normal. It's horrible to have a game break because of this. My question is this, why do so many winning players run away from this senario instead of searching for it??
We run away from these games because we don't know how to play in them. I've been playing 20-40 and sometimes 30-60. I'm a winning player. I don't make a BB an hour--closer to a SB an hour. Where I play the 30-60 game is only full for 4-5 hours. Then it starts to break up. I find that I blow my winnings when the game gets down to 4-6 handed. I want to learn but they are very expensive lessons. I ask the more experienced players to give me some tips on shorthanded play--starting hands etc. They are very vague and say that they play it by feel. I think that they are full of shit. Feeney and the rest say that we are MISSING OUT not playing short-handed.(his book was great but we need a book on shorthanded play not a few pages) I agree that we are missing out but I just don't know how to learn on the cheap. The way I've going in these short-handed games I could lose my whole bankroll in a short period of time. Mike M---What are good starting hands for 6 handed, 5 handed, 4 handed, down to heads-up. If you guys could teach us maybe you would start getting more action in these short-handed games.
Have you read the 21st edition of Hold'em for advanced players? There is an excellent section on short-handed play. You may need to broaden your comfort zone some.
Mike,
When good short-handed players are vague and tell you they play by feel, they (we) are telling the truth. Short-handed play is a lot of feel, attitude, reading players, reading situations and changing gears. I have tried to help make some of my friends better short-handed players but I think a lot of it is instinct and playing style. You'll never make a basically tight or conservative player a winning sh player; they'll get blinded to death and they won't loosen up enough and they won't play aggressively enough.
Coach, I never thought of it that way, but I guess your "poker personality" does have something to do with it. To be successful short you must win pots that aren't rightfully yours and in order to do this you have to GAMBLE. Some players will take a "stab" at one pot per session in just the right spot. Imagine playing head-up for an hour and only betting when you actually had something. You're right, most otherwise solid players can't be taught to do something that does'nt come naturally. Just as well-more money for us!
In full tabled limit hold-em the biggest advantage a good player has over a poor player is that the good player can be very selective about the hands he comes in on. We all know to raise with AA,KK,AK, etc. but the good player knows to dump KT offsuit in most situations except as a steal hand. The poor player likes KT and will frequently limp in with it and sometimes even raise with it if it is suited. Now this example as well as many others gives the good player a nice edge in a ten-handed game. But suppose it is a five handed game? Well, it turns out KT offsuit becomes a playable hand and in many cases it is a raising hand. The good player adjusts and the poor player requires no adjustment. In fact the loose, pre-flop style of the poor player becomes correct in these games. So what happens is that both the good player and the poor player end up playing correctly pre-flop which means the initial edge the good player had in the full tabled game is now gone or at least seriously diminished in the shorthanded game. Since in limit poker you frequently have to showdown the best hand to win, the good player no longer has the luxury of waiting for a better starting hand to enter the fray and must start to gamble like his poorer playing opponents.
The other problem is that the statistical standard deviation for shorthanded games goes up because the good player is having to put up more blinds, make more bets, raise on less than premium hands, and call more raises than in a normal ten handed game. This means that his swings will be much greater and a bigger bankroll is required. A five handed $20-$40 game can have a larger standard deviation than a ten handed $30-$60 game.
Most limit players instinctively realize this and avoid shorthanded games. I have observed that many of the noted authors and experts who play $30-$60 at the Bellagio will usually get up and leave when the game gets shorthanded. My personal observations on this matter confirm the correctness of my views (in my own mind) despite what others may say or print to the contrary.
I think what Minetti says is very true. I know alot of scuessful players who seem to destroy the table when it is shorthanded. Some authorities advocate seeking out shorthanded games as they are more profitable.
But I think Holdem for advanced players is only the tip of the iceberg as far as shorthanded play goes. it is very short!
It seems very difficult to learn how to play shorthanded well, and since the variance is much greater it can be expensive.
I wanted to something esle but im not sure what now. I feel very frustrated in shorthanded games and feel i don't know how to take advantage of the situation very often....
Jim B. is correct to say that the standard deviation in these games will be much higher. But it is totally incorrect to assume that just because more hands are playable, the superior player loses edge-THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE!! Money is made in poker by capitalizing on other peoples mistakes. In heads-up and three-handed play, you are involved in EVERY hand. It creates so many more opportunities for your opponent to err. To answer Mike MacLeod's question about starting hands, in a five-handed game you want to play hands that can win UNIMPROVED. Pairs, aces and most kings. Forget about stealing the blinds, it will rarely happen. Look at your four adversaries and decide who you want to play against. I will throw away Axo up front if I respect the BB, but I will just as quick pop it with J8 if the BB is a fish. Middle pair on the flop plays about the same as top pair in a full game. Watch closely for tells as they will make/save you a lot of bets. When you do decide to take the plunge, do it in a game you've been playing in already that is now getting short. The familiarity with the flow of the game and players will make you less nervous. Stay away if there is only one "spot". Once you've put in some hours @4/5/6 handed, the adjustment to three-handed and heads-up play will come naturally. To give you an idea of how much it can be worth, last year was the first year I ever broke the one BB/hr barrier(1212.72/1199). My normal average is about 75-80%/bet/hr. But in head-up play the number is always between 3-4 BB/hr, almost 5X the profit of a full game. One last thing - even after you get good at it you should remember the goal is to win money. Stay away from people who know how to play - there are plenty that don't.
Bravo again for a great post. You are so right. I'll say it again: My favorite spot in poker is on the button in a 3-handed game.
Mike,
I have never agreed with a post more in all my life. You are absolutely correct on all counts, IMO of course. Thanks!
For New Players only:
Briefly, after playing 15 sessions of 2-4 (ugh) HE (about 120 hrs) just to get my feet wet and learn a little about the game, I have succeeded in winning a little over $6 an hr. I think that is pretty good. Had only 1 loosing session (>$100) and a max of $140.
The solution: playing as close to Andy Nelson's beginner's Book suggests with a little 3,5 suited in the BB to keep them guessing.
Was it my imagination or do I remember a post from you awhile ago where you told us you had played a few hundred hours of low limit hold-em and decided to go back to stud? If my aging memory has failed me, then I apologize but if not, happy to see you back in the game.
The sun/heat in Las Vegas has NOT affected your memory (Don't you miss the wild weather of Houston?). Your memory is correct. I quit Holdem after a net loss of only $300+ In fact, I was so adamant about not playing HE that I requested the the lady who calls names for table openings never allow me to get put on the Holdem Lists under penalty of death; my death.
I ran into Vince Lepore in AC and we talked about HE. I also got a few lessons from a very good HE player so I was thinking about it. I started watching and later sitting in on some HE games while I was waiting for 10/20 stud table and decided to keep track of the HE results.
My post was to let some beginners know that HE low can show some profit if one is conservative and approaches the game as a recreational activity. I found Nelson's book helpful because it essentially only lets me play good hands. Because of the few hands I get to play, I am able to study the players but even moreso, I can see what seems to win and what looses. It is like I can see situations that come up often and store them in my memory.
One note here at 1 5hr session, I had pocket Aces twice, pocket Queens once, pocket Jacks once. I lost all 4 hands. Both Aces unimproved lost to 2 low pair, 1 in the flop and 1 on river. Player stayed in spite of my raises. I capped pre-flop and before the turn with a rainbow flop. I suspect low limit is quite different from mid limit, but the cards behave the same.
As an afterthought, what do you think of the Holdem Forum being broken down into a beginners and advanced forums? While I read the posts on the HE forum, some are so advanced that I get lost in the fine points. I think since a section for basics might be good.
I was sitting in Seat #3 in a 10-handed $20-$40 side game at the Orleans tournament having the QhJh. The big blind is in Seat #7. #8, #10, #1, and #2 all limp. I limp. The cutoff raises to $40. Only the button and small blind fold. There is $290 in the pot and seven players in hand.
The flop is: Td7c3s
Five of my six opponents check. I check with my two over cards. The cutoff bets $20 and only #1 calls. I call with $330 in the pot for $20. There is $350 in the pot and three players.
The turn is: Kh
#1 checks. I check my open ended straight draw. The cutoff bets $40 and #1 calls. I call. There is $470 in the pot.
The river is: 8d
#1 checks. I check. The cutoff bets $40. #1 calls. I fold. #1 wins with the Tc9c for a pair of Tens. The cutoff had AsQc.
Should I have called the flop bet?
If not and one of the flop cards had been a Heart would I then have a call?
I hate this situation! 2 minor overcards w/ 17 bets in the pot. I dump it. A Jack could make a straight and you can't be sure a Queen is good. If there was a heart on the flop, I would take one off.
This much I know. If #1 drops on the turn when the King comes, you have to seriously consider going for a check raise with your open ended straight draw. But when #1 calls, you are probably better off to just call. Of course you fold the river unless the cutoff is known to try and steam AK through. In this case, you might try a check/raise bluff (against the right players) since #1 obviously doesn't seem too strong and you are getting almost 7:1 on this play.
Jim, my humble opinion : I don't believe that one should draw to a draw ! Knowing that preflop raiser had two big cards and that your new pair could be dead if you hit it. Once you did, the the turn call was ok. Think about it, if you catch a jack, you could be looking a made set, or str8 or TJ, with all of these players or lose to AJ, AK. If you catch a Q you could already be dead to a set, AK or AQ. Again, just my nonexpert opinion. I put it out to see if others agree or not. Maybe your pot odds change everything but I doubt it, because you need perfect perfect.
I realize I should scratch my concern about AK on the flop here.
I like the call. You've got the best relative position and a big pot, plus few enough opponents that if you do spike a pair it probably won't make a big hand for someone. Those that assume that turning top pair in these situations only gets you in trouble, probably play too tight.
I went fishing in almost the same situation yesterday, 12-1 pot odds, backdoor straight and flush and cheesy overcards. Most important I risked no raise on the flop. Without the backdoor flush I fold. The overcards present dubious value so you need two solid backdoor draws to make it fly.
-Fred-
Jim,
It’s late, I’m tired but I have a few thoughts anyway. First, I would think about raising this many limpers in medium late position with a suited QJ before the flop at least some of the time. Your pre flop raises need to be stretched out a bit IMHO.
Next, with this flop, I might lead directly into the raiser on the flop at least some of the time. If he pops it, you can be fairly sure you are against an overpair. Then you play mostly for the running draw depending on the price you get coming back to you. But your check and call is not bad. I’m just trying to say at least think about leading into the raiser with speculative overcards.
When the turn came a king giving you an open ended draw and it was checked to you (with the pre flop raiser yet to act) I hope you considered betting. A surprise bet from a guy like you is going to put your two opponents back on their heels. You risk calling an extra bet (if he raises) but you may win it right there, set up a steal on the river, and may eliminate the original limper.
You asked ”Should I have called the flop bet? If not and one of the flop cards had been a Heart would I then have a call?“
Calling isn’t bad. But think about betting a little more often in situations where your instincts say check. But keep in mind I spent my evening playing against a total maniac so I may be a little excitable tonight ;-). And I haven’t read the other posts yet.
Regards and Good Luck!
Rick
P.S. I’ve had trouble keeping up with the forum but I really got a kick out of your response (in one of the threads about playing full time) regarding you and your Dad’s work on the space program. It must have been incredibly rewarding to be involved in such an endeavor. To think we had Atlas rockets blowing up on the launch pad and President Kennedy vows we will be on the Moon in less than nine years. What courage this nation had back then. Do you think we would put a John Glenn on top one of those rockets (after maybe one or two good tests – you would know better than me) in today’s “play it safe” society?
Ill post my comments and then read the other ones.
Well I would call on the flop, you close the action and are getting 15 1/2 to one your call it would be very hard (for me at least) to fold. Maybe if I knew the raiser was very solid (and wouldn't routinely bet in this position on te flop w/ over cards) might I consider a fold bc of the chances of hitting my hand it not being good.
I would bet the turn. The is possibly a very scary card or a great card to your opponents. Maybe I play w/some players who lay down too often, but I think the odds of both folding and the chances of improving would make me think a bet is worth it.
Even if you get raised youre getting 22 1/2 to 2 (assuming the first player folds) on your call. But Im assuming alot of players will assume you have an OK K, and QQ JJ Tx might have a tiem calling here.
I suppose Im forced to say Id call if there was a heart bc id call w/o one...
I haven't read the other posts, but it seems to me that a bet on the turn was warranted. Then if you were raised, you could've still safely called with the open-ended straight draw (any river Q or J might also win). The check-raise option was also strongly worth considering.
With that many players in the pot, I would have figured a typical non-2+2 player was raising with A-something suited or high suited connectors or a medium pair. Calling the flop with a three-straight and two over-cards was marginally O.K. since if the straight (eventually) came, you were likely to be up against one or two 2-pairs and that combo would've paid off handsomely; the danger of course was that if Q or J fell, you'd be outgunned by AQ or KQ or JT.
I think check-raising on the turn in situations similar to this is a bad play compared to just betting out. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with a check-raise. Ideally you want both players to fold on the turn, despite your live draw and overcards. Because of your position, a check raise in this situation means the aggressor in the hand bets after you and the first limper check, if the limper calls, a raise on your part is very bad, since you are tieing them to the hand, and you are charging yourself double to draw. You want them to have as little invested as possible, in order to make it more likely they fold. You do not accomplish this by check-raising in this spot. A semi-bluff bet-out from you on the turn makes it very difficult for the pre-flop raiser holding AQo to call, since now he's thinking he probably only has 1 card to hit instead of 2, namely the ace (ironic that the Ace is his WOSRT card since it gives you the nut striaght). If he does fold, you also pick up extra outs to beat the limper, since your queen is now good if it hits. This is a clear case of identifying the position of the likely bettor and your relative position to him. Given your position, a check raise is probably a bad move, whereas a bet-out makes bare overcards more likely to fold. On an interesting side note, if I were the first limper, I would STRONGLY consider check-raising, since my position is such that I can charge the second limper (you) two full bets, and it will be tough for either of you to call in this spot. Of course this depends on my read of your two hands, and the losseness of the game etc. I might fold, call or check-raise here if I held T9o (but i probably wouldnt be here to begin with in such early position with an unsuited medium connector ;).
Maven the guy with AQ has both an Ace and a Jack (for a straight) to beat the pair of Kings I would be representing by betting the turn. He has 7 outs so calling would be automatic. If instead of AQ he had AK he will at least call my turn bet and perhaps raise unless he fears two pair. I don't see how betting or check-raising the turn has any chance of winning the pot outright against two opponents, one of whom raised pre-flop, and given that board.
Your point is well-taken. I misread the original post and failed to see the gut-shot straight draw picked up by the preflop raiser on the turn. However, I still think that betting out on the turn is a better option to either check-raising or check-calling.
I agree that checking the turn is much more logical than betting since you have outs to win this hand and why put yourself in a position where it may cost you $80 to draw? However, I still say that if #1 folds and it becomes heads up on the turn, you should at least consider going for a check/raise as a semi-bluff. There are hands that beat you which he may immediately fold. He may reason that there's less of a chance you are bluffing since it looks to him as though you were planning to check raise 2 players.
Granted. If he calls it gets more expensive as you now almost have to follow through with a bet on the river. But isn't this Ok? You still have outs on the turn, and the pot is certainly large enough to invest another bet on the river?
If you bet the turn and the cutoff held AK or KK or AA and raised, you would know that you would need to complete the straight to win. If he held JJ or QQ, he would most likely fold and #1 (presumably with a pair of tens + kicker) could (should?) also fold. If he just called and #1 folded, that would suggest cut-off was on a draw. Then, if a blank fell on the river, your follow-through bet takes the pot against his no-pair often enough to justify this line of attack. If both decide to call your turn bet, that rules out a bluff bet on the river, but you would still have gained some free information and could at least check and call if another J or Q turned up.
The check-raise doesn't necessarily tie #1 to the hand assuming cut-off bets the turn and he calls; it may appear to him that you already own two-pair or trips and urge him to jettison. I'd still favor betting over check-raising, but, in my opinion, the pot's too large for passive play.
Jim,
This situation depends upon your feel of the flow of the game and your "status." It sounds like the game was a bit loose with seven players seeing the flop.
Without a heart on the flop, over cards which are likely dominated if hit on the turn and only the classic "draw to a draw," I think solid play dictates to let it go. I typically would.
However, the field has narrowed to three and you are getting circa 16-1 odds. You hit a near perfect card on the turn and now you stand to win a good size pot.
The reason why I say your "status" is on how you are doing that session. When we look back on our games, we can usually identify two, three maybe four hands that if we won or lost, would have made a significant impact on how we fared that session. How are the side games, especially the 20-40 and no-limit, pot-limit?
The $20-$40 side action is great with lots of loose play and not excessive pre-flop raising. Much better than at the Mirage. They are not spreading much pot limit. They had $2-$5 and a $5-$10 pot limit game going but it does not hold together. They have $50-$100 Omaha and Omaha 8 or better. They are spreading some $20-$40 razz and some $20-$40 stud eight or better.
Before reading the other responses...
I think you should have folded the flop. True, there was a lot of $$ in the pot, but you had nothing but two questionable overcards. If you had a backdoor flush draw, it would elevate your call to weak, but I think I still would have folded.
Of course you had to call the turn once you had the open-ender.
Dave in Cali
I haven't posted before, but I am curious to learn what others think of my play of the following hand in a 6-12 game in my local card club:
Two spots to the left of the BB, I limp in with KQd four others call and the SB folds. The flop comes KQ3 with two hearts. I lead thinking that I need to protect my two pair and make any flush draws pay to see the turn (in retrospect, maybe a check-raise was in order).
Three people call my bet on the flop and the turn brings a rag. I bet again and only one player, in late position calls the bet (clearly he seems to be on a flush draw). The river brings the Qh, making me queens full and possible second best hand for the other player.
I quickly consider check-raising, but the late-position player did not look like he was going to bet, so I did. To my surprise he raises. I still believe he has a flush. The only hand that can beat me, KK, is unlikely both because I have a king and this player would not have waited until the river to pop me with such a holding.
I reraise, he raises and says "Cap it", caught up in the moment I forget that in a heads-up situation there is no limit to raising. I call and he proceeds to lean half way over the table and authoritatively throw down his Ace-high flush, apparently forgetting I may (and do) have a full house.
Your comments are welcome.
GP,
Betting the flop was fine. With that flop there is a good chance you will be raised and you can three bet it.. OTOH, a check raise could be for value or to narrow the field, depending on the location of the very probable flop bet.
You then wrote: “Three people call my bet on the flop and the turn brings a rag. I bet again and only one player, in late position calls the bet (clearly he seems to be on a flush draw)."
I would think a flush draw would have raised “on the come”. Now it turned out he had a flush draw but I would have a hard time putting him on one in that spot.
“The river brings the Qh, making me queens full and possible second best hand for the other player. I quickly consider check-raising, but the late-position player did not look like he was going to bet, so I did.
You must bet. The river is no time for a check raise with the near nuts after you have shown strength on the flop and turn.
To my surprise he raises. I still believe he has a flush. The only hand that can beat me, KK, is unlikely both because I have a king and this player would not have waited until the river to pop me with such a holding.
A pair of kings would have raised pre flop.
"I reraise, he raises and says "Cap it", caught up in the moment I forget that in a heads-up situation there is no limit to raising."
This mistake cost you at least a big bet. Don’t make it again ;-).
Regards,
Rick
You played fine except on the river where you should have kept raising. Pocket Kings is too remote given the lack of a pre-flop raise. I don't like the check-raise on the river with only one opponent in this situation since it is possible he does not have a flush. If you had two or more opponents at the river, then the check-raise would be a good play when the flush card appears because the likelihood of the river getting bet would be very high.
I would still prefer betting out here on the river even if I was sure the checkraise would work. As it actually happened the late position player raised and reraised our hero. One thing that stopped the raising was our heros inexperience with this situation. The other thing that can stop the raising is a checkraise.
I have found when people get checkraised on the river they are taken aback and give pause. If our hereo bets out as he did on the flop and turn the opposition feels as though nothing has changed and "knows" his nut flush is good. But, throw a checkraise at this guy and it's like splashing cold water on his face. He pauses, perhaps reflects on the betting and sees the queen has paired the board instead of just giving him a flush. I don't feel you want to do anything to upset the flow here. Late position might put in 5 or 6 bets before he realizes he is beat. Checkraise him and he could see it right away.
Excellent points. I have never liked check-raising much anyway.
Greetings,
Here a 10/20 hand I played recently. Quite a few times I thought about smooth calling or even checkcalling to suck people in. Tell me where you think it might have been appropriate.
I just get into the game and most players are new to me. The game isn't very aggressive and some what loose.
2 limp I limp w/ QJo (I show it to my freind who makes a joke that hand looking better than it is). 2 more limp and the blinds call.
The flop comes K T 9 rainbow (!). (My freind makes another joke ,"see what I mean." and leaves.)
They all check to me, I bet the player behind me raises and 2 in early position cold call, I was thiking to call and checkraise the turn but since I have 2 cold callers I reraised. All call.
The turn is
8
making a twoflush. All check to me, I bet player behind me calls other player calls, and other checkraises! I thought about smooth calling here but people will fold on the river and pay on the turn. I raised. All fold except the checkraiser.
Now I considered the checkraiser quite possibly had a flush draw and a pair, and didn't expect me to reraise and though this raise is bad he expected the others to call. Maybe he has a pair an openended straight draw and a flush draw. Am I be too paranoid..
The river is a small heart, and the checkraiser checks! I checked and the whole table lectured me!
How weak is check on the river? It seems bad to me in retrospect as anyone w/a flush will be it out afraid it will get checked.
All comments appreciated!!
Thanks
Your plays were fine except at the river where you should bet. When your opponent shows weakness by checking on the end, you should bet and assume your hand is good. Furthermore, the board was rainbow so his flush would be runner-runner and why wouldn't he bet it on the end if he had it?
You need to forget about the check-raise/slow play nonsense when you have numerous opponents and a coordinated board like that one with three cards in a playing zone. You have the nuts and should bet since with that board you will get played with. Some fool with top pair or two pair might even raise your bet allowing you to re-raise.
You will win here virtually every time you are called, and not very often when you are check-raised. But on balance its a bet. With a hand like this, I usually tell myself well if he's got a flush I'm just going to lose a few more chips and see what the next hand looks like.
I'd guess that 90% or more of the time when I'm checked to on the river in this situation, I win. If you bet into the possible nuts, you risk losing 2 bets to win 1, so you have to be right more than 2 out of 3 times to show a profit. My 90% estimate fits that criteria. Bet.
Am I correct in assuming that if i'm up against a full field (5 or more) and hold the nut flush draw I am to raise as much as possible because the odds I'm getting for my hand are more than ideal.
If its on teh flop and you flop a the nut flush draw (in a nonpaired board) you can raise for value against the field. As you are going to make a the flush over 33% of the time.
Note though if you are against a "set" you will only make the flush and it be the best hand about 27%. So if you have at least 3 people who will jam with you. YOu make money by raising.
A good place for more info is Izmet Fekali page.
This play is not without its drawbacks. There is a remote chance that you could make your flush and still lose. There is a very real chance that you could get re-raised and drive out players which may not be what you want. Suppose a guy bets and you raise. Now the other three or four opponents decide to fold. Are you happy? I wouldn't be. Furthermore, the one guy left with the best hand now re-pops you which you are obliged to call. Basically your raise has just helped the guy with the best hand thin the field.
I am not saying that it is a good play or a bad play. I believe it is a high variance play that maybe you can try once and awhile.
I pretty much agree with Jim here. You usually don't want to raise an opener on your right with several people behind you. OTOH, if UTG opens and 3 or 4 people cold call, then put your foot on the gas. The only exception to this, is when you have Axs (and the four flush) on a flop such as: Jxx. Here, if the opener on your right is aggressive (and prone to bet hands like KT if everyone checks to him), then go ahead and 3-bet if you think you can move out hands like KT, KQ and AT. You could already have the best hand against this opponent, and this gives you many additional ways to win without catching the flush if you are behind. Your Ace is now much more likely to be good if it hits, and you may be able to bluff your opponent out on the turn if an overcard of the wrong suit falls.
Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
Steve
Since any hand in poker is not played in a vaccum, I believe it is best to raise with a good draw such as a nut flush draw into an unpaired board. While it is true that you will lose the hand some of the time, frankly, that is alright. Raising with drawing hands such as a nut flush draw forces players to call you when you are raising with hands that are the best at the time.
For example: Assume a flop of A95 with two hearts.
Now assume two different starting hands:
Hand 1: A9 from the button with no raise.
Hand 2: K8 of hearts again from the button with no raise.
How will I play these two hands? I will play them exactly the same. In the one case I clearly have the best hand. In the other I have a great draw. I dont want the players to be able to think that I only raise when I have the best hand. If they believe this they will fold far too often. I would prefer to lose some on some drawing hands (if that is even necessary) and force my opponents to call when my hand is made.
I guess what I am saying is that I play my good draws exactly the same as I play my made hands.
Just my ideas.
The only problem with Matt's logic is that it depends on who bets. If the bettor is to your immediate right, raising is likely going to trim the field, which you don't want when you are on a draw. If the first player bets, and other players call, then give it a shot to build a pot and hopefully buy a cheap look at the river card if you miss on the turn.
With the A9, you want to get rid of someone who might call one bet with 5x or a pocket pair and could beat you on the turn.
For those reasons, I don't think it's proper to automatically suggest these two hands should be played the same.
I think how good or bad this play is depends alot on the game. If you are in a game where if you raise you are unlikely to get reraised on the flop and more than one has called one bet, then I think raising is a good play as you are making money on their calls.
If you are in a game where when you get reraised you won't lose your customers (eg many will call two more cold after calling 1 bet), then its even better!
However in some of the bigger games some will see through your play reraise and then youll lose most everyone. But as long you get 2 others you can't really be in that bad shape (or unhappy unless someone has a "set").
I was playing 5-10 hold-em with a kill to 10-20 yesterday at Mohegan and I'm not sure if I played this draw correctly. It was a kill pot. There was one limper who was a fairly aggressive loose player before me in middle position. I called two off the button with J10 of diamonds. The sb folded and bb called. The flop came Qh 10c 4d. I have middle pair with a back door flush draw and a back door straight draw. The bb bets out, middle position calls, and I call. The turn comes 9d. This was a perfect fit for my draw. Now I have an open ender and a flush draw, plus the middle pair. The bb bets out and the middle position raises. It was 40 dollars to me. Now, I'm thinking that the BB has top pair good kicker, possibly QJ or KQ. The middle position is an aggresive player, but KJ was a definite possibility. My question is, do I call the 40 or do I fold my draw to the double bet?
Results later.
Thanks for any responses.
From a math perspective, the answer is easy: you are getting a price of 180:40 (4.5 to 1). You also have implied odds. Your chance of hitting EITHER a straight or a flush is 29 to 17 (9 diamonds, 8 straight), plus you "may" have a backdoor out of another 9. Given a price of almost 3:2 (27:19), the call is "almost" automatic (discounting that you are against another bigger flush draw).
I believe it's 29:15 (9 diamonds 6 straight (minus the two diamonds that are straight cards)).
Probably play although it is real close either way. The pot is barely big enough to call. You very well may be drawing to a flush only since a straight may be out there and it is possible the bb may then repop it. There is $130 in the pot and it is $40 for you to call and if the bb will call you are barely getting the correct odds. Your added outs if they are good when you hit a straight also carry some extra weight. A lot really has to do with what you think your opponents have.
What I don't like about this play is it adds a lot of variance to your play. This is a kill pot and I personally don't like playing kill pots that are if best barely +EV. If I lose I have to win more regular pots and who knows when I will play another kill pot.
Bruce
I'd eigther raise or fold. I think I raise here a typical LL 5-10 player is loath to call bets out of their comfort zone. As much as I hate drawing out if I find myself here I am raising.
Bruce's post makes no sense - personally I like kill situations anything that takes guys like Bruce (no offence intended) out of their comfort zone I like.
Why would you want to raise? That makes abosolutely no sense. You want the big blind to call. By him not calling you are losing money if you make your hand. The only time you don't want him to call is if he has the best hand. If the big blind has top pair you want his action on the turn and should not be trying to drive him out when you are on the come.
The point I attemped to make with the hand being a kill is why become deeply involved with a hand that at best may have a slightly +EV. What happens if it becomes capped on the turn? Now how do you like your spot? The kill doesn't take me out of my comfort zone, I like to be in spots where I have clearly the best of it. I don't want to gamble if I don't have to.
Bruce
It's possible the orginal call with only 2 players in (3 after the big blind called) in late middle position was poor.
If you were going to drop it was on the flop.
Once that 9d comes you are committed. Your're 2-1 to hit the straight or flush and possibly a third 10 is good. There are 2 players involved so you must call all bet's and raises. I don't think a raise by you to try to make a river J good (for two pair) would be profitable. They may not drop their draw and possibly already have Q's up.
"It's possible the original call with only two players in, in late middle position, was poor."
B.T.D.,
Do you see this as a raise or dump situation pre-flop, or would you be more likely to mostly drop, because there are so few people in? I think I probably make the mistake of calling in this type of situation too often also?
Thanks, Don Martin
Yes, as a raise or fold. Raise to knock out the late positions behind. You now control the hand instead of meekly calling. Possible free card after the check to the raiser. Hand is disguised. Set up for a bluff if right cards fall. Later action if you show these cards down.
Folding is unthinkable. The choice is between calling or raising. You have any one of 9 Diamonds as outs. Any one of 6 non-Diamond straight cards as outs. Any one of two Tens could be an out. There is a very remote chance that any one of three Jacks could be an out. You have 15 clean outs, 2 more probable outs, and 3 additional unlikley outs. At the table I would probably call but I would not fault anyone for raising.
The very uneventfull 7 of clubs fell on the river. It ended up that I only had 5 outs. The BB had AJ of diamonds so any diamond would have made me the second best flush and any king would have made me the second best straight. I only had the two other tens and three eights. Nonetheless, I think my call was still good. The middle position player had Q9 for two pair.
Thanks for the responses.
Mike I am confused. Your post said you had the Jack-Ten of Diamonds so how can the big blind have the Ace-Jack of Diamonds?
I'm sorry, your right. The bb after the hand said that he had the nut draw for diamonds and the nut draw for the straight. He must have had AK of diamonds. So, I guess that also makes any king good for me as well. So, I had 8 outs. 3 kings, 3 eights, and two tens.
So it is hard to come up with any scenario where folding would be right because it seems that you will always have enough outs to call.
Jim Brier wrote, "So it is hard to come up with any scenario where folding would be right because it seems that you will always have enough outs to call."
This isn't quite true, if one has KJ (not diamonds), and the other has AdKd, you are drawing to only 2 K's to split the pot.
I think there are 3 good 8's as well.
No,an Eight gives him a Queen-high straight but the guy with K-J has a King-high straight on the turn.
Of course. I misread the post previous.
There's what, $75 after the flop? So, IF there's no raising war pending here, the flush draw alone makes the call good. (9/46 * $200 estimated profit = 40)
The straight is a little iffy, but it certainly solid enough to give overlay.
Look over at the BB. How many chips had he reached for? How was he breathing? Were his eyebrows arched in exaggeration? The correct decision here is call, unless hell is about to break loose.
Zooey
(now I'll read other answers)
there are 6 small bets in the pot from BTF and the flop. on the turn it is bet and raised to you. total in pot = 6 big bets. Immediate pot odds are 3:1. There is the possibility of getting reraised.
You have 9 diamond outs, 6 straight outs, plus a possibility of two more outs if another ten hits. You have a total of 17 possible outs. There is of course some chance that not all of your outs are good, but in this particular case it seems pretty unlikely. I would count all 17 as probably being good.
17/46=0.369 or 1.7:1 so you are a 1.7:1 dog to get there.
Even if it gets reraised you have a clear call here. Your immediate pot odds more than justify calling, plus you will probably collect more bets on the river. Call.
Dave in Cali
p.s. this was written before reading the other responses.
Reraising would have been a fine play, though I think I would have probably just called. By reraising you might get one player to lay down a better hand than yours (such as top pair) and the other might miss a draw or fold a better hand to a river bet.
dave in cali
You have to play it out in limit hold'em. Your probably only a 2-1 dog.
I have pocket 3's in the BB. Everyone folds to an aggressive player on the button, who raises. This player will try to steal at least %50-%75 of the time; and "outplays" me on many occassions. SB folds. What should I do?
I am guaranteed to have 3 overcards flop.
He could have almost any two cards making it difficult to put him on a hand.
He will play aggressively on the flop if he has anything (gutshot, overcards, pair, etc.?), and has position over me.
I am almost definately a slight favorite before the flop, but face a very difficult reverse implied odds situation. In a game with a stiff rake that is not adjusted to pot size I will muck for sure. I am considering mucking in these situations, anyway. How do you guys play small pp's heads up from the BB?
Some times with a guy like this you have to put him in his place. I'd re-raise him and slog it out to the river. I'd play it like AA or KK, if he is on the button and you are BB he is gonna kill you if you give up the blinds to aggressive play - be aggressive yourself - make hime pay for his blind stealng - he WILL behave I guarantee it.
I would call and take a flop since in this situation I have a hand of immediate value and he is probably raising on two unpaired cards. How I would play after that would depend on the flop and how the betting went. I would not re-raise because my hand is not strong enough and these guys raise on their good hands as well as their bad ones in this situation. Keep in mind that any pair except for Deuces has me badly beaten and I am only a slight favorite against other hands.
If you can outplay your opponent call the raise and play accordingly.
If your opponent plays better than you, pass. You will either win a small pot or lose a lot of chips.
Reraising and leading on the flop works well against the right opponent. A live one is going to take a card off and you will have no clue where you stand.
Bruce
With two deuces you should fold against good but not overly aggressive players. Against very aggressive players you can call even if you need a set to continue on the flop, since the implied odds are there. Against meek players you can call or possibly reraise and sometimes win without improving. Even if your opponent is an expert, you should play slightly higher pairs. For one he might have an undercard in his hand. Secondly, an undercard could flop. Thus only deuces is a clearcut fold and then only agiainst certain players.
I agree with Rounder. You need to pick a spot and stand up to the raiser and pocket 3's is a good start. Your other alternatives are to change seats or change games. Bullys will become more aggressive if allowed which is the way it's supposed to be.
I think Rounder and Peter J have the right idea but I don't think 33 is the hand with which to fight. You have two outs to improve where your opp has 6, unless of course he already has you beat. It's true you might be ahead, but when the turn card comes and there are 4 overcards it gets awfully hard to imagine that the board has missed him when he could have started with anything. Be prepared to teach this guy a lesson but first make sure you have a hand that can make a fist. Call the raise, look at the flop, if you have a set, a straight draw or if the board is paired I'd continue. If not I'd get away fast.
Hey I've hit cronic button raisers with a bb and small pairs, frequently they have one of your pair say A3 against my 33 now I dominate him.
I don't mind popping a cronic button raiser with a small pair so long as I am certain to get it heads up.
Hey if I lose so be it - but I win a lot more of them than I lose and often the cronic raiser will just let it go on the repop.
Try this: three bet before the flop and then CHECK THE FLOP! 90% of the time it will scare him into thinking you have a BIG hand & he will release when you bet the turn. By the way-if you do flop a set, bet it.
Recently I was playing in a 20-40 game that was extremely lively. There were many raises and reraises before the flop and a lot of bluffing. I was in middle to late position and there was one raise ahead of me. I had AKs and I reraised. The flop came AK6 three suits. The original raiser checked, I bet, others folder and he reraised. I responed by reraising again. (The one who checked raised is considered the best player in the area) He called. The turn came 8. He checked and I bet. He folded. Did I play this hand correctly?
Probably. You need to get your licks in while you can and 3 betting on the flop is as a good time as any since he will almost always call. Furthermore, the pot is already large so there is no point in slowing down. What is the alternative? Just call on the flop and then hope you can raise him on the turn if he bets? If he is a good player he may check the turn and fold when you bet so you lose collecting the extra $20 on the flop. You are marked with a good hand when you 3 bet and that flop will almost always help a 3 bettor.
I would have smooth called the flop. Then raised the turn. If he reraised the turn, then call the rest of the way, in fear of pocket 66, unless of course you spike another A or K. I think this strategy gets you an extra 1/2 bet in almost all situations, and costs you 1/2 bet in the unlikely event he flopped a set. It is highly unusual for him to check the turn if you don't reraise.
Hey Matt,
Just curious, was the player Boonie?
No, it wasnt Boonie. I think he is better than the man I am talking about. I dont include Boonie because he rarely plays here anymore. He plays much higher limit than 20-40 from what I hear.
I have played at the same table as Boonie once. He is a very strong player and an even better person.
no. he didn't cap multiway preflop. so no AA or KK. but he did raise. so no 66.
it is possible he has four outs but much more likely is drawing almost dead to something like running Q's.
call his check raise. maybe raise on the turn. maybe wait until the river.
i cannot believe jim thinks that this guy will check/fold the turn after check raising the 3 bettor on the flop. and not being 3 bet on the flop.
think about it. this guy marks the 3 bettor for AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK. assuming he has AQ, he is ahead 12 out of 27. he sure can't fold. but if you'll 3 bet him with exactly those 15 hands that have him crushed and fold or call down with the others, then his check raise is a no brainer. you are allowing yourself to be hugely exploited.
here is another point. relax the hands you would 3 bet here. put in AQs and AJs and KQs. see how effective his check raise is. it forces you to play predictably.
so, how do we fight this. we can play more aggressively with QQ and JJ hoping to get his bigger single pair to fold. but we will usually have him beat. and we want all the action we can get when we have him beat because he is drawing so slim.
the best thing to do is slow down for a little while with the monsters. he'll bet at least the turn for you.
scott
Most players don't 3 bet with pocket Jacks. A flop of AKx will give a 3 bettor a set of Aces, a set of Kings, or the top two pair the vast majority of the time. Only pocket Queens is beatable. Many guys with these hands (a set or the top two pair) will gladly smooth call when check-raised on the flop and bet the turn. Why would a good player with AQ want to hang around if he gets bet into on the turn when a blank comes with that board by a 3 bettor?
even putting the 3 bettor on AA KK QQ AK (which makes him of of the tightest 3 bettors), AQ is still ahead 6 out of 21. the pot is huge. calling down the 3 bettor would show a profit. but he can do much bettor by check raising the flop if he will be 3 bet when beat and not reraised when he is ahead.
and i think he folds to a turn raise if you just call the flop. i think he will check call the river if he gets there.
what is your explanation for the good player's check raise? i don't think he puts our hero on the same set of hands that you do. but even if he did, a check raise would be a very good play provided our hero reacts predictably.
if we play so that he gains no information than he cannot save bets with the play. i guess also 3 betting with QQ is an option. perhaps the better one. but folding QQ and reraising with the rest is bad poker.
i still don't understand what you think is going to happen on the turn. a blank comes. the AQ has to act first. once he check raises the flop, and is not reraised, i think he bets the turn. and we got one more bet out of him. just think, why would he check raise if he plans to fold to any future bet? he can't expect both the turn and river to check through when he is out of position, can he? so by just calling we gain a small bet. he will bet into us at some point or call a river bet.
the key is that he is drawing very nearly dead. so even if we only get an extra bet out of him 20% of the time, it is worth playing fancy.
one thing i don't understand is why he called the flop 3-bet. he has to know that he is drawing extremely slim. in fact, i don't think he can imagine a card that will allow him to call a turn bet. he definitely should have folded to the reraise.
scott
The pot is not huge. There are only about 10 bets in it. Being a favorite 6 times out of 21 in this situation with your AQ is really bad news. The 15 times he has the better hand you have virtually no outs so you lose almost 100% of the time and you will be paying out all the way to the river if you insist on staying and hoping that he doesn't have what he is supposed to have. The 6 times you happen to be ahead you won't win much because if he has QQ he will normally fold immediately on the flop when the two over cards show up and he is bet into. In fact if he is willing to bet or even call on the flop then you can probably rule out QQ given the presence of an Ace and a King on the table plus a pre-flop raiser who is supposedly a good player.
Virtually all of the published authorities recommend 3 betting a legitimate pre-flop raiser with only AA,KK,QQ, or maybe AK suited. 3 betting with AK or other hands are "off-nominal plays" done in special circumstances and are certainly not the norm.
if you allow him to risk only 2 small bets to find out if you have QQ on the flop, he makes a profit.
i am going to stipulate that you would reraise here with only AA KK QQ AK.
flop comes AKx. it is checked to you. do you check your QQ? i am sure you bet the others. i think you bet the QQ too.
assuming you would bet the QQ, i am sitting with some hand that can beat QQ but none of the others. folding is an option, but i am ahead more often than the effective odds of calling you down. especially if i don't have a Q. so calling you down is a better option. and maybe you won't keep betting the Q's. that's fine. it hurts my odds some, but calling you down is still profitable.
if you would only bet the flop here with AA KK AK, i should clearly fold. but i think it is a rare player who is going to muck his Q's without taking a shot a nice pot with a very scary (for everyone else) flop.
it should be plain to see that if you would bet QQ on the flop and if you react straightfowardly to my check raise, then i can improve on calling you down by check raising the flop.
here are my questions about 3 betting the flop. what hands might he incorrectly fold? what hands might he incorrectly call? there is no money to be made by this reraise.
scott
Your scenario from the AQ perspective assumes that the 3 times out of 13 he has QQ he will bet 100% of the time (See note below). But suppose he will only bet 70% of the time and just go for a free card the other 30% because of the two over cards, the fear of being check-raised by the solid pre-flop raiser, and the presence of other players yet to act?
Note: If original raiser has AQ, flop is AKx then 3 bettor can have AA (1 way),KK (3 ways), QQ (3 ways), and AK (6 ways). So there are only 3 ways out of 13 total possible hands for him to have QQ not 6 ways from 21 possible hands which we were assuming before.
the dead Q is not really central to the issue. give him AJ if you want.
i am willing to admit that his check raise is not always the best play. but the fact that he made it means he thinks it is his best play. the only way it is better than calling me down (which is likely but not always better then folding) is if he gains information from my reaction that allows him to save bets while he is beat while still winning the pot the times he is ahead.
so we should as the 3 bettor either push QQ in the hopes that we will get him to fold his A or K or slow down when he is drawing nearly dead so we can squeeze a little extra value from him.
scott
Jim wrote:
"Most players don't 3 bet with pocket Jacks"
I think:
1. Most players do 3 bet with JJ so long as no one else has called after the 2 bettor; and
2. Three betting is generally the correct play.
Jim,
I have often noticed you say something along these lines: "3 betting with JJ or TT is not a good idea because you are either a smalll favourite (if 2 bettor has AK or AQ) or a big dog (if the 2 bettor has QQ or better).
This is somewhat inaccurate. JJ is a small favourite over AK *only* if AK stays to the river. In most cases, AK will fold on the turn (some players even fold on the flop). Now, if the 2 bettor can raise with hands like KQ, it is a huge advantage to 3 bet preflop with JJ because if the flop comes Axx, JJ will win the pot whereas if JJ does not 3 bet preflop, KQ will win the pot (as now he will be the one to put in the automatic bet on the flop and JJ will likely fold).
Generally, one should 3 bet with TT or JJ if the chances are good that you will get it heads-up with you in position.
Most of the published authorities like Ciaffone, Krieger, Jones, and 2+2 would tell you to 3 bet a legitimate pre-flop raiser (in this case a good player who raised in early position) with AA,KK,QQ, and maybe AK suited. In HPFAP-21 on Page 30 they add AK offsuit as a re-raising hand but do not included anything else. Three betting a strong early position player with JJ or TT is normally not recommended. However, if the guy is a loose goose or someone over which you feel you have good control then you can 3 bet with JJ or TT. But this was a $20-$40 game with a solid player raising in early position. Furthermore, when you 3 bet you run the risk of having it capped which you will be obliged to call in order to take a flop thereby costing you 4 bets instead of 2.
I believe that the Krieger book recommends 3 betting with Jacks. I don't remember what the Coach and Jones say on this.
To me, one of the worst things that can happen with Jacks is that you go up against 3 opponents. With Jacks, I want to be up against 1 opponent (preferably with me in position) or against 5 or more opponents (in which case position though stilll important takes on less significance). In many of the games that I play in, the blinds are apt to call 1 raise with a wide variety of hands. I prefer to shut them out with a 3 bet even if it might mean that I now have to pay 2 more bets preflop (i.e. the raiser has AA or KK and caps it).
The way I see it, several things can happen if one 3 bets with JJ:
1. You may have the better hand and be 3 betting correctly (in the FTOP sense). In that case, you definitely want to be heads up. You do not want the blinds in.
If the flop comes Axx and the other guy has AK or AQ, Jim Brier is likely going to lose just 2 bets on the hand. Skp will likely take a hit of 4 bets (i.e., 3 preflop and 1 on the flop). However, the other fellow is going to pair on the flop only once in 3 times so on average, the raise preflop is the corrrect play in this scenario.
2. You may have the worse hand but still not have to face a cap bet (i.e. the other guy has QQ and does not cap). When this happens, the fact that you have 3 bet it preflop may make it easier to cause your opponent to make an FTOP error later on i.e., he folds QQ on a Kxx or Axx flop.
3. You have the worse hand and do pay an extra 2 bets preflop i.e., the other guy caps with KK or AA. (obviously this is bad for you).
Notice however that when the other guy has AA or KK, there will be times when you do pay 4 or 5 bets on the hand regardless of what you do preflop. That is, if the flop comes all rags, Jim Brier (having just called preflop will likely lose 3 bets on the flop for a total of 5 on the hand). Skp (having been 4 bet preflop) may get out on the flop for free or at most will just lose one more bet on the flop by calling.
Weighing all of the above, I feel that 3 betting is the proper play. It may be that in your games, the blinds respect raises and coldcalls of raises and are more likely to bow out in which case I think you have a stronger case for not 3 betting it preflop.
Pocket Jacks may be on the cusp here and definitely worth 3 betting against anything but solid players. I still could not bring myself to do this with pocket Tens unless the raiser was a maniac and I knew I could isolate him.
"Most players don't 3 bet with pocket Jacks."
Jim -- I've heard this on this forum before. Is that really true in Vegas? It may vary by locality, but virtually all the players I play against do 3-bet with JJ. And plenty selectively 3-bet with hands like medium pairs as well.
I hadn't gotten to skp's post yet, and see that you discussed this with him. Still, I'd be interested in whether this 3-bet is for some reason less prevalent in Vegas. I'm guessing that so far in your time there you may just have not noticed how common it is.
In the games I play in $15-$30 at the Bellagio and $20-$40 at Mirage and assuming the game is full, I don't believe most players 3 bet with Jacks. I agree that California may be different. In Vegas, if the game becomes shorthanded then players are more apt to 3 bet with Jacks. If the game is full and the raiser is viewed as loose then some players might 3 bet with Jacks to isolate. Maybe in the "loose and lively" game that the original poster is discussing 3 betting with Jacks is more common.
Scott,
I may be missing something in your analysis, but I think I see a flaw in your above argument. You are assuming that your opponent has AQ. The flop comes AK6. From your opponent's perspective, that leaves 2 aces, 3 kings, 3 queens and 4 jacks unaccounted for. In other words, if we restrict the 3-better to AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or AK; then there is 1 AA, 3 KK's, 3 QQ's, 6 AK's, and 6 JJ's possible. The fellow with AQ is trailing 10 times out of 19 (he is ahead of the 6 JJ's and the 3 QQ's but is dominated by the other holdings).
I agree with your argument about smooth-calling the check-raise when you hold AK in this case. I too would tend to be more aggressive on the more expensive streets in this circumstance, unless the flop came with a 2-flush.
you are right. i forgot to eliminate the opp's cards from the possible cards when looking from his perspective. i think i forgot because i really don't know what the opp held. i just think it is something like AQ. but anything like AQ does the same thing to the numbers, so we can use AQ.
my analysis works for your numbers too. in fact, even if we eliminate JJ like jim wants, he is still ahead almost 20% of the time. the pot is simply to big to just check and fold. and if he has AJ then he is up to having the best hand 38% of the time.
his check raise is a good play if we react straightfowardly to it. so we have to make the same play with QQ as AK in response. i think calling is preferred. but reraising with all hands in this spot might be ok.
scott
I like the way you played the hand - I hope you learned the reraise in the right placewill often win it for you. Good players are always raising here and there prodding to see what's up - you have to disappoint them some times.
While I can't fault his play at all, I will sometimes slow down in this situation and let a player who likes to be tricky and aggressive "outplay" me and stop me from raising. You can even go for a check-raise on the turn with a likely payoff on the river too.
It depends. I you´d had AKo, a reraise definitely would be better than a cold-call. But since you had AKs, it depends on the number of players that have already called: If there are only few callers, you should be more inclined to reraise since the suitedness is not as strong in a short-handed pot. If there are many callers, you could call because that way, you don´t give your hand away (especially important with all the bluffing going on) and the pot becomes more multiway which is better for suited hands.
But you decided to reraise. You bet, which I think is correct with you being in middle to late position, and the other guy raises. The good player could have put you on TT, JJ, or QQ and tried to make you fold right now, but he also knew he could be up against AA, KK, and AK (and AQ), and your reraise told him that he was, indeed. Your opponent could´ve had about the same hands, but only AA and KK i.e. two hands could beat yours. If he´s got a weaker hand (which he almost certainly has) and you call, I doubt that he would bet again on river, so a reraise very likely was the better play. On turn the bet was solid, if very daring you could´ve checked, too, and perhaps good player would have gone for a bluff on river, but it was better to bet cause a check may cost you the pot.
Perhaps this could be easily answered by a few sims, but when sitting down at a table with primarily calling stations, how do you play hands like JJ or TT UTG? Or, if you're 4 or 5 off the button (and the first one in), and you receive 99 or 88? Is it +EV to pop these hands almost all the time?
I guess I'm really wondering if you have the best of it in these situations. Let's assume the following: typical preflop action is 5 or 6 players for one bet, the table is loose/passive, and you're playing a standard, tight game. No one pays any attention to your preflop raises. [Yes, it's lo-limit no fold 'em, but I'm trying to sound more universal here.]
How often do you jack it up with the above holdings?
JJ TT raise UTG almost always. First in, in middle position raise 99 88 often depending on how the field plays. If people hold onto Ax, Axs, Kx, Kxs for dear life I think these hands go down in value if several people will call the raise. If you can eliminate some hands and get a few singleton overcards to fold then raise.
Even with a hand as strong as J-J, your raise is best if it narrows the field, but much less so if all will call a double-bet. You've got about a 42% chance of an A or K flopping, so with that many callers, you're going to get beat a lot (your typical no-fold'em opponents will "take one off" with their single Ace even when they miss the flop, so your beats go up to around the 50% mark). While J-J with a raise will be profitable, it will also be high variance. A discussion of a similar situation is on page 213 in HPFAP.
I play in a low limit game and i always raise if first in with 88 or better. It also helps to disguise your big pocket pairs.
Hasn't been mentioned yet, but try a limp-reraise once in a while with jacks or tens. It'll throw off your opponents (you might sell them on aces or kings) and provide cover to other limp-reraises, and if there's a maniac in the hand, your limp-reraising of him could trap your opponents with much inferior holdings. It's probably not a play you want to run every time, but you may be positively surprised by the results if you mix it up a little with this.
What do you have to do to get comped at the Mirage? I heard that they comp poker players.
If I go there and book a room for 5 days is it possible to get all 5 nights comped if I play enough? How much is enough?
Also, do you have to play above a certain limit? IE if I went there and just played 5 10 and 10-20 could I get my room comped?
Thanks.
SmoothB
Poker players will receive a casino rate for the room if they play 5 hours or more each day. You need to call the poker room and book your room through them. Tell them that you are a new player. When you arrive they will give you a little card. When you begin your play a floor person will write down the game you are playing in and the time. When you are finished or move to another game be sure and notify a floor person so they can write down the time you finished and they then sign it.
I believe that the casino rate is $79 per night during the week and $159 per night on the weekends but call the poker room and ask them. I have not stayed at the Mirage since the Bellagio opened up in October 1998. You can also get a free buffet every day if you get your name on a list when the new shift starts. Ask them about that as well.
I believe that you are allowed only one buffet comp per week.
I know this is the wrong forum, but while we're on the topic, what are the best poker rooms in Vegas for comping their players?
Where are steady no limit games spread in Vegas? What limits are offered? (IE what blind structures and buy in requirements.)
Are there any no limit games that have lots of fish, or should I expect every table to be filled with TJ Cloutier clones?
-SmoothB-
The Stratosphere is the only place I know of that spreads no-limit. The blinds are 1-2 and the buy-in is $50. I understand that it's hit and miss-some nites OK. The Horseshoe just started a pot limit game with a $200 buy-in but I would call first to make sure.
The fact of the matter is that there are zero no-limit games that go on a regular basis.
None? Anywhere in the world?
The fact of the matter is that there are two no-limit games that go on a regular basis.In Las Vegas,that is.Stardust has a game every Friday night.Stratosphere on Wednesday and Sunday nights.The Sunday night game sometimes has two games going.Both Stardust and Stratosphere no-limit games are a lot of fun to play in.
The Plaza downtown has pot-limit on tuesday and friday nights,with a $40 buy-in and $1 & $2 blinds.
Right now,if you want to play live no-limit or pot-limit Hold'Em in Vegas,you have opportunites. That could change.About two years ago,there was a real good regularly spread NL game at Texas Station.It was fun while it lasted.
Good Luck
Howard
First of all, when I said "go on a regular basis," I'm not sure that I would include a game that goes only once or twice a week. In addition, even though these games do appear every so often, they don't usually last. However, with that being said, it sounds like the games that Howard is describing are fairly good right at the moment. So you may want to give them a shot.
Going to be staying at the Excalibur in a few weeks and was wondering if anyone could tell me how the poker is at their poker room.
it mostly sucks. go down the street and play at Bellagio or go further down the street and play at the Mirage.
They have $2-6 Hold'Em and $1-5 stud. They bring out free food for the players every night around 5:00 PM.If you have pocket aces or kings snapped in Hold'Em,you spin a money wheel.Anytime you have four of a kind,you spin the money wheel.The worst prize on the wheel is $10.00,the best/ $100.00.
I have played in every card room in Las Vegas.IMHO the Excalibur is one of the better rooms in town. If you don't mind playing low limit then the Excalibur is worth a try.
BTW/ As the other poster said,Bellagio and Mirage are rooms you should check out.Don't forget Binion's Horseshoe,they have a $10-20 Hold'Em game that gets pretty loose on the weekend!
Good Luck
Howard
Ward:
In the future, please put this type of post on our Other Topics Board.
The Excalibur poker room is a great place to go if you have little or no experience playing poker in a casino. The games are really easy, and you only have to post a single 2 dollar blind once per orbit around the table. You can sit and watch how people play for quite a while without it costing you anything.
Once in a while they will spread a 6-12 game there too. The players are just as bad as they are in the 2-6 game.
It is a fun time, and if you are staying in the Excalibur anyway, you might as well give it a try.
If those stakes are too puny for you you might want to try Bellagio or Mirage.
-SmoothB-
Thanks for the input and I will post this type of question in the other topic area. Sorry for the mistake.
I recently reread your "Hold'em Preflop Strategy" from 1999, and was curious if you had made any mental revisions to that strategy.
First I commend you for an excellent article, without implying any approval/disapproval of content, as it is not my intention to stir a discourse (or worse yet, flames) on areas where you diverge from other published works.
However, I am curious about your aversion to J-10, as it appears you disdain playing this hand in nearly any scenario or position. Given that in the early days of hold-em, J-10 was considered a "premium" starting hand, I'd be intriqued to know under what circumstances you would consider J-10 to be a quality and/or playable hand and how you would handle them.
"playable hand"
in 3-6. seems like it's a 'raising' hand. grrr. have u guys noticed my anger towards this hand? grrrrr.
i'm being sarcastic about it being a raising hand.
anyways, have a nice day. bye bye.
I personaly dislike it , but i will try a steal raise with it or make a button call if unsuited. If suited i will call if there is some action and no raise.
I hate J10. I haven't kept track or anything, but I'm almost sure this hand is costing me money. If second best took the money, J10 would be a premium hand.
Hands containing a J are trouble hands. If ever I am in trouble in a hand it usually contains a J that includes JJ which I play more like 88 than QQ and consider a med. pair.
I hate J's they are a paint with no power.
You ask about what revisions I would make to the preflop strategy essay. The main change I would make is to emphasize a point mentioned in passing: in games that are neither very tight nor very loose it's preferable to raise with every hand you play when opening, to preserve information about your hand.
Regarding JT, if you fold JT every time you get it outside the blinds, you'll probably be playing closer to correct than if you play "by the book." The most extreme example I give is folding JT on the button after 5 loose limpers. I should have mentioned that this is a borderline fold; if your opponents play poorly after the flop, there is no rake, and so on, then you could probably squeeze out some profit with it. QJ and KJ would be raising hands here when using Abdulian strategy, and I realize that many who play "by the book" would object to that. I strongly advise against playing offsuit hands weaker than JT here.
-Abdul
Why would you raise in these situations?
Loose limpers will often be dominated by hands as weak as QJ and KJ. If they weren't, they would probably have raised.
The rationale for raising after loose limpers with hands like QJ and KJ
1) As Terrence Chan points out, you are probably not dominated and may dominate, e.g., they are unlikely to hold AJ since they did not raise but they are likely to hold JT.
2) Even if you do not dominate any limpers, you still want to raise, because you've got the best of it right now on money going into the pot; if you could force everyone all-in preflop, you'd be happy to do so.
3) Some of your loose limping opponents likely have weak offsuit garbage like T8; if you raise you wreck their implied odds and then they have made a huge mistake by limping, whereas if you let them get in cheap then they made only a small mistake at most.
4) Weak players tend to check to the preflop raiser on the flop. Any "pot manipulation" desires to keep the pot small are likely drowned out simply by the free card advantage of raising with position.
-Abdul
In the smallest limit games, there are some players who will not play garbage and will NEVER raise preflop (and others will only raise with AA/KK). When a couple of these somewhat loose, extremely passive players are among the limpers, is it still a good idea to raise with QJo and KJo?
Yes, I actually mentioned this, but editted it out for brevity. Some very weak players don't raise except with like AA or KK. If it's the kind of game where no one is raising with AJ-AK, then you probably should not risk raising with QJ/KJ, and if they're not all that loose then you should consider folding.
-Abdul
Abdul,
You wrote: “The most extreme example I give is folding JT on the button after 5 loose limpers. I should have mentioned that this is a borderline fold; if your opponents play poorly after the flop, there is no rake, and so on, then you could probably squeeze out some profit with it. ...I strongly advise against playing offsuit hands weaker than JT here."
I have tightened up here based on your advice. But a week or two ago there was a post where a player had 54 offsuit in the big blind. There was a cutoff seat raise after the whole table limped (in a nine handed game). This game had very little limp reraising and he called. I thought the call was a slam dunk (he was getting 17 to 1 if we assume no limp reraise). But some thought the call was bad or marginal.
My point was, against seven or more opponents, isn’t 54 almost as good as JT? I would think that you are mostly playing for the straight, as making one or even two pair won’t hold up much against this large a field. In addition, I flopping a straight draw with small cards would usually face less post flop pressure, which is what you would want. Comments?
Regards,
Rick
Funny thing, since reading Abdul's article and response this morning, I've been walking around mulling the possibility that 4-5 is effectively the same hand as J-10. Except for the rare full or quads, the best nut hands you can make are straights to the Ace in both situations (well, okay, a flop of 7-8-9 aint bad either ... unless a 10 or J comes later). And in fact, I think your perception is right, simply because 4-5 will get you in a lot less trouble than J-10. There are a whole lot of flops that will hit J-10 in some way, but not very many that will make 4-5 look attractive enough to play after the flop. In that regard, maybe 4-5 has even more of a positive expectation.
My L.A. pal Rick "Cool Cat Giovanotti" Nebiolo contemplates:
Isn’t 54 almost as good as JT?
By allmighty Allah, no!!! They are not nearly the same (apart from the fact that JT will always make a nut straight and 54 won't.). Connectors have other ways to win the pot, not making the straights only. Plus, sometimes flopping a pair helps you back into a one card straight that will win the dough, sometimes you go for the straight and finish with a pair or two that just might be good. Sometimes you have an overcards combo with semibluffing backup power to knock somebody out and then snatch a pair on the river that just might be enough to win. Obviously, much of this can hardly apply to 45o, as it can too easily get pushed out of the pot. 54 won't get to the river as often as JT. When it does, it won't be good as often as JT. The above applies to loose games also.
Note that playing them from the big blind is an alltogether different snakepit. Getting 17 to 1 odds in the BB against eight opponents with 54o sounds good, getting 8 to 1 on the button with it sounds baaad.
They are both sucker hands, however. Practice ditching at home, it's all in the wrist.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
As you know, small offsuit cards are very weak in hold'em. With small cards, when you flop top pair, two pair, or even a full house, it gets cracked a fair amount.
The situation you're talking about, defending in the big blind in a big multiway pot, is quite different than the situation I was talking about, playing on the button after several limpers. In your situation, you're getting such big odds to flop a straight draw, trips, or other good hand that you can play weak offsuit connectors. In my situation, the odds are much less, and I think there it's often a mistake to play weak offsuit connectors.
In your situation, JT and 54 are indeed similar in value. What 54 loses in high card strength it nearly makes up for in liveness of its cards and lack of domination. And mostly you're just looking to flop a straight draw anyway. The JT does have the advantage of making a nut straight slightly more often, though (e.g., board of A23KQ... JT beats 54.)
-Abdul
Abdul,
Thanks for the answer (and thanks Izmet and Earl). I missed this last night as a viewing of the movie "The Perfect Storm" (after passing on a blah looking game at a small, tent like casino) made me a little wobbly and I couln't hit the scroll bar on my browser.
Rick
P.S. I read the book and Perfect Storm was a dissapointment. Part of it was I've been in rough weather (not that rough of course) in small boats and they get so many details wroung.
Abdul wrote:
"You ask about what revisions I would make to the preflop strategy essay. The main change I would make is to emphasize a point mentioned in passing: in games that are neither very tight nor very loose it's preferable to raise with every hand you play when opening, to preserve information about your hand."
We believe that in a typical nine or ten handed game it is reasonable to limp in in the first two or three positions with quite a few hands. As I stated before, the best and most successful players that I play against follow this strategy. There is no one that I know of who is successful and raises every time they are first in.
This is incredibly fuzzy thinking and you should be ashamed of yourself.
It is not correct to always raise when opening, because it's not correct in fairly tight nor fairly loose games. If you were watching the games closely, you would see 1) warped cards (usually), 2) cheating players (rarely), 3) the glance-down-at-chips tell (a couple times per session), and 4) successful players who do raise virtually all the time when opening in certain kinds of games, but note that games change and successful players change in response.
Even if your observations, which totally contradict mine, could be trusted, they mean almost nothing.
There are three rationales for open-raising with everything in the games where you're likely to get heads up to the flop or steal the blinds. First, there is tremendous equity in stealing the blinds with marginal hands. Second, if you limp you invite a player to raise behind with a dominating hand that he would have folded had you raised. Third, by always raising you give away much less information about your hand, and so balancing your play after the flop is a whole lot easier. S&M do not preach these concepts, so I'm not surprised by the resistance.
You have not made a logical argument such as this and have instead relied on weak appeals to authority based on questionable observations.
I suspect you are accustomed to playing games that are on the loose side, where there is no equity in stealing the blinds from under the gun, in which case you indeed should open-limp with some hands, often even 88. Note also that the higher you play, the more you are going to get punished for information you give away by not always raising when opening. However, it's also true that the better a player you are, the less of a need you have of disguising your hand preflop.
-Abdul
I'll state it again, there are no successful players that I know of who play as you describe. I'll let others elaborate as to what is wrong with you advice.
The only point that I wish to make is that I've been playing a fair amount of the $30-$60 hold 'em game (along with the $30-$60 stud game) at The Bellagio. The most successful players in these games are actually limping in a little more up front than our books suggest.
Allow me to elaborate for Mason.
The problem with your advice, Abdul, is that you attempt to back it up with reasoned argument. Instead you should just state 'I know best', and if backed into a corner you should allow others to elaborate.
Keyser
I saw Toothpick Doug (David Sklansky pointed him out to me in a private conversation as being one of the top 20 in the country) limp utg exactly once (in about 50 hours of play) when I was playing against him in Bellagio $30-60 and I promptly mucked my KQ against this sneaky limp.
It was about a year ago and my recollection is fuzzy, but I know Abdul was playing next to me at the table, but missed this particular hand. I pointed it out to him when he got back and he was surprised (I think) to hear about Doug limping utg.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Abdul,
I'm confused. You wrote it is NOT correct to always open-raise in "very tight" or "fairly tight" games, but it is correct "in the games where you're likely to get heads up to the flop or steal the blinds." I thought such games qualify as at least "fairly tight." Please help me understand the type of games in which you believe it is correct to always open-raise.
In a game where if you open-raise early, you will win the blinds immediately the majority of the time, then you lose too much by raising with AA and should open-call with it often, and hence you can also open-call with some weak hands like 88 and maybe even 55, under the protection of the limping AA/KK/etc. I rarely see this tight a game at any limit anywhere, but it does occasionally happen in Vegas.
In a game where if you open-raise early, you will get at least a couple of cold callers the majority of the time and likely the big blind too, then you don't have equity in stealing the blind with hands and hands like 88 want more passengers, not fewer.
In a game where if you open-raise early, and you're likely to wind up heads up versus either a blind or a later position player (but sometimes winding up 3-way, sometimes stealing the blinds), then you should strongly consider a raise-or-fold UTG strategy. If you open-call in such a game with a hand like QJs or 88, you are asking to be raised by a dominating hand or by a worse hand that can nevertheless outplay you with position, and the big blind may come along too with suited hands for its odds, whereas these hands would have folded had you raised.
IMO.
-Abdul
NT
Mason, I expect neither you nor Abdul actually mean anyone raising always raising first in as that is too much an absolute.
"There is no one that I know of who is successful and raises every time they are first in."
However, based upon my own play results, my observation of those successful in the 20-40 & 40-80 limits in the SF Bay Area and those at Bellagio & Mirage, a vast majority of the successful players employ that tactic. That is, to mainly raise preflop when first in. We are talking about 75%-90% or more of the time. We are not talking about opening with "wishing" or "gamboooling" hands. No. Those recommended by S&M and Abdul, depending on position. Why is this successful play? Here is what we want to accomplish: 1) To win the pot right there; 2) To drive players out; 3) To take initiative in post flop play; 4) To prevent giving out information or be predictable; 5) To get more more money in the pot.
We know there is much more to winning play but to start, be selective of the hands you play and when you do, to play them aggressively.
To clarify, I'm saying that in a particular kind of game, neither too loose nor too tight, you should open-raise six off the button with 88-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, AQ, and AK, while mucking everything else. I mean 100% raise-or-fold when opening in this particular kind of game.
(Because of the strength of the above hands, and because you do want to get some action on your pocket rockets, you could add open-raises with KJs, QJs, AJ, A9s, 77, A8s, and maybe even KTs, but 2+2ers tend to think of these hands as too frisky up front. You can certainly add those hands and more when the big blind is a weak player or appears ready to fold or something like that. I'd rather not cloud the debate with tightness considerations.)
-Abdul
Abdul wrote:
"To clarify, I'm saying that in a particular kind of game, neither too loose nor too tight, you should open-raise six off the button with 88-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, AQ, and AK, while mucking everything else. I mean 100% raise-or-fold when opening in this particular kind of game."
The problem with always raising with all of these hands is that a good player will notice and start to three bet you a lot. Now you will be playing many heads up pots against a good player who has position on you. This can be especially troublesome for those of you who don't play that well after the flop and/or those of you who fail to recognize that some players who appear to only play tight actually play quite well and will be loosening their reraises against you (and perhaps only against you).
Abdul wrote:
"(Because of the strength of the above hands, and because you do want to get some action on your pocket rockets, you could add open-raises with KJs, QJs, AJ, A9s, 77, A8s, and maybe even KTs, but 2+2ers tend to think of these hands as too frisky up front. You can certainly add those hands and more when the big blind is a weak player or appears ready to fold or something like that. I'd rather not cloud the debate with tightness considerations.)"
If you read our books, you will see that we recommend playing virtually all of these hands up front in a typical game. I certainly play them. In fact, I believe that all the better players play them. But what they do is usually limp (and occasionally raise) with them, and the best players that I know are also limping with many of the better hands (up front) as a means of balancing these limps. (As an aside, if you were to throw one of them away when first in early in a full game, which one is the most likely candidate?)
Perhaps it is true that a few players who participate in this forum and think of themselves as a "2+2er" are reluctant to play them if first in early. But I suspect that these people are in the "2+2" minority, not the majority.
I listed the extra hands in order of (my perception of) their strength in opening in a typical game. So I would add KJs and QJs first, A8s and KTs last. Exactly which hands actually should be added first would depend on the characteristics of the opponents.
-Abdul
The key point here is successful play encourages opening with a raise in most all situations. Depending on the texture of the game, I may or may not open with 8-8 or like. If I chose to play it first in, I will open with a raise.
If I start limping with hands like 8-8 or K-10s, good players should take notice and apply, "pound, pound, pound." However, if when I open with a raise most all the time, I conceal the data of weak versus premium hand.
With this type of play, one must play well after the flop. Maintain the initiative but know when to shut down.
Suppose your strategy is to also limp with some very strong hands. Good players will also notice this and adjust their play. I thought that "pound, pound, pound" was totally discredited.
You see if you raise a good player and he does hold a pair of eights, and the flop comes non-dangerous, you will either be looking at a bet or a check-raise. If you choose to raise (or reraise), what do you do on fourth bet if he bets into you. (Remember, you cannot be sure he only has just a pair of eights. Perhaps he played a pair of aces slow, or flopped a set, etc.)
Let me reply to each question separately.
"Suppose your strategy is to also limp with some very strong hands."
Well, you then allow for more players in the hand rather than limiting the field. Hands like 8-8 et al, fare much better headsup/short handed. You also eliminate winning the pot right away with the limp.
"Good players will also notice this and adjust their play. I thought that "pound, pound, pound" was totally discredited."
How will they adjust? Open raising with premium hands consistently places anyone who choses to engage in a high risk endeavor. Further, I am not a strong proponent of opening with those type of hands in early position, especially in tough games. Whereas 2+2 and Abdul may contend those hands can be profitable, I would gather you both would agree the EV is marginal. As to "pound, pound, pound" I believe it to be with merit, it just needs to be applied with good judgment, skillfully.
"You see if you raise a good player and he does hold a pair of eights, and the flop comes non-dangerous, you will either be looking at a bet or a check-raise. If you choose to raise (or reraise), what do you do on fourth bet if he bets into you. (Remember, you cannot be sure he only has just a pair of eights. Perhaps he played a pair of aces slow, or flopped a set, etc.)"
This requires multi responses and we need to view this from both perspectives. If I raised a good player who has limped in early position, there are not many flops which are safe for him. Most will include over cards and even with under cards, he may be looking at a larger pocket pair. Remember, you too are viewed my him to be a solid, tough player. If on fourth street he bets into us, it will depend on the board and read on the player. While I do not know for certain if he has eights, aces slow or flopped a set, by carefully watching his play I know that by him limping up front, probability dictates that he is much more likely to have a low to middle pair or ace rag, than a strong hand. The key issue here is by limping up front, this provides information to a observant player who applies agresssion, skill and advice provided by 2+2 and Abdul.
For what it's worth (not much), I just got done playing $100-$200, and during 3 hours of play the only players who ever open-limped early were the fish.
-Abdul
10-20 game. First in, I raise with 9-9 in late-middle position. Player with about $2,000 in front of him, sitting in cutoff reraises me. Both binds call, I call. Flop comes with 3 hearts, two overcards, I check and fold to cutoff. He ultimately shows A-5 of hearts to win. He looks over and says he had to raise preflop to "isolate" me, which gives me quite the laugh, but also gets me to wondering, could it possibly EVER be correct to try to isolate with A-small suited in a limit game?
Sure.
If I am on the button and an aggresive player in the cut-off seat raises, I am likely to 3 bet it if I think I can get it heads up.
Caveat: IMO, a hand like A9 offsuit here is much better than A5s. The difference between the 9 and the 5 does not lie in the usual sense of have a bigger "kicker'. The value of the 9 (as opposed to the 5) is that the latter can more easily make you 2nd or 3rd pair which can get you in trouble. I think that this advantage of A9 outweighs the disadvantage of being offsuit.
Is A9 offsuit in this situation better than A5s?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Although I think that the question is only of academic interest as I am likely to fold or 3 bet with either hand in this situation, I am curious as to what everyone else thinks.
This is intriquing. Why get headsup with a hand that has a slim chance of a flush and only 3 other outs? This seems the classic case of "expensive if you miss versus small reward if you hit." Bigger Aces will not drop to the reraise, nor will the paired hands. The only hands you dominate are weaker flush draws (that you have most likely driven out). When you get the flop you like, you will not get the reward you seek, as lesser hands will drop. If you hit an Ace, you are in a world of hurt if you get any play. Still, your position is interesting and I'd love to hear more.
All valid points.
But the isolation raise by definition means that you think (a) you will get heads-up and (b) the other fella stands to have very little himself. Thus, your Ace high can often be enough to win a showdown even assuming that he calls your flop bet. And given that you have position, you can often check the turn.
In other words, if you are going to go for an isolation raise, the hand that we are really talking about is an Ace/little or medium kicker hand. If you have a Big Ace, you 3 bet not as an isolation raise but as a value raise (the isolation part of the raise is just an added bonus).
So how far back around the corner do we look to perceive that the "fella has very little himself"? It would seem to me that a raise from other than the cutoff or the button would eliminate the possibility that you're facing any plausible hand that the A-5s could be favored over. I'm starting to suspect the only thought the guy had is much more simplistic, where he has a bunch of chips and the raise with A-5s is simply gambling, hoping to pick off an early raiser via a lucky flop, or hoping to use his position to outplay after the flop.
The first idea isn't profitable shorthanded, and I think the latter idea is silly, simply because most players aren't going to dump their middle pairs unless an Ace comes (again, the Ace gambles but doesn't get paid off). But still, maybe the idea is that if we're going to play the hand, we might as well raise with it? Otherwise, what in the world to do with A-5s when it comes around to you in late position facing a raise with few players in?
I think it takes a lot of discipline to dump the hand. But there isn't an experienced player alive that is going to be run off a legitimate hand before the flop with a late position raise, and the hand is either a small favorite or a big dog, so long-term, the reraise has to be a negative play.
oh for sure...I was merely responding to your question "can it ever be correct to put in an isolation 3 bet with A5s". I certainly was not saying that your opponent in the hand described was making the proper play given that your raise did not have all the earmarks of a steal raise (I am guessing that you had not been seen splashing chips around indiscriminately prior to that hand). In that situation, folding A5s is the obvious play.
Sounds like this guy wanted to get YOU isolated.
Maybe you were playing to fast or he thought you were weak and could out play you on the flop. As it happened you folded to his bet with the 3 hearts out there.
Food for thought. If a guy tells me he wants to isolate me I have to start looking at my game.
A pair of nines versus 3 opponents and a flushed board with 2 overcards does not look to be a profitable situation to take to the river (I won't even get into what I read when the hearts flopped -- he should've put his mirrored shades back on before that happened). Most of the time, the game was fairly loose, and the idea of "isolation" (even with position) seemed a bit ludicrous. But the "too fast" idea is a good one ... it was only a 10-20 game, and this guy thought he was Maverick re-incarnated (maybe since he had the most chips on the table, he thought he was the sheriff?). Actually, I thought maybe he read about the idea of isolation somewhere and was really serious with the idea that A-5s was a good hand to "isolate" with. In any event, using a weak hand to "isolate" someone who makes a raise earlier than the steal positions is like saying you are going to isolate John Gotti -- you're not a favorite to come out unbloodied, although you might get in a lucky shot.
Isolating with A5s is a poor play in general. Perhaps if the cutoff raises and you are on the button you might go for it, but only if your opponent is the type who will fold if he hits nothing on the flop and the blinds are likely to fold. The flush value of the hand heads up is of minor significance. If you flop an Ace and get any play back you have problems. You need a miracle flop of two pair or triplicate Fives. I am of the opinion even on the button if everyone has passed to not even automatically raise with A5s if I know that there is no way the blinds are going to fold and they will take one off on the flop with nothing.
Bruce
You make good points. A-5s is only a small favorite even versus a hand such as 7-8s. If I were going to make that play, I'd be more inclined to raise on the button in order to set up and price the hand a) in case the flush draw flopped, and b) to buy a free card if necessary thereafter.
I wouldn't ever play this hand vs. a single raiser, unless I happened to be in one of the blinds when the button or cutoff raised and they were loose raisers. The biggest problem with a hand of this type heads up is that you never know where you stand. If an ace hits, you may be against a bigger kicker, and if a 5 hits there are overpairs. If no pair hits for you (most of the time) what are you going to do if check raised or bet into on the flop? To top it all off, you still have the two blinds to contend with and you have already put in 3 bets if you've reraised.
Bruce
you wrote:
"I am of the opinion even on the button if everyone has passed to not even automatically raise with A5s if I know that there is no way the blinds are going to fold and they will take one off on the flop with nothing."
I have to disagree here. A5s is most likely the best hand when everyone has folded and you are on the button. Even if I knew for a fact that the blinds would call, I would still raise here. Just because they will automatically take one off on the flop does not change the fact that you should raise BTF.
I would be interested in any analysis on this problem, if someone was so inclined to do some simulations or calculations, please post them. my computer is getting upgraded this week so I can't run the TTHE simulations myself until I get it back. (this post is obviously not made from my house!).
Dave in Cali
My thinking over the last 10 years has been changing back and forth on this subject. There is no doubt that A5 is the best hand preflop. If I am to raise I want to have some legitimate chances of stealing the blinds. If the blinds almost always defend their hands I preferably want to have a better starting hand. With A5s you will in all likelyhood flop nothing and then how do you proceed? You have put in 2 bets preflop and if checked to you on the flop will put in 1 more bet. You have invested 3 bets and you have 2 opponents who are loose and will almost always take one off on the flop. If there is no help on the turn you pretty much have to check and one of your opponents will fire on the river with or without anything? So do you really have a +ev by playing the hand?
Bruce
I believe that this situation is +EV, although I would not be surprised if it is close to even and only slightly positive. When I get my computer back I will run some simuations, that is unless anyone else beats me to the punch. I am not sure of the exact significance of the simuations but I will let you know what I discover. I think that the times you will win with ace high though will make the hand playable and +EV in the long run. More discussion and analysis is needed to decide once and for all. Your arguements are well thought out. Good Debate.
Dave in Cali
It probably is +ev if you see all five cards in a hypothetical setting with no betting or bluffing.
Bobby Huff was one of my early mentors and he told me when he stopped raising with Ace rag from the button or cutoff against chronic blind defenders his results improved dramatically in limit holdem. The suited aspect really adds very little to the value of your hand shorthanded. It looks pretty and thats about it.
Bruce
you are correct about the suited aspect adding little to your hand. A significant portion of the $$ I make in low limit is probably from players chasing flushes. This same phenomenon leads to occasional days where you lose your ass by constantly getting drawn out on by flushes. Still though, we WANT other players to give suited cards high value, while WE will simply give them the smaller value that they actually have when considering preflop calls.
Dave in Cali
I guess it all depends on the tightness of button and blinds: if there is a good chance that all of them will fold, as well as that you were trying to steal-raise, it´s not too bad, cause cutoff now has position on you in a heads up pot with A high probably being the best hand. But if only one of the 3 would cold-call the reraise, A5s should definitely fold.
I receive AA on button in very loose-passive game. Five players limp, I raise, the BB and limpers call. Flop comes JT7r. All check to me, I bet, and five players call. Turn is a 6. All check to me, I bet, and two players call. River is an 8. All check to me. Bet?
Guess are anyu of the players likely to ck raise you with a straight. Depending on the answer I bet or turn them over. Even loose players catch straights - what could they have been drawing to???
In a case like this I usually figure if I bet they will just fold and if they raise me I am beat. I probably just turn them over at this point.
These are the type of players who seldom fold with a pair, and would not check-raise without a straight. They also would likely just check-call to the river if they flopped two-pair or a set!
Student,
In general, I would bet. The made straight (T9) would want to bet because he would be afraid you would check behind on the river since the board is coordinated and they probably play you for overcards or an overpair.
With two opponents, I don't see this river card making someone two pair that often. And if they already had you beat, you would have found out on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
Would you bet if your opponents were so loose-passive that they'd check-call all the way with TJ or TT? [This was a 1-2 game.]
Student,
They may check call with these hands that beat you, but they will check call with even more hands that you beat. One thing they don't do too much at this level (I think), is check raise. So I still like the bet.
Regards,
Rick
Interesting problem. With only two opponents I would bet because someone with a straight would have bet on the end and someone with two pair would have shown some strength earlier in most cases. However, with three or more opponents I would check it down since the likelihood among all those players of not calling with a worse hand but calling with a better one is simply too great to bet.
Is it also important to consider the number of opponents I had on the flop? I am presumably up against the best two hands out of a field of six. Would you bet the river if you had 8 opponents on the flop?
Excellent point. The players who take the flop the greater likelihood that someone has something that is better than your something since as you say you are looking at the surviving members of a large crowd.
I decided to check the river because of the large number of opponents who saw the flop with me, and their tendency to play good hands passively. In my mind, having one less opponent on the flop would have swung the balance in favor of betting the river. I lost to TJ.
Call me stupid, but why on earth did you raise with AA from late position in a loose-passive game? You knew everyone was going to call and check to you, and a small bet wont scare these players off on the flop especially with the pot being large, which is exactly the opposite of what you want with you having only 2 outs and your opponents having tons. Even if you flop trips, players will just see that A looming on the flop and fold too early. I´d call preflop, on the flop there would very likely be a bet that I could raise to drive players out (cause I believe loose-passive players are more afraid of flop raises). JT then would probably reraise, and I, having only 2 outs, would fold.
your comment is welcome
Even in a large field AA is still a big winner. Not raising with it just because no one will drop is just costing yourself a ton of money.
Are there errors on this probability chart? e.g. note 3 (straight draw) has 8 outs-not 15 outs as you depict. Or am I misinterperting the chart? Please reply. If you need my mailing address it is 124 Deerfield Drive Rochester NY 14609. Thank you.
There are errors on the page.
It should read 15 strt flsh draw.
8= straight draw
9= flush draw
4= 2 pr or gutshot
The chart is correct but the footnotes are wrong. Footnote #1 should read "flush draw". Footnote #2 should read "straight draw". Footnote #3 should read "straight flush draw". Footnote #4 is correct. Just mark it up with a pen and you will be fine.
4-8 HE. Very, VERY loose game. Not too many aggressive players but a couple will put in pre-flop raises on a somewhat random basis.
I am in middle position with my FAVORITE hand, Td9d. Why this is my favorite hand, I'm not quite sure, I guess I have just won a bunch of big pots with it.
Preflop several limpers to me, I call. Two more callers and button raises. Both blinds call. Everyone calls to me and I call. Player to my left reraises. I don't think he has squat, I believe he is just putting in a pointless limp-reraise. Button makes it four bets. I have watched the button play for several hours and i don't believe he would make it four bets without AA or KK. He limped twice before with AKo and just called a raise with AKs and QQ so I am relatively confident of my read on him. Everyone calls when it gets to me so I call. 7 way action BTF. Normally I would never play suited connectors for four bets but this pot is going to be huge. Is my pre-flop play questionable? perhaps. 28 bets in the pot.
Flop is Kd Qs 7c. Checked to me, I check. Goes to the button who bets. there are 4 callers when it gets back to me. I have a gutshot to a non-nut straight and a backdoor flush draw. There are 32 bets in the pot. Not the best draw, but the pot is huge. I don't think it will get reraised here. I call, next player folds. 6 players, 38 bets in the pot.
Turn is the (almost) perfect card, Jc. Checked to me, I bet. Button raises and UTG calls. I reraise. My thinking here is that there is absolutely no way that the button has AT. UTG would have bet and/or reraised if he had AT (his play was very straightforward and predictable). I feel very confident that I have the best hand. Button caps the betting. UTG calls and there are three players left. I am almost certain now that he has KK and has flopped a set. If the board pairs I am sunk. I hope another club doesn't come or I still may be sunk anyway. 3x4=12 big bets on the turn plus 19 BB = 31 big bets in the pot.
River is a scary 2c. UTG checks! I chicken out and check. I am afraid of a check-raise from UTG and the pot is plenty big enough. Button bets! UTG FOLDS! I call. (button only had two chips left so raising him was pointless). Button shows KK and I win a gigantic pot.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Well played. Obviously you don't like putting four bets in with your hand before the flop but what the hell you have 7 way action so this is a good spot to gamble.
On the flop you correctly called. You have a gutshot and backdoor flush draw and you will probably have to call a single bet.
On the turn it is obvious you have the best hand so punish everyone.
That's a nice big pot.
Bruce
Although you did "jump the fence" pre-flop when it was re-raised and capped back to you, your reasons where valid so I agree with your pre-flop play. The rest of your play was fine except I think you should bet the river despite the runner-runner Club flush possibility. I suspect that you were thinking "the pot is big enough and I will be grateful if my hand holds up". While your feelings are understandable you need to find the courage to make these river bets when you almost certainly have the best hand since they add up to significant money over the course of a year.
even clearer than your river bet would be a river riase after utg folds.
i certainly agree that these bets are very important as they do add up.
scott
The key to this play is there was no flush draw on the flop. This does give you 4 outs to a straight at 34-1 odds, this call is good. Of course, you saw this was abnormal.
Good job on the turn.
You should have bet the river or check-raised.
Did the guy with 3 kings fall apart afterwards?
raising the river was irrelevant since he was almost all-in and only had 2$ left. he left the game totally pissed off after this hand.
Had there been a flush draw on the flop, there were still sooooooo many small bets in the pot I still would have been getting way better than the 14:1 odds needed to draw to a three outer so I would have had to take one off anyway, especially since I did not expect a raise.
Dave in Cali
14-1 is still worth a shot, however I would hate to make a straight and lose to a flush. Your point is well taken, at 34-1 odds, you can take off the turn with almost anything.
This simple hand comes from a good 15/30 holdem game. There are three weak, loose limpers and the button, a fairly solid player by Los Angeles standards, raises. I am in the $10 small blind with KQ offsuit and call. The big blind folds and we take the flop five handed.
The flop comes Kc 3d 2d. I check figuring that there is no way the button would not bet this one if no one else did. All check to the button bet. I checkraise. An early limper (average player) cold calls and the button calls.
The turn pairs the deuce. I lead out, the early limper calls, and the button raises. Now I don’t worry about the deuce making him but I figure that I am in a tough spot. He either has me beat a high percentage of the time, and if not, I figure the early limper is on a diamond draw that can beat me too. I fold.
I thought about this hand for a bit. Had there not been the early limper staying in post flop and the action been the same (i.e., the button calls my check raise and raises me on the turn), I might have called him down. He was fairly tricky and aware that I will sometimes bet less than top pair with this flop and often three bet it pre flop with AK. So his raise could mean a lessor hand often enough to make it worth the two big bets to call him down.
Questions:
1) Would you call in a $10 small blind with KQ offsuit against a semi-solid button raiser and three weak limpers?
2) Do you lead at the flop or do you go for the checkraise”
3) In general, does the third party make you less willing to call down the button raise or more likely?
Note that the third question is the main point of the post so you can stick to that one if your time is limited. I will be around my computer today for further comment.
Regards,
Rick
1) Would you call in a $10 small blind with KQ offsuit against a semi-solid button raiser and three weak limpers?
no.
2) Do you lead at the flop or do you go for the checkraise”
checkraise.
3) In general, does the third party make you less willing to call down the button raise or more likely?
If the third party has a flush draw, you should be less inclined to call. However, the button may be making the powerful play of raising the turn with a weaker king or weaker king and diamonds, with the intention of checking the river. If he makes this play often, I would call.
A solid player doesn't raise three limpers without a strong hand. It's doubtful that he has a hand like 9T suited or 66. So he either has AA - TT or AceFace suited or AQ or AK. That being the case and the small number of contenders for the pot I say fold preflop.
When you play and get that flop I favor betting out instead of checkraising on the flop. Now someone might raise your flop bet b4 it gets to the preflop raiser and he's going to have to be real about his hand. A flush draw in early position probably wont raise a flop bet but a flush draw to the preflop bettor's right might. Anyway if I get raised on the flop by anyone other than the preflop bettor I like my hand more than if I get a couple of calls and then the preflop bettor raises it. If that happens, if preflop bettor raises my flop bet after a couple of callers then I'm probably going to fold right there, esp. against a competent and aggressive opponent.
In this case, the third party (TP) doesn't seem to have a hand, yet. So I'm not too concerned with the third party, you most certainly are ahead of TP.
One thing: if you had the king or queen of diamonds then I favor check-calling the flop and checkraising the turn if a diamond comes off and it gets checked around to the button and the button bets. If a diamond comes off on the turn and TP now bets into the preflop raiser and PFR calls I would fold,(could easily have the ace of diamonds if TP doesn't) if preflop raiser folds then you can pretty safely draw to the second nut for a winner.
KQ isn't a call out of the SB when a solid player raises 2+ limpers. You're out of position with a hand that cost a lot when second best. I think you realized this halfway through the hand so you dumped it there.
chris,
You wrote: ”A solid player doesn't raise three limpers without a strong hand. It's doubtful that he has a hand like 9T suited or 66. So he either has AA - TT or AceFace suited or AQ or AK.”
Hey, this was Los Angeles solid (and only fairly solid at that). That means raising with KJ suited, 99, ATo, Ajo and maybe QJs.
”That being the case and the small number of contenders for the pot I say fold preflop.”
I’m starting to see how that bigger than normal small blind really got me in trouble. I’ll work on that.
”When you play and get that flop I favor betting out instead of checkraising on the flop. Now someone might raise your flop bet b4 it gets to the preflop raiser and he's going to have to be real about his hand. A flush draw in early position probably wont raise a flop bet but a flush draw to the preflop bettor's right might.”
I’m starting to see the value of the straight bet here. I like your points about the preflop raiser having to “get real” if I bet into him, especially if he faces two bets cold.
”Anyway if I get raised on the flop by anyone other than the preflop bettor I like my hand more than if I get a couple of calls and then the preflop bettor raises it. If that happens, if preflop bettor raises my flop bet after a couple of callers then I'm probably going to fold right there, esp. against a competent and aggressive opponent.”
I would too. He won’t put a move on three opponents with that flop.
”In this case, the third party (TP) doesn't seem to have a hand, yet. So I'm not too concerned with the third party, you most certainly are ahead of TP.”
Yes, but if it was close with the button (in terms of odds to call him down), then the third party would tilt towards a fold, especially since I think he had a draw that would beat both of us. But maybe it wasn’t so close.
”One thing: if you had the king or queen of diamonds then I favor check-calling the flop and checkraising the turn if a diamond comes off and it gets checked around to the button and the button bets. If a diamond comes off on the turn and TP now bets into the preflop raiser and PFR calls I would fold,(could easily have the ace of diamonds if TP doesn't) if preflop raiser folds then you can pretty safely draw to the second nut for a winner.
Hey, that is a new topic and I need my afternoon nap. No fair.
”KQ isn't a call out of the SB when a solid player raises 2+ limpers. You're out of position with a hand that cost a lot when second best. I think you realized this halfway through the hand so you dumped it there. “
You guys are right. I let that $10 blind turn me into the “live one” ;-).
Regards,
Rick
With regard to your questions:
1. No, I would fold for a raise with KQ offsuit in my small blind but call with KQ suited. There are too many players involved who could have cards I need to improve and the risk of being dominated plus being out of position makes this a fold in my view.
2. The check-raise play has merit and based on the discussions we have all had on this forum over the past few months may be the right play. But with this many opponents I still prefer to bet because of the two flush on board and if the button raised on QQ,JJ,TT, a lower pocket pair, or a suited connector as an action play then it may get checked around which I don't want to see.
3. The presence of a third player makes it less likely for me to stay with the hand. If by some miracle I am still in the lead, the third player brings more collective outs against me making it more likely I will get sucked out. I think folding is clear.
Jim,
This game featured players limping with worse kings and staying in with long shot draws. The button's raising requirements were fairly liberal given this was in Los Angeles. I also think he would bet almost anything if it was checked to him on the flop. He definitely would bet the underpairs you mention (and I think he should!).
Regards,
Rick
Alarm bells start ringing when a 3rd party is stuck between me and another player -- and he's willing to absorb all the abuse without sticking the white flag up. He's either an idiot on a draw, or a shrewd operator with a monster. Once you have that figured out, the 3rd party is a non-issue, because either HE is your main concern or of no consequence at all -- unless the draw gets there.
Earl,
The draw getting there and beating both me and the button raiser is my concern when the call down of the button raiser is close. Or at least that was my thinking.
Rick
Rick,
I would think that a button raise is equivalent to a small blind cold call. I bet you you've got him beat there.
The real problem is the weak limper's call. He could have a straight or a flush draw. You could have eliminated the limper by re-raising the button on the turn.
BTW, what was the river card?
Analyst,
The button bet the river blank and the early limper showed a busted flush. The button never showed.
Rick
Rick,
You are a Top Solid Player by Los Angeles standards. I still think you should not have given the pot that easy.
Rick
1. KQo is marginal for me to call raises with but I'm probably in the hand.
2. I lead on the flop.
3. Drawing limper does not bother me much he hits he hits - the fact he is here doesn't out of the hand.
Preflop
My thinking on such hands has been swayed over the past several months due mainly to posts by Jim, John etc. I now tend to fold these hands from the SB more often than not in such situations.
There is an interesting subset of players however who when raising 3 or more limpers from the button will specifically *not* have AK or AQ. These guys tend to think (rightly or wrongly) that raising so many players with AK or AQ is not a very good idea. Thus, when such a player raises on the button, I put him on these types of hands: 88 or better or some cheesy suited connectors type hand. Rightly or wrongly, against this type of player, I tend to call with KQ out of the blinds. Having done that, I am apt to bet out on a King high flop because this type of player is unlikely to bet the flop without a hand and is likely to raise me if he has me beat which makes it easier for me to fold on the turn. Against the typical LA preflop raiser, a checkraise is probably the better play.
On the turn in your hand, the presence of the third player does of course nudge you further towards exercising the mucking option.
If you know the third player is on a flush draw, and we ignore the redraws that you and your button opponent have against each other, then you need roughly a 1 in 6 chance of having a better hand than the button to call on the turn. (This 1 in 6 estimate has some slack to account for the chance of being up against an ace high flush draw or other hands that have additional outs against you.)
In other words, the pot was huge, you were in LA... what were you thinking?!
Suppose instead you got a tell on the third player and knew he was going to fold on the turn. Then you'd need only a 1 in 7 chance of having the best hand to call down the button. It's less than if facing a flush draw, but not that much less, so I think you overreacted to the flush draw threat in this bloated pot.
As for what hands you could beat, how about KJs, QQ, JJ, and TT, plus half of KQ. Even if he'd play those weaker hands that way only 25% of the time, and always played AA/KK/AK this way, you still have easily enough odds to call him down.
You never would have made the mistake of folding on the turn if you had correctly folded preflop. I also like betting out on the flop here, to prevent the button from giving everyone a free card, to provide cover for my semibluff bets, and to avoid getting 3-bet when the button indeed has me beat with AK or similar.
-Abdul
Abdul,
"If you know the third player is on a flush draw, and we ignore the redraws that you and your button opponent have against each other, then you need roughly a 1 in 6 chance of having a better hand than the button to call on the turn. (This 1 in 6 estimate has some slack to account for the chance of being up against an ace high flush draw or other hands that have additional outs against you.)
In other words, the pot was huge, you were in LA... what were you thinking?! “
I’m not sure which is why I wrote the post ;-).
”As for what hands you could beat, how about KJs, QQ, JJ, and TT, plus half of KQ. Even if he'd play those weaker hands that way only 25% of the time, and always played AA/KK/AK this way, you still have easily enough odds to call him down.”
I don’t see this guy making the turn raise with the underpair (I think he would have tried to reraise on the flop), but in retrospect, I do see KQ and hands like Kd Jd as a something he would play the same way. But my impression was that he feared my bets and raises so his turn raise make me think I was beat big. But I am not sure I was worse than a 7 to 1 dog so I'm pretty sure I made a mistake.
”You never would have made the mistake of folding on the turn if you had correctly folded preflop. I also like betting out on the flop here, to prevent the button from giving everyone a free card, to provide cover for my semibluff bets, and to avoid getting 3-bet when the button indeed has me beat with AK or similar.”
The limpers were very weak. And the buttons style would have been to bet this flop with any hand except perhaps trip kings. The limpers were playing hands such as 76 offsuit, Ax offsuit, Q2 suited, and all that. But I am wondering if the lead bet would have been better, mostly for your second reason (covering my semibluffs). I do think the button would wait until the turn to three bet with AK since he would figure me to three bet pre flop with AK. That being said, I’m not happy with my preflop call. I know I don’t make it in 20/40 and maybe let the fact that the small blind is 2/3 of a big bet loosen me up a little too much.
Regards,
Rick
You may be right that he wouldn't pull this stunt with an underpair because he considers you a tight player, but consider how he would play if he thought you would lay down KQ/KQs here.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Good point. In Los Angeles mid limit holdem, I generally make it a point to be tenacious most of the time once I'm committed to a pot with a reasonable hand. The "good laydowns" you can make are pretty rare given the wild play of your opponents. This button player was a rock by Los Angeles stamdards, and maybe the live one mid week at the Belagio ;-).
Regards,
Rick
How much can you earn in average in a 15-30 holdém game If you are among the three best players in a ten handed game.
thanks Johan
Hi Johan, When I play 15-30 I am almost always the best player in the game. When playing 20-40 I am either the best or second best. At the 30-60 level I rarely am top dog-usually 2nd or 3rd, sometimes 4th. My win rates are:15-30(1.57)20-40(1.24)30-60(0.35). I've also played higher but I can't post those numbers without using red ink!!! The moral is, you're not going to make a lot of money in a game where you are #3. One exception would be if there were at least two live ones playing all the time. If not, you should probably expect to make about $10-15/hr at best. I would suggest you find a 10-20 where YOU can be the big cheese!!
5-10 HE (unfortunately). I hold AsKs in the BB and there are four limpers (including the SB) to me. I raise and all call.
The flop is Qs8s3s. SB checks. I went ahead and bet and the next guy raises, which knocks out the field so we are heads up. I just call.
Turn is a rag like 4d. I check, he bets, I raise, he calls, and he calls the river as another rag hits. He had a big queen only.
(1) Check the flop? Here was my reasoning: everyone sees what I see, and no one has a big spade, so it could get checked around quite easily. There are lots of queen hands that could call and/or raise. And I represented a possible overpair, so I want to say to the field that that's "all" I have. Plus this is a very loose field -- I figured to get callers.
(2) Re-raise the flop/lead the turn? The player was aggressive and I was pretty sure he would bet if no spade came on the turn, but I recognize it's kind of dicey to count on your opponent to bet it here.
(3) Tie my legs to the chair to prevent involunatry shaking when I see this flop?
SW
I think I would bet the flop like you did. Since you raised pre-flop, your bet is not saying to everyone that you have spades.
I would not re-raise the flop. I think I would let him bet the turn and check-raise him. The only problem with this is he may muck his hand and you may lose a bet.
Ken
I like your lead on the flop; most people in your position would try to let someone else bet the flop for them, so it looks very natural for a "big pair, one spade" to lead it out on the flop. It conceals your hand nicely.
On the turn, i am glad the check-raise worked out for you, but i think i would have bet out.
My reasoning for this is that your opponent has a big queen (and a big spade - J?) and is looking for another spade to hit. If I was your opponent, i would raise you on the flop (as this person did) and then check through the turn. This way, i would avoid the check-raise, and if i decided to call down on the river, i would lose less money if my opponent (you) held AA,KK,QQ,AQ, KQ and had me beat without the spades (which you could have very well have had, raising from the blinds). If i had put you on AA or KK, then i might bet into you on the turn as a bluff, but when check-raised...i think your opponent played fairly poorly.
So by betting out, you stop your opponent from trying for a free card, and you will collect on each street.
Again, i am glad that it worked out for you and that you got a very profitable win, but i think your better opponent would do the above and sidestep a bigger loss.
Fistdantilus
I think Fistdantilus is a genius. Very nice answer. Remind me to never play more than nickel & dime poker against him again.
Beefcake
just my opinion, of course...:P
Had you been in late position, a bet would be ok, but from your position, I would have called and gone for a check-raise à la "hasty random bluff", checked the turn, and bet the river. If no one bets on flop, check-call on turn, so that you can induce a bluff on river.
I like the way you played the hand except I think your checking the turn was a little risky. But if you had a good read on your opponent and knew he would bet then the check-raise here is good. You just want to make sure you collect something on every street if possible.
4-8 HE. Game is short handed, only 4 players total. Excellent situation for any good player. Two opponents are playing HE for the first time. One player is somewhat of a jerk, drinking and being fairly obnoxious but not excessively rude. Despite this, he is playing very fast (and poorly) and I don't mind taking his $$. I figure I will at least punish him for being a jerk, if not for his frequent raising. The other two players don't seem to mind his continuous trash talk, so neither do I. no one wants to quit as it is getting to be morning and the game will probably start fill up again fairly soon.
there is no way I am giving up this situation....
Play has been fast and furious with all three of my opponents frequently straddling (live). I even straddled once myself just to keep in the spirit of the game (and to keep it going).
I am dealt Ts9s on the button. There has been a straddle and I call it. everyone calls, no raise.
Flop is 6c 7c As. I don't think anyone has an ace because they would have almost certainly raised with it (based on past play). I have a gutshot and a backdoor flush, plus I suspect that a nine or ten might also win me the pot. If my pair cards are good, I could have as many as ten outs, plus the backdoor flush possibility.
SB bets, BB folds, I raise. Button cold calls and SB calls. I still don't think anyone has the ace.
turn is the very lucky 8 of my suit. SB bets again and I raise again. Button calls and SB calls!
River is a total blank deuce. I bet and they both called. Obviously the straight was good and niether showed their hand.
My question is: Did I make the right play by raising the flop? At the time I was thinking about the post a few weeks ago where DS (and about a billion others) were discussing this play. The post made lots of firey debate, but I don't think it was ever "settled".
Of course THIS TIME it will be irrevocably and permanantly settled forever, with all parties in total agreement! Well, maybe not....
comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Some of the logic behind betting/raising here goes out the window when your bet/raise is unlikely to knock anyone out (because the game is so wacky). But if you are pretty sure no one has an ace, I like the play, especially with the back door flush working.
I like the way you played the hand and your logic makes perfect sense. Raising makes a lot of sense with your big draw (if a Nine or Ten are good). I assume if a blank came on the turn you probably would have checked.
Bruce
Loose 10 handed family pot. The flop is A/h-4h-7s. There are 61 small bets in the pot when the small blind bets into me. I'm in the Big Blind with K/hearts-4/spades. Should I call with bottom pair and runner runner nut flush?
Ted
must be a typographical error here
'
I forgot to tell you. The Button's a maniac, he he
Isn't the betting supposed to be capped at 4 or 5 bets pre-flop ? Max number of bets thus 50 small bets. Answer to question: yes call with bottom pair and runner-runner flush , but stop playing the game. No good practice and waist of time.
There is only one thing you can do on yahoo with bottom pair and a runner runner nut flush draw. Cap it up.
.
I began reading John Feeney's book last night. Very interesting and thought provoking. John has a section about poor plays even good players make and he specifically gets into raising on the button when everyone else has passed with garbage, and how this contributes to losing money.
So far, so good. I couldn't agree with him more.
John then talks about limping on the button when everyone has passed with certain types of hands. He specifically mentions 108s and Q5s as examples. John states that one of the reasons to raise on the button is to hopefully pick up the pot immeadiately. If it is unlikely that the blinds will pass why raise and invest double on a very marginal hand. John feels that these hands are strong enough to play against the blinds especially for only one bet and when you have position. Of course the blinds have to be the right type of opponents.
This, from my perspective is certainly very different from the way I play. I have been playing hold-em for 10 years and I don't think I have ever limped on the button before, not even with pocket Aces. I don't think I have seen too many expert players limp either, except a few times with pocket Aces or Kings. Limping on the button is very foreign to me. If I am going to play a hand I would rather raise and try to take control of the hand. Even though it seems some blinds will always defend there are times they will pass when they truely have junk. John's points certainly do have some merits. If you are a good player and the blinds are weak, certain hands can be played profitably against them. The hands he mentions and other hands like JTo, J9s, 109o, etc. probably apply. If you raise automatically with these hands and the blinds call and they check on the flop and you bet with nothing you have invested three bets and if you are called it is probably hopeless at this point to win.
I am real curious as to how everyone else feels about this.
Bruce
Well, I too was surprised to read John's comments in this regard but having thought about it, limping does make a lot of sense with certain hands against certain types of players. Unfortunately, after having read the book, I have yet to find an opportunity to limp on the button so I can't provide any anecdotal evidence (FWIW) to either support or refute the advice...but the points he makes are certainly very worthy of consideration.
Here's a previous thread on this:
I don't think I have much to add at this point, but since I happen to be home today, I'll try to follow the thread.
John "F",
I looked up the old thread and I noticed I repeated myself above. I guess most ideas have already been thought of before, sometimes by the same person ;-).
Rick
Great minds think alike, especially when they are you and yourself, or me and John F. :)
bruce,
Without reading skp and this John F guy, I think this falls into the category of something that may become quite common in the future because it turns out to be right, no matter what we have done in the past.
The top, tough players aversion to this may stem from the fact that the play “looks weak”, and most don’t want to do this in front of their peers. But in the right spot, I think the play has merit and should be considered.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I have not had a chance to read the previous old thread but the more and more I think about John's essay it is becoming increasingly more logical sounding to me. My initial aversion to this play stemmed from the fact that it appeared to be a weak play and was not very "macho". The bottom line however is to get the dough and who cares how you go about getting it. When you have weak players in the blinds why not play marginal hands with position when you can outplay them. Let's see the flop cheaply and take it from there. I am yet to actually implement this in game strategy.
Bruce
while i agree that it could be correct in some cases, i think it is very rare to have blinds who will always defend. if a raise is almost certain to get one blind out, even if the other blind will usually call, then a raise is the correct play. this has been the case in almost every game i have been in.
scott
I think if they will both call a large majority of the time, that's probably enough to make the play, as long as they have the other characteristics mentioned. I don't see this that often, but have certainly run into it.
"if a raise is almost certain to get one blind out, even if the other blind will usually call, then a raise is the correct play "
That seems right. Clearly, if you can probably get one blind out, that's a very different situation from being very unlikely to do so. If you get one out, then you and the other blind both grain from that dead money. Then, even though you have a marginal hand, you are in position against a random hand, and only have to beat one player.
Still, I'm not *absolutely sure that it would always be correct to raise under those circumstances when you have a hand with no high card/showdown value (say, 75s) and two blinds who are loose, passive, and easily readable postflop, with one who will virtually always defend. Would you add (or change) anything to that explanation? Maybe that would convince me.
I should add a reminder to all that this point in the essay was really just a subset of the idea that one bad play good players make is that they too liberally try with weak hands to steal the blinds of all kinds of players.
I don't personally make this limp very often at all, maybe not as often as I should. But once in a while I find a spot for it in easier games.
what i meant to consider is situations where both blinds tend to defend rather tenaciously but the big blind will be less likely to call after the small blind has called. this is probably rare at a full table, since the mentality would probably be to notice the increased pot odds over other considerations. but in a short handed game, i think there will be lots of situations where your raise will be called in exactly one spot.
i think that these raises are usually correct even though they are unlikely to win the pot right away.
i am going to think some more about the case with 2 loose, passive blinds (one always defends). my gut says raise for the reasonable chance of the other one folding. but i'm not sure.
scott
I apologize if this has already been covered.
I'm curious how much the rake amount should effect one's decision to just limp from the button.
We pay a very high rake in the Chicago area. Against tenacious players who over defend their blinds, I've been opting to simply fold hands such as J9o and 22. Even though these hands with position, may have +EV. Is it possible that if the rake is high enough, any hand that's worth a play, is worth a raise since the small +EV of some hands is negated by a high rake?
Kevin,
You are right on IMO. Sometimes we tend to forget to mention how a game is raked when discussing strategy. A marginal call (especially in a small pot) that would be marginally correct in California mid limit games (where time is taken rather than a rake) might be incorrect in Las Vegas where the money is taken from the pot (in limits up to 20/40 if I am not mistaken - I think the Bellagio 30/60 game is a time game).
In a highly raked game, head up aggressive play is mutual suicide with only the house left standing.
Regards,
Rick
Perhaps my logic is faulty but it seems to me that there must be hands where the optimum strategy is to limp. Where do I get this? Well, if there are some hands where it is clearly correct to fold, and there are some hands where it is clearly correct to raise, there must be some hands somewhere in the middle that should be played with a limp.
From a purely theoretical standpoint one could conjure opponents and certain button hand-holdings where limping may be correct. Both Bob Ciaffone and Mason Malmuth in an earlier thread stated that they could. I have just never played against such mythical creatures. To me it is a raise or fold situation. On the other hand, I am not willing to get involved in a shorthanded pot from the cutoff or button with a small or medium suited connector and will have a pair or some high card strength frequently an Ace or a King.
Jim,
Several months ago, before you moved, you posted some thoughts on stealing the blinds. I have a vague recollection you were talking about a 5-10 game. You went for a steal, sb folds, bb raises. I'm not sure how the hand went but you made the point that by the turn you had invested $30 to win 7 and you saw the folly of it all. Do you recall this situation?
The reason I bring it up is since then my outlook on blind stealing has changed and I'm happier for it. If I have a hand that can win unimproved I'll raise, sometimes. If there are blinds that I can outplay who are also protective I'll limp and see a cheap flop. It's been working great and I think a raise or get out attitude against some opponents just means missed opportunites. It's very much like heads up play, where you play the people much more so than the cards.
Also, limping in from the button is a great way to mix up your play. Even people not in the hand sit up and take notice.
Sorry SammyB but I don't. I have not played in a $5-$10 game in over two years. I did post something a while back as a "Malmuth Problem" concerning stealing from the button with the Eight-Seven of Spades and gave reasons as to why I thought this was a bad idea.
I have done this about 3 times with good results. The effect on the blinds is that they assume you are sucking them in even though they both play. If both check the flop (twice) a bet takes the pot. The other time I hit something and won. Someday I will describe the bluff call which has similarites.
Say you're on the button with A-Q with 3 limpers and you just call. The small blind who is a rock solid player and very good calls. You get a flop of K-Q-4 with two diamonds. Check around to you so you bet.
Only the solid player calls behind you.
Next card is a blank. Do you fear the solid player for a weak K? Or do you bet it out?
He checks, I check. River is a 4 of diamonds. He bets, I call. He turns an A-7 flush.
Should I have raised pre-flop? Should I have bet the turn?
By playing it the way you did, you actually lost 1 less bet than you would have otherwise, but you should've bet the turn (although in this case you just lose more :-). You were about 2-1 favorite.
But note that this "rock-solid player" most likely doesn't call a preflop raise with A-7 if you raise -- that is where you lost the hand. HPFAP advises not raising with A-Qo unless it's likely to keep the field small, but it doesn't seem clear in your case whether or not a button-raise preflop might've cleared the field for you.
1) Do you fear the solid player for a weak king? No. Solid players frequently fold, even in the small blind in an unraised pot, with weak Kings. And he would have raised on the flop since the flop contains both a flush and straight draw. So you bet the turn.
2) Should you have raised pre-flop? I say yes, especially since you realized that the toughest competitor was the small blind. There will be two-plus-two'ers who say no, A-Q does not play well against many opponents and why give your hand away and make the pot big enough so that chasers are doing the right thing. But I would give the tough player (and the big blind) a chance to fold pre-flop.
By the way, I think he would have called your raise anyway, so you wouldn't have won the pot in any event. Sometimes they catch a flush against you on the river and sometimes you catch against them. And I'm not so sure how "rock solid and very good" your opponent really is: I wouldn't have figured you for a King betting on the button after not raising pre-flop, so I would have raised you on the flop (if I didn't bet the flop) and bet into you on the turn.
With AQo with 3 limpers and the button raise. You have the best hand probably and your raise puts you in the drivers seat plus you will knock out one or both of the blinds in most instances. By raising you maximize your chances of winning. Had you raised you would have won the pot.
Bruce
Pre-flop raising with AQ offsuit on the button is clear against only 3 limpers. You almost certainly have the best hand and the best position and you want to force the blinds to pay money to take a flop.
On the flop you should bet middle pair with an Ace when they check to you as you did. You could easily have the best hand and you don't want to give free cards to the drawing hands. The "solid player" could be hanging around with a flush draw or middle or bottom pair since you bet in late position. With top pair he might have check-raised your flop bet especially since you just limped in pre-flop.
You should bet the turn since no one has shown any strength. It is okay to be concerned about a weak King being out there but you must bet here.
I have some questions regarding the play of overcards, particularly AK and AQ. Assuming a game that is typical or tough, what is the maximum number of limpers you should have in front of you before raising with these hands from a middle or late position? Also, in HEFAP, it is stated that overcards should frequently be bet on the flop. I am also aware that an AK can often win against just one or two opponents without improving. Does this mean that they should be bet on the flop and the turn, and possibly the river? It seems to me that heads up you may only be called if you are beaten, even on the turn. Also, how might you play overcards on the flop against 1-2 opponents if you raised before the flop, without giving your hand away? Assuming you raise before the flop and then only raise if either 1. the flop hits you or 2. you have a big pocket pair, you will be giving up too much information. Surely there are times when you want to raise with overcards to the flop. What I am really trying to figure out is how far to take them, assuming a small number of opponents and, of course, that your hand will be good when you make it. Thank you all.
I will bet AK, AQ, KQ always in middle and late position. Depending on the game, I might bet it early if I feel I can control the hand (it is difficult from early pos for me).
I am curious if any of you have a way of judging yourself to determine if you are a good player. Specifically, I am interested in ways to determine if I am a good Hold Em player.
I would be interested in hearing if any of you have general guidelines.
Thanks
Is this a trick question?.... Keep records!
No, this isnt a trick questions. I do keep records and I am winning. At the 3-6 level I am averaging a little over $19 per hour and at the 20-40 level, something I have only recently started playing, I am averaging a $368 per hour. The 3-6 level is with a little over 300 hours played and the 20-40 level is with about 12 hours played.
I guess I ask because I see really bad players win a lot once in a while. If one judged things on their good nights one would think they are good. How long does one have to play befor having a lucky run is no longer possible?
12-hour is too short at 20-40 to determine your hourly rate. Obviously no one in the long run can win 10 big bets per hour. Sounds like the games you play are juicy. I am curious where you usually play.
This is a question for someone like Jim Brier. Although I have an understanding of this, I don't think I am eloquent enough to put it all in writing. To answer your question you will need to calculate your standard deviation. But here's a very general answer.
If you are up 3 BB's/hr over 300 hours in $3-$6, then it's pretty safe to say you are beating the game and are therefore a good player (in this game). But you are probably not beating this game for exactly $19/hr. It could be more or it could much less.
Being up 9 BB's/hr over 12 hours in $20-$40 doesn't tell you a thing. IMHO, you need many hours (thousands) to determine your hourly edge to within say a dollar or two. "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" by MM goes into this in great detail. It explains how to calculate and interprate your standard deviation.
If you are still winning one big bet or more per hour after around 800 hours of play, you are probably a winning player in that game/limit.
As your skill and experience increases, you should become increasingly aware of other indications of your skill level relative to opponents, such as being able to identify and exploit their weaknesses.
If one plays almost everyday and has a losing month they are probably a losing player if they have a losing 2 mnths then they are a losing player.
I think the reverse is also true.
i don't think so. a month, or even two months of play is a short-term sample, and hence it's results are dominated by the variance, not the mean.
that is, if you play long enough, even if you are a winner, you should experience some losing streaks.
rob
Are you a winning player or losing player?
If you have played enough hours and you keep accurate records you ought to be able to figure out the above.
Bruce
When the "good" local house players consistently rack up and leave when you sit down, that's not a bad sign ... ;-)
Another sign is when people ask you to play with THEIR money! In all seriousness, being a good player is always relative to your opponents skill level versus yours. If you can win over a 1000 hour block of time, then you are a sucess at that particular game or limit.
It could mean you need to work on your image a little, though.
Matt,
Obviously you are not yet into the “long run” yet so keep up with your records. But if you are a student of the game, are intelligent, a quick thinker, play without tilt (and I’m thinking of John Feeney’s more strict definition of tilt) then you have potential.
If you have potential then you develop your skills through play and thinking about the game away from the table (or while not in a hand). Then you must identify mistakes your opponents make that you do not.
But then there is the great equalizer. In my opinion, that is control over one’s ego. I’ve known quite a few players who I believe are about equal in ability, but they may have different styles. If you speak to one of these players away from the table and you discuss the play of one of the others in the group, they tend to see the other player as inferior. They see their fellow player’s flaws and not their strengths. At the same time, they seem to be oblivious to the areas where their game needs improvement. Don’t fall into this trap.
One of the great things about poker is that ultimately, it is very humbling. If you have weaknesses, they will be exploited. It is a constant battle to improve just to stay even.
Good luck and never stop working on your game.
Regards,
Rick
For a low limit game (less than $10-$20) your are an excellent low limit player if you can beat the game for one big bet per hour or more. If you have won almost $6000 in $3-$6 after only 300 hours of play ($19 per hour statement) you are definitely ready to move up. However, I would not jump into $20-$40 from $3-$6. Try $10-$20 for a few hundred hours and see how you do.
In the middle games, $10-$20 through $20-$40, it will take at least 1000 hours of play before you will begin to know where you are at. In general, you are a good player if you can beat these games at all. You are an excellent player if you can beat these games for 1 to 1 1/2 small bets per hour over many thousands of hours of play. You are a top player at these limits if you can beat them for one big bet per hour over many thousands of hours of play.
Go to $10-$20 and try to get in at least 500 hours of play and preferably 1000 hours of play. Learn to compute your own personal hourly standard deviation using the techniques discussed in Mason Malmuth's "Gambling Theory and Other Topics".
I have to disagree. If you're up $3000 playing 300 hours of 3-6 DO NOT change your game just yet. 300 hours is not nearly enough to truly determine if you can beat this game and being up 1.5 big bets per hour is probably luck more than anything. Low limit hold'em is a small-edge game for even the very best players.
I don't think you can gauge your skill level by looking at any type of low limit results. You could lose $5000 in a three months and be the best player in the cardroom. That's what low limit is like. To be honest, it's practically a waste of time. If you are a total newbie, it's good to play a few dozen hours just to get a feel for casino poker, to get comfortable at a table and understand the flow of the game, but not really to pick up any poker skills.
The 2 lessons you can learn from low limit poker is to get your money in when you're ahead and only draw when there are plenty of players in the pot.
If you have a bankroll, I would go right to 10-20 hold'em or higher and start learning right there. In retrospect I wish that's what I had done because I lost a ton of money playing low limit bingo poker.
To answer the question of how do you know if you're a good player. The answer is actually pretty simple for someone who is fairly intelligent. You will know if you are a good poker player, plain and simple. After each hand is over, if you understand who made the mistake and who didn't, if you can review each street and understand who did what and why, then it doesn't matter if you won the hand or not, you're a pretty good player.
If you can't identify mistakes or understand why players made the moves they made, if you are constantly at the river with no idea who has what, you probably aren't a very good player.
In poker, sad to say, results do not speak. Winning tons of money is low limit is probably the LEAST reliable means of determining your skill.
natedogg
But natedogg, Iowa Matt averaged $19 per hour over 300 hours of play in $3-$6 so this is $5700 over a 300 hour time period not $3000. This gives him a good bankroll to play $10-$20 and he is using his winnings to propel himself not his other earnings or savings. By the way assuming his standard deviation is $60 per hour (~10 big bets per hour) then over 300 hours his total standard deviation is about $1000. Now if he could beat the game for $10 per hour which is almost 2 big bets per hour then he should have only won about $3000. But Iowa Matt has won almost 3 standard deviations above this and the odds against this happening randomly are about 100:1.
....in this hand. Playing 5/10 with a kill at Foxwoods. I had sat down only five minutes earlier so I was not sure about the other players at the table except for one young guy. He is a true maniac. I have seen him show down some bad hands that he had raised pre flop. K 9 off and 5 6 suited were two I could remember.
The player utg looked like a solid player. He had on sunglasses and a big stack of redbirds, so I respected his play. On this hand (a kill at the 10/20 level), he raised utg and the maniac three bet it in the next seat. All fold to me and I look down to see two black aces. My thinking was that a 3 bet may isolate me heads up, or at least narrow it to 3 players. To my suprise the player in the BB called 3 bets. Not what I was hoping for. The solid player(sp) under the gun caps it and we see the flop 4 handed.
Flop is Ks 7s 4s. Not the best thing I could have hoped for, but not bad. The player who had called in the BB checks, SP had raised under the gun bets. The maniac only calls...I decide to raise to see where I am. I figure that I am either way behind to a made flush or a set of Kings, or I am leading with over pair and draw to nut flush....the BB folds and SP raises. The maniac now looks at his cards an then calls. I figure that he was looking to see if he had a high spade to call with. I cap it in an attempt to get an idea of the SP.
All call and see a red rag fall on the turn. SP again leads...now I am sure he has Ks and another...most likely KQs....but have not ruled out KK or AK....in any event maniac now raises...what the hell is going on. I am really not sure what to do. I am almost sure that if I call the SP will re-raise and I will need to call 3 or 4 bets to see the river. There is a lot of money in the pot and I am really hoping to see a nice spade on the river. I think for a second and then decide I will raise in order to speed up what I know is going to happen. The SP caps the betting and the maniac and I both call. River is the beautiful 10s...I love poker...SP still leads and now the maniac starts to blurt out some explitives and decides that we are horrible players and that he is so great....in any event, he calls....I raise the SP calls and the maniac pays off with a call. I show the nut flush and rake a huge pot. The SP had KsQs and had flopped the second nut flush and showed it to me as he mucked. The maniac showed us 77. He had flopped a set and believed that he was way ahead and told me that I had gotten real lucky.
MY question is this, was I real lucky? Did I play this hand well? How would others have played it? Any comments?
Sthegoat
should have said so good, not no good sorry
Sthegoat
LOL...I was looking for a straight flush possibility (before looking at the result), and then thought maybe they pushed the pot to the wrong guy.
Hehehe ... sounds like the hand that started best ended best. First though, we'll assume there aren't two Ks in the deck, so I'm guessing that means that UTG had KcQs, giving him second nut flush draw. Second, a pair of sunglasses goes for what, about 3 bucks at K-Mart? No indicator there necessarily of ability either.
Your 3-bet preflop was excellent. As you noted, the flop couldn't have been a whole lot better. But the "look back" from the "maniac" is an obvious counter-weak tell you should've picked up. Upon seeing that, I would not have capped the flop. Nor would I have raised on the turn as you knew you were behind -- probably in two spots. On the flop, you were a 2-1 dog and a little worse than 3-1 on the turn. But given the amount of money that was in the pot, you certainly had the price to be there.
I don't understand the title of your thread.
Aside from that you played the hand fine. You have an overpair with the nut flush draw. You ain't going nowhere.
Bruce
The flop isn't right, one player can't have KsQs, while the flop is Ks xs Xs.
Second earl's number's are way off, you are a pretty big underdog 2 spade are out, and if the board pairs w/o an A you also lose.
I know a flush draw vs trips on the flop wins about 23% of the time, but since your flush cards were dead and the pair cards were live I wouldn't be surprised if you wins less than 20% of the time on the flop (and on the turn you have exactly 5 outs out of 42 (though you have assume you have 9 out of 46(or 8 if you think you are up against a "set").
Ill write some more in abit...
However not knowing this i think you played it well, even though you were in huge trouble on the flop. I could tell you the exact number of times you expect to win on the flop if you like....
I ran the hands with a simulator; give it a try, it gives better results than a wild-ass guess that the "numbers are way off".
On the flop of Ks-7s-4s:
As-Ac: 33.6% winner 7h-7c: 64.6% winner Kc-Qs: 1.8% winner
On the turn of Ks-7s-4s-2h:
As-Ac: 21.3% winner 7h-7c: 78.7% winner Kc-Qs: 0% winner
Exactly 2-1 against on the flop, a little worse than 3-1 against on the turn. Even without the simulator, a rough estimate on the flop would put it at 2-1 since he has 10 outs (8 spades, 2 Aces). It's true your wins decrease on the turn because the rag increases the possibility of a paired board, but not as much as you guess. In limit hold-em, this hand/flop would be a through ticket once that much action had went in preflop -- even if I knew my opponent had flopped a set.
Earl, as I understood it one player had flopped a flush, and the other had flopped a set. AND in this case A's win less than 23%, which seems high but is mainly bc A's have a few runner ruuner draws (about 1.7%). First of all I was not wild ass guessing, trips vs a flush draw wins about 77% of the time (I could prove the exact number if you like).
Second it is even worse here because the flush cards are dead as the other player has a flush, and pair cards are comparatively live.
I'll explain how I got the numbers here under the conditioins as I understood them.
Now supoose one player has AAs, other has KsQs and other has 77 w/ a flop of
Js 7s 3s.
P(A's win)= P(quads)+ P(fullhouse)+ P(flush in an unpaired board and other player doesn't make stflush).
Now P(A's win)= (1/(43C2))( 1 + (2(6)+3) + (7C2)-1 + 7(24))= 204/907=
0.225....
( I could explain all these numbers in more detail if you like).
Presuming an opponent holds Ks-Qs instead of Kc-Qs and that the flop came with a Js changes the equation dramatically. In that scenario, Ac-As isn't favored over either hand, although his chances of winning are still 23% on the flop.
The solid player (SP) is not very solid if he is raising under the gun with King-Queen offsuit. I am assuming that since the King of Spades was on the table his King-Queen was unsuited with the Queen of Spades. Your narrative is a little confusing. SP raised and the maniac re-raised. Did you make it 4 bets or just smooth call? You should have made it 4 bets but no matter the pot got capped by the SP. You should be delighted with this whole sequence. So what if the big blind called? You have the best hand and the best position with a big pot brewing.
Your assessment of the flop is all wrong. You have a big over pair and the nut flush draw. You almost certainly have the best hand, the best draw, and the best position with a big pot at stake. The likelihood of somone flopping a flush or a set is remote and you have a ton outs with two cards to come to beat these hands anyway. If you are fearful of this flop when you have pocket rockets including the Ace of Trump you need to consider a more tranquil pastime like dominoes or parcheesi. Your re-raise is quite correct and should be done without trepidation. Your capping was also correct. You must pound the pot in these situations. You can always back off on an expensive street if you get scared.
You played the hand well.
Thanks for the input. The flop was indeed Js not Ks because the SP did flop the flush. I even confused myself when I was typing the original account.
Sthegoat
Not such a good raise from "SP" utg. Unless he thought he could isolate the blinds, remove Ax off from the equation, better predict what maniac has, depending on if he called or raised, or disguise his hand. If he truly was solid these might be his reasons, however many players adapt the "cool" look before grasping the concepts. With extra chips maybe he was in a gambling mood, maybe he sees KQs as a raising group 1 hand, period. I used to raise with TT utg because S&M says it's a group 1 hand, while eliminating all the callers that I had a good chance to beat, by then I was already wearing sunglasses.
Here is a situation that has been coming up a lot since I have been playing in tighter games.
Lets say that I have successfully stolen the blinds with no problem 3 times in a row when I was in late possition. Now that the Blinds have come around I'm in a steal possition again as the SB, I also know that the BB is a thinking player, but maybe a little bit weak tight.
I look down at my first two cards and see a minimum stealing hand in a normal situation. I fold and let him have the blinds. By the way, the SB is 2/5 the BB so if I raise to steal I put in 8 to win 7.
Good play, bad play, or does it not matter that much?
Thanks, CV
I'd guess that the weak-tight player is going to call less than 50% of the time, so your raise would be marginally profitable. But by giving up a small profit here, you may gain in table appearance by not looking as if you will always steal. Appearing to always steal will cause your opponents that you now have under control to loosen up -- something you don't want. Of course if your opponent will fold EVERY time, I would just go ahead and take the money and not be concerned about the appearance issue.
I feel the same way about the situation. Also, having been in the situation from the other end, where I felt a person was stealing unmercifully. I felt uneasy about having to make some loose defencive plays against a loose cannon but I finally got used to the situation and know how to handle it better. This a situation I don't want my opponents to be in. If they are uncomfortable they usually try to change and may become better players against me.
CV
I'd continue stealing until the players to me left demonstrate they're going to do something about it. But...if you feel like being amicable and folding to the blinds on the button, at least get some advertising out of it. If the blinds typically chop in your game, muck your ace-blank or whatever face-up, just to show the two guys what a nice guy you are, and help re-assure them that the last few times you stole from them, you really had a hand, that you wouldn't have done it without a real hand, and so forth. Then the next time it comes up, jack it up.
I don't know if I want to get to the point where nomaly weak players start getting tricky. It just makes it more expencive and may take away all the profits I had made by stealing from them.
CV
It's not fair poker to show your hand while there are still players left to act. You could give an unfair advantage to someone. Just fold the hand unless they have an agreement to chop all.
Chris,
I like the concept but am curious about the specific situation you mention. You said that you were in the small blind and were able to steal the big blind three times in a row? Boy, if this is so then the big blind is as weak and tight as they come. One should rarely fold the big blind against a raise by the small blind. The big blind is getting 3 to 1 for gosh sakes!
Let’s go back to the general concept. I think it is correct. If you have gotten away with a few steals then you have to back off on marginal stealing hands (unless your opponent is completely oblivious) since your opponent should be increasingly likely to call or play back at you.
This leads to a broader concept. And that is that you should always encourage your opponent’s worse tendencies. For example, if your opponent bluffs too much you should tend to induce bluffs and call him down. But there is a point were your opponent will wake up to the fact that you are playing him this way and he will bluff less (which may make his bluffing frequency correct). Anyway, that is just one example. I’m sure others may be able to elaborate.
Regards,
Rick
The last time the Blinds came around I was just in Good possitions to Steal and was delt good Starting hands. I raised everytime and had little opposition I believe twice I won the Blinds with no contest and once I won on the Flop after I raised a Limper and then bet the Flop. Of course each time I raised, I raised through this player on my left. I just got the feeling that if I pushed it too far the other players would start making it more difficult for me.
Now against the Loose cannon. You make a good point that we should have them trained to Bluff at us more often. That means on some of the weakest calling hands we may need to fold once in a while if our opponent thinks and will adapt to our style. Interesting, I handn't thought that much about the other side of the coin.
Thanks, CV
Would someone please explain what the cut-off position is?
I have been reading these messages and they are like tutorials. Really good stuff for a rookie Hold'em player like me. My thinking has changed I think for the better because of these readings. Thank you folks. I have realized early that Hold'em is a game of critical thinking and decision making.
Cut-off is the seat directly to the right of the button, so named because a raise here "cuts-off" the button from being last to act (presuming he folds). Often the cut-off is also on a steal, pre-empting the button's "right" to make a play at the blinds.
Morons and good players alike see merit in the button trying to isolate and outplay someone who cuts-off the button. When doing so, you had best make sure your read is good, otherwise the person you try to "isolate" in the cutoff may in fact have you isolated with a dominating hand.
While I'm not sure, because I've heard the term for years, I think Bob Ciaffone gets credit for the term "cut-off".
(n/t)
Earl, Thank you for the fine explanation and detail. rc
I was watching a $15-$30 game at the Bellagio this evening waiting to take my seat when the following hand came up. The big blind is in Seat #9. #10, #2, #3, #5, the button, and the small blind all limp. There is $105 in the pot and seven players.
The flop is: AhKd3s
Everyone checks to #3 who bets $15. Only the big blind, #10, and #2 call. There is $165 in the pot and four players.
The turn is: Tc
The big blind now bets $30. #10 and #2 fold. #3 just calls. There is $225 in the pot and two players.
The river is: 2c
The big blind bets $30. #3 now raises to $60. The big blind re-raises to $90 and #3 calls. The big blind wins having the QcJs for the nuts on the turn while #3 had AcTh for two pair on the turn.
The river raise by #3 makes no sense to me at all. What could the big blind have that he would suddenly lead out on the turn if not another Ace-Ten, King-Ten or Queen-Jack? With big slick he would have either raised pre-flop, bet the flop, or check-raised on the flop. With an Ace I would think he would bet the flop or check-raise on the flop and similarily with King-Three. Now agreed that #3 ties another Ace-Ten and beats King-Ten but given the board and his own hand Queen-Jack is far more likely. Furthermore, with Queen-Jack the big blind will re-raise him so he is risking $60 to win an extra $30 and Queen-Jack is the most likely holding. Finally, why wait until the river to raise? By raising on the turn at least when you get re-popped you have some outs to beat a straight but on the river you are simply toast most of the time. I would not have raised here either on the turn or the river.
What does everyone else think?
Had #3 been head-up with the BB on the flop, it may have been reasonable for him to slow-play the turn (against a tight-aggressive player) and raise the river. With 7 players seing the flop, however, #3's hand was certainly not strong enough to slow-play on the turn (even though the pot had become head-up at that point). I also tend to agree that the AT is not even strong enough to raise the turn for value, though I think it is fairly close due to the 4 outs that AT would have against JQ.
Jim,
In this case I just call although this is one of those problems where I wished you stopped the narrative at the river bet by the big blind and asked us what we would do. It is hard not to be swayed by results.
In general, I would rather be aggressive on the turn with outs then on the river where as you say, I may be toast.
BTW, I wish I could follow the action this well when I am in the hand, never mind watching from the rail ;-).
Regards,
Rick
I wouldn't have raised on the turn or the river. AT with this board and this action just doesn't seem to be that good of a hand. As you pointed out, the biggest problem is getting reraised by QJ. Since QJ is more likely than KT and it costs you twice as much as you'd gain there isn't any value in a raise (assuming the only possible hands are AT, KT, and QJ).
I imagine that the player who made this play was only thinking of his own hand and wanted to "trap" the other player for another bet on the river. He was probably afraid that if he raised the turn the guy might fold.
Agreed, very bad river raise. A raise on the turn isn't as bad - if reraised call, and then if no improvement comes on the river a fold might be okay. A drawback is that there's an outside chance the opponent is 3-betting w/A-10 and the pot is big, so a crying river call might be necessary. This is probably dependent on your read of the opponent and his level of aggressiveness. Overall, I think the best strategy is to just call on the turn and river.
Caddy
15 - 30 holdem/ commerce
This game played an awful lot like a 4-8 game. Fold around to me, 2 off the button, I have Ac6c. I've been playing fairly tight (really tight by local standards) but I like my hand, the sb is a calling station and the bb is an overall weakie plus the player on my left mucks automatically everytime I raise preflop (so far the only hands I've raised with preflop are AA, QQ and AKo). So it's just the button between me and the blinds. I raise, fold around, sb calls and bb calls.
Flop 3c Ah Kh. sb checks, BB checks, I check.
Note: Even though my hand is not that great I'm pretty sure it's best, however if it's not best I don't have much chance to improve. Plus the flop is scary to anyone having anything less than A - good kicker (given that I raised preflop).
Turn 8d sb bets, bb folds, I call.
River 3h. sb checks, I bet. "Aces up", I say, sb shows his K (didn't see his other card) and mucks.
Questions:
"The preflop raise" - Would you? Good? Bad?
"Checking top pair with position against 2 weak players" - Would you? Good? Bad?
"Just calling the turn" - Would you raise here or just call?
"Betting the river" - Good value bet? Unneccessarily risking checkraise = bad?
PreFlop Raise in that position OK.
I think you should have bet the flop. The check was weak and you had position. Call on turn OK and I like the river bet.
The check on the flop probably got you an extra bb on the turn. BUT with that hand I'd like to win it right there on the flop.
I like your raise BTF. I would have bet the flop; it has a two flush and straight possibility. I think your check on the flop was very weak. "NO FREE CARDS" If I played the hand the way you played it I would have bet the river and if It was raised I would have folded. Good bet!!
15 - 30/ commerce
I'm in sb with KQ of spades. 4 limpers call, I complete the blind and BB raises. Six way pot. I don't like raising out of the small blind with this hand but when the BB raises it makes me wonder if my hand is best. Anyway the four limpers call the BB raise and when it gets around to me I re-raise, BB just calls, called around to button who now caps it, I call the cap as do the others.
Pot = $360
Flop 10c 2c 7s. With back door flush draw/back door straight draw/two over cards I bet, BB folds and two of the original limpers fold but no raises. 3way pot. Pot = $405
Turn Js. perfect card (other than Q). I bet, fold, fold. Pot = $435
What on earth did these people have? I realize I got lucky here. I think the whole notion of raising a field of limpers with small pocket pairs or Axs or suited connectors has gotten out of hand. I see a lot of players doing this and try to take advantage when I have a hand to do it with (mostly when I'm in the small blind with a big hand and a field of limpers). Any thoughts?
"What on earth did these people have?"
Interesting hand. My guess is that everyone but you had a small pocket pair or Axs. Apparently no one had two face cards or an AJ or higher. If they did they would have seen the river card with the pot that big.
You obviously played the hand perfectly. This hand comfirms the old holdem proverb, "Good things happen when you bet and raise, bad things happen when you check."
If BB had suited connectors the flop would probably have hit him enough to stay in, so he must have had Axs or a pair below 7s. Someone probably had the Ac looking for the backdoor flush. Others, 2-flushes in the wrong suit or K8 or somesuch. Who knows what people have when a calling frenzy develops. I wouldn't have re-raised pre-flop but then I don't make 1 big bet per hour either. Nice pot.
Chris, you showed a lot more hair on this hand than I would have. I would never re-raise out of my small blind with King-Queen suited in a multiway situation like this out of position. King-Queen suited is a pretty hand that I seldom drag pots with. You usually need to make a straight or a flush to win a big pot and they are too hard to come by. Furthermore, the flush you make is not to the nuts.
Your lead on the flop into a huge crowd like this is simply insane especially with a two flush on board. You have no pair, a backdoor draw hardly worthy of the name, and 5 opponents one of whom rates to raise your bet.
Your bet on the turn I agree with since you have somewhere between 15-19 outs and with only two opponents you could win the pot outright although this is unlikely.
I think you were gambling here and not playing with an edge.
I understand what you're saying and I don't normally fall in love with KQs. I should have concentrated the post around the BB preflop raise. That was the key to why I played the hand the way I did. If he hadn't of raised preflop then I wouldn't have three bet. If we'd all seen the flop for one bet I probably wouldn't even have been around for the turn b/c there'd have been a flop bet and I got no hand.
I tend to fire the chips in there when the pots get big. A very large number of players don't adjust their play properly when the pot gets big; i.e. they don't bet/raise enough. With that flop and these players I wasn't afraid of getting raised even by top pair/good kicker (because they're afraid I have a big pocket pair), I know that no flush or straight draw is going to muck (they might raise on the flop, which is good b/c if I can get the pot 2 or 3 way and neither draw comes in maybe I can bet the river and get no caller.
Anyway - Edge? That's what I'm talking about. If the BB could have anything from A2s to 66 to 78s (I know he could have AA or AK as well) and you have a field of weak (and generally overaggressive preflop(raising with TJ under the gun and so on)) players I think that KQs is one of the strongest hands you can have in that spot.
I know I got lucky (no one flopped a playable hand) but I also think that (given the situation and players involved) limp-reraising preflop gained an enormous amount b/c I could have the best hand (unless a small pocket pair or AT), I could have the late position limpers dominated (they could have JQ or KT, etc.) and I almost definately have the highest ranking hand in the Sklansky rankings, so I don't think I made any mistake preflop. Maybe Abdul or one of hte abdulians could back me up on this and explain why more fully or more to Jim's satisfaction. If Abdul think's my preflop play is not sound in this instance it would be good to hear his opinion and reasoning.
As far as betting the flop, I had 4 non-club kings and queens (given that everyone folded on the turn I think that even the queen/king of clubs would've given me the best hand and I might have gotten turn callers with one big club.) I have 13 cards that give me either the second nut flush draw or the nut straight draw (9 spades, 3 jacks, one jack of spades), one card gives me the nut flush draw and a gutshot to broadway (ace of spades) and 7 other cards give me a gutshot to the nuts (4 nines, other 3 aces).
So although I don''t have a whole lot on the flop I have too much to fold for a single bet and I don't want to check/call (enormously weak to check and call here IMO). Somewhere in the pantheon of Sklansky's writing he says something about betting being better than calling when you have a hand worth a call or almost worth a call and you do not fear a raise to go ahead and bet. This is a little different b/c I thought a flush draw might raise me but (depending on who raised) that would be good if it got the pot 2 or 3 way on the flop, then I might be ahead already.
Well Chris I agree that your play is a mixture of Abdullian pre-flop raising strategy coupled with 2+2 "bet the flop with no hand since I would call anyway when the pot is big" strategy so maybe you have combined the best of both worlds here. I just hope you don't lose too much money over the course of a year playing this way.
The way I think of KQs is as a great hand, until someone raises, at which point it's usually a loser or at best a marginal winner in terms of pot equity and the EV of calling two cold.
A raise from the blinds rarely denotes anything but AA/KK/QQ/AKs, but given the fold on the flop I would guess the player in the big blind had AJs, 99, or similar.
Given that you initially called, I don't like the 3-bet preflop at all. The raise from the big blind suggests that KQs could be drawing nearly dead except for the flush and straight. And you've nearly given away your hand by the way you played it; I would have put you on T9s-QJs once you 3-bet preflop after initially calling in the small blind.
Doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to raise initially? Then, if and when the big blind 3-bets, you know you are in trouble and back off. You raise here just because you do have the best of it on additional money going into the pot against limpers, and you would like to manipulate the pot to make it larger to support your straight and flush draws if you flop 'em.
Playing aggressively into big pots is often correct and often suicidal. As you note, players often do not adjust properly for the huge pot odds. You do need the biggest big cards to aggressively pursue a pot with just overcards, though. You have to look at the texture of the flop and judge how likely it is to hit the other players. In this case, the flop is not ideal, because the flop looks like it must have hit some of the limpers. There is no way in hell I would take a stab at the flop if I had played the hand the way you did preflop, since you "said" you didn't have a big pair, and so the best hand you can represent is a pair of tens with a modest kicker.
Take note of the position of the likely aggressor. For example, if the big blind had been the last one to raise preflop, then I would strongly suggest checking the flop, and when then the big blind player to your immediate left bets and no one raises, you'll get to decide whether to take a card off for a guaranteed price of one small bet. (Here, you should take a card off, due to your backdoor draws and the bloated pot.) If it comes back two cold, then you fold. It makes your decisions simple.
As others pointed out, the players who called on the flop but bailed on the turn could have had small pairs, backdoor flush draws perhaps with some straight potential, etc.
-Abdul
There is a type of player that will not raise from the blinds except with AA, KK, QQ and AK. Against a player of this ilk, your limp-reraise was suicidal, regardless of the multiway field.
There also is a type of a loose-aggressive player who likes to pump it up with suited connectors, suited aces, kings and small pairs (note the S&M argument for building the pot preflop with baby pairs to boost implied odds) and are perfectly willing to do it up front. Against a player of this ilk, your limp-reraise was brilliant (providing you do it too with big pairs, AK and big suited aces, but NOT middle suited connectors and baby pairs).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Who of S & M makes the argument that you should build the pot preflop with baby pairs and where? I call this making your own odds and it is fallacious reasoning. If you are guaranteed that 9 players are in for the flop then a raise makes sense mathematically. If there are POKER reasons to raise, fine, but just to build the pot can't be right, because you will encourage the gutshooters to stick around on both the flop and the turn.
You will find it in HPfAP. You will find it in John Feeney's book (he pumps it up with 55 out of the BB). Me disagrees vehementotally, though.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Izmet
you're the first poster to get close to my question about how to play against player's who raise their own blind with hands like 44 and Axs. You're right there are players that will only raise out of the blinds with AA - QQ and AK. But there are other players that are very quick to raise their own blinds. In general, I have tight raising standards (esp. out of the blinds) but I'm more than willing to put some chips in if a player gets out of line. As it turned out, the BB must've been out of line or he had AK and didn't want to get involved after the flop. I don't know.
Keep in mind that I don't have a trust fund and I didn't buy intc in 1993 so if I played every hand like this I'd be broke. I don't. But occassionally I will get in there and slug away, more so when I think someone is out of line.
Do you really need to wait for AA before punishing a weak player? I don't think so. I'd like to have had AA (and I probably would've ended up playing it the same way - that's another discussion alltogether) but I didn't. What I had was a playable hand. And the asshole BB raises so I re-raised the field for value.
If anybody but me thinks the button has a complete piece of shit hand (68 offsuit comes to mind) I don't know what to say. If button has AA or KK he'd have raised the BB raise (i.e. before I got the chance to three bet).
What do you do in these situations? I will sometimes do the same thing with AKs or 99 on the button after 4+ limpers and one of the blinds will raise (most often the BB) and I'll 3bet in that spot too. I think the trick to catching these players with their guards down is limping in situations where raising wont make any difference in how many players see the flop and then raising if one of these fuckers gets out of line. Esp. if you're in a weak/loose game, you raise with AK after 3 or 4 limpers, you get out the lame hands like T6offsuit but the Q7s and the TJ offsuit still come. you know the rest of the story.
I never limp with the intention of raising a raiser, but I will limp when it makes sense (to me, if not to y'all) and then reraise some chump raising his BB with 44 or A2s. I haven't figured out a way to punish these people without getting a little out of line myself. If anyone has any ideas please let me know.
The tone of your post suggests you may be responding emotionally to your opponents. If so, this could seriously impair your play.
About the preflop reraise and the turn bet I agree with you, but I don´t know if the bet on flop is as bad as you say, cause when the pot is real big, you should maximize your chances of winning it even when you don´t figure to have the best hand (at least that´s what s+m preach)so the bet was better than a check, especially when the bb is liable to raise and knock out players, no?
greg, I think you are wasting money to bet into 5 opponents like this facing a two flush and no immediate outs. A King or a Queen is not a clean out and you are really betting a runner-runner type draw. Basically what this amounts to is leading with any hand you have spent 4 bets to take a flop with since the pot is large and you increase your chances of winning by betting so I guess it really doesn't matter what your hand is.
ok, ok, I know this is not terrific play, but since chris decided to gamble by reraising, wouldn´t it be wrong to suddenly tighten up on the flop that contained 24 small bets? We all probably know that he should have called the raise (or raised himself) but, my contention is that you shouldn´t do anything by halves, so if chris decides to gamble, let him gamble to the end. Regarding outs, yes he could´ve been dominated by AKs, AQs, etc. but I harbour the suspicion that both the raiser and the capper didn´t necessarily have top quality hands: The BB raiser didn´t cap, and the capper from the button didn´t raise (doesn´t have to mean anything but still). chris had 6 "unclean" outs, but he also had a possible backdoor flush and straight potential, which amounts to 3.3 additional VOLATILE outs (i.e. they either disappear or evolve into real outs on turn), so chris has almost a 20% chance of a)hitting K or Q or (64.5% of 20%) b) making a four-flush, open end straight or belly buster(35.5% of 20%), in which case he has got at least 10 outs.
So why doesn´t he check and call if it appears that he might take a peek at the turn card? Because almost two thirds of the time that he will improve, its gonna be because of a K or Q on turn, and bringing just one of the five others out of the game, can be the difference between winning and losing the pot in that case.
Checking and calling is very different from betting and getting raised resulting in having to pay 2 bets to take off a card. Suppose he checks and it is checked around? Wouldn't this be nice?
Yes, a check probably is the best play, it´s just that he decided to gamble preflop so perhaps he should go on with it, but ...
Somehow, I can´t can´t rid of the feeling that we´ve been writing about different things and that both of us are right:
Your check is probably better than my bet because you see it moneywise, and my bet is probably better because I see it strategywise (although gambling is not a strategy, but "in for a penny, in for a pound", you know what I mean), but then again, perhaps not.
I feel we can´t properly continue this argument anyway, because chris didn´t enlighten us on the table(tough, etc.) nor did he tell us anything of raiser or capper, so further discussion is rather futile, IMO.
BTW: your posts are pretty good
I didn't notice that this thread had continued.
BB: generally weak player, some consideration given to hand selection but tries too many "plays" and abandons his plan halfway through a hand.
Button: just recently sat down in the game, drinking, looks like he's in the game to have a good time.
I thought that BB raised his blind with either a small pair or suited connectors and I thought that he thought I had a big pair (I had played QQ exactly this same way on the button with a field of limpers about an hour and a half before this hand but the BB in the above hand was on my right at the time - any way long story short, when I had QQ and limped one of the blinds raised the field and I 3bet and he capped it and we flopped set over set - queens over tens.) So if BB really had AK I figured he'd fold when I bet out b/c he's out of position. I guess my take on this subject is that if my raise isn't going to limit the field preflop I try to manouver and get 7 or 8 people to put in 4 bets a piece preflop. Which I don't mind doing with hands like AA-88, AK, AKs, AQs,KQs,KJs. Occassionally 78s-9Ts (Hands that seem good, like TJs,JQs,KTs,ATs, even AJs I play a lot more timidly and wont call a raise cold with them) You gotta flop a hand most of the time but these hands are going to connect with a lot more flops than 44 and Axs.
Dave in Cali should get a kick out of this one due to his aversion to slowplay. I also thought there may be several interesting aspects of this hand if looked at closely. Since I'm not so sure everything is as obvious as it seems at first glance.
A solid player (SP) open raised from middle position in a fairly tight, 6-handed $10-$20 game. The sb who is somewhat loose for this type of game, called $15. I called in the bb with the 3c 3h.
The flop was Ah,4c,5c
sb checked, I checked, SP checked
The turn was the 2d
sb checked, I bet, SP raised. sb thought for a while and folded, I re-raised, SP called.
The river was the 6s
I bet and SP called. He flashed AA. My question are:
How many would disagree with my call pre-flop w/33?
How many AGREE with SP's checking this flop?
How many would disagree with SP's raise on the turn?
How many would disagree with SP's call on the end?
In other words, is the play of this hand from 4th street on a no brainer? I have definite thoughts on this. I would appreciate any comments.
Well, everyone will call on the end since you might have A2 or something you're too proud of. Other than that you played right and he didn't.
(n/t)
I am a inexperienced in HE, (esp short handed) so understand what I say is what I would do and not necessarily what is correct
Q: How many would disagree with my call pre-flop w/33?
A: I would like better odds but at 4:1 I would see the flop.
Q: How many AGREE with SP's checking this flop?
A: Not knowing the end result, SP with top trips should have bet or check raised. I would not have slowplayed the trip aces.
Q: How many would disagree with SP's raise on the turn?
A: Probably not a bad move with no pair or flush showing. He still figures he has the winner. I would not expect someone to be staying with the gut shot and a 3 at that.
Q: How many would disagree with SP's call on the end?
A: If SP raises the turn naturally he feels that you did not have a 3, so on the river he bets. Your raise tells him you are good. Maybe you stayed with the 7,8. He knows he is in trouble, but because of his cards (AAA) and the amount of money in the pot, he probably should call. If he calls this type of pot 10 times, he will probably win about 6 or 7 times against small trips and 1 time against a bluff, so I think in the long run hed olayed correctly, but I think he should have raised the flop. Of course the question would you have stayed for a raise at the flop given your runner straight?
Nothing wrong with calling preflop. You are getting the right price plus you may have the only pair and you have good implied odds with the right flop.
Solid player ought to be renamed weak player. Checking the flop makes no sense. If he bets you may not call on the flop.
When you lead on the turn calling rather than raising is the correct play. I also call the river. In this spot you would play a straight the same way as two pair so I pay off with three Aces.
Bruce
Thanks for you response Bruce.
Can I get you to elaborate on why you think calling the turn rather than raising is the correct play for SP? I gave my comments in "My conclusion". But briefly, I felt there were many hands I might have bet that he has beat. In addition, he certainly has the best draw. So I didn't think his raise on the turn was all that bad. Your comments?
I certainly have no problem preflop. Your bet ends the auction and if you flop a set you're going to win a nice pot. Like Dave in Cali says about these limits, slowplaying is death. Just the other day on line I'm in cutoff with 55. 4 people in and BB raises. We all see the flop of KQ7r for 2 bets. All Check!! Turn is a 5. BB bets all fold to me I raise. He reraises and I cap. River is the case 5. He beys out, I raise, he reraises and I cap. This is online so they still have a limit even heads up. He shows Kings full.
Will they ever learn to just bet their hands? I hope not.
In this case the BB absolutely HAS to bet. He cannot be assured of a check-raise being successful, so he has to bet. When you are in early position you cannot count on a check-raise working. Make sure to get at least one bet in. The best move (IMO) is to bet and reraise if you can. You will probably win a bigger pot. In this case KKK is a strong hand but there are two broadway cards out. Had he bet I'm sure you would have folded. Since he checked and you caught a five, you were in for the long haul. You did in fact get lucky but you still played correctly since there was no way you could have known what he had.
good example.
dave in cali
Dave,
First of all I always find your posts entertaining. Second, whether I'm playing in my home game, in AC or on line it seems that betting out with anything less than quads or a straight flush is always the right play. It seems that at the lower limits other guys would always go for the checkraise or slowplay when they flop big time, so betting out is in fact DISGUISING your hand. I can't tell you how many times I've flopped a boat, bet it all the way from early position and had 5 callers to the river with top pair, two pair or flush draws. It's a beautiful thing.
a
This is why you should ALWAYS lead with your best hands, especially in a loose game. Good post.
That is brutal!! But then again, he got what he wanted. Someone to catch up to him. You did and then some! Nice hand!
Pre-flop you should call a raise out of your big blind with any pocket pair. When you consider implied odds, it is worth trying to flop a set. There will also be some scenarios where you will be able to win the pot outright by betting or it may occasionally get checked through and your pair holds up especially in a shorthanded pot.
On the flop, the SP was an idiot for not betting his hand here given both a two flush and three wheel cards on the flop.
On the turn, SP's raise with a set is okay since you don't rate to have a trey and he has 10 redraws to beat a straight by filling up at the river.
On the river, I think he has to call since he only loses if you have a trey and he can beat two pair or a set.
"How many would disagree with my call pre-flop w/33? "
Not me, you are getting 5:1 odds with no chance of a reraise. I would call here.
"How many AGREE with SP's checking this flop? "
Obviously you knew that I would totally disagree with this check. I mean look, it's a two flushed board with three to a straight. The BB called so you have to think that the BB might be in the pot with a small card since he only had to call one bet with no chance of being raised. Although SP did have a very strong hand, and was perhaps the favorite, he certainly did not have a slow playing hand. his check was the completely wrong move and the result shows why. Had he bet, you would have only been getting 7:1 odds (perhaps 8:1 if the SB had called). Although implied odds may have made up for the short pot odds, if there are 4 cards to a straight on board and the BB is betting, it might be pretty easy to read your hand and any reasonable opponent might consider folding. therefore the implied odds may in fact be less than that needed to call with a gutshot in a fairly small pot.
"How many would disagree with SP's raise on the turn?"
SP fell victim to the syndrome of wanting to save up your raises for the turn when you flop a set. As I have stated many times before, I think you will (generally) win a larger pot when you bet the flop, get raised, then make it three bets, rather than waiting for the turn to raise. Sets are made for playing fast about 98% of the time. Sets like KK with a flop of K 8 2 rainbow can safely be slowplayed for one round, but that does not always mean that you SHOULD slowplay them this way. Most of the time, especially in loose low limit, you should still bet because you will wind up winning a bigger pot than if you slowplay.
"How many would disagree with SP's call on the end? "
By the time the river comes, SP has to call because the pot is SO big. He had to know he was beat though, unless he thought you would reraise the turn with something like two pair. Of course he has to call the turn raise since he has ten outs.
"In other words, is the play of this hand from 4th street on a no brainer? I have definite thoughts on this. I would appreciate any comments. "
I think you played it fine. Betting the river for value was good. You had to know that he wouldn't fold, and it was pretty much impossible for him to have you beat, given the way he played the hand. Good post.
Although there are some times when it is correct to slowplay, these times are so infrequent that if you just NEVER slowplayed, you would not be losing much at all. Basically if I flop a good hand, even a very strong one, if there is a two flush or gutshot or straight draw out there, I am going to bet. No free cards. Charge them to outdraw you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Don't slowplay!
Dave in Cali
Thanks for the responses.
If SP bets the flop, I don't call given the 2 clubs. Make it a rainbow flop and I probably make the call since I may still have the best hand and if not, I figure to have 6 likely outs (I wouldn't automatically fear AA).
I find Bruce's take on the turn interesting. Another good player in this game also felt it was a mistake for SP to raise the turn, claiming he knew I had a straight when I bet. I am not so sure about this...
After the flop gets checked, there are several hands I may bet the turn with that SP beats. Such as:
a club draw. Since I am considered aggressive and may take a stab after the flop gets checked.
For similar reasons I may also bet an open ender such as 76s.
54s. (I probably can't have this hand or 76s for that matter, but SP may not know this).
88 thru QQ
Any ace. I would prefer to check this kind of hand but the presence of the clubs probably cause me to bet.
Certainly 44 or 55.
And what about Ac Kc? I may play this hand very fast since again, I don't automatically fear a set and may be able to blow him off the same hand.
So I don't think SP's raise on the turn was necessary all that bad.
What about his call on the end? Another good player thought that after making it $60 on the turn, and SP calling, it was unlikely I would bet a hand that SP beats. Again I'm not sure. As Jim Brier points out, SP beats anything I could have that doesn't incude a 3. So I don't think his call was that bad.
One other point:
What if it's true that you are up against a player who is good enough/tight enough to fold AA on the end for a single bet? Might it now be correct to make it $60 on the turn with a club or up and down straight draw? Of the two of us, I am the only one likely to hold a 3. It's a risky play but against certain players (the 2 I discussed the hand with for instance) it may be also be a very strong play. What does everyone else think? Thanks again.
With that flop, I would raise the turn with AcKc. You certainly can't automatically put someone on AA given the way he played the hand. With any set of course you raise, or with any straight. If the player is very tight or easy to make lay down a hand, raising with a big draw might be a good play. If the player is a calling station, I would just call because the pot is not really that big. With a pot that big of course your opponent was correct to call on the river, you may have two pair or a set and not a straight. The margin of doubt is more than made up for by the size of the pot.
general thoughts on slowplay...
I think that occasionally slowplaying a hand that is less than a total lock may have its place, but for the most part it will only be in a heads up situations against very tricky opponents. Most inexperienced players should just never slowplay at all. I virtually never slowplay because of the character of the games I play in. I simply make more $$ by playing almost everything fast. When it comes to lower limit games (or any loose game), slowplaying anything at all will probably wind up costing you. SammyB's point about how betting a big flop actually DISGUISES your hand is a very good one.
A few weeks ago I flopped the nut flush when I called with A6s. I was the SB and bet the whole way. I got three callers on the flop and got two on the turn. The river I was called by a player who had top pair and made two pair on the end. Had I checked and slowplayed, I very well may have won a smaller pot than I did. Several players were drawing dead with their K or Q or perhaps a J (or worse) of the suit.
Just to illustrate how little I slowplay hands:
The last hand I slowplayed was in Atlantic city about 10-11 months ago when I flopped quad nines on the button. SB bet the whole way and there were several callers. I waited till the river to raise because I felt that was the way to play it that would win me the biggest pot. Had an earlier raise been likely to win me a bigger pot, that is what I would have done.
Good thread.
Dave in Cali
Dave, I once floped the nut flush in early position against 1 late raiser. I check called all the way to keep him around. Only to see runner runner 5's match the 5 on board and give him a full house, 5's over his pair of T's. Major tilt soon followed. It's always dangerous and you have no idea where you're at once your opponent starts raising. If you don't have the mortal nuts, don't do it. I'm trying to break the habit.
a set of aces flopped is ALWAYS against a straight draw. there are no exceptions. Thus they should NEVER be slowplayed.
Good point Tony. I would like to add that this betting sequence by SP is a common one for a set of A's. He doesn't bet the flop for fear of losing players before they catch up enough to call. The raise on the turn screams "set", so you should often know what your up against with this betting pattern. Although it is safer slowplaying Ks rather than As because of the wraparound straight possibilites.
This is discussed in Super/System by Brunson.
Anytime an ace flops, it is ALWAYS possible that the next card off could make someone a straight. Often it will be a gutshot but it could be open-ended. Therefore the advice to ALWAYS bet a set of aces is good advice.
Dave in Cali
"a set of aces flopped is ALWAYS against a straight draw. there are no exceptions. Thus they should NEVER be slowplayed."
But that doesn't mean that someone has the straight draw!
Second, you probably shouldn't always do anything in poker.
How many would disagree with my call pre-flop w/33?
I do, your odds are about 5-1.
How many AGREE with SP's checking this flop?
Stupid idea, he should have bet his hand.
How many would disagree with SP's raise on the turn? With 4 to a straight, the hay is out of the barn.
How many would disagree with SP's call on the end?
A crying call at best.
In other words, is the play of this hand from 4th street on a no brainer? I have definite thoughts on this. I would appreciate any comments.
I think you were correct to bet both the turn and river.
Kevin,
I haven't read all the responses but I think you should bet the flop. Especially short handed, the mid position raiser does not have an ace and will be hard pressed to call your flop bet without one. You're getting 6 to 1 on your bet, and if you get called, you've still got 6 outs (unless he has specifically AA, but then you've still got 4). Actually, you've got more outs because a 6 will also allow you to play on since you don't put the BB on having a 7.
Puggy
Thanks for your response Puggy. Had there not been 2 clubs up, I may have considered betting the flop. Also, I WAS the BB. Take care.
How much is the time charge at Bellagio or Mirage when you play 15-30 holdém.
Thanks Johan
The 15-30 at the Bellagio has a pot rake (max $3?), not a time charge. The 30-60 at the Bellagio has a time charge of $5 every 30 minutes. I don't know about Mirage.
Below $30-$60, all games are rake games at the Bellagio and the Mirage. Pots are raked a maximum of $3 for $10-$20, $15-$30, and $20-$40. The rake is something like $1 on $40, a second $1 on $70, and a third $1 on $100. It is one of the best in the country.
$15-$30 hold-em is only offered at the Bellagio not the Mirage. The Bellagio spreads $4-$8, $8-$16, $15-$30, and $30-$60 hold-em while the Mirage spreads $3-$6, $6-$12, $10-$20, and $20-$40 hold-em.
Last night I was playing at a full table with 2 "chip burning" raisers and 1 or 2 "live ones." A great situation if you can find it! However, I ran into a dillema one hand when I found that it was three bets to me (just right of the button) with a high probability of a cap to come. I Look down to see pocket 5's! I decide quickly and muck it. OF COURSE! I flop a set and turn a full house, missing a Huge pot. Did I make the right decision even though I would have made my hand?
Yes. It is very bad poker to paying multiple bets to take a flop with a small pocket pair like Fives. You have to flop a set and then have the hand hold up all the way to the river. Your implied odds are terrible. Folding is correct when pots are getting raised and especially re-raised.
The key to whether to play this hand is exactly what you think your implied odds are. If you believe that because of the nature of the players that you are against you can get back at least nine times your opening round investment assuming your hand holds up, then it becomes correct to call. In the situation that you describe this will only rarely be the case. Thus folding is probably the correct play.
I would have to have bigger cards to call 3 bets and expect to call a 4th. I am sure there are at least AA, KK in the running, and I am an underdog to them. Bye-bye on this hand.
The fact that you are against aces and kings in some ways makes your hand better. What it means is that if you get lucky and flop that set and have your hand hold up, you will get lots of action.
In my opinion the biggest pots are won when someone flops a set and is against at least one over pair and someone with top pair. However, even with this being the case, it is still not very likely that a call in this spot is correct.
I definitely agree here. I think I have made most of my money with small sets vs my winnings with AA or to pair/kicker. One does get a lot of action with small sets, but they are dangerous against a strong early play and lots of raisers esp when a brick hits the flop.
I think with six or more opponents you will usually have enough implied odds to call. with 4 or less there's no way.
The results of the flop (or the rest of the hand) were irrelevant to whether or not you made the right decision. If it is capped to you and you have 27o, and fold, did you make the right play? Yes. What if the flop is 227, does that change anything? No. You make all decisions based on the information available and pot odds AT THE TIME YOU HAVE TO DECIDE. What happens after that is irrelevant to whether you made the right play or not.
Calling three bets cold with pocket fives is a bad play, especially since you felt another reraise was likely. Remember, you either need to be getting good enough odds to flop a set (preflop 5:1 or better considering implied odds), or you need to have a good chance of winning unimproved (such as heads up). It sounds like you neither had 5:1 nor any real chance of winning unimproved. Fold. The only way you would play here is if there were many players and you could be assured of getting good preflop odds. With three or four bets preflop, this is rarely going to be the case.
Dave in Cali
How big does your pair have to be to call 3 bets here, with maybe 4 players. Is JJ or TT good enough, how about QQ ?
Interestingly I would rather have a hand like Eights . If I don't flop a set I am history. With Jacks or Queens and you are up against a bigger pair its difficult to lay the hand down if there are no overcards even though you know you are beat.
If I am going to put in four bets preflop I want at leat 5 opponents. I will not play a pair smaller than 7's. I don't want to put in four bets and have an underset.
Bruce
Good question. the exact answer I am not totally sure about.
I would probably call with QQ without hesitation most of the time, and occasionally reraise.
JJ or TT would "depend" on the players and what they would raise/reraise with, and how many other players were likely to be in the pot. If I knew that mr. rock would not reraise without AA or KK, then I would probably fold. In a very loose aggressive game with lots of pointless raising, I would probably play JJ or TT. Keep in mind that JJ, and to a lesser extent TT, have a chance of winning the pot unimproved, so this somewhat increases their value and lessens the odds a bit that you would need to call. I wouldn't take this concept too far though. If you know that certain players are very tight, and don't reraise without AA or KK, then you should consider folding.
Remember, if you have a pair, you are about a 6:5 favorite over two overcards, but a 4:1 dog against a higher pair. Keep this in mind when considering whether to play a pair.
Dave in Cali
Excellent point. I feel that players who play out hands mentally after mucking their hand and think "I could have made this hand and won $$ had I not folded" may tend to develop the metality of any two cards can win. Remembering what could have been may cause them to play weak hands in future rounds when they in fact should fold. Folding as I have learned in this forum is a strong play in many situations.
Anyone will go broke very fast playing 55 for caps. It is much better to wait for a hand you can pound the field with. Your fold was correct. Don't get sucked into playing bad because others around are playing giveaway.
I play on the net since I am 1 day drive from nearest casino. The discussion below about AA vs 33 reminded me of a recent hand. Two limpers to me on button with K4s. The table (10-20) is non-violent so I call, sb calls, bb checks. Flop is like 742r one of my suit. All check to me so I take my usual shot with 2nd pair (haha) and get check-raised by the SB. All fold to me. I put her on overpair like 8s or 9s so I have pure 5-outer if I am right. Exactly 8-1 odds (plus backdoor flush chance) with 8 small already in . I call. Turn is blank, she bets, I fold, and she shows AA! Like she's proud of only getting an extra 2 small bets in that pot with the golden pair? At least raise pre-flop and get 3 or 4 calls there and perhaps a few later. With 3 limpers already it would also be nice to knock out the big blind, wouldn't it, so you don't get beat by 2 small pair? I said nothing of course but I was stunned by her play of this hand. Comments?
Many players improperly slowplay big pairs BTF. They think that by not raising and letting other players in, they will somehow win more $$. More likely, they will either let someone in who will beat them (and would have folded for a raise), OR they will simply win a smaller pot. For these reasons, you should simply RAISE with your big pairs!
The only time I will not raise with AA or KK is when I am UTG and the game is aggressive, and I think that a limp-reraise is highly likely to succeed. This is rare however, so I just about always just raise with big pairs. Tricky play will usually cost you $$. Save the fancy stuff for the big games against the toughest players.
Dave in Cali
Sue and Sally meet at their 30th class reunion, and they haven't seen each other since graduation. They begin to talk and bring each other up to date. The conversation covers their husbands, their children, homes, etc. and finally gets around to their sex lives.
Sue says, "It's OK. We get it on every week or so but it's no big adventure, how's yours?"
Sally replies, "It's just great, ever since we got into S&M."
Sue is aghast. "Really Sally, I never would have guessed that you would go for that."
"Oh, sure," says Sally, "He Snores while I Masturbate."
Definitely the wrong forum for this one.
if he could just have worked in "holdem" ...
I don't get it...what do Sklansky and Malmuth have to do with masturbation?
Oh, NOW I get it....ha ha ha!
10/20 holdem: I was big blind with pocket kings. 3 limpers to button who raises, I reraise all call. flop is A 7 2 rainbow I bet out, cutoff calls, button raises We both call. Turn is a king of fourth suit. Me and cutoff check to button who bets, I checkraise, cutoff folds, button reraises I just call and then check call the river blank. Should I put him on pocket Aces by his actions?
Never, by golly!!! You can't be thinking of folding, please, now can you? Say it's not true, say you are just kidding ol' Izmet...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
I am not sure why you would checkraise here - you know you have the guy in the cutoff seat beaten, so why lose him? If you bet out, or check and go for the overcall (assuming the button doesn't have AA) you might keep him in and get extra money (if you have the best hand.)
I suppose it all depends on the way you perceive the button - is he loose aggressive? If so, you might pop him again. Is he a rock? If so, be nervous!
I have very rarely had KK beaten by AA, and NEVER when both of them had sets. So I don't think the odds of this happening are very good at all.
-SmoothB-
Really?? Happened to me last night. Luckily it was me who spiked the ace on the turn for the win.
It certainly appears like your opponent has Aces or AK. If he is a loose cannon I would pop it a few more times and see what happens. Against a more solid player I would raise at least one more time. Set over set happens, but when I flop or turn a set I want to maximize my hand and win as big a pot as possible.
Bruce
This is when knowledge of the oponent is paramount. I personally believe he is taking advantage of his position and putting the pressure on you. I might fear the aces, but I certainly would call.
He didn't cap it pre-flop. Ergo, he doesn't have AA.
How about not capping it preflop when you have AA because everybody´s gonna say: "He didn´t cap it pre-flop. Ergo, he doesn´t have AA" ? :-)
It's more likely your opponents have AK or AQ.
I think the question of fearing AA doesnt make a lot of sense. I dont see how one can play the game and fear the nut hand. If your opponent has the nuts, in this case AA, then you lose. There is nothing wrong with losing a hand...especially when you have a hand as strong as a set of Kings into a nonthreatening board.
There is only one hand that he can have that beats you. All other hands you win. There are many hands that he could have that you beat. Therefore as a matter of expected return, you must raise a time or two.
P.S. I dont play not to lose, but rather, to win all I can.
Based on your sequence of bets, the button should've figured you for AK, KK or AA (less likely because you bet the flop and most would slowplay or checkraise). After all, you reraised his pre-flop raise (which was not a steal attempt). His reraise on the turn therefore was egregious with anything less than AA. And yet, as another poster pointed out, he didn't cap the betting pre-flop and most people will with AA. With such apparently contradictory evidence to guide you, the prudence you displayed on the river is understandable. On the other hand, so is the call.
Given your hand and the board, the button could have AA (3 ways), AK (3 ways), AQ (12 ways), and maybe even AJ suited (3 ways). There are many more ways for him to have a hand you can beat then for him to have specifically AA.
I think you should bet out on the turn, hoping he raises so you can three bet. Your opponent has either AK, AA, A7s, A2s, 77, or 22. (Or he's drawing completely dead) If your opponent is the type of player that would just call your three bet preflop with AA then he could (would?) wait until the turn to raise with top set.
He didn't cap pre-flop. this indicates AKo is more likely than AA or AKs. If it was AKs, his lack of a re-raise meant he had you pegged for AA or KK, so I'm guessing he had AKo because later on he did not have you on AA or KK.
I think he raises the flop with top pair, best kicker. Then believes his hand improves on the turn without considering what you had based on your play of the hand (maybe he had you on AQ, or didn't think at all).
However, you gave us no indication of his style. Also, I'm watching him like a hawk when that turn card comes, when I bet, and when he raises looking for any tell.
I think AKo is most logical, but is he a logical guy? If he's a sneaky guy, maybe it is AA and he's trying to mix things up.
mth
short story from the other side. me : one off button. with AK. UTG (a woman, who is pretty unimaginative, but I didn't have much experience outside home games at the times) raises. I re-raise. She re-re-raises. Its just me and her. Flop comes AKx. I think, "great". She bets. I raise. She re-raises. It sinks in. I call. I call turn and river, and see a set of A's. I probably played the hand a lot like your button did here, even with the scary board.
Why do I tell this? This is how I played the hand from the other side of your example, and felt I was a real powerhouse, when in fact i was a chump.
mth.
The button's reraise of your check-raise on the turn narrows his likely hands to AA, AK, or 77. AA being the least likely since the button would have to be playing deceptively since they failed to cap preflop. 77 means the button was a little frisky before the flop. My experience is that hold'em players are more likely to be overly aggressive than deceptive in that preflop scenario. I would continue to build the pot.
Best guess is that the button made trip 7's on the flop. He is playing you for AK and top two pair on the turn.
You can't start fearing monsters under the bed when you have trip kings. I feel it is very unlikely that you are beaten by AAA. I would reraise again as you almost certainly have the best hand. If you get beaten by a slowrolled AA in the hole then so be it. Most of the time you will probably catch him with a big ace or two pair.
BTW, I hope you were going to fold the turn if no king showed up.
Dave in Cali
i don't have a strong oppinion as to how you should have played he hand, but i can offer you something to think about---
you played the entire hand like YOU had the pocket aces yet this particular opponent kept coming. there is only one way that he could know for sure you did not have them- i'll leave it to you to figure what that one way is, but remember there are only four aces in a deck. one of the posters said - and he/she is absolutely correct - that there are (or were) many handshe could have that would lose to your set, but only one that could beat it. i played a hand of high-draw, jacks or better many years ago in california (joker used as bug) in which i called an early position opener who drew three cards (i drew one). after the draw, he bet, i raised, he re-raised, and he put in the last bet. i was going to throw my straight-flush away (there was no jackpot) but i decided to call just to see what five aces looked like. the story might sound contrived but every word of it is true; the look on his face was one of absolute fearlessness - a look i had not seen him exhibit in the 5 or 6 hours we had been playing together. the good news - it was only a 2-4 game the better news - we've been best friends ever since that day almost fifteen years ago!
Browsing some poker links, I spent some time on Izmet's pages. In particular he has a page where he ran some turbo sims on A-4s against various opponents, the resuls of which I found quite illuminating. Anyone interested should visit http://izmet.desetka.si/thinraises.html.
I'm a bit surprised Izmet didn't respond in the A-5 thread below, but given the results of his simulations, it's more clear than ever that trying to "isolate" someone with A-small suited is about as dead-wrong as an Indycar spinning backwards at 230 mph.
Attention Izmet: Speaking of dead, so are a bunch of your older RGP links.
I think he said A4s wins its fair share against 6 players thats why you can raise for value. This doesn't imply it doesn't win its fair share against 1 loose limper. Its not obvious what is more profitable to encourage multiway action or to isolate.
More than its fair share against 6 actually (20%), so the raise for value is great. Against a loose limper, the A-5s hand is likely best, so even there the raise is likely best. But reraising with A-5s vs. a mid-position raiser to "isolate" is suicidal.
I apologize, but I am unable to follow all the threads on this forum, it's gotten too big. I browse the thread titles to find something interesting, keep an eye on the writings of some folks I respect (you are aware that misinformation, misconceptions and blunders are rampant on Net poker forums, I hope), do a search every weak using a few selected keywords, and filter out the rest, thereby missing some of the interesting posts.
It is clear to me that reraising to isolate *you* (a solid player, I assume) with A5s is a bad idea. If you take a fair look at the set of hands you could be opening with in mid position, you should see there are not many in there that look like a super underdog to A5s.
When isolating with a late reraise, one hopes to catch the opener with pants down in a potential moneymaking bloodletting situation. You hope to crush a late QJ stealer with your KJ, semibluff his A2 with your 98s out of the pot (or crush him when one of the draws comes in) or suckout on his 77 with your AQ.
Bottom line is, you figure to have a hand that notches the opener a bit. You need a better hand, or a hand with better potential (like 54s against his miserable A2o for an extreme example). You MUST avoid situations where you stick your head out only to risk it getting chopped off. Your A5s vs. 99 is a good example. Your opponent must flop an ace (or a draw, but even here he has no semibluffing potential as you shouldn't fold 99 headsup) to beat you. You have him dominated from the start and he is too stupid to anticipate problems like that. Consider some even scarier situations, like his A5 against your AT, and you'll understand what I mean.
The important principle of isolating players is to choose the spots (and type of cards) that have the potential to make a profit, but not lose much when things go awry. Trying to isolate a probable dominating hand is suicidal.
Reraising a maniac is of course another matter. A5s is a monster headsup against a nearly random hand. For this reason it is viable to raise a single loose limper, IF it will isolate him. You don't want to pay a hefty price to play a weak ace three-way, suited or not and then scratch your head in confusion when getting bet into on the flop.
I have not read the A5s thread, I only took a look at your original article. I hope I'm not saying things already discussed. Sorry for that. The links on my page are broken on DejaNews side, for some reason they do not store oldest usenet articles anymore.
I may do some simulations on this in the near future, I have to test out the new beta Turbo V4 that Bob Wilson sent me days ago. It has oodles of new features, I anticipate much tougher play and even more realistic sims results.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Don't throw away those broken deja.com links. Deja says the news archive will return. See:
http://www.deja.com/help/pn_faq.epl#history
What are the most common mistakes you see other players making in low-limit Hold'em, aside from limping in with too many hands?
Here are four that I've noticed:
1) Not raising on the river after the straight or flush fills and is bet into.
2)only raising pre-flop with KK and AA
3)a premature raise with the nuts
4)calling with unimproved JJ or QQ to the bitter end with an overcard showing (or two!)
I think the #1 mistake made in Low Limit games can be put into a single word: Bluffing. Bluffs aren't nearly as powerful a weapon in low limit games as they are in middle-high limit games. Bluffing most low limit players is like telling a joke to someone who doesn't speak english. You wonder why they aren't laughing: It's because they don't understand what you just said. You bluff at a low limit player and wonder why they don't fold: They don't understand that you're representing more than you really have. Either show down the best hand or save yourself some money.
Another mistake I see a lot in low limit games is when players take middle or bottom pair all the way to the river. It rarely holds up, especially in multi-way pots. I don't know what they're thinking, but I sure do love having them in the game.
low limit is usually a goldmine, if you can stand the straightforwardness of the game. 99% of the time it's not exciting poker, but it's profitable.
shooter
A couple more off the top of my head:
David
I think you're wrong about #3. At the lower limits you can never start raisng too early with the nuts because unless you have flopped a straight flush you don't always know what the nuts are with two cards to come. I say raise when you've got the best of it. At the lower limits they'll stay in with top pair top kicker till the end anyway.
Let's say you hold T9 and the flop comes J87 rainbow. The blind bets. Would you raise with four players still to act? Or the board shows QJ79 with 3 clubs and you hold Ac8c on the button. 3 players check, the player to your right bets. Anyone with 2-pair will call your raise anyway, so why not let the potential straights as well as Kcx try to make their hands? Meanwhile, one of the three checkers might also have made a hand but will raise only if you don't...
Yes, I want all the other flushes and straights to come along for the ride, and they'll come along for two bets as well as one. What I want to do is knock out people who flopped a pair, even a lower pair, because pairs have ways of turning into full houses at the most inopportune times.
Mark,
The number one error that I see is checking and calling. Bad players consistently check their low pair, middle pair, top pair bad kicker, crappy draws, etc. but decide to call when lots of people behind them do (or even if only a couple folks are in), thinking the pot is too big to fold, or maybe they have the best hand. Of course, this can be right at times, but more often than not they are betting and praying to pair their kicker, trip up or otherwise hit their miracle card. Plus, checking and calling is a huge sign of weakness that more experienced players will seize upon.
Secondly, people do not follow the action. When one of the check and call bunch comes out firing when the third of a suit hits, the top pair people still call (or even raise), concentrating only on how good their hand looks to them. These are the ones that usually complain most about the sucking out in these games.
Thirdly, betting marginal or good hands in early or middle position and then calling raises with them. It seems that whenever I lay down a hand after limping in (say second in, in middle position with KQo) to a raise and reraise before the flop, people comment. They don't conceive that some hands are dominated from the start and not worth a larger investment. Again, the "pot is so big now" mentality takes over. Once I plugged this leak in my game I saved a nice sum.
KJS
KJS
with appologies to david letterman-
AND THE NUMBER ONE MISTAKE MADE IN LOW LIMI HOLD'EM - - -
` ` PLAYING "ANY ACE" FROM "ANY PLACE"
- - why do you think pocket kings have come to be known as "ace magnets" in all 3-6 (and many 5-10) games? when you flop a set in one of these games you pray that it comes with an ace; not only are you almost guaranteed of at least one (and sometimes a many as three) callers to the end, they are almost always drawing either stone cold dead, or on their best days to runner-runner. Bless every last one of them and may they never learn the error of their ways.
sorry, must havehit "submit" twice
with appologies to david letterman-
AND THE NUMBER ONE MISTAKE MADE IN LOW LIMIT HOLD'EM - - -
` ` PLAYING "ANY ACE" FROM "ANY PLACE"
- - why do you think pocket kings have come to be known as "ace magnets" in all 3-6 (and many 5-10) games? when you flop a set in one of these games you pray that it comes with an ace; not only are you almost guaranteed of at least one (and sometimes a many as three) callers to the end, they are almost always drawing either stone cold dead, or on their best days to runner-runner. Bless every last one of them and may they never learn the error of their ways.
Another one I see a lot is people who bet the hell out of poor and mediocre hands, and then go into a shell with a blockbuster that is not quite the nuts. Easiest in the world to read. When they are just calling, look out.
1) Not raising on the river after the straight or flush fills and is bet into.
It is kind of a function of who is behind
you left to act. Sometimes, you can trap
and make more.
2)only raising pre-flop with KK and AA
Yes, however the trend seems to be DON'T raise
with AA or KK, which is even worse.
3)a premature raise with the nuts.
I agree, however if there is action in front of
you, your raise can still be profitable.
4)calling with unimproved JJ or QQ to the bitter end with an overcard showing (or two!)
This goes for any pair.
Others errors:
A). Playing any two suited cards for any amount
of money.
B). Failure to recognize kicker values. This is
why AK is such a good hand.
C). Cold calling raises with bad hands.
D). Exhibiting horrible discipline in terms of
money management and choice of hands.
Greetings,
I was wondering if someone could answer this question about simulators:
DOes the simulator give the exact probability of an event happening or does it run a sufficiently large number of experiments?
Eg. If player A has hand X and player B has hand Y, and the flop is F. Does the simulator go thorugh every possible turn and river card and find how often one player wins? or does it go through K (where K is sufficiently big) random turns and river and then figure out how often one playuer wins.
Just curious. Let me know if you know this.
All commments appreciated.
Both types of simulators exist.
Well, both may exist, but simulation is usually short for Monte Carlo simulation, and these work by running the problem x times with random variables.
I've worked with and written many simulations as a programmer, and they've always used Monte Carlo techniques. While other types may exist, they are rare when compared to the number of Monte Carlo style programs.
Fat-Charlie
This hand comes for a loose passive game. Three limpers to me in the cut off seat with AK. I choose to limp here, exactly why I'm not so sure. I raise most every time but decided to see what flopped before I got too excited. Button calls and big blind knuckles.
Six see a rainbow flop of K Q J. Blind bets out. He's no rocket scientist. One folds two random hands call and it's now in my lap. I can't fold, I'm not sure a raise is right so I call. This may be my worst play on the hand, we'll see. Button mucks.
Four see the turn of a deuce, 4th suit. Blind bets, one folds, next calls and it's on me again. I call, not what I'd call power poker.
Three see the river of an 8. Blind bets, next is a 90 YO man that has been known to hopelessly misread his hand. He calls. I also call but don't expect to win here too often. Non-rocket scientist shows Q 3!? Old man shows K 9. I win but never liked my action on any street. Straighten me out.
-Fred-
NJ Fred,
It is hard to argue with success but I’ll try anyway.
You wrote: ”This hand comes for a loose passive game. Three limpers to me in the cut off seat with AK. I choose to limp here, exactly why I'm not so sure.”
If you are going to limp once in a while with big offsuit cards do it on the button and against more opponents. The cutoff is the raising seat, since a raise might buy you the button. And if you want to just call several limpers with big offsuit hands, do it with less than perfect offsuit hands, like maybe AQ offsuit. I think this has been discussed on 2+2 before if memory serves me. At least it will generate lots of argument.
”Six see a rainbow flop of K Q J. Blind bets out. He's no rocket scientist. One folds two random hands call and it's now in my lap. I can't fold, I'm not sure a raise is right so I call. This may be my worst play on the hand, we'll see. Button mucks.
This isn’t your worse play. I vote for the turn. But I can see just calling the flop. My plan would be to wait and see if the turn damages me further by pairing the queen or jack or even the ace. If it does not, this is the time to make the power move. IMHO.
”Four see the turn of a deuce, 4th suit. Blind bets, one folds, next calls and it's on me again. I call, not what I'd call power poker.”
I’ll bet Bob Ciaffone must have loved the way you played this hand. Anyway, since no one in the middle sprung on the turn, and you now have only two opponents, this is the time you raise. Your raise should be scary to the blind, even if he is no rocket scientist. Any three bet by any of the two opponents here means you are drawing to the ten, and maybe for only half the pot. I don’t see a sane QJ making it three bets here. But the biggest reason for the raise is to make a hand such as JT suffer. This could be in either opponent’s hand.
“Three see the river of an 8. Blind bets, next is a 90 YO man that has been known to hopelessly misread his hand. He calls. I also call but don't expect to win here too often. Non-rocket scientist shows Q 3!? Old man shows K 9. I win but never liked my action on any street. Straighten me out.”
What is a “90 YO man”. All of a sudden I have to decode acronyms I’ve never seen before. Since there is a bet by a non-rocket scientist and an overcall by a “90 YO man”, you might as well just call here. If you want to use a power move, try it on an earlier street.
Regards.
Rhode Island Rick
I disagree with waiting for the turn to raise. I think a raise on the flop is preferable because: 1) your hand is not strong enough to slow-play, 2) you will likely trap a couple weak callers between you and the BB for extra bets, 3) you may buy the button, 4) you seize the initiative, and 5) you will know you are going uphill if reraised.
perhaps the best reason to raise on the flop is to get out the gutshots, ala mason. of course, except for the button theyre half in and may be committed and also you may get 3 bet ... such is poker.
brad
MJS.
You wrote: ”I disagree with waiting for the turn to raise.”
I was just saying that waiting until the turn was a valid alternative. Most of the time I would have raised on the flop if I didn’t raise before the flop.
”I think a raise on the flop is preferable because: 1) your hand is not strong enough to slow-play, 2) you will likely trap a couple weak callers between you and the BB for extra bets, 3) you may buy the button, 4) you seize the initiative, and 5) you will know you are going uphill if reraised.”
I agree with all but 5). Flop raises in back just don’t put fear into opponent’s hearts the way turn raises do. Players will reraise with a pair and a draw, medium hands and so on. If you are three bet on the turn and there is a third player in, you are almost always up against a strong hand at that point.
Regards,
Rick
90 year old man. Took me a while too.
Pre-flop you should raise with slick against limpers especially from the cutoff seat since the last thing you want is for the blinds to get free plays.
When the flop comes you should raise when bet into with your top pair/top kicker on the cheap street and see how the field handles it. It is unlikely anyone has a straight but two pair could be out there or you may have the best hand. Maybe it will be checked to you on the turn or maybe you will get good card on the turn like Ten or a King.
Since you have played passively up to this point you might as well continue to play it passively now that you are on the expensive streets. Against guys who appear like they are clueless it is best to now just check and call.
First off, you should raise BTF. Granted it will be a multiway pot, but it sounds like the other players are playing trash. IMO, your hand is likely so much better on average that you should raise and charge them to play.
Also, you have to either raise the flop or the turn, you had two chances to raise and didn't. Letting everyone draw as cheaply as they can to that board is a good way to lose the pot where you otherwise may have won. Also, you will probably win a bigger pot if you put in some raises now and then!
Dave in Cali
Having read the other responses it is not surprising that you are criticized for not raising pre-flop even though you said yourself that you usually do. I believe that what you did is called varying your game. The way you played the whole hand was unorthodox but when you showed down I guarantee you confused some people. If you normally play better than this you may have gotten some value from the hand beyond this pot, which probably was about what another would have won anyway, since everyone hung in there. I do think a raise on the flop was mandatory, however.
Some time ago in a card barn not so far away I watched a friend (who will be called “our hero” from here on in) play this last hand of a session. The game is 20/40 holdem and our hero, a part time player who shows flashes of potential greatness, is stuck a little. I still have trouble convincing hero it is all one long poker game, to avoid “session orientation”, the “next hour you play is the next hour you play” a la John Feeney and so on.
Anyway, the game is seven handed as a couple players are getting up on the collection light. UTG folds, and our hero raises. Yet to act is one tight player, one loose player, one average player on the button, a loose, aggressive, tricky player in the small blind, and a tight, thoughtful player in the big blind. All fold except for the small blind.
The flop comes a T 9 3 rainbow. The small blind checks. Hero bets and the small blind calls.
The turn is an offsuit eight. SB checks, hero bets, SB checkraises, hero makes it three bets, SB makes it four bets, hero calls.
The river is a small card. SB bets and hero calls. SB turns over a J7 suited for a straight. Hero shows a T9 suited and mucks, with 52 fewer $5 chips to carry to the cage.
Later, after waiting for hero to cool down a bit, I ask what hero was thinking. Hero says, “Well, all my raises had been with big cards and pairs, and I wanted to mix up my play a bit. After all, don’t S&M advise throwing in a raise now and then with middle cards so your opponents can’t read you.” Since hero was still fuming and could easily knock me out with one punch, I asked if I could post my thoughts on the forum and troll for comments. Here goes:
1) Make sure the blinds are the type of players who often fold when making this play (in middle to late position). The small blind clearly was not and his average high card strength would be greater than yours. In addition, this type doesn’t give up on the flop.
2) This play should be made with either more opponents left to act or fewer opponents left to act. With fewer opponents, you have a better chance of stealing blinds. With more opponents, you may get a lot of callers and have the potential to win a big pot.
3) This play should rarely be made even under ideal conditions.
4) Lastly, making offbeat plays to throw your opponents off is a complete waste of time if you are leaving for the night and unlikely to play these players again for a while if at all. If you are going to do it, do it early in the session so at least you reap the benefits of making you less readable on future hands that day. Hence, you are “advertising with nothing to sell”.
If there was any consolation to our hero, it was that I thought the mistake would only cost about one half a bet on the average, so all hero really lost was $10, in the “long run”. But hero’s wallet was still $260 lighter that day ;-). Comments?
Rick
your main point (#4) is extremely valid. if a play is immediately unprofiable but makes up more than its cost in futute expectation (ie advertising) i cannot be profitable as the last play of the evening.
your first point is less clear. if you are more likely to win the pot before showdown you are less likely to accumulate advertising (unless you show your hand, which i don't.). so if the profitability of the hand comes from future action, i might prefer tenacious opponents.
i disagree with your second point. "utg" carries a stigma until the game gets markedly short handed (like 5). so if the table is temporarily 7 handed, he is still utg. so he will still earn almost the same advertising. and i wouldn't expect a lot of opponents when i raise under the gun.
of course advertising plays should be made rarely if at all. one reason is that they earn diminishing returns while costing the same amount of ev each time. second, having people think you will play a hand a certain way is less valuable when you are playing that hand that way. so the more you advertise the less you gain by the advertising.
but my real question is 'is his play entirely advertising?' that may have been his reflexive rationale, but i raise with 9Ts and JTs early sometimes. mabye once in 4 times. and not entirely as advertising.
i would consider these points on advertising more applicable to an early raise with 64s or 56s. these are the rare raises that are required against observant regular opponents.
he can knock you out with one punch? what happened to your fighter's chin?
scott
"3) This play should rarely be made even under ideal conditions.
In a big card barn this play may be needed once a month. If you've properly selected clueless opponents then advertising is wasted money.
-Fred-
isn't this a long excuse for some fool calling a raise with J-7o?
Before you start selling be damn sure someone is buying.
Your points are valid. I would also add that on the turn with three parts to a straight (especially T-9-8) on the table our hero should just call when check-raised on the expensive street and not keep pounding the pot. This would have saved him 16 of the 52 chips he lost.
Jim,
This one is close. The small blind was very aggressive and would often make it three or four bets with quite a bit less, such as a pair with a straight draw (I've played with him quite a bit myself).
Regards,
Rick
With the huge Holdem section thriving I'd like to get suggestions on who to watch on this forum.So far Ive determined that obviously Sklansky and Malmuth,Zee,Izmet,Abdul?,Badger,are ones but who else on this forum tends to subscribe to the philosophy of the above mentioned?This would pertain to 15/30 and up. 2'nd question:with med pocket pairs 66,77,88,99,in a heads up before the flop situation against a typical 15/30 player Ive tended to play almost by rote releasing if 2 or more o/cards have come.But at 30/60 I know that this is suicide for me and have made some adjustments.Any help on some basic strategies to concentrate on would be greatly appreciated.
here are the posters that i have learned a good deal from (aside from the ones you mentioned):
louie landale who sometimes posts as louie, rick nebiolo, vince lepore, john feeney, skp, jim brier even though he is a big scaredey cat, dan hanson, greg raymer
i didn't forget anyone. if your name isn't on the list them you add nothing of value to the forum. nothing!! wait, if i did forget someone, then i wouldn't know that i forgot him. so maybe i did forget someone.
as for question 2, it matters how you got heads up and who you are heads up against and which 2 overcards. if you open raise in mid position and and get 3 bet behind you and the flop is AK4, a ckeck fold is ok. but if you raised and got called by just the blind, you can be a bit more aggressive. if you want better answers create some hands.
scott
Even for a poker player, that's a bit strong. Whether or not we've learned from them, over the past 3 years, I'd add that the following have contributed to the knowledge base: Paul Pudaite, Padraig Parkinson, Izmet, Bob Ciaffone, Chris, Tom Haley, even Jimmy (who I've often disagreed with) ... the list goes on. I'm SURE I've forgotten someone, but stick around awhile before making the judgment that they don't contribute.
david told that guy that he was not welcome on the forum? that was funny.
of course i was only joking. (another joke is dead) everyone always says "i am sure i forgot someone" so i said i didn't forget anyone....
get it? the conflict between what is expected and what i wrote makes it funny.
when someone says something that is obviously false, they probably know it is false. for example, the news on the daily show and saturday night live. they are not true.
i am sorry if my joke didn't go over well, but i am new to the board. in fact, it's my first day.
by the way, paul and tom do not post much anymore, if at all. padraig only posts on the tournament forum. izmet was listed by the original poster. and bob ciaffone has not posted 15 times. so while he is clearly someone to read when he posts, i do not think he should be on a list of poeple to look for.
scott
scott
the fact that I was not first on your list angers me greatly. I will therefore have to have "some guys" come over to your house this week. Just cooperate with them, they will be finished with you very soon.
Seriously, you forgot Jim Brier. Your Bad!
Dave in Cali
you're right!! i did forget jim. i am sorry. i meant to include him. even though jim is a big scaredey cat.
and i am not much for cooperation. so i guess it will have to take a little longer than anticipated.
scott
l
I stand embarrased and flattered to see my name among those big ones. Thanks. Please understand I hang around here to learn, not to preach. I have holes in my play nobody (thank Allah) knows about. When those are fixed, there will be no Izmet anymore.
I think Louie Landale has a near 100 to 0 smart/dubious ratio when it comes to hold'em. I respect his opinion a lot. There are some others I respect too, but their views often collide with mine. Out of those I will therefore single out John Feeney only. Read as much as you can, but trust no one.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Thanks to Izmet and scott for mentioning me. I am not worthy. I'm finding a little less time to post right now. I've also been a bit frustrated at the way debate works on the net, but it's the medium we have. (Still waiting for the audio component Rick dreads to be added ;)
There are posters who haven't been mentioned who are well worth reading, though some have been posting less. I also notice some newer posters who are contributing to some fine discussion. Then of course there's AlexB whose revolutionary ideas may go unappreciated for years to come. But when you see some unknown player slinking out of a casino, bent double under the weight of more money than he can carry, with a well worn poker bio-suit folded under his arm, don't say I didn't warn you.
...scott too. Oh, yeah, he's a little green and all, but he's kind of "figured out" poker prematurely. And he'll come up with those lines like the crystal palace thing. Sounds like a casino to me...
except for the for the green. but who can blame me? i've met mr feeney! he drives a volvo -- who would be green? (sorry for spoiling the major cliffhanger of your book, but i couldn't keep my piece any longer. is 'piece' right? or is it 'peace'? hmmm. ... i want some pie. hmmm ... pie.)
scott
Maybe I'll switch to a Saab.
I often use the forum as an opportunity to test alternatives to conventional wisdom. One approach may be optimal in one arena and suspect in another. For example, the 2+2 authors have little experience (lately) playing at low-limit levels. That doesn't automatically invalidate their published recommendations, of course.
Be swayed by sound logic, not by glorious reputations.
I read the posts to learn and post mostly to entertain, since I am not an expert player but still a winner. Perhaps I'll stop though, since I contribute NOTHING!
P.S. That ugly sight is my tongue sticking out.
reply to my post.
i am not entirely certain of your point. i, for example, do not understand the meaning of words such as 'ugly' or 'expert'. but i do have an answer for you:
you'll find no soft clocks in the crystal palace.
and another, this one entirely borrowed:
gods are fond of ridicule: it seems they cannot refrain from laughter even in holy matters.
scott
You're sounding more and more like Paul Feeney with every post.
what a vicious indictment! do you suppose i'll let such a charge slide?
as you've forced my hand, i'll briefly explain. the second answer is a quote from beyond good and evil by nietzsche. it is supposed to excuse my penchance for ill-fated humor.
the first is trickier. soft clocks is itallian slang for sticking out one's toungue. i am not sure of the origin but i suppose it comes from the face of the clock. in any case, these soft clocks were painted by dali.
the crystal palace comes from notes from underground. in it the narrator rails against the crystal palace as a symbol for productive mankind who has been reduced to mere mathematics. there are two possible reasons why dostoyevsky chose the crystal palace as such a symbol of human progress away from humanity. one is the crystal palace at the world fair in london in some year around the right time. the other is some work by chernyshevky, whom dos often mocked.
anyway, one line in the notes states that [in the crystal palace] "one cannot stick out one's toungue, even on the sly." also one cannot make a fist even in one's pocket.
and so we have my answer. you'll find no soft clocks in the crystal palace and gods are fond of ridicule.
scott
Hi All.
I was wondering, what game is the "safest" game to choose to make a living from: Poker or BlackJack?? I both games you can't depend on winning every night. Even if you do everything right, you can't expect to win, either in poker or BJ. But if you should choose between Poker or BJ as a living what whould you choose??
Best, Daniel
plz post there
paul
It is not even close. Poker is vastly preferable to blackjack. The typical blackjack player is usually operating with less than a 1% edge. The edge a good poker player enjoys is far greater than this. The blackjack player has to worry about being thrown out. The poker player does not have this problem.
Abdul Jalib is both a professional poker player and a professional blackjack player so his opinion would be the most valuable. But I would bet that he makes more money playing $30-$60 and higher poker than he makes playing blackjack.
However, for a smart, well-educated young person they can make far more money over the course of their lifetime by using their intellectual gifts to pursue a professional career (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) than they can by playing cards whether it be poker or blackjack.
I've played blackjack for a living as well as poker. My comments are in another message, on the "Other Gambling Games" forum (and below).
I tend to agree with you, but you're overstating the case when you say poker is 'vastly preferable'. Blackjack tends to scale more than poker. It's easier to make 40K a year playing poker than playing blackjack, but when you get into the big money blackjack may have the edge. There is a handful of world-class blackjack players hauling in $200K-$400K per year. Show me a poker player who can do that.
Blackjack is much easier to learn to play with an advantage. For people not willing to put in the effort of learning poker, blackjack may be a better choice. This is especially true of recreational gamblers who play maybe 100 hours a year, and would like to show a profit. They can read 'Professional Blackjack', practice for a few days, and go off and play a +EV game. If they are playing green chips or smaller, they probably won't get any heat from the house, either.
Finally, your comment about the 1% edge is a little misleading. A 1% edge, multiplied by 100 hands per hour, turns out to be one average bet per hour. About what a decent poker player will make. Sure, the swings are greater. Probably four or five times greater. But there is still a lot of profit potential in a 1% edge.
Another thing is that it's easier to grow a bankroll in blackjack, because you can bet proportionally. This puts your bankroll on a log growth curve. A poker player playing a fixed-limit game who can't move up will grow his bankroll linearly. After a year of this, the blackjack player would be WAY ahead if they both started at the same hourly win rate.
Nowadays, almost certainly poker.
The bankroll required for blackjack is 3 or 4 times higher than poker for the same hourly win rate. The games are also getting tougher, and the casinos are getting better at catching and ejecting card counters.
Also, if you are playing high limits (and if it's you're living, you'll be playing high limits), then expect to spend a lot of time travelling and scouting games. You absolutely cannot live in one place and make a career of playing blackjack. All the big-money pros I know travel the world looking for games.
And because you have to travel a lot, your expenses are higher, and the number of hours you can actually play in a month is pretty low. Thus, to make the same annual income at blackjack as poker you'll probably need to earn twice the hourly rate, which means you'll need a gigantic bankroll.
Finally, there's a personality issue - a lot of blackjack players are 'outsiders' who enjoy the skulduggery of trying to outwit the casinos. They have assumed names, fake ID's, etc. You will be spending your career in a hostile environment. If that's your cup of tea, great. If not, poker is your game.
Blackjack is easier to learn at a professional level. I can teach someone to play winning blackjack in a weekend. Poker is a thinking game, and requires a lifetime of study. But the rewards are typically greater.
Hope this helps.
Poker or Blackjack?
I would say try both. Some people are doomed for failure at one but not the other. Some people will never get anywhere with either one .A select few will excel at both games.The only way to know which class you fit in is to try both games.
A "Must Read" for everyone is "Young Jack Black" by Mason Malmuth.It was written for Snyder's mag. but is also included in the new edition of "Gambling Theory And Other Topics".Mason covers a lot of the pros and cons of both games.It's some of his best work.
"Gambling For A Living" by MM and DS has good information in it also.
No matter what anyone tells you there is money out there in both games(as well as a few others).It's just a matter of having the right skills,the right bankroll,and the right temperament.
Before you even think of going pro,make sure you are good,real good!
Good Luck
Howard
I have played poker, blackjack, and craps for a living and have lost the least playing 2-4 hold'em.
Poker.
40-80 Hold-em
I am in the big blind. UTG raises. He has a huge stack of chips and is beginning to rack his chips and his girlfriend is very anxious for the two of them to leave. I interpret this to be his last hand. Overall he plays fair.
Everyone else passes. I have KJs. I decide to play my hand. I wrongly assume because this will be his last hand and he has a huge stack that he has a weak holding.
The flop comes K58 with a diamond. A second diamond comes on the turn. I check and call on the flop. On the turn I checkraise with my top pair and flush draw. He reraises and a blank comes on the river. He bets and I fold. He flashes pocket Aces. I come pretty close to losing the maximum with my hand. I suppose I could have called on the end and then I would have lost the maximum.
Normally I don't call a raise with my hand in this situation but I wrongly put him on a weak holding and I paid dearly.
Bruce
sounds like you have already analyzed the situation fully. in the future, I guess you will not be cold calling UTG raises with KJs.
Dave in Cali
I was sketchin' when I read the post the first time.
Since you were in the BB, you did in fact have a call BTF. I think check-raising the flop would have been a good idea, then if reraised, take one off and fold if you don't improve.
When you picked up the big draw, just check and call. The check-raise of the turn was NOT a good idea. You still have to think that you may likely be dominated in this situation, and you will pretty much have to call the river if you miss your draw. Keep this one as cheap as possible, especially since the pot is small.
Dave in Cali
well, i do not think calling the raise from your bb is that bad. it is not a cold call, really. you are out of position, but 3.5-1 is pretty good odds to look at the flop.
i do not think your flop play was that bad. bet fold may be better against some opponents. and check raise might be ok against some others. i do not think a check fold here would have been correct.
on the turn i think you made a big mistake. i think a bet call or a check call is in order. the reason is that you will not get a better hand to fold. the reason i might bet is to get an extra bet out of smaller pairs if he plans to check the turn call the river with them. once he raises the turn you are likely beat and drawing. thus you should call.
if i thought he is likely to have either big unpaired cards or a hand better than mine, i would check call here. he may bluff with AQ but he will not call with it. note that if you are leading he is drawing to at most 3 outs. so you can play it with a little finesse.
of course you call the turn 3 bet. on the river, i guess a fold is correct. but if you had played better on the turn you can call on the river for the same loss when you lose but onc in a while you will catch a bluff (AQd, for example).
scott
Bruce, I think you are being too hard on yourself. Calling an early position raise out of your big blind with King-Jack suited is not that bad of a play since you are getting 3.5:1 on your call to see 3 cards. Furthermore, who is to say that he would not have raised under the circumstances you describe with a non-premium hand?
On the flop I would not check. I would bet and give him a chance to get out of the hand if he was horsing around. Your top pair of Kings could easily be the best hand if he raised with QQ,JJ,TT or AQ. I don't like check-calling in these situations since you put yourself in a guessing mode. If you get raised then you should call and take off a card.
Now when the turn gives you a Diamond flush draw you should check and call if he bets. When a blank comes on the river you should check and make a crying call if he bets. He may be trying to bluff bet his way to victory to impress his girlfriend.
You made perhaps a minor mistake by check-raising on the expensive street since this cost you 6 small bets but even then you had any one of 9 Diamonds, any one of 2 Kings, and any one of 3 Jacks for a total of 14 outs plus he may fold anyway.
I think your plays were reasonable under the circumstances you have outlined.
Confucius says: Big winner with one foot out door and love dove tugging on heartstrings and moneybelt not raise UTG without gnarly big pair.
Your right Mark. The guy with a lot of chips will not be playing a weak hard as he's stacking up. Bruce's only mistake was his reasoning before the flop was off base. The rest of his play was fine, I would have lost more by calling the river, once I was that far in.
bruce,
It has been my observation that win winning, a player who is playing his last hand is super tight on his starting hands, especially when he is already busy stacking chips.
I posted this without reading the others yet.
Regards,
Rick
bruce,
I still think you should have played. My comment was just directed at the statement that you thought he would be looser with the last hand.
Rick
First, allow me to appologize for such a late post to this. I just got out of the hospital after being sliced and diced.
When I am ready to leave and am UTG, a little voice tells me to only play if I can raise with KK or AA. Anything less, even QQ, goes into the muck and I hit the cashier. Once it backfired, badly. I followed that standard, was dealt QQ, and as racking my chips saw a flop of QQx. Aggggg. Oh well, I most likely would have been bouncing up and down in my chair to give a heck of a tell. Or, I would have played one additional round, then two, then ... until I blew off whatever I had won on that hand. Since I quit when I'm tired and am losing focus, I have found this "system" works wonderfully for me. When it's time to leave, it's time to leave.
Therefore, if the UTG player had his mind on cashing out and a promise of muffky poffky at home, you might have just mucked your KJs without regret.
You made one of my common errors, not putting someone on a range of hands and narrowing it down by their actions. Instead I just figure that they don't have much and proceed to throw chips at them.
Discipline!
Don't look for excuses to play weak holdings.
"I am in the big blind. UTG raises. He has a huge stack of chips and is beginning to rack his chips and his girlfriend is very anxious for the two of them to leave. I interpret this to be his last hand. Overall he plays fair.
Everyone else passes. I have KJs. I decide to play my hand. I wrongly assume because this will be his last hand and he has a huge stack that he has a weak holding."
Mike Caro has discussed this situation. I believe it is his opinion (and mine) that someone who is racking up their chips to leave is only going to play a premium hand - especially UTG. In addition, a guy who has a girlfriend with him and is racking his chips to leave is not going to play a rag under the gun.
This is a clear case of two strikes and you're out. IMHO, I would have dumped your hand.
I'm afraid you are correct. The biggest error was trying to raise with a draw with one card to come heads up. But, we have all made errors of this type. Next time, you will do better.
Hello All,
Thanks for all the responses to my first post last week.
Recently I was in a 20/40 holdem game and picked up a 9 6 offsuit in the big blind. One moderately loose, weak and predictable player limped from the middle position and a tight, relatively tough player who rarely gets out of line calls on the button. A mediocre, unimaginative player in the small blind calls the half bet. I check of course.
The flop is an A 6 3 rainbow. The small blind checks her hand without enthusiasm, which in my experience for that session is genuine. She is the type to usually bet out rather than check raise with any sort of hand. I bet my middle pair. I estimated that this bet would win this pot about half the time right then. I reasoned that the middle position was the only one I really had to get through, as the button would have raised on a quality ace before the flop, would not play less than a quality ace (if he played an ace), and could not call or raise my flop bet with any worse hand. Everybody folded and I took in a small pot.
Later I thought about this hand some more. What would I do if I did in fact got called or raised? I would be facing a tough decision, depending on who raised or who called. This got me thinking about the general advice seen in the 2+2 world that most of your bluffs in the early rounds should be semi-bluffs. In a case like this I'm not so sure. Unless, I give it up or play to improve, I could be making compounding errors on later streets For example, I don't improve on fourth after a call on the flop, I bet again, get called, check on the river, and call a river bet based on the size of the pot. I lose to a better six (K6 suited?) or a weak ace.
Let's say I had no connection to the flop whatsoever. If my estimates are correct concerning the likelihood of stealing it on the flop, then I can try to steal it no matter what I have when the flop is of this type with these opponents. But the advantage of having nothing is that I can give it up if raised and maybe limit myself to one more shot if a weak caller played with me and I had a tell on him that he may fold to one more bet. Of course, all this assumes that I don't overdo it and try stealing from the blind(s) too often, which may encourage my more observant opponents to play back at me with little or nothing.
All comments and advice are appreciated.
Spitfire
Spitfire I think you are looking at this situation incorrectly. Three people limp in and you take a free play in your big blind. The flop comes Ace-high with you flopping middle pair. One of the three limpers has checked to you. You probably have the best hand so your bet here is for value. You could argue that you may be in trouble if you are called and you have outs but there is no viable alternative since checking would be ridiculous. You should bet any piece of the flop in these situations with an uncoordinateed board and only three opponents who all limped. This would include bottom pairs, straight draws, flush draws, perhaps even over cards because you will frequently win the pot outright. This is standard operating procedure among all decent players.
How it gets played after that depends on the betting action and what cards come on the later streets. In this situation one of your opponents will probably raise your flop bet if they have an Ace.
Jim,
I meant to answer this earlier but I got backed up.
Anyway, I think there is no doubt Spitfire should bet. Spitfire's hand may be best and it needs protection. But is it a value bet? I don't think so. If called, Spitfire is probably beaten. There are no worse hands that would call with this set of opponents (except maybe 67, 65, and 68).
The question is, if Spitfire evaluated this situation correctly, wouldn't a bet with absolute garbage be just as good as this bet with a middle pair? This assumes that Spitfire does not bet so much out of the blinds that opponents pick up the pattern and play back.
Regards,
Rick
Spitfire,
I think the real question is shouldn't we be considering making more pure bluffs out of the blinds against two or three opponents when the pre flop action, the style of play of our opponents, and the texture of the flop indicates that it is unlikely anyone hit anything. It also helps when the king or ace on board makes it impossible for an opponent to call with overcards.
I say “out of the blinds” because your opponents know you can have anything, including a very good hand. When I am in the blind, I tend to bet my strong hands right out rather than checkraise or slowplay. Against observant opponents who play me often, it allows me to pick up these small pots now and then with little or nothing.
Regards,
Rick
darn
Spitfire,
I think the real question is shouldn't we be considering making more pure bluffs out of the blinds against two or three opponents when the pre flop action, the style of play of our opponents, and the texture of the flop indicates that it is unlikely anyone hit anything. It also helps when the king or ace on board makes it impossible for an opponent to call with overcards.
I say “out of the blinds” because your opponents know you can have anything, including a very good hand. When I am in the blind, I tend to bet my strong hands right out rather than checkraise or slowplay. Against observant opponents who play me often, it allows me to pick up these small pots now and then with little or nothing.
Regards,
Rick
15/30 Commerce Tight game by cali standards
I'm in middle position with TsTc. Passed around to me, I'm first in and raise. Fold around to the button. Sb calls, BB calls. SB's play is respectable and tricky. BB is tight/aggressive semisolid, but is pretty predictable.
Flop 7s 2d Jd
Sb checks, BB bets, I call, Sb folds.
Turn Kd BB bets, I raise. (jeez, I know that's going to solicit some comments) BB says "Which one do you have, a king or the ace of diamonds" (She's saying that she knows I don't have a flush and that she knows I'm capable of raising her bet with just the A of diamonds) "neither", I say. She shows a jack of hearts and mucks.
I called on the flop because BB would not bet a flush draw, fearing that I would raise and drive out SB, however SB often bet his draws out but he very well could checkraise the flop with a flush draw considering the position of the bettor (to his immediate left), when he folded I was confident that there weren't any flush draws out.
The BB could easily have a jack but she could also easily have 78s; the good part is that if she has a seven she wont bet the turn unless she improves, if she has a jack she'll bet the turn again. The king of diamonds on the turn gave me an opportunity to represent a hand, I figured that she'd fold a lonely jack more than half the time, she'd call with KJ, and reraise me with 22,77,JJ (given the board, preflop and flop play, the turn card and her perception of my play).
After she bets the turn there is $150 in the pot and the bluff-raise costs $60, so for this to be a positive ev play she must fold more often than once every two and a half times I try this. Or to put it differently, the odds of her folding must be more than 2.5 to 1 for me to try this play. Am I figuring this properly? I'd like to learn how to calculate these odds better.
chris
BTW if the turn was a little diamond I would've folded, if it was an offsuit A or K I think the BB folds to a raise between 1/3 and 1/2 the time but can't say whether or not I would've tried: the king of diamonds was just too good of a card.
I would have considered raising on the flop. You were the pre-flop raiser so your raise on the flop would confirm in the mind of your opponent that you had an over pair. You will probably get checked to on the turn and then you can decide how you will proceed. If an Ace, a King, or a Queen shows up I would bet the turn if checked to.
Thanks for the input, Jim. But do you know if I've figured the odds properly.
chris
Yes plus you are really a little better off because if she calls you might spike a Ten on the river and win.
2 1/2 to 1 is correct but that is once every 3 1/2 times, or 2 every 7.
Yes, your thought process was correct. With 1 opponent, this is the correct logic. I would have raised on the flop if I did not think the overcard hurt me. However, you did set up your bluff well (your opponent likely thought you had 2 overcards).
5-10 hold em at Foxwoods.
I was dealt AA in middle position. It was raised right next to me and I re-raised. Everyone folded and he called. The flop came J-10-5 rainbow. The original raiser checked, I bet, he checkraised, and I re-raised. He called. The turn brought a rag, he checked, I bet, he folded saying something about me having a set.
My questions are: What do you think he had? Was my re-raise correct on the flop?
Well, it's hard to say. It seems like he had JT for a flopped 2 pair, but if he did, why would he checkraise the flop? He should know approximately where you are. I would not have put you on a set. I would put you on an overpair or possibly KQ for an open ender, or maybe AK or AQ. Depends on what your image is.
I would slowplay the 2 pair (only because it is headsup) on the flop, and then hit you on the turn for an extra full bet.
It is possible that he was bluffing - he might have tentatively put you on AK or AQ suited, and he might have flopped top pair or less (I guess its not really bluffing if he flopped top pair.) Once he figured out that you had an overpair or better he gave up.
I don't know very many people that would lay down 2 pair heads up in a limit game - unless they are incredibly timid.
Three betting after getting checkraised is fine if you know the player - if he is a player that will often checkraise with top pair, and try to slowplay something better, go for it.
Against typical weak players, I think they will tend to (incorrectly) checkraise very strong hands on the flop.
-SmoothB-
If he was a decent player, he had A-K, K-K or Q-Q. Most likely K-K. Remember he raised in an early position and check-raised after the flop. Pretty unlikely to make all that play with J-10 out of that position no matter how bad he plays.
He had AJ or QQ. If he had JT he was an idiot to fold.
you had to reraise BTF, that was good.
On the flop your reraise is fine. You probably have the best hand so crank out the $$ as fast as you can, you are not invulnerable.
Dave in Cali
Do you really think he would lay down top two? Your reraise seems to suggest an just overpair. And I think most would just pay off to the end in any event (if they have 2 pair, and suspect you ahave a set).
Seems hard to believe he would lay down anything like 2 pair or better. SO I suspect he has AJ, maybe QQ some have a hard tiem laying this one down too.
I can't believe he would lay down openended iether. Maybe a gut shot and an overcard(?). What does he think of you? What kind of player is he? Maybe I should have asked these q's first...
I vote for QQ.
Sorry for the joke, I thought you folks would enjoy it as a diversion.
Last night playing at Boulder Station, game has loose limps before the flop but locals tighten afterwards. Im 3rd to limp in for $2 with 89d. 6 callers. Flop comes 2d3d6d. I flop the flush.
UTG leads for $4. I call all else fold. UTG is a local player that I thought would either limp with a small or medium pair, AX suited, or A-Big offsuit.
Turn is the 7s. Utg bets $4. I raise to $12, he immediatly calls. Now I think he has the Ad and is drawing.
River is 7h. He checks, I bet $8. He raises to $16. What do you think he had, and what should I do ?
Thanks in advance for the advise.
He's played it like he has the 76c or Axd but Im calling because he could easily be overplaying something else.
he very well may have a bigger flush or a set turned into a full house, but you have to pay it off. I don't think there is really any other choice. If you lose, you lose.
Dave in Cali
My conclusion exactly, but I didn't pay off.
The game is loose-passive, full table of 10. I´m in the button (or cutoff) and I´m dealt AA (or KK/QQ). Everyone calls.
My dilemma: should I raise or call?
I´m aware that these loose players lose money to me before the flop by calling with anything, but after the flop it´s the other way round because of the huge implied odds. My point of view is that if you raise you gain a lot before the flop, but on the flop and turn it´s usually gonna be check-call from the others and if I don´t make a set and because of me having only 2 outs I will hardly ever improve and my opponents are going to draw out on me very often. Therefore I think that I should call preflop and plan to raise on flop because that raise will scare opponents out of the pot, especially because they don´t have a read on me (I mean I could have trips for all they know). Or is the preflop raise gaining you so much that it is the better play, although you are going to lose more pots? Thanks in advance for your answers
greg
Is there really a question here? I think it is a big mistake not to raise here. Be cautious if you get a bad flop. I wish I had that problem every hand.
I would raise. Hopefully that would squeeze out players that have low suited connectors and such, but not scare away players with high pocket pairs. With 10 other players, when the flop comes out, I would imagine that it is likely that several players would be on straight and flush draws which would hurt your aces. But if you scare these players off preflop, then your pocket Aces have a better chance of winning.
You absolutely have to raise, mostly for the reasons that you give - you have negative implied odds, so you have to get your money in when you have the best hand - before the flop.
You need to thin this field a bit. Ok, maybe you wont lose any of those 7 limpers. But you might lose one or both of the blinds. They will have to figure you for a legitimate raising hand since you can't possibly be on a steal.
When the flop hits, if you plan on staying in the hand you HAVE to raise. You need to knock some people out. Also, remember - even if someone flops a 2 pair you have far more than 2 outs. You have 5 outs on the turn and 8 on the river assuming neither of you improve. With this huge pot you can stick around.
If someone flops big - trips or a straight or flush - you have more problems. If the board looks really scary you can fold.
Anyway, the point is, you must raise. Then hold your breath and pray for an ace or rags to flop.
-SmoothB-
"When the flop hits, if you plan on staying in the hand you HAVE to raise"
Good morning, SmoothB :-) I said that when I raise preflop, it´s gonna be checked to me SO WHAT BET AM I SUPPOSED TO RAISE!!!
I can either make money off of the calling stations preflop, OR I can raise preflop, BUT I CAN´T DO BOTH. So what should I do?
if that is true you should definitely raise with any pocket pair.
scott
"I can either make money off of the calling stations preflop, OR I can raise preflop, BUT I CAN´T DO BOTH. So what should I do? "
"OR I can raise preflop" should read "OR I can raise on the flop"
i meant if they always check to the raiser then you should raise all pocket pairs. but i was actually wrong. you should check JJ and TT and maybe 99 or QQ.
AA and KK make a ton of money and sometimes improve to very strong hands. lower pairs are played for sets so raises in this spot make money.
scott
"you should check JJ and TT and maybe 99 or QQ"
I find that statement rather confusing. Do you mean check these hands on flop if I didn´t make trips? Then what about lower pairs if I check QQ on the flop? Why not write "QQ down to 22"
there is nothing else to say here. look in the archives if you must.
scott
Also consider the fact that, even if you raise preflop, the odds of it getting checked around to you are slim.
If I were playing against such a large field, I would not raise preflop with any pair lower than JJ. And I might not raise with JJ. With JJ or lower you almost certainly flop a set against such a large field - thats 8:1 against. And your set might not win anyway so knock that down a bit. I would just call with TT on down and sometimes with JJ. I'm sure I'll get flamed for that, but it works for me - it's my story and I'm stickin to it.
-SmoothB-
and there is still other reasons to raise. but i'm treading on familiar ground and will let it go.
scott
Why raise with any pocket pair? I am not sure I see how this follows logically from what I said.
If you have AA, there are many ways that you can win even if someone is ahead of you at the moment. But if you have QQ, and an ace flops, if there is a bet and 2 callers, in most cases you should fold - now you only have 2 outs to catch up to a pair of aces. Not a rosy scenario. (And maybe you'll catch a straight or something but whatever.)
-SmoothB-
it was a response to greg's post after all.
scott
I disagree. I would not raise with any pocket pair. The big pairs are unnique. People figure you for high pairs. When a low pocket pair hits a set and you do not, they will plug along and eat you up. If any pocket pair raises then you as a top pair will carry the betting and they will have position on you.
Ok maybe I misunderstood.
If you raise preflop and then on the flop it gets checked to you, you MUST bet. Why not? You don't mind getting checkraised from an early position player because that might knock out a few of the players in between. And, you might get checkraised by a hand that you can beat (IE if a queen flops someone might checkraise this big field with AQ. I would.)
If someone bets out you should raise if you plan to stick around to thin the field and knock down the collective odds that are out against you. Astute players who flop gutshots should be afraid to call one bet fearing the reraise that you are going to oblige them with.
Like I said, you have many ways to catch up to someone that flops 2 pair.
-SmoothB-
If you do not raise with AA in cut off, when would you?
Personally, I feel the equity gained pre-flop more than makes up for the additional drawouts caused by making the pot bigger. The magoos will draw at the same crapola despite the size of the pot, and pre-flop raises rarely have ANY effect at all as to whether or not a given weak player will call a bet. They pay no attention at all to pot odds anyway. Therefore you should raise and charge them to play against your superior hand.
Dave in Cali
Pocket Aces have a 31% chance of holding up against nine random opponents. Therefore, for every dollar you put in before the flop, you should get $3.10 in return over the long haul. Raise away.
I think it's more like 34%. But whats a couple percent between friends.
SmoothB
Greg,
Let's assume for the sake of argument that your game is a 5-10 HE game. It's 10 handed and you are on the button with AA. Let's also assume that this game has a special rule that only Greg can raise pre-flop or post-flop on this hand.
The maxium pot size for this game, after the pre-flop betting and post flop betting, would be $200.
Your choices, as stated in your post above, are either
A) Raise pre-flop, assuming that all will check to you on flop and remembering no one can checkraise.
or
B) Limp in pre-flop and raise post-flop, remembering that no one can re-raise.
Let's see how the pot would grow:
In scenario A) all bet to you, you raise, all call (including the blinds) The pot=$100.00
In scenario B) all bet to you, you call, and the blinds call/check. The pot=$50.00
OK, now here comes the flop. No pairs, 2 suits, two connected cards.
If you wanted to get the pot as big as possible at this juncture, knowing you were ahead, which pre-flop choice suited you best?
As stated in scenario A) all check to you.
You bet. The pot=$105.00
For you to have the lead, and a maximum pot size at this point, you need 9 people to be compelled to call one bet. Let's say for argument that about half of them feel they have a shot at the best hand by the river (seems kind of logical for a game with 10 limpers pre-flop.) They feel they may be behind due to your pre-flop raise, but missed their chance for more information by betting. You get 4 callers.
The pot=$130.00
Now let's look at scenario B). Same flop. The pot=$50.00.
You can see by this point, that you need to get $80.00 into the pot to match the pot size of scenario A). How are you going to do that? Even with a board containing two suits, and connected cards, does it seem probable that 7 other people are going to pay 2 big bets? In almost every set of circumstances, some people would have to call 2 bets cold after seeing you show strength. Plus, the pot size you are trying to match has been adjusted for a reasonable set of holdings (4 callers out of 9 pre-flop). If you assume all the cards in your opponents hands are the same, you have quite a job to do to get all 4 of those from scenario A to call a bet and raise, much less convince 3 others to do so.
I think this longwinded post shows that the best bet is getting the money in pre-flop rather than waiting and hoping a whole mess of people have playable hands. That is not going to happen very often (if ever).
KJS
Ummmm...
Sounds more like the 2-4 games I play in, but loved your analysis!
a
The game is loose-passive, full table of 10. I´m in the button (or cutoff) and I´m dealt AA (or KK/QQ). Everyone calls.
My dilemma: should I raise or call?
There is no choice, raise.
Remember your odds of hitting a set are the same no matter what pair you have.
I also feel you can raise on the flop if someone bets into you. You also gain with check-calls on the flop if everyone checks to you. If you bet, someone check-raises, you also can 3 bet the raiser with your overpair.
With AA, you do need to be concerned if there are 2 big connecting cards or 3 to a straight or a flush on the flop. I'm assuming you don't have the ace of the suit on the board. In this case, if there is a lot of betting/raising in front of you, you can fold and lose only 2 small bets. The other scenario that is bad is if the board pairs high (eg KK7, QQ8, or JJ4).
Your concern should be money won, NOT the winning % of a given hand. You gain so much by raising preflop with the best hand (especially in the last 2 seats) versus what could happen later that raising with AA or KK is MANDATORY preflop.
I have been reading Super/System and I keep hearing about all of the huge games that there used to be. Huge no limit games with a million plus on the table, big stakes limit games, etc.
Why is it that 20+ years later the games are getting SMALLER? You would think that inflation alone would result in some increase, but people also seem to be claiming that poker is GROWING in popularity.
So what is the deal?
I have another question.
How recession proof is poker? IE what is going to happen to all of the pros if a recession comes - do tourists gamble less? Will they be competing for an ever shrinking amount of money? Or, is poker relatively unaffected by the economic climate?
Also, if there are no regular no limit games in Vegas anymore, where are they? Are there any anywhere?
-SmoothB-
Here's a thread related to this from a few weeks ago:
I'm not at all sure of this, but the same theory might just apply to no-limit. i.e., the games Brunson talked about were at a time when almost all the no-limit games were concentrated on those Texas (and maybe some other lesser) road circuits, and then Vegas. Now it's more spread out, with games off and on around Calif., private games still in places like Texas, a PL game in ABQ... NL/PL games tend often to be short lived anyway, but may be having an even tougher time surviving without all the interested players concentrated in a couple of small areas.
That said, while there may not be quite as many, there ARE high limit games around. There are some regular high limit games in Vegas these days (around 200-400 as well as 1,000-2,000 and bigger), some games around the 200-400 to 400-800 range in L.A., as well as the Flynt 1,500-3,000 (or so) game which has now moved to his casino. I believe Atlantic City also has some high limit games, but I don't know how regular they are.)
I wonder if the masses of newly minted day traders might be interested in higher limit poker. Maybe they just have to learn that it exists.
Also, there's the phenomenon of cardrooms holding down the limits. Mason talked about this in that previous thread. I think this is probably actually bad for business in the long run. I also think players ought to make very clear when they are looking for a higher limit rather than just accepting and playing in a game that is not what they want.
There are no "masses of newly minted day traders". Those guys don't have an edge, if they are in fact trading in and out of stocks on a daily basis by their computers. Basically, its the same as betting sports against the casino...there may be a few winners, but in general, there are far more losers than winners.
The masses you should be referring to are the Internet geeks who cashed out for millions. But even in the Bay Area (near Silicon Valley), those guys rarely drop by the card clubs. Its possible they may play in Vegas if they are on a trip there, but I think it would be somewhat unusual.
Actually "newly minted" was a poor word choice. I just meant people newly enamored with day trading. Could someone please let them know that they may find poker even more fun?
In "Poker Essays", MM says the fish get slaughtered in no-limit, and the games dry up. At least in limit, they might get lucky for a session or two.
I've been attending the Stratosphere's small no-limit game regularly ($50 buy-in, $1 and $2 blinds) and I can attest to that. Quite simply, the bad players lose EVERY time they sit down to play. And I don't mean that they do worse than break-even; I mean they lose every DOLLAR that they put on the table.
BTW, it's kind of amusing to see players who are used to playing limit scratch their heads when a solid no-limit player wins a huge pot with a "garbage" hand. Pocket Aces don't usually get busted by "quality" hands; they usually get busted by something like 64s. And all the limit players scratch their heads. They cannot comprehend how someone who calls pre-flop raises with 74s can have all the money (read "SuperSystem" and you'll find out how).
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
Hi.
Does anyone know, anything about danish poker players?? I thinking about how good they are?? I can't imagine they are any good!
Best, Daniel
Cocky and crappy.
-Abdul
I play a lot of 20-40 hold-em on Paradise. Recently Paradise answered concerns about cheating and collusion in a post on RGP. In it they state that there are several big name, recognizable players that play regularly on Paradise. This got me thinking. Since no one plays under their real name, I could be playing in a 20-40 game with Huck Seed, Erik Seidel, Doyle Brunson and Johnny Chan! Obviously if I saw this line-up in a casino I might pass. (Unless Phil Hellmuth was there too, stuck and steaming. :-)) So my questions:
1. Since these types of players are going to be found in the biggest games, 20-40, does this make the 10-20 or 15-30 games possibly a better choice? Yes, I know, those 5 guys probably aren't playing but you get the idea.
2. Does anyone care to divulge what names certain pro players play under? This would make game selection a lot easier.
Heh I love playing AA against some players. They always say 'man, I've seen AA get beaten by suited connectors so many times...'
Sure aces get cracked a lot. But how often does 87 suited not 'hold up' and win the pot?
I once came just THIS CLOSE to getting a guy to accept the following propostion:
I'll take AA. You take ANY OTHER 2 cards in the deck you want. ANYTHING. JT suited, fine. Then, we'll each take 1000 dollars, and bet 50 bucks per hand on a series of headsup hands. Just deal out the cards, winner takes the other person's 50 bucks. Play till someone has all the money.
He thought I was nuts. He really wanted to take me up on it. If only he had brought enough cash that day....
-SmoothB-
"They always say 'man, I've seen AA get beaten by suited connectors so many times...'"
In case you are referring to my "AAproblem" post: NO, I DON´T THINK AA IS BAD!.
What I was trying to get across: 7.5 out of 8.5 times you don´t make a set. But (hey presto!) that´s not a problem when you´ve got AA or KK.
The problem: when I´ve got AA or KK in late position, I´d try to cut down the competion by raising on flop, which I´ll have a hard time at, when no one has bet because everyone is s**t-scared of a solid player´s raise.
The possible solution: check preflop, so that you´ll can get a raise in on flop.
The ultimate question: do I preflop-raise and (if I can´t raise) flop-bet or do I preflop-call and (because it is now far more likely that someone has bet) flop-raise.
I did not mean to imply that I thought you considered AA bad. I was not writing that in response to your other post and meant no offence.
Here is an analogy. You are a jockey, racing a horse, and you and every other person in the race is blindfolded. You have no idea where the others are, and you don't know where the finish line is.
You have AA so you KNOW you start out way in front of everyone else. Now, everyone is entitled to call a standard bet on whether they will win, or raise if they think their chances are better than the others. Against 9 other 'horses' there is a 2:1 shot (against) that you will win even if your horse does not move another inch. You are getting 9:1 odds on your 2:1 shot. You MUST raise.
Now the starter pistol fires. You haven't moved at all becuase you didn't flop a set, but you know that some other horses did move ahead. Someone might have already passed you - you can't be sure. Why would you want to place your bet now, but not before when you KNEW you were in the lead and were the favorite to win?
-SmoothB-
I think you are making this too hard. ALWAYS raise or reraise with AA or KK no matter how big the pot is. If you get 8-9 players, you only need to win about 10% of the time to show a profit. Let your opponents play marginal hands, when you raise with a big pair, those hands are losing deals in the long run.
Try the guy tomarrow.
Lets change the proposition: You take AcAd and I can take any two cards I want but you don't know which ones they are, hehehe. I can change them between hands. We play with regular betting. Still want to gamble?
- Louie
Gladly. I will still take this proposition anytime you want.
I'll take the 2 black aces. You take any other 2, and you can change them at will. We'll play normally from then on. You ALWAYS know what I have. I will still beat you. It would be impossible for you to beat me.
-SmoothB-
SmoothB:
You have to consider that Louie will know what cards you have all the time and can play accordingly. He will make more moves then a belly dancer and should be able to extract maximum dollars on those hands that the flop hits him since it would be difficult for you to improve. It is too much of an advantage to know the opposition cards for you to overcome.
Regards Dugie
I was just checking him out. SmoothB is right he would still win even against a world class player. In fact, he would win if he adopted the brain dead strategy of always betting until raised and then always calling.
You are right about all those moves but it just couldn't overcome the 4.5:1 advantage. Your argument applies well in Razz when the opponent always starts with A23.
- Louie
This is called a mortal lock!
10-20, loose and slanting toward wild at times. An aggressive and loose player (LP) raises from middle position, and a loose player (CC) cold calls from the button. The SB folds and I call from the BB with Jc9c. Jim Brier would have folded, I think.
Flop is 10c7c5s. I check, LP bets, CC calls, I pop it, LP reraises, CC folds and I call. I like my hand. I feel pretty sure he has an overpair but who knows with these people. I have seen him overplay a few hands already though.
Turn is the Jd. I check and call. River is the Js. I check raise. He reraises, and I call. Yes, he has 10-10 and I lost about the maximum.
I like every move I made except the river play. This was a bonehead move, even though my opponent was a bit wacky and loose-aggressive. I should have bet or check-called (probably bet).
I think you could make a case against every move I made in this hand, so I would like to hear comments. I will put on my asbestos suit now.
Thanks.
My takes:
I call preflop. You have two action players involved so you have good implied odds with your hand.
Why checkraise on the flop? You have a draw and you knocked out the 3rd player. The raiser is going nowhere with you checkraising.
Calling on the turn is fine.
On the river you lost the maximum but it sure is tough to put him on a set of Tens.
Bruce
Good call; Great flop, good check-raise; I think its too bad you lost the 3rd player but oh, well. OK call, good check-raise on river (why on earth would you flat call after catching apparently perfect? The 2nd Jack looks like a good card for HIS hand since he has no reason to suspect you have a Jack.).
Over-players do NOT need an over-pair (or better) to bet and raise. If this guy really bets LOTS then I would have lost a lost more with this hand, such as check-raising the turn AND check-raising the river.
- Louie
Actually I would call from my big blind in a raised pot with Jack-Nine suited but not Jack-Eight suited. You have a suited one gapper with a touch of high card strength. I prefer betting the flop with a big draw like this (both a flush and gutshot straight draw). When raised, I would call. He could have AA, KK, QQ, or even A-10 or maybe just big slick or big chick. When the Jack comes on the turn, I see this as giving you 2 more outs. I would probably bet the turn and call if raised. I would bet the river and call if raised. Tough luck running into a flopped set of Tens.
Can any body please tell me how in the world paradise poker can detect cheaters? I have several friends who play in the Omaha games that play with partners. This way they can share more cards. Also since one of the major strenths of big time poker players is to read people(tells)why in the world would they wats their time playing on the web.Some one please tell me if they have played on the web and do they recomnd it?
[there's a separate forum for internet poker]
Short answer... you can't really detect cheaters.
Why you would play there? it's easy, convenient, you can calculate pot odds exactly in real time, etc...
I know good players who say they can't beat it and quit; I know good players who say they are making tons of money.
I think it's a case of caveat emptor.
--j
I just recently got back from Vegas where I did very well at 15/30 but got absolutely murdered at 30/60. I played 15/30 about 20-30 hours and 30/60 about 15-20 hours at 30/60. While I definately got worse cards at 30/60(eg, I had KK twice lost to K9s and 36o), what are the major diffferences in teh games ? I'm trying to analyze my game to see if I'm ready to move up(not looking good from this past trip). I'd like to plug any major leaks b/4 I sit down at 30-60 again.
Thanks, Patrick
i think when you get to 30 60 all players are somewhat experienced and are trying to win even if they are tourists. lower stakes still have those trying to lose. plus more pots are raised to isolate someone headup so you must adjust. you didnt play enough hours to make any real kind of observation.
The best players at $30-$60 are much better on the later streets and at reading hands.
There is quite a difference between the 15-30 and 30-60 game at Bellagio. I suggest you stay at 15-30 until 1) you feel you're playing very well AND 2) your results indicate you are correct (over say, at least 300 hours). Then you can give 30-60 a shot, but be prepared to move back down once you've lost a predetermined amount of money.
The $15-$30 game at the Bellagio is a cake walk. The games are not as aggressive as the $30-$60 and there are usually more players taking a flop. The flop play at $15-$30 is much worse than at $30-$60 with $15-$30 players frequently calling flop bets with garbage. $30-$60 players are a mixed bag of very good players like Roy Cooke and Cissy Bottoms to decent playing locals to wealthy tourists with money to spray around. The $30-$60 games have lots of pre-flop raising and usually only 2 or 3 people taking a flop. You need to be more selective in playing $30-$60.
Players in the 15-30 are purely easier to beat then the 30-60. Many player there own hands. The game you were in had some great players I remember the week. Many 15-30 players just do not have the right strategies to beat the 30-60 and must work on there games just be able to break even. For a typical 15-30 to be able to beat the game he must adjust to a more agressive pattern. Many times on the river a 30-60 player will not pay you off as he already knows what you have. Many players get knocked back and usually it takes a few tries. I know because I have been knocked back twice and still working to improve my game. The earn in the 15-30 game is currently equal to the 30-60 game at the bellagio. So moving down is not to much of a problem while you learn and adjust. Remember its the half and quarter big bets that kill you as you move up. For example if you played 500-1000 a mistake at 500 level would be an earn loss of 500 dollars. Most 15-30 players make these mistakes so they are protected by everyone elses mistakes. They are not glaring like they would be in a 30-60 game or higher.
Stay at 15/30. IF you can win $30,000 over 1000 hours, then you can try 30/60 on a consistent basis.
I used to play in a low limit game (have been moving successfully to higher limit) and was wondering something:
This game was 2-5 spread limit, single 2 dollar blind. 10% rake to 4 dollars max. This rake is really HUGE for this limit because most pots don't seem to get much above 40 dollars.
Anyway, I consistently made about 9 dollars an hour in this game. What percentage of people could beat this game? Is seems that very very few people besides me were consistent winners.
I find that higher limit is actually easier. The talent is a little better, but not much. And I actually get to keep what I win instead of paying it to the house.
Now, if I went to Vegas, where I don't know the players, could I expect to still be a winner? Or would a standard 10-20 game be much tougher than one filled with 'small town heroes'?
-SmoothB-
5% win.
most posters on these forums would eat up 10 20 games if they can keep their kool.
The LV 10-20 is known for being very tight. You won't get paid off like you do in the 2-5 game where people call with anything.
But the LA 10-20 plays just like your 2-5, complete with those bozos with the blank stares and open mouths throwing their chips away.
Brett
Despite the high rake I always found low limit games easy to beat. The low limit games here in Vegas are very easy to beat. The games don't start getting tough until you get to $30-$60. Sometimes the $10-$20 game at the Mirage can be tough but it is really more tight than tough with most of the players playing in a very predictable mode. I actually find the game kind of relaxing. $10-$20 can sometimes be a transitional game with many players who are moving up from the lower limits and they are trying to play well in this entry level red chip game.
With regard to what percentage of the poker playing public are winning players, I really have no idea. It seems to me that there are quite few a players who break even or maybe win or lose a little bit over the course of a year. There are a fair number of players who are big losers and who basically subsidize everyone else. In low limit poker (below $10-$20) there are probably quite a few players who can win at a rate of one big bet per hour over many thousands of hours of play. But it is much more difficult to beat a $15-$30 game or a $20-$40 game for one big bet per hour over many thousands of hours of play and doubt if more than 1% of those who play at this level can average better than $30 per hour. It may even be less.
This is similiar to the Bay Area. 6/12 to 15/30 games are very beatable, about half the time 20/40 is good, other times it is hard. 30-60 or higher is not easy, you have to be strong to survive. I'm pretty sure LA is similiar, maybe a little harder.
Anytime you move to a new spot, it will take time to get settled and to get a read on your opponents. You have the element of surprise, but it normally will not last long.
My estimate is 5% of the players win more than $200/day over a years time.
The question that you ask is more difficult then just comming up with a simple percentage. In High Rake games it matters not what the pot is but how many loose callers you have on the river and the mistakes that are made when they call the river bet. If you get only 1 extra caller in each pot that should not call on the river your earn will be 1 dollar per that extra play. I used to play in a 10 dollar rake game all professional advisers said it could not be beaten. It was simply not the case. Many players that beat that game now play in vegas and they rank amongst the best in the world. In the 10-20 game there was 2 extra callers that should have not been there paying the river bet. Net profit per river bet was 30 dollars. If you ever run into a game like this check those river bets out. The game was in Toronto Canada. All pros beat the game for record amounts. Many a day you would not go out and not think you could make 500 no problem.
I was playing in a Bellagio 30/60 Hold'em early in the morning this week (7am to 1pm). A famous former WSOP Champion (he finished many times in the money, and I believe he's won the big one), was playing in it, and I thought to myself "Great, I get to play with him, let's see how good he is".
Well, to my surprise, he was fairly loose, and very aggressive, pre-flop. He called lots of raises, and almost always defended his blinds. He lost several hands, and then slipped into 100% tilt mode, playing almost every hand. What was odd, was that when he went into tilt mode, he actually got less aggressive (most people, it seems, get more aggressive when they are on tilt).
For example, this hand happened. WSOP Champ is on the button. Everyone folds to him, he raises. Big blind calls. The flop is 766, 2 spades. BB checks, WSOP Champ bets. Next card is a 3 of Diamonds. BB checks, WSOP Champ bets, BB raises...WSOP Champ calls. River is a 8 of spades. BB bets, WSOP calls.
BB turns over T9 (not spades) for the nut straight. WSOP champ turns over T9 also (not spades) ... and they split the pot.
I was flabbergasted.
This was only one of several inside straights that the guy drew to. He must've lost 3-4K during my time there...in fact, once he left, the game got a lot tougher.
My question is this : how amazing or surprising is a story like this? is this something that you LV pros would expect? is this just another story of a guy who's good in tourneys because of their aggressive / loose style but not good in ring games?
It has been my observation that many of the players who do well in tournaments don't always do as well in full tabled limit hold-em. I have played as high as $30-$60 with some well known tournament players and while many of them are solid some of them seem to lack the patience and discipline to do well in limit poker. The problem these guys face is that they simply cannot move players in a limit game because they cannot bet enough normally to push anyone out who has a decent chance of winning the pot. If there is $1000 in the pot, it doesn't matter whether it is a mullet or a former WSOP champion who is betting the $60. Players will simply call if they think they can win. The idea of having to showdown the best hand to win the pot is a tough adjustment for many tournament players as well as big bet players. This is why having a good starting hand is so important in limit poker and when you give up this edge you really handicap yourself regardless of your other skills.
Could not agree more, well said.
I don't find this hand to be all that surprising. WSOP is trying to represent a big pair rather than two big cards. He had a read on the BB to have either a 7 or a draw. By calling the raise he's confirmed to the BB that he has a pair. If checked to on the river he will bet and hope the BB lays down.
You don't find calling the river with ten high surprising? I do. I don't recall ever seeing a ten-high river call win. I'm not saying it was a bad play; he could beat 89, 85 and a small flush draw.
I believe he called with a straight, not ten high.
Post deleted at author's request.
THe only way I can respond is this : through playing 3 hours with her, I found it very very unlikely she was putting a move or a semibluff. I had not seen it before (again, in only 3 hours). It is possible the WSOP champ had a better handle on her...but I thought, based on her past movements (passive except aggressive with a very good hand), it was unlikely for her not to have 54 (for a straight) or a 6 for trips...in which case it makes a call a bad call. 4 outs for an 8 to make a straight - pot is only 6 big bets.
So, either one of two things happened. My opinion of her play and style was not correct based on only 3 hours...and his opinion over possibly a lot more playing time with her was correct...however, even if it was, it was only even expectancy for a call (she could have what I mentioned or just a 7), no pos. ev
I forgot to post the other reason (I only posted on of two things on this post). Please see the post at 1:26 to see the full post.
THe only way I can respond is this : through playing 3 hours with her, I found it very very unlikely she was putting a move or a semibluff. I had not seen it before (again, in only 3 hours). It is possible the WSOP champ had a better handle on her...but I thought, based on her past movements (passive except aggressive with a very good hand), it was unlikely for her not to have 54 (for a straight) or a 6 for trips...in which case it makes a call a bad call. 4 outs for an 8 to make a straight - pot is only 6 big bets.
So, either one of two things happened. My opinion of her play and style was not correct based on only 3 hours...and his opinion over possibly a lot more playing time with her was correct...however, even if it was, it was only even expectancy for a call (she could have what I mentioned or just a 7), no pos. ev
Or, the WSOP champ was on full tilt and had to call to see if he could catch and hope it would be good.
I don't think that hand is all that odd.
But why the secrecy? Why can't you just say who it was? Do you feel like you have to protect him for some reason? He is playing in a public cardroom.
I just don't think its all that fair to call out a specific person by name. Just not nice, I know I wouldn't want to be called out just because I had a known name (not that I do). And maybe he just had a bad day.
I guess once he got check-raised on the turn, the pot was big enough to see the river. However, I guess I used a bad example, there were just too many ... check - call, check - call ... check - fold - that he resemebled a bad player / calling station. He saw at least 75% of the flops at a 9/10 handed table.
.
I will take the champ over any standard player in any tournament. That is the key. I have played with at least 6 World Champions. Some play good and some play bad. Most players that these players play against will never make it to the final table because they just do not have the feel for a tournament. Rudementary numbers yes. Reading the players yes but to make a correct decision in the heat of the moment all the world champions seem to possess. This is what I have found. Most players I know knock themselves out of tournaments because they cannot stand the heat and crack under the pressure. Ask how many players that were playing at that 30-60 game how many final tables they had gotten to. I bet there were none. Nota one in any major event. If it is Brad as per the name on the system. He played low limit holdem trying to learn how to play limit. How many of those players can play no limit to his level. Not many I suspect.
First, it was not this guy. Second, your statement might be right, but my post was not about Touraments...it was how badly this guy played in a ring game. Possibly, he's still a champion calibre player in tourneys, but definitely not in ring games.
(n/t)
Here's two hands that I encountered tonight at 6-12 that are really grating on me. It's a game with many well-defined players, i.e. they are either weak-tight, loose-aggressive, etc. No one is in between. Here goes.
First hand, T7s in the big blind. Everyone calls to maniac who raises on button. I know everyone is going to call (8 players) and I call, perhaps this is a bad call? The flop comes Qs 6s 9h. I have flush draw and gutshot draw. I checkraise to the maniac who I know will bet. I two bet to try to make them call two cold. Is this a bad idea? I had been playing pretty aggressively and I thought this would cause people to misread my hand if I hit. I figured the maniac for nothing, perhaps low pair or Ax, he would raise on anything. The rest of the players were pretty passive. All but two (and maniac) drop. The 7c comes on the turn. I bet and all call. The 4h comes on the river and I check. I figure that a queen would call and worse hands will fold. I do have a pair of 7s to showdown. First players turns over KQs, good thing the spade didn't come. Next player turns over Ax. The maniac turns over pocket 8s and scoops a $192 pot. That's 16BB. I guess this is a mistake that "cost me the pot." But, this would have to be the only better hand the maniac could have had. Afterwards, I obviously felt I should've bet, but what would y'all do in the same situation.
Next hand, the one that sent me on bloody crazy tilt. I look down to see KdKs in the SB. Call, call, raise from an absolute rock who I put on an overpair or AK at worst. There are 6 players in, myself included. Not wanting to tip my hand, I call and plan to checkraise flop barring an A hitting. Flop comes 9h 6h 4s. I check to preflop bettor who bets, fold, fold, call, I raise, fold, preflop raiser reraises, and the caller stays. I put him on a draw, so I raise again. This closes the action and I plan to bet the turn, regardless of what falls, if raised I know I am beat. I bet the turn on a 7h, scary card, preflop raiser calls thank god, and the flop caller raises. Now, the preflop raiser is a rock, but this other guy had only been sitting for ten minutes and he seemed kind of loose passive. I call as does the preflop raiser. Last card is the 8h. I check, check, this guy bets and I fold because I see preflop raiser about to call. The turn raiser turns over Q9d! and the preflop raiser turns over JsJd. Literally, I almost break into seizure. That was a pot of 17BB. With four to a flush and straight on board, I had to fold right? Especially since I hadn't seen this guy do anything funky.
The good news is that I didn't tilt, I got up walked out and drove home at 90MPH. A -50 session could've been +400. But we know better than to worry about results. Please comment, I am pretty sure I gunked up the first hand, but I am sure I played right on the second one. Maybe it's all the MDMA getting to my brain. Thanks in advance.
Later,
MDMAniac
On the first hand, you should fold T-7 suited for a raise even though you are in your big blind. It could get raised again given all those players and it is too weak a hand to pay money to take a flop with. Your check-raise move having a big draw might work especially if it allows you to isolate the maniac which could give you even more outs if you have only one player to deal with. But you need to be certain he will bet. How can the maniac win with pocket Eights when one of the other players had KsQs giving him a top pair of Queens? Your river play was fine since you have a hand to showdown and anyone with anything will call given the large pot.
On the second hand you should re-raise with your pocket Kings pre-flop and take control of the hand. I would keep betting until the river when the fourth heart shows up. I would check and call at the river despite the four hearts due to the pot size. The river is not the place to try and save bets.
First hand, it was a suited king, I thought KQ, but I guess you are right. I was just excitedly looking to see if I won and did pay attention to the detail of losing hands, sorry. Thanks for the advice.
First hand:
Preflop, your call is marginal at best. Perhaps knowing there would be 8 players makes it barely playable but folding would not be a bad idea here.
"The flop comes Qs 6s 9h. I have flush draw and gutshot draw. I checkraise to the maniac who I know will bet. I two bet to try to make them call two cold. Is this a bad idea? "
Yes. Why would you want to try and force all your callers to cold call two when you have a draw. Check-raising with a big draw is better when an EARLY position player bets, everyone calls around, THEN you raise for value. You had to think you had twelve outs on the flop, a nice draw. BUT - you don't want to drive everyone out of the pot and cut down your drawing odds and your final pot size if you win. If you are going to draw, you should win a big pot if you get there. I feel that the deception value gained by opponents misreading your hand is not worth the lost bets if you hit your draw. Not even close.
"The 7c comes on the turn. I bet and all call. "
Betting into this many opponents is most likely NOT going to win you the pot immediately, therefore the semi-bluff aspect of your hand is sort of shot. Thus this bet can only be a value bet, and a weak one at that. I think I would check the turn rather than bet. If there were fewer players then betting would be better, reason is because you have extra value due to the possibility of winning the pot right there.
Your reasons for checking the river are OK, it is unlikely a worse hand will fold, and if you are called it will probably only be by a better hand.
The showdown in your post didn't make sense:
"First players turns over KQs, good thing the spade didn't come. Next player turns over Ax. The maniac turns over pocket 8s and scoops a $192 pot. That's 16BB. I guess this is a mistake that "cost me the pot." "
the player with KQs had a pair of queens, how did he lose to pocket 88? What mistake cost you the pot? My guess is that the KQs was really KJs or something like that, and if you had bet, the 88 may have laid it down.
Second hand: the only comment here is that your fold is somewhat understandable, but you should consider this: There are 20 big bets in the pot (I think), therefore you only need to have the best hand once in 20 times in order to make a call correct. That's a 5% chance of having the best hand to make a call correct. I don't think you were really 95% certain that you were beat here, therefore you should have called. Pay off on the really big pots more so than not. Folding on a small pot is not that big a deal, but folding the best hand on a big pot is a total catastrophy. I would definitely have called here even though I would fully expect to be beat. I know that I would not be better than 95% sure though, so I would have to call. To put it another way, you can encounter this exact situation 19 times, call, and lose, but on the 20th time, when you call, it makes up for the previous 19 times when you paid off. You only have to be right once in a while to make these calls correct because one big pot makes up for lots of pay-offs on the end.
Also, you should reraise BTF. Make the other hands pay to play. You will force them to be calling two bets cold. You may force someone out of the pot who would have beat you. Reraising here gets you more value than that gained by the deception of not reraising.
"The good news is that I didn't tilt, I got up walked out and drove home at 90MPH. A -50 session could've been +400. But we know better than to worry about results. Please comment, I am pretty sure I gunked up the first hand, but I am sure I played right on the second one. Maybe it's all the MDMA getting to my brain."
Driving home at 90 isn't tilt?
Calling on the end for the second pot would have been pure ecstacy though, next time consider the mathematics before you fold.
Dave in Cali
First hand:
Preflop, your call is marginal at best. Perhaps knowing there would be 8 players makes it barely playable but folding would not be a bad idea here.
"The flop comes Qs 6s 9h. I have flush draw and gutshot draw. I checkraise to the maniac who I know will bet. I two bet to try to make them call two cold. Is this a bad idea? "
Yes. Why would you want to try and force all your callers to cold call two when you have a draw. Check-raising with a big draw is better when an EARLY position player bets, everyone calls around, THEN you raise for value. You had to think you had twelve outs on the flop, a nice draw. BUT - you don't want to drive everyone out of the pot and cut down your drawing odds and your final pot size if you win. If you are going to draw, you should win a big pot if you get there. I feel that the deception value gained by opponents misreading your hand is not worth the lost bets if you hit your draw. Not even close.
"The 7c comes on the turn. I bet and all call. "
Betting into this many opponents is most likely NOT going to win you the pot immediately, therefore the semi-bluff aspect of your hand is sort of shot. Thus this bet can only be a value bet, and a weak one at that. I think I would check the turn rather than bet. If there were fewer players then betting would be better, reason is because you have extra value due to the possibility of winning the pot right there.
Your reasons for checking the river are OK, it is unlikely a worse hand will fold, and if you are called it will probably only be by a better hand.
The showdown in your post didn't make sense:
"First players turns over KQs, good thing the spade didn't come. Next player turns over Ax. The maniac turns over pocket 8s and scoops a $192 pot. That's 16BB. I guess this is a mistake that "cost me the pot." "
the player with KQs had a pair of queens, how did he lose to pocket 88? What mistake cost you the pot? My guess is that the KQs was really KJs or something like that, and if you had bet, the 88 may have laid it down.
Second hand: the only comment here is that your fold is somewhat understandable, but you should consider this: There are 20 big bets in the pot (I think), therefore you only need to have the best hand once in 20 times in order to make a call correct. That's a 5% chance of having the best hand to make a call correct. I don't think you were really 95% certain that you were beat here, therefore you should have called. Pay off on the really big pots more so than not. Folding on a small pot is not that big a deal, but folding the best hand on a big pot is a total catastrophy. I would definitely have called here even though I would fully expect to be beat. I know that I would not be better than 95% sure though, so I would have to call. To put it another way, you can encounter this exact situation 19 times, call, and lose, but on the 20th time, when you call, it makes up for the previous 19 times when you paid off. You only have to be right once in a while to make these calls correct because one big pot makes up for lots of pay-offs on the end.
Also, you should reraise BTF. Make the other hands pay to play. You will force them to be calling two bets cold. You may force someone out of the pot who would have beat you. Reraising here gets you more value than that gained by the deception of not reraising.
"The good news is that I didn't tilt, I got up walked out and drove home at 90MPH. A -50 session could've been +400. But we know better than to worry about results. Please comment, I am pretty sure I gunked up the first hand, but I am sure I played right on the second one. Maybe it's all the MDMA getting to my brain."
Driving home at 90 isn't tilt?
Calling on the end for the second pot would have been pure ecstacy though, next time consider the mathematics before you fold.
Dave in Cali
a
Greetings,
Well everyone seems to think Roy West's column was not up to snuff... however the thing I was really annoyed w/was Roy Cooke's column.
Now for those of you haven't been following he named a very elementary principle 'Cooke's Edge concept.' And then proceeded to write 2nd part (I think this was in may).
Needless to say he got alot of grief in rpg and other places...
But in the most recent article he actually defended his positioin!
Did anyone else find this "distasteful" other than me?
I will post below the reponse I saw on RGP written by Mr. Weideman. (I am not him!)
" My Name In Lights (Thank you, Roy Cooke!)
Date:
Wed, 03 May 2000 01:41:28 -0700
From:
Tom Weideman SBC Internet Services Newsgroups:
rec.gambling.poker
I just recently read the most important article of my life in Card Player magazine. It was Roy Cooke's article entitled "The History of Cooke's Edge Concept" in the April 2Until I read that article, I never realized how important it was to quickly name all of the most self-evident stuff after yourself, if you are to have a lasting legacy in the world (in this case, the world of poker). I would have thought that doing so would come across as self-serving, and would paint me as an idiot, since I would appear to believe that a trivial fact is somehow profound and difficult to grasp, but clearly I was wrong.
For those who may have missed this important work (imo worthy of publication in the most pretigious of mathematical journals), I'll summarize, in Roy's words:
"We arrived at the idea that the volume of your bet multiplied by the percentage of your edge (positive or negative) will equal the expectation of your current wager."
The subsequent corollary is (in my words):
Bet lots when you have a positive edge, and little or none when you have a negative edge.
I know this sounds a lot like Malmuth's "Non-Self Weighting Strategies", but Mason made the mistake of not naming it after himself (and even gave credit for the idea to some unnamed statisticians, for crying out loud). Anyway, given that Mr. Cooke worked this out with his buddy through what must have been hundreds of hours of "algebra, logic diagrams, probability, and flow-charting" several years ago, it seems entirely possible that these statisticians were eavesdropping on the Cooke/Hiraoka project from an adjacent booth in Denny's.
Anyway, back to my point. Now that I know how important it is coin names for these things, I have a number of ideas I'd like on record:
Weideman's Stack Value Principle -------------------------------- The denomination of each chip in your stack multiplied by the number of these chips, summed over all denominations equals the total worth of your stack.
[Actually, After reading Roy's article, Jim Geary told me he came up with this one, and I immediately grasped its importance. But if we've learned anything here, it's that the first person to name it after himself wins. Better luck next time, Jim.]
Weideman's Profit Principle --------------------------- The amount you profit in a session equals the amount you cash out minus the total of your buyins.
[This one originated with Patri Forwalter-Friedman, who passed it on to Jim Geary, who passed it on to me. These guys have no idea how their loose lips8th issue.
have wasted the countless hours that no doubt went into the development of these fundamental and theoretically important concepts.]
Weideman's Secret to Tournament Success --------------------------------------- If you increase your stack size at the same rate as the blinds go up from round to round, your continued participation in the tournament will never be in jeopardy.
[I believe McEvoy may have been the first to put this gem into print, but now that my name is attached to it, his role in its development will fade from memory, while I will be heralded as a genius in tournament poker lore.]
Weideman's Law of Nuts ---------------------- If you are the only player holding the nuts in any non-split game of poker after the last round of betting and you don't muck your cards, then you will win the pot.
[This one is all mine. I was very lucky to get the Cray time needed to work it out... There was no rush on those rogue asteroid trajectory calculations anyway.]
Weideman's Credit-Grabbing Axiom -------------------------------- Whomever names an idea after himself first gets all the credit, no matter who actually did the work first, and no matter how trivial or self-evident the conclusion is. From this point forward, anyone who grabs credit for any concept must give me proper credit by invoking this axiom, or they'll be hearing from my lawyer.
Tom Weideman"
I responded to Tom Weideman's humorous post regarding Roy Cooke's Edge Concept over on rgp.
However, I think Roy Cooke's critics on this one are overlooking a very important point. Roy Cooke is one of the best mid-level limit hold-em players in Vegas. Any communication tool that he chooses to use which helps other players like myself understand how a top player approaches poker situations is fine with me. The last thing you want is for a guy like Cooke to stop writing and communicating. If Cissy Bottoms were to develop her own method of discussing poker problems and reveal her thinking to us, it would certainly be welcome by me. The fact that it may seem obvious and self-evident to some else is irrelevant.
I love your post!
Then there is the 2+2+2 rule:
If the board shows two black pairs and two red pairs, and the pair in your hand is equal in rank to the highest pair on the board, the change in the size of your stack is inverse to the sum of stack size change of all of your opponents. [Reference Library S2L84U]
Suspicious, this article was so profound that I didn't find it nessecary to read the defence.
5-10 hold em
I'm in the big blind with K7 off. There are three callers, small blind folds. I check. The flop comes K 7 4 rainbow. I bet out, one caller to a fairly loose agressive player who raises. I re-raise. He re-raises me and I call. The player to the left of me is calling all raises. I check the blank turn, check, and agressive player bets. I call and player to my right folds. The agressive player says "if you can't beat a set, get out." I check the blank river, and he checks and turns over K4 off. I win the hand with my top two.
My question is, should I have been more agressive on the turn and river? Should I have feared the set? He was a loose player and he may have raised any pair pre-flop. Should I have known that his comment was trying to get me to fold?
Thanks for any responses.
I like your agressive moves on the flop, however i think the check-raise is a little better here because you can be agressive, but still stop the betting at three bets instead of four. Plus, a re-raise from him is pretty scary, since this does not look like a 2 pair board and i would tend to imagine trip 7's here.
That considered, the check-call plan on the turn and river is good since it looks more like a set instead of K4o.
Personally, i think you played it pretty well.
Fistdantilus
I would bet the turn and call a raise and check/call the river. The thing is K4 is probably not going to raise the turn when you bet out. When he says "If you can't beat a set - get out", I'd have bet the river and called a raise with top two. If he had a set he would not want you to fold, so he must want you to check the river b/c he doesn't want to call a river bet. (He's scared of 44 and if he's scared of 44 you can beat everyother hand he could have.)
chris
Mike, I think you should ignore the rhetoric and just bet your hand. I think you played it fine. I would still lead on the turn with the top two. No one has a set of Kings because no one raised pre-flop. Since you have a Seven it is unlikely someone has the remaining two Sevens for a set. I think a set of Fours is too unlikely.
I like everything up to and including the check on the turn (inducing the bet). However, I bet the river regardless of what comes.
Set of what? If it's kings, there's only two in the deck, lucky him. If it's sevens, it means that he 4-bet sevens preflop and he is therefore a liar. Bet the river. Especially bet the turn.
I have been playing around with this program, and it is very good, but i notice that when you follow it's advice it is good preflop, but sometimes has you raising with A6s in a middle/late postion, something that I havn't seen many people do in a live game.
Is this something missing from my game or something that is overdone in this program.
New Guy
While that move is perfectly acceptable in tight games, Turbo advisor is in some instances too aggressive. This will be fixed in version 4.
---
Izmet, since you have Bob's ear, could I suggest some kind of statistical test is included in the high speed simulation, so that you have a clear idea whether a manipulation had a significant effect on the overall profit? It could be as simple as a t-test between the starting hand analyzer profit on different simulation runs. In fact even a measure of variance would suffice, rather than just returning the mean.
Keyser
Bob Wilson is reachable at wilsonsw@whitemtns.com and will probably consider a reasonable wishlist. Yes, I'd like to see some more statistical data on simulations too, hourly rate, bankroll requirements etc...
You should understand, though, that we'd like to see Turbo turn into an awesome research tool with all the bells and whistles, while Bob must think of the broader market (i.e. fun players) and keep the product reasonably simple.
We need to push him a bit. I tried bribing to no avail, that sheep was to hairy for his taste, I guess.
---
I already suggested inclusion of a standard deviation statistic to Bob Wilson (via e-mail) and Mike Gilbert. They seem to think that "only a few people" would have any interest in this. Perhaps a few more e-mail might convince them otherwise.
This may be a bit off the topic, but I hear TTHv4 is going to be released next month. I hope they've changed the interface for editing profiles. Right now I'm in the process of sending in the registration card, hoping for a cheap upgrade..if I just could remember where I put the card..sigh..
Open-raising with hands like A6s and K8s about 3 off the button in a typical 60-120 game allows you to get heads up with the big blind with a hand that is likely a favorite against it due to the high card strength. Their offsuit cousins, A6 and K8, are best left to the button, however. I recommend an always raise or fold policy when opening late in all but the most extreme of games.
If you open-limp with A6s 3 off the button, that AT behind you that would have folded had you raised is going to raise you instead, and you'll wind up heads up against a dominating hand with position on you instead of heads up with position against a big blind that you have high-carded.
If you want to muck the A6s in an unopened pot 3 off the button, I'm not going to argue with you.
-Abdul
I was wondering. Say you are holding Kxs or Axs, and you flop 4 to the flush, I am a newer player, but is this a time that you would raise the pot? I have seen allot of poeple with good pair raise here to try to get the 4/flush out.
As well would you call 3 bets or a capped potl if you have four to the nut or near nut flush?
Kevin
"it depends".
if you are in late position and the players will tend to check to the raiser, raising the flop then checking through the turn may be the best play.
"As well would you call 3 bets or a capped potl if you have four to the nut or near nut flush?"
-if you can get enough callers, then you are getting the proper odds to stay in. If it will be 3 handed with two agressive players betting and raising each other, it would be better to get out. The few times you do make your flush will not pay for all those times you got dragged through the mud. If you think there will be more than 4 callers even with all the raising, then you should probably stay in (if your draw is to the nuts/near-nuts) because they will pay you off well for the times that you make your flush.
I make most of my money at hold'em when i hold top pair/good kicker in late position with 2-3 flush/straight draws in the game. Someone will bet the flop with a pair or top pair, I raise, and now the flush draws are forced to pay off (at least) 2 bbets to see if they make their flush. They miss more often than they make, and having 2-3 people each putting in 2 big bets is fairly nice. Try not to be one of these people.
So to answer your question plainly, no i would not call 3-4 bets if 1) less than 4 people in the pot 2) 4 people, constant raising
Fistdantilus
sidenote: I play at the Canterbury Card Club in MN (opened recently), and many people will hold anything suited and stay with every flush draw, no matter how many raises there are. God bless them.
For a discussion on playing draws aggressively on multiway flops, point your browser to the dweeb Albanian page. For a discussion on whether to play them at all, point your browser to the Sheik M'hall page. For a discussion on buttshots (as opposed to gutshots), point your browser to the Akira Fubuki page.
---
When you flop a 4 flush, it all depends on the circumstances whether you should call, raise, or fold.
Let's say you are on the button with A5 suited. There are 6 players in the hand. (Woohoo!)
The flop comes Ks Js 8h. There is a bet and a raise, and the other 3 call both bets. You would RAISE here because you have 5:1 odds (not including what's in the pot!) for a 2:1 shot. Great odds. And you are drawing to the nuts.
Lets take another example.
You are in the BB with A6 spades again. There is one mid position limper, and the SB calls. You don't raise. 3 people see the flop.
The flop comes Ks 8h 2d. Checked all around. Free card!
Turn comes 5s. SB checks, you check, bet, SB raises. There are 4 1/2 BB in the pot and you need to call 2 BB. You should fold your 4 flush. You can assume that the better will call, that will make it 5 1/2 bets for your 2. Still a bad call. But he might also reraise which would be REALLY bad for you.
There are other cases where it is correct to just call. IE if, on the turn, you have 3 others in the pot but the pot is giving you good enough odds to call, then just call. A raise would not be correct. Sometimes you might be getting the correct odds to raise, but you still should not do it. Here is an example.
Let's say you have A6 spades again. You are BB. Flop comes KJ spades with the 8h. SB bets, it is up to you to act. There are 5 to act after you.
Now, it is better to just call. If you make it 2 bets you might loose everyone - you need at least 1 more caller to make this bet correct. But even if you KNOW you will get 1 caller, it still might not be correct. With this kind of drawing hand, the last thing you want to do is lose people who may pay you off when you hit, because you are drawing to the nuts.
-SmoothB-
9-18 Commerce/Tight game with a two loose/aggressive players.
2 midposition limpers, cutoff (CO) (an enormously weak player) raises, SB calls, I call in BB with 46 of clubs, 2 midposition limpers (one of which is loose/aggressive) both call.
Flop 8c 9c 3c Sb checks, I bet, 2 limpers call and CO calls, SB calls.
I bet to see if loose/aggressive preflop limper will raise (b/c he will if he has a J of clubs or bigger). No one raised; that's good.
Turn is Jc. Ugly card for me but what can I do. SB checks, I bet, fold around to cutoff (who would raise with the Ace of Spades, and might raise with the king), cutoff calls, and SB calls.
River 2d. Sb check, I check, button checks. "I had a flush" as I roll 46clubs. Button shows 8s8h. SB mucks.
Should I have checked the turn?
Should I have bet the river?
chris
You should not be calling raises even out of your big blind with Six-Four suited. Make it Six-Five suited with lots of players and I think you have a call.
Your flop play is fine. Of course you lead since you must make anyone with a singleton Club pay to draw against you. However, when you get four callers I would assume that at least one of them has a Club.
I think you now have to check the turn. It is pointless to bet since you are almost certainly beat. If no one has a Club you will win anyway so your bet will not fold a better hand.
Of course you check the river since again betting is pointless.
How can four people call your flop bet when the board flops all of one suit and not one of them have a card in that suit? I gather some of these people call flop bets with most anything.
How can four people call your flop bet when the board flops all of one suit and not one of them have a card in that suit? I don't know Jim, some very bad players out there.
I bet the turn b/c preflop raiser would not raise my turn bet unless he has me beat but he'd call with an overpair, trips, two pair, or a straight (I thought an overpair was his most likely hand, i was wrong on that one)
I can't call preflop? I'm getting 9-1 on my call, sounds like plenty to me. Personally I'd rather have a small suited one-gapper when calling a legitimate raise out of the BB (as oppossed to QJo or AT or 78o).
chris
"Commerce/Tight game" .. isn't that a contradiction in terms? ;-)
I might've tried to check-raise the flop here, you have perfect position with the before-the-flop raiser sitting last, allowing you to clear the field a bit.
If you check the turn, you risk being put to the test of figuring out if a bettor has the flush and then maybe payoff the river (I seem to recall S&M discussing a similar situation in HPFAP and recommending the bet). I like the bet -- if raised, NOW is the time to make the decision to throw it away or not.
You didn't get raised on the turn, but I'm not sure a bet on the river gets called either. Sitting in the other seats, this would've been an excellent opportunity to NOT raise the turn with say the Ac, but then reraise the river. I can't fault the judgment not to bet, but I still might've.
If I'm raised on the turn there is no decision to be made - I muck, plain and simple. If someone at that table raises my turn bet with that board (4 clubs) and can't beat my hand then they get the pot because they deserve it (and the game would be turning into a more profitable one anyway). OTOH, if the weakie in the cutoff seat has a hand like TcTh he might fold on the turn (which is good for me). When the SB overcalled on the turn I thought I was dead (when he called I thought he had the K or Q of clubs) and was checking the river no matter the card.
Got lucky yesterday, 3 1/2 BB an hour, only play 4 hours though.
chris
4 hours is the optimum session length, IMO (we've had this "session" discussion long ago, although I don't recall the name of the thread).
I was on a trip to Vegas so I decided to try playing some Hold’em. I was playing 3-6 at the Mirage with a full table full of calling stations and one ‘”maniac raiser”. The pots were huge. Folks I’m not exaggerating, 5-7 people in at the river 75 plus percent of the time. I was going crazy because the poker gods were sending me two garbage hole cards so I could not justify playing many of my hands against these calling stations. The person to my right kept talking to me and saying things like “you got to play more, you don’t know what cards will come”-“you’re gonna lose all your money” etc.. This went on for over an hour.
At one point I was to the right of the cut-off and had a 78o I wanted to play the hand but by the time it came for me to act it was 3 bets. I hesitated while thinking about what to do when the talker yelled in my ear “play”, like a fool I grabbed some chips and called. The flop came JTA rainbow. I liked the JT but the A was scary looking. When it was my turn to act it was 3 bets again and I was mad at myself for letting the talker influence my play. Playing with emotion rather than reason I called. The turn was a sweet 9, but the “A” was still scary looking. Playing mad I decide to cap the betting. The talker turns to me and says “ you raised” and mucked his hand when it came to him. The river brings a rag 3 of some suit. There was only one bet so I made it two and the rest called. I can’t remember all the hands but the bettor had AJ and someone else had Q10. I know I was lucky because no one had KQ and there was no flush possibility. While stacking my chips the talker turned to me and said “see, I told you”. I wanted to hit him. So I have some questions:
1. How crazy was it for me to call 3 bets pre-flop? How good or bad was the rest of my play.
2. How do you handle someone who keeps talking to you without being outright rude?
3. How do you play against someone who raises almost every hand like this “maniac raiser” was doing all night. He was sitting to two my right. After awhile I just ignored his raises and played without considering his actions because he was losing so often.
I’m a rookie having played less than a year and only about 2-3 times a month. I have read 3 books to help me get started. But it is tough remembering things while sitting at the table with such little experience.
1. Very Crazy. THe post-flop call was equally crazy. Once you have made these horrible mistakes, the turn and river play was fine. Since the flop was not capped, I doubt if KQ was out there.
2. Ignore
3. Reraise him when you have the best of it.
1. I wouldn't say it was crazy to call 3 bets cold with 78o, it's not good poker though. Calling 3 cold on the flop is consistent with your preflop play - bad. Once you make the hand, you played it fine.
2. I just talk back. I'd go to the hotel concierge, ask for a toothbrush and a travel toothpaste, take it back to the table and tell the guy that if he's going to talk so much would he mind correcting his breath.
3. you've got to make it 3bets against this guy when you have a hand that stands to be better than his. Your 3bet should get the pot 4 or 5 handed. Might even get it head's up or 3-way between you, the maniac, and one of the blinds.
chris
87o can be worth it for one bet when you expect excessive action after the flop if you hit. Its not worth 3 bets. Calling a 2-bet from the maniac wouldn't be so bad; but don't try it at home.
You flopped an under-gut-shot and it was 3 bets. This is a worse call than B4 the flop. Even if you HIT you may already be beat, can easily be counterfeighted if an KQ8 comes, and it appears you are up against full-house draws anyway. You need to catch a 9 on the turn and an off-suit 23456 on the river before you can like it.
What is so "scary" about the Ace? You only care if you lose when you catch the 9, in which case someone has the big straight anyway.
I'm pretty aggressive but would have difficulty raising on the river, but I guess you'd have to be there before deciding.
I guess the excessive action you DID get MAY make the original call not so bad.
Ask the player not to talk when either of you are involved in a hand.
With all the callers its unrealistic to try to control the game by making marginal 3-bets (of the maniac's 2-bets). It'd be better to get the maniac on your left where you can check-raise him and build pots with your real hands and real draws; and you affectively have position all night since you tend to act after everybody else every hand.
There are lots of times you need patience; this is one of them. How you handle runs of terrible cards and runs of 2nd best cards will determine the outcome of your poker career. Consider them tests.
- Louie
Louie, Looks like everyone including myself thinks that just playing this hand was stupid. You mentioned a full house and that is something I had not considered during play. I guess I need to think a little deeper, and try to determine all possibilties.
There is absolutely, categorically, NO situation where it is feasible to call even a SINGLE bet with 87 offsuit. Not even heads up. Not even to defend the blinds.
This hand is about the weakest of the weak. It stands to be inferior most of the time against any other 2 random cards. You have absolutely no high card power. It isn't even suited (and that is no reason to play 2 trash cards anyway. Although 87 suited is worth a play sometimes BUT NEVER FOR MORE THAN 1 BET.)
You say you can play it if you can expect excess action if you hit. Well, if this is true you might as well play ANY 2 cards, including 92 offsuit. Any 2 cards can flop 2 pair or better. The chances of 87 making a straight are reasonable but not worth the initial investment. And think about how much this hand will cost you when you flop an open ender and don't make it, DO make a straight and lose to a bigger one, or a flush, or a full house, etc.
This hand is never profitable ever under any circumstances for any amount of money. (MAYBE for 1/2 bet in the SB.)
OK, there are exceptions. But never when you are just CALLING. You can raise with it 1st in on the button if the blinds are very tight. But I wouldn't try this too often. You might also limp in with it in a no limit game or tournament under specific circumstances - IE you have a chip lead and can get the pot shorthanded with position against short stacked and/or timid opponents.
-SmoothB-
I also have to strongly disagree with the advice to try to get the maniac on your LEFT. This is a big mistake.
1) If he is a halfway intelligent maniac who is trying to manipulate weak players, and he knows that you are a good player, he will stay out of pots you are involved in unless he has a big hand. He is the one that creates all the action so you want him in there when you have a big hand. You can use him to generate the action you want.
2) You have a better idea of what hands you can play when the maniac is on your right. Let's say you are in the cutoff with A4 of spades. You want to play it. 2 limpers and the maniac raises. Throw it away. It is not worth it to play this hand for 2 bets even with all those limpers.
Let's say you have him on your LEFT. You get the same hand but now maniac is on the button. You play it - he pops it - you are forced to call another bet. You would not have played this hand if you knew he would raise. This means that you are FORCED to ONLY play hands that you would be willing to play for a raise because you have to expect that he will in fact raise it.
3) You can use him and his action to thin the field. Lets say you have KQ and flop comes Q T 3 with 2 of one suit. If you just bet out and the maniac is on your left, he might not raise. Everyone can call and try to draw against you for just 1 bet. But if he is on your right, you can raise right after him and then they have to call 2 bets to draw.
4) Checkraising is NOT as effective when he is on your left. You check, he bets, 3 callers, now its back to you. They will all call the extra bet, and will probably call if he reraises. You can't thin the field as effectively.
-SmoothB-
I agree very, very much. Maniacs, good players and rocks on the right, everybody else on the left (esp. nice women or any softies that wont exploit their position.
chris
the point is that if you flop a monster you can check , maniac bets, all call, you raise ... you win a giant pot. youre doing the opposite of thinning the field.
brad
In reference to your first response: if you are head's up against a top-pair-or-toss-it player then you can call all raises with all hands, figuring to bet the flop. And I think 87o can be worth it if you can get excessive action such as those going to the river with only overcards.
This response:
(1) "Maniac" to me excludes those that can control themselves just because the clever tight-wad has called in front of them. Your be-on-his-left argument gains ground the more clever or restrained this aggressive player is. Certainly put skilled aggressive players on your RIGHT.
(2) Yes, you would call one bet only with hands you would call 2-bets; except for those that know he raises all the time but somehow are constantly surprised when he does. Go figure. :)
(3, 4) I believe there is more money to be made with all those loose callers IN than by 3-betting them all out. Yes, certainly vulnerable pairs do better with them out but just about all other lagitamate hands do better with them in. After all, if they are making bad calls its got to be good for somebody. If you had the nut flush draw you want the likely better on your left. Yes, I do seem to have more of a "more-the-merrier" philosophy than just about everybody who posts here.
Dare I suggest that while your obvious "pair poker" attitude is superior for tight games, you would do better with a "draw poker" attitude for these hyper loose games: I think the top straight draw is better than top pair against 6 opponents. If so, one would play more drawing hands and less trouble hands in these loose games.
- Louie
1. Argh, my eyes hurt when they see someone cold-calling a preflop three-bet with 87o.
Regarding preflop hand selection(very basic): if the game is aggressive --> few premium hands (e.g AKs) passive --> more hands ag./p. has impact on how many hands
tight --> big hands loose --> pocket pairs, suited connectors t./l. has impact on what kind of hands (anyway, that´s all in the books)
Regarding decisions in general: you make decision based on implied/pot odds and the probability of a certain event to occur.
2. Ask him to stop/ignore/call floorman/repeatedly say "sure" or even better "m-hm" him (why waste your breath on an idiot)
3. See 1. aggressive
again I remind you that the answers are basic, so look these things up in your books (cause that´s what you have them for, after all)
Be nice but do not listen to idiots who talk to you at the table and try to convince you that if you play more hands you will win more pots.
1. Eight-Seven offsuit is not a playable hand. Paying multiple bets to take a flop even if it were suited would be bad poker. Playing it unsuited is simply horrid. Your flop call is one of the worst on record. You are drawing to a gutshot, you could be drawing dead, and you can be easily counterfeited.
2. You handle these people by simply smiling a lot and looking away from them.
3. Unless you can re-raise with a decent hand and isolate the maniac, you have to tighten up because you do not want to get into situations where you are paying multiple bets to take a flop with speculative drawing hands. You will burn up big bucks this way. The nice thing is that when you get a premium hand you will win a much bigger pot as a result of all the action.
I like to respond to persistent talkers by saying something nonsensical, such as "I never win with big slick on Friday nights."
1. How crazy was it for me to call 3 bets pre-flop? How good or bad was the rest of my play.
calling three bets cold with 87o is suicidal. just take some $$, go to the top of a tall building, and throw your biggest bills off the top, it's easier. You should have folded it for one bet considering that there is a maniac raiser in the game. offsuit small cards are very rarely playable at all, let alone for a raise.
Calling three bets cold with a gutshot draw to the ignorant end of the straight with three broadway cards on board is absolutely insane. Put a railroad spike to your head and grab a big hammer, it's easier.
2. How do you handle someone who keeps talking to you without being outright rude?
Just agree with him, then fold your cards anyway. Say something like, gee, 27o again! Simply ignore the advice of other players. They will rarely be giving you good advice. More likely they are feeding you BS. The really good players will shut up about strategy at the table. Why would they want you to play better against them?
3. How do you play against someone who raises almost every hand like this “maniac raiser” was doing all night. He was sitting to two my right. After awhile I just ignored his raises and played without considering his actions because he was losing so often.
You had him in the perfect position. You want to see what he does before you have to act. You don't want your $$ already in the pot with a marginal hand when he is yet to act, otherwise you get raised and have to pay more with a cheezy hand. You want the maniac on your right. When he raises, fold your cheese, like 87o, and reraise with your better hands, like AK or JJ. Reraise his ass with every big hand you have and make the other players pay out the nose. Big hands are stuff like AK, AQs, KK, AA, QQ etc.... Punish him for his aggressive tendencies. Use his raises to help you win pots. Fold when you have squat! Maniac games are somewhat more difficult because your fluctuations go up and you usually have to play fewer hands. In games where a maniac raises preflop every hand, but everyone still calls anyway, the maniac is effectively doubling the stakes. In these games you play similarly to normal but reraise the maniac more often with your better hands.
As far as your play on this hand goes, BOOOO HISS. But you already knew that, now didn't you!
Dave in Cali
Dave, Yes I already knew that I played bad. But now I know how bad it REALLY was. Anyway the comments have been very helpful with a lot of food for thought, and some even humorous like yours and Jim's. After all I do now have one of the worst plays on record. I will try not to add to that recording.
Rich
'1. How crazy was it for me to call 3 bets pre-flop? '
Very crazy. When the table goes on tilt like this you have to tighten up, not loosen up. Just sit back and wait for premium cards and then drag a big pot when you win. Just because the others are playing garbage doesn't mean that they ALL have garbage. One of them could have AA or KK etc. Even maniacs get these cards.
Never call 3 bets with trash hands.
'How good or bad was the rest of my play.'
Very bad. You called 3 bets with a gutshot draw to the third nut straight. This wasn't a good idea. You don't have pot odds, and you could have been drawing completely dead. Also, you might have trapped yourself.
If you called 3 bets on the flop, you would certainly call 1 or 2 bets on the turn. And what if you got runner runner 2 pair? You would have to call a bet on the river and you would most likely not win (any 9 would make a straight and you might be up against bigger 2 pair or trips with all this action.
'2. How do you handle someone who keeps talking to you without being outright rude?'
That depends. You can just nod and say 'uh huh' once in a while. That should get them to quit after a while. Or just outright ignore them if they are being the least bit unpleasant.
'3. How do you play against someone who raises almost every hand like this “maniac raiser” was doing all night. He was sitting to two my right. After awhile I just ignored his raises and played without considering his actions because he was losing so often. '
Ok - first of all, you DO have to adjust your play.
You must stop playing hands like Ax suited - these hands are best played if you can get in cheaply. He is on your right - perfect! That's where you want him. Most maniacs don't raise ALL the time - you can play hands like Axs if there is no raise. Since the table seems to be on tilt you can expect to win a huge pot when you end up with the nuts.
Try to isolate him. If he is the first in and raises, reraise with hands like AJ offsuit, K J, medium pairs, etc. Only do this if you think that you can get him heads up. If this works, you can play him heads up with position. This will be very profitable for you in the long run - you should win more often than he does.
TIGHTEN UP IN GENERAL WHEN THE TABLE GOES ON TILT. I know a lot of people who think that if the table is loose, they can play looser and get away with it. I really do not believe this is true.
I believe that when these conditions exist position becomes far more important. I would be extremely reluctant to play ANY hands in the 1st 3 positions except for AA, KK, AK, QQ, etc. Throw away AJ offsuit without a second thought - in these positions this hand will COST YOU MONEY when the table goes crazy.
'I’m a rookie having played less than a year and only about 2-3 times a month. I have read 3 books to help me get started. But it is tough remembering things while sitting at the table with such little experience. '
It is hard to find good advice on how to play with maniacs. Most books just briefly touch on the subject. For one thing, if you are on a short bankroll for the session (IE less than 40BB) don't play at a wild table. You can easily tear through this much money very quickly and then have no means to try to grind it out and win in the long term.
I have had sessions where I won literally 1 or 2 hands over 8 - 10 hours. If I had had a session like that when the table was on tilt I could easily have lost 100BB or more. Especially if I were getting good cards that would not hold up.
Anyway, the only way to learn how to play with maniacs is to do it and learn from experience. Once you get the hang of it you will find it to be THE most profitable situations in poker.
-SmoothB-
I won't comment on the hand. I 'll just comment about talkers.
Usually if i don't say much to them they won't continue. Sometimes I'll try and talk about other things, maybe show him a bad hand or two that you fold.
Maybe ask to see his hand in a freindly way and "root" for him.
Ive managed to become somewhat friendly with those who think im ridiculous tight, and i dont htink its that hard, and pbly is good for the game...
The interesting thing about talkers, during the hand, is that when they get a big hand they often shut up. Some people are just the opposite.
My advise is to move across the table, just find some excuse. Some people wear headphones although they don't have any music playing. Try to get to where NOTHING someone does or says can bother you. Remember, good players that do this are trying to get you to talk so you become more readable or you end up telling them how you play.
Rich,
Your going to run into all kinds of talkers, get use to it. They will come at someone they think they can get some info out of. Some or just talkers and run their mouth to be friendly. Just nod and agree and try not to get involved in the conversation. After you play long enough you will probably come up with some talk to get info you can use against them. Talking can be part of the game as starting hands if you get good at it..... Bill
Could anyone tell me if SuperSystem and PL/NL Championship Holdem are strictly for no limit or is there good info in them that could be used in limit games? My friends do not play a lot of pl/nl holdem -but I know the books are two of the best. Thanks.
Don't know about TJ's book, but Super System covers all forms. There are different sections for each game and for general strategy. You should REALLY consider the 2+2 books for limit play. I think they're better organized and have more good material than SS.
Fat-Charlie
Well, I have read both Super/System and TJ's book on no limit and pot limit. I have to say that I was disappointed by both. If you want to learn about limit holdem then there is no point to buying either of them.
Super/System is dated - it's over 20 years old. The games have changed and much of the material is no longer relevant to the present day's blind structures and rules.
You should get The Theory of Poker and Holdem Poker for Advanced Players. Both of these books will give you a good foundation.
But for now, save your money and don't buy the other 2.
-SmoothB-
First of all I would like to say I have been "lurking" on this discussion group for a while and it's been a great help reading opinions on various scenarios and strategies in the game of holdem. There are a couple of scenarios I would like to share, and hopefully get some criticism on how I played the hands.
i'm in a 10-20 game with 3 loose passive players to my immediate left, 2 loose aggresive players to my right, and another tricky-good player in between the 2 loose aggresive players. This guy (who I'll call TP) always seems to have my number whenever we but heads. The rest of the players are are tight passive.
Hand 1: I'm in the cut-off with 9-10 of spades. 4 calls to me, I call, Button folds, blinds call. 7 see the flop, flop comes:
As Ad 8s
I have a flush draw with possible runner runner str8. All check to me, I bet (was this right with so many people seeing the flop? there has to be an ace somewhere). all fold to the tricky player who raises. I'm pretty sure this player has me pegged as a tight-passive player, who'll only bet (or raise) with a good hand. Since he likes to put the powerplay on when I'm in a hand, but plays pretty str8 forward with the clueless players. I don't think he has an A since he would probably have check-raised me on the turn. I figure he raised me to see if I have the ace, and he may be on a flush draw also. I just call. (should I have raised and represent an Ace, or at least see where he's at) The turn comes an offsuit 6, now I have more outs. He bets, I just call (another mistake??). river a K of clubs, he bets I fold. I think I played this hand too timidly, either I should have checked the flop and tried to play it cheap for the draw; or I should have played aggressively representing an A, and see how he reacts. Leading, and backing off was the wrong approach with this player.
Hand 2: I'm UTG with JJ, tricky player passed on the blinds and is sitting out. I raise, 3 call behind me (the loose passive players), sb folds, bb (loose aggressive) re-raises, all call.
Flop comes: Q J 8 rainbow.
bb checks, I bet, 3 call, he raises I re-raise, all call. (I was thinking about calling and raising/betting on the turn, but since there is a possible str8 on the flop and 4 plyrs in there I might as well make it as expensive as possible). The turn is an Ace of the other suit. BB checks, I bet, 2 call he raises again! What could he have? (AA, k-10, QQ, AQ, 9-10, AK?? Even though he raised on the flop, he is very aggressive so all of these are a possibility), I just call to see what the river brings, the other two fold??? River comes a 10. Oh oh, any 9 or K beats me. I involuntarilly place the chips I was shuffling back on my stack, and I notice the BB sees this, I see him grab for his chips, then he checks (trying to induce a check??). What should I do????
I'll post the result later.
On the first hand, don't be fooled by all the checking. With this many opponents someone could be easily slow playing an Ace. I think your flop bet was bad poker. You should check here and try to get a free card or at least take a card off cheaply. Your bet got appropriately punished with a raise forcing you to pay another bet to pursue your draw. Although the turn card gives you a few more outs, you should still check and call with your draw. You have to fold on the river when a blank comes. You did not play the hand too timidly at all. In fact, you lost too much money on this hand.
On the second hand you should pound the pot incessantly with your flopped set of Jacks. You should not have taken your foot off the gas pedal on the turn but kept raising. You could easily have the best hand and you have 10 redraws to beat a straight if anyone has one. At the river, just check it down since there are four parts to a straight on the table.
I agree with all of the above except for one thing. In the first instance, an alternative is that he could've come back over the top on the flop, either to slow the early position player down, to invite an attempted check-raise for the turn (where he THEN checks and takes the free card), or to find out where he was at so he can dump the hand (nothing like making your hand and getting crushed with a full-house).
In this manner, he loses 1/2 bet less if he is in bad shape -- and -- works on his "speed" image a bit. You really don't want your opponents thinking you will slow down just because you get check-raised on the flop, or they will do this to you with anything. If his opponent REALLY had that good of a hand, wouldn't he have likely saved the check-raise for the turn?
In the first hand in essence u were betting as a semibluff with the additional benfit of trying to gain a free card. Once check raised if u believe the other player does not have an ace or even if he has a weak ace such as A 9,10,J a reraise will often induce him into checking the turn card (especially given his perception of you at which point u can either take the free card or bet again if u think he will release(although it is hard to see what hands he can have that will release on the turn i would have a strong inclination to check). In the second hand i would play as jim brier stated with "my foot on the gas pedal" I would however be inclined to be the end there are several hands he will call with at this point which are worse than yours. Unless this player has a habbit of check raising on the end a bet in my view is almost certainly correct.
There are several reasons why a flop bet is called for in the first hand:
1. Semi-bluff
There is not always a bushwhacker lying in the weeds. There are 7 small bets in the pot. A bet here will win the pot often enough to make it a worthwhile semi-bluff. Besides, if you get called, you do have some outs.
Notice that an AA8 flop (as opposed to an A87 flop for example) makes it less likely that someone has an Ace. Also, the AA8 flop makes it less likely that someone will call with an 8 (as he has to think that he could be drawing dead).
2. Setting it up for a more valuable free card
Even if someone has an Ace, there is a chance that that someone will just call the flop and look for the checkraise on the turn. If you sense that, you of course have the option to take the free card on the turn. You have (by betting the flop) bought yourself a more valuable free card.
3. Making it easier to read your opponents
By betting the flop, you make it easier to read your opponents. Here's an example. You check the flop. The turn card is the 2s. There is a bet and a raise on the turn before it gets to you. Now, it would seem to you that your low spade flush is no good and you should probably throw it away at this point. But the fact is that your failure to bet the flop has made it tougher for you to fold with a clear conscience. If I am one of your opponents, I might very well raise on the turn with just trip Aces because I would figure that no one likely made a flush given the lack of a bet on the turn and besides, I want to protect my hand from someone making a flush on the river cheaply.
4. Balancing your play a little
If you do not semibluff with a flush draw on the button after 6 people have checked, you become very easy to read when you do bet in a multiway field. While it is good to have a tight image, it is better to have a tight aggressive image and it is certainly better than having the image of a rock (unless of course you put that rock image to use by stealing your share of pots).
5. Causing overcards to fold
A bet is sure to get out hands such as KQ, KJ, QJ etc.
Another point:
As I recall the original post, the checkraise on the flop came from the tricky fella who was sitting two to the right of our hero. Let us put ourselves in TP's shoes. Here is what he might be thinking if he held an Ace:
a. Well, I am known as a tricky player. Nobody will believe me if I bet....so, I will bet.
b. Well, there are only 2 players left to act behind me. The action might get checked through. I better bet.
c. Well, I have an Ace and probably have the best hand. But there is a flush draw out there. As well, it is a multiway pot. Slowplaying could get me in trouble. I will bet here and save my trickiness for another day.
d. All right, I will slip my Ace on the flop. Ok, I see the guy on the button bet and everyone folded. Surely, he will likely bet again on the turn if I check. I will give him a little tickle with a raise on the turn.
In other words, the way the action went, it is unlikely that any of the players close to the right of our hero have an Ace. If someone is holding an Ace and slowplaying, it is more likely to be someone in the blinds or in early position. I would probably have played this player more aggressively as I would not put him on an Ace (i.e., a turn raise would not be out of the question from me).
skp,
I was almost out the door when I saw this thread. I love this post and was almost able to predict its content (more or less) before I read it. One brief comment. I like the three bet on the flop.
The gist of it is that you just can't play ABC against quality players. They will slaughter you.
Regards,
Rick
(n/t).
While SKP's post is fine for a sane game the one at issue has 7 people taking the flop. On my planet this means:
1. Semi-bluffs are not semi-bluffs since there is a nearly zero chance of winning right away.
2. Most won't raise with trips until the turn thwarting your quest for information.
3. Balancing your play (making sub-optimal plays for image/deception) is worth almost nothing. Few are aware enough to notice.
4. They all came to play. Overcards won't fold.
The part about getting a free card is valid.
-Fred-
It would seem that the probability of someone having an Ace should significantly drop when there are two Aces on the flop versus one. However, I found that hands which people limp in with frequently contain an Ace and that when 7 people take a flop usually one of them has an Ace regardless of whether 1 or 2 Aces flop. Now 3 Aces flopping is a different story.
Actually, I would think that betting without an Ace when 3 Aces flop is a riskier play than betting without an Ace when 2 Aces flop. This is because your opponents will correctly assume that you are probably bluffing or are betting with a pocket pair (which would be a small pocket pair if you did not raise preflop). After all, no one would expect you to bet an AAA flop if you held an Ace! The chances of being called (or raised) by KQ, KJ and the like are likely greater with a AAA flop (the once in a blue moon occurence as it is) as opposed to an AAx flop.
And I (obviously) do disagree with NJ Fred on his doubts as to the effectiveness of a semi-bluff in this situation. Bluffing and semi-bluffing on paired flops is a play that has made me a ton of dough. IMO, this is easily one of the most profitable bluffing situations in hold 'em. In fact, it is a play that can often be even more effective when made from an early position - i.e., that I hold trips is an easier sell if my bet is made from an early position.
No real insight here.
1st hand: TP puts you on a flush draw. His actual hand doesn't matter much. If he has an ace it is probably not that good but that doesn't matter b/c he wont fold any ace head up. After you get check-raised on the flop I would have either 1) called and semi-bluff raise his turn bet if I thought he would fold a hand like 99 or 87 or 2) call and call the turn bet if I thought he had an ace or if he wont fold a hand like 99. A lot of the above is related to TP's perception of you, the rest is his playing habits.
2nd hand: Given the play of the hand and the combination of his possible hands I'd bet the river and call a checkraise(esp. head up). The problem here is BB took control of the hand preflop. It would cost you one more bet to cap it but players that flop good hands in a multiway capped pot tend to play pretty straightforwardly that makes up for that extra small bet preflop. If you would've raised the turn you wouldn't be guessing on the river. You might be mucking but you wouldn't be guessing.
Of course, I can't say what the BB had but I think its either AQ or QQ or 9T. Even though you lose to 2 out of 3 of those hands you wont get checkraised by any of them (you might get checkraise bluffed by a hand you beat, but it's a unique player that will try that and only one that think's you would bet the river w/o a king.) Another problem with the hand is that it's too coincidental that you and the BB are the ones fighting over this pot. This doesn't mean that he can't have a straight or bigger set but it would take another bet or two to convince me.
A tip: only riffle and jack around with your chips when you're not in a hand.
chris
I think its either AQ or QQ or 9T. Even though you lose to 2 out of 3 of those hands
It's better than this. T-9 seems unlikely for a raise from the BB even by a loose player, and the BB wasn't described as a maniac. At this point there is only 1 QQ combination available and 4 AQ combos. It may be 4 to 1 that you DO have the best hand.
BTW: what about AA? If the BB could have that, then it's only 2-1 in your favor. Hey, even wild people get the goods sometimes.
Fat-Charlie
That's why I like 3betting preflop.
I tend to agree with skp here on hand 1, I should have re-raised the player; if not to see where he's at, but to change up the play a little and avoid being predictable. Plus I think there was a good chance he was also on a draw or had an 8, since when it got around to him he saw we would be heads up and if he did have an ace he probably would have waited for the turn for a check-raise.
On hand 2: I bet, he called, I showed my JJ, he mucked but as he mucked I could see an Ace going in the muck so I guess he must have had AQ.
Thanks for all your responses
You have QQ in SB, assume no one raise: would you raise or call if there are 2 limpers, or if there are 5 limpers?
Instead of QQ, you have JJ in SB. Would you raise or call if there are 2 limpers, or if there are 5 limpers.
I'm trying to determine when those hands should be raised. It seems to me that an overcard often falls on the flop and it's hard to draw to a two outer not to mention playing out of position.
I'd say it depends on how people play the flop. If a bet on the flop means Big Draw or Top Pair/Fair to Excellent kicker then I would raise out of the blinds with both JJ and QQ. If it's a game where a bet on the flop means gutshot draw to top set to middle pair/no kicker, then I'd probably just call in the SB blind and take no option in the BB.
An overcard will flop quite often but that has nothing to do with it.
chris
I would certainly raise with either hand when facing 2 limpers. Even if and A or K comes, they may not have part of it. With 5 limpers, I'd be more inclined to raise with the Q-Q, but even then, it would depend on how my opponents play their "A-x" hands. A limp with Q-Q or J-J before the flop when facing a big field isn't such a bad idea.
With 1 limper i raise with any catorgy 1 or 2 hand in the small blind.
With 2 limpers I raise with any catorgy 1 hand.
With 3 limpers i might raise with AA or KK.
With 4 or more limpers i never raise pre flop out of the blinds in low limit holdem. I may go for the check raise on thr flop if i have a big pair if i think it will be bet.
Thats my 2 cents worth!
Raise with QQ regardless of how many limpers. Raise with JJ if there are two limpers or fewer. Three limpers is borderline and with 4 or more just call.
You have QQ in SB, assume no one raise: would you raise or call if there are 2 limpers, or if there are 5 limpers?
In both cases.
Instead of QQ, you have JJ in SB. Would you raise or call if there are 2 limpers, or if there are 5 limpers.
In both cases, raise.
In my low limit game if you raise out of the blind and make the pot big over cards have a nasty habit of calling you all the way to the river. Maybe in a hagher limit game where people are capable of folding high cards if they miss the flop this might be a good idea, but in low limit games i would not do it, they just will not fold.
Atleast this has been my experaince! Maybe the games you play in are differnt.
Hello,
I tend to play in weekend hold 'em games where the game atmosphere tends to shift a lot from tight to loose to tight, etc. . I have heard from many sources that the key is to shift gears so that you can take advantage of the table atmosphere. I do so when appropriately and I initially have good results....
My problem tends to be that as I loosen my hand selection with many pre-flop callers, I can't seem to get back to my tight hand selection once the table tightens up. I'm still on "loose gear" while the table is back on "tight gear". Consequently, that is the major reason for my chips to deteriorate.
Even though I book many wins, they're still not as high as they could (and should!) be.
Can anyone relate to this? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Carry a stick to your next session taped to the inside of your pants leg. When you find yourself playing hands that you've decided not to play, go outside, untape your stick and beat yourself over the head until you've taught yourself a lesson.
I have heard of a strange theory that money at the poker table moves clockwise, therefore it is logical to be 'downstream' from the source of money, and sit to the left of the players with all the chips.
I really can't make any sense of this. While I believe that the end result may in some cases be the same, the logic baffles me.
All other things being the same, players with more chips would tend, in the big scheme of things, to be the better players. Sure it might be advantageous to be at their left if there are no loose aggressive types at the table. But this would be for the OPPOSITE reason that is usually given - they might be the headwaters of the money, but they are a big whirlpool disrupting the normal flow and sucking all of the money in toward them, from all directions.
But if there IS a maniac, big stack or no, I want to be downstream of him. He'll just buy more if he dries up anyway.
-SmoothB-
It's a "strange theory" if you don't recognize the inherent value of position. It's more pronounced in hold'em than it is in omaha8 or stud but it's present at every table (money moving clockwise).
Chris, I think SmoothB understands the value of position. What he doesn't understand is why in limit poker one should prefer to sit behind a big stack compared to a medium stack, when the medium stack is just going to rebuy if he gets low. I don't understand that either. (It's one of Caro's pieces of advice, right?)
I will note that a huge stack of chips is usually a fish, because a tight player can't win that much in one session. However, especially in higher stakes games a big stack could be a pro who, for the sake of intimidation, bought far in excess of what he needed.
-Abdul
in general caro is right that the money does move clockwise. in the end it moves mostly to the dealers rake hole and then whats left goes towards the better players with the best getting the lions share. years back the big stacks were lucky suckers or good aggressive players and you did indeed want to be on their left or you wouldnt win in the game. nowadays many of the good players, tight players, and bad alike buy in for big stacks.
I think we are going on the assumption that players are pretty equally matched. However, we know that this is not usually true. I believe money flows to the best players on the table, then to the average players, then to the chip burners.
Caro's advice is that if you know little or nothing about the players at a table, sit behind the chips, as you have nothing else to go on.
If you know the players, you can then choose your seat based on your knowledge, not on their stack size.
I was at one of the Station Casinos recently when a older lady sit down to my right. Everyone seem to know her and welcomed her to the table. It seemed she had won a jackpot recently and everyone kept reminding her about it. I soon figured out why. She played poorly, and predictibly, and flashed her cards to left and right players by standing them on end to look at them. Well, I almost couldn't help but see them, I took advantage of this a couple of times. Then I soon found myself cranning my neck some to get a better look. I realized that I was getting out of character and felt others would notice me doing this. I don't need THAT reputation, besides it was distracting me from watching the other players.
So,eventually I just mentioned to her that she should protect her hand at all times. She immediatly put a chip on her cards but continued put on the show. I then mentioned that the player to her right and I could see her cards.
Just because I didn't want to look anymore didn't stop her right hand opponent from carrying on a lively conversation with her while peering. I didn't want him to continue this advantage so when she did it again quickly I told her "you have an A, don't you". She said it was a habit and that's why she liked the 1 or 10 seat. I then explained about the opposite player (1 or 10) being able to look across with the dealer running interference, same difference.
I felt better, but the regulars got extremly silent and cold tword me. I soon took my winnings home, but was I right to do this ? I feel like I pooped the party of everyone that likes to play against her and that take advantage of this "habit". They should beat her anyway and apparently she had money to burn. I just don't like people taking advantage over those who are already handicapped. Should I change my frame of reference and leave my morals at home, to deal with the immoral ? Comments ?
" It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep thier money"
you told her repedately, thats all you can do. although I am not shure I would play at a table with some good players on her sides as they have a 2 card knowledge advantage over you.
Her motive for playing is so different from your motive that she is like alien. She is lonely and likes the attention. Squandering her money for attention may seem unlikely, but for the elderly, sometimes money has lost some of it's value. You tried to do what you felt was right and that was more than you owed her.
Clint, it is not your job to captain the table and make sure every player's interest is protected. It is your job to win money and take advantage of every thing that offers an advantage. Just keep quiet and let the house worry about player's flashing their cards and not protecting their hand.
I believe good sportsmanship is no less important in poker competition than in athletic competition. In fact, it may be more important.
I think when someone infirm or mentally challenged, seems unable to properly protect their hand or is so unaware of what beats what (calling when they have an underpair to 2 pair on the board), then they should be helped. Novices will learn soon enough and this might be considered a training cost.
The problem is that many players seem not to want to allow this to happen. I think greed is taking control. With such a player the money will be lost anyway. It will just take a few more hours if they are properly protecting their cards.
Once the problem has been explained and the person still persists then there is very little to be done.
I agree with the "golden rule" but think it does not apply to some one who is handicapped.
Just my opinion.
Clint, let´s imagine that while playing poker you´ve noticed that opponent Z is repeatedly making a certain mistake and you exploit that mistake (e.g. you bluff against that player a lot because he´s so timid). What would you do if someone tells Z: "hey that guy is just bluffing, call him down?"
Do you think it´s that player´s business to advise Z and would you perhaps be a little bit upset because of that?
The player or players who see her cards have a very good advantage over the rest of the table, not just over her. How would you like to have a flop of 3 7's and know she folded one. that would make the second nut the absolute nuts. There are other more subtle examples but you get the point. I have told people who expose their cards that it is not fair to the rest of the table, even if they don't care about their own welfare.
You are absolutely correct, but I answered the question of "ethical or mind your own business?", not "should I tell her to veil her hand (even though I can see her cards) because some others have got a better view?", so I guess both of us are right.
Alerting a novice or elderly player that they are inadvertently exposing their cards is good sportsmanship, and good sportsmanship at the table promotes good poker games.
A couple of months ago Smooth B described his first 10-20 experience and I thought I would do the same as I tried this limit for the first time yesterday. Fortunately for me, my first time went a lot better than Smooth B's.
Anyway, when I first sat down I was very nervous and played extremely tight. Probably too tight but I told myself that it would be better to pay too tight than not tight enough. I also did not want to play many hands early so I could get a feel for the game and the players. After an hour or so I was about even having only played a couple of hands.
I think it was very good not to play many hands and just watch the other players. Smooth B mentioned that he was surprised at how poor some of the players at these levels were. I was as well. Almost shocked. I think the players simply have more money than anything else. At my table there were a couple of very aggressive players but the rest of the table was loose and somewhat passive. although, the one thing I noticed immediately was the number of "blind stealing" attempts. I don't think I played my big blind for the first two hours. Everytime it was raised and I had junk so I just mucked it. But often the raiser would have to show his hand and it would be 10-Jo or 6-6 or something like that. I think I gained a reputation as extremely tight and some players tried to raise on me more than most.
Anyway after about two hours I was still about even and finally started to get some decent cards. I won two big pots in about ten minutes and was up about $250. The first one I had Kh,Kd in the cutoff position and player in 2nd position raised, I three bet and the button capped it. I had never played with any of these players before so I wasn't sure what the button would have but I thought I had a better hand then him. The flop came Jd, 8d, 2c. First player checked so I bet, button raised, other player called and I called, I was thinking of reraising but AA was a possibility. (Should I have re-raised?). Turn was 8h. Checked to me and I bet. I thought I would find out for sure if he had AA, button just called, other player mucked. River was 6s. I bet and button folded. I never found out what he had but I won a nice sized pot and felt much better after this.
I continued to player very tight and just play my premium hands. In a five minute span, I folded two hands where I would have flopped a straight but I think the hands were marginal calls at best. The first one, I had 10-Jo on the button, only one caller to me so I mucked thinking there would only be three players at the most so the pot would not be very big. Flop came K,Q,9 rainbow. Oh well. Next one I'm in the BB with A-2o, two callers and button raises, so I muck. flop is 3,4,5,. Were these mucks too tight? I think they were marginals calls at best so I wasn't too upset.
I received some pretty decent cards throughout the night. AA once, which won; KK three time, two wins; QQ twice, two wins. There was a lot less chasing than in the 4-8 and 5-10 games I usually play in. So the players were better but just slightly. The starting hand requirements of the players were very low. I constantly saw people playing 7-8o and calling raises with 10-Jo, etc.
I stayed very disciplined throughout and never let myself waver even after I was up. I think this is the best part of playing higher limits. You know that every bet is costly and, therefore, you only bet when you think you have the best of it.
After about five hours I went home up $575. Very happy with my first 10-20 experience obviously. Any comments appreciated.
An update: I've been playing 10-20 on a regular basis since that time and have been doing very well. Averaging about 22.75 per hour over 400 hours.
Sounds like you got dealt some good hands and they held up - good for you. You have to admit that getting AA once, KK three times, and QQ twice in 5 hours (about 200 hands or less) is rather unusual - and you had them hold up at a better than average rate. (You should have expected to get dealt these hands somewhat less than 3 times in 200 hands - you got them at more than double the normal rate.)
Anyway, good to hear that the experience went well for you. Here's to continued success!
-SmoothB-
On the first hand, you should re-raise with your pocket Kings and backdoor Diamond flush draw. AA is too remote to worry about. On the second and third hands your mucks were correct.
Your observation about the calibre of play as you move up in hold-em is correct. This is why hold-em is a much better game to play at in the middle limits than 7-card stud where the players become quite good at $10-$20 stud and above.
My experience was a bit different. The 10-20 game was having trouble getting started so the floor asked some of the 6-12 players(from the main game) if they wanted to enter the 10-20 game. I decided to make my move.
1) I can beat these 6-12 guys that said they would join in.
2) The few that were at the 10-20 I have watched many times and did not look to be to tough.
I decided to take my shot.
I also played very tight till I got a feel for the game. This took about 3 orbits. I was not getting the good cards that you received so my table image was not going very well. The games was more aggressive. than the 6/12. The regular 10-20 players could smell the blood in the water as they knew there were (4) 6-12 players "Taking a shot". I did wait for top hand but decided to just limp/reraise. (If I raised then every1 would just fold.)
This was a great way to setup a few steals which I pulled off.
All in all I found that:
1) If you chase you will pay(same at other levels but it just costs more)
2) YOU CAN BLUFF!!!!!!!!!!!
Best of it !!
MJ
This hand came up today among 2 normaly very good players. The BB is a friend of mine and we often discuss hands together. I'd like to get comments to see if I am missing anything.
After 3 limpers, button raises, BB calls, rest call.
The flop came 962r
BB checked, rest checked, button bet, BB raised, 1 terrible loose/passive player called 2 cold, button called.
Turn was an off 8
BB bet, limper called, button raised, BB re-raised, limper folded, button called.
River was a K
BB checked, button checked. BB showed 98, and button mucked QQ face up.
I thought there were a few of questionable plays here.
1). The button's failure to re-raise the flop. With a loose/passive player calling 2 cold, this didn't seem to me like the right time to slow play his overpair. Am I wrong on this?
2). The BB's failure to bet the river. He reasoned that when the button raised the turn, he must have AA or KK. I felt heck, he's the button in a multi-way pot. He could have JTs! Also, since the BB was SO sure the button could have AA or KK, he felt there was a 50% chance the king gave him a set. Isn't this incorrect thinking given a king on the board? I would have definitely bet the river for value and thought he missed a bet. I would appreciate any comments on this hand. Thanks.
Kevin
You can't go through life -- or poker -- worrying too much about low-probability disasters. Someone hitting KK on the river for a set is pretty low probability -- if it happens, you're out the pot, but it will very very rarely happen. If that's the only thing you fear, by all means keep betting.
1) I think you could go either way here. If the button thinks that the BB will bet on the turn is buttons calls the flop or check the turn if button reraises the flop, then it's pretty reasonable to back off and then raise on the turn. It potentially traps the limper for more money.
2) As I said above, I would certainly not put the button on only AA or KK. Any overpair, two pair, even a set given that there's a straight on the board with the BB firing hard. It's hard to read hands without any information about the players, obviously.
I think that the play is potentially reasonable, but not because you think that the other player might have hit a set on the river there. I would be more worried that you are already behind and that the other player is certainly not going to fold a better hand, and might not call with many worse hands. Though of course he would in this case (or with AA, JJ or TT, but probably not with one pair or an (unlikely) worse two pair).
If you confidently put someone on AA or KK, look at it this way. With a K on the board, there's 3 ways they can have KK and 6 ways they can have AA. So he's twice as likely to have AA.
- target
1. As long as the limper tends to call on the turn, I don't think it makes much difference, although I'm personally inclined to 3-bet the flop with an overpair against two opponents. The counter-argument is that the limper, if already inclined to call on the turn, is more likely to be trapped for two big bets if the button slowplays. On the other hand, you don't necessarily want him hanging on to the river with god-knows-what. If the limper tends to fold overcards or a small pair on the turn then not raising to flop is a big mistake.
2. I agree, although there's a persuasive logic to the bb's action that goes like this: if I bet the turn, I might get raised and have to make a hard decision that I don't trust myself to make correctly, and for big stakes (the pot). The more rational play is to check.
Pre-flop, I don't think the big blind should call a raise with Nine-Eight unless it was suited.
On the flop, the big blind's check-raise has merit because he has top pair with a weak kicker and the button will probably bet even over cards here. By check-raising, he forces everyone else to call two bets cold which might drive them out. A re-raise by the button is clear given his large over pair. He probably has the best hand and should charge everyone else to stay and play.
At the river, the big blind should clearly bet since there are only 3 ways for KK but 6 ways for AA and 6 ways for QQ. It is not a 50-50 proposition at all given the presence of a King on the table between AA and KK. AA is twice as likely.
30-60. Player A raises UTG w/ K-K. Player B on his immediate left re-raises and player C on raiser's immediate left caps (3 raise limit). Everyone else folds; A and B call and they take the capped flop 3-handed.
Player B is a good but not great player; Player C is a better player than player B, very tough and very smart.
Flop comes J-J-2. Player A bets; player B folds and player C calls. Turn is a blank; no flush possible. Player A bets and Player C calls. River is another blank. Player A checks; Player C bets. Player A calls and his K-K loses to Player C's A-A.
Questions:
Knowing that Player C is capable of laying down a big hand when he knows (or thinks he knows) he's beat, could Player A have won the pot with a check-raise on either the turn or river (or both)? Should Player A have played differently in any event?
All answers, or other comments, appreciated.
Egads, no, KK is just not going to win this pot. It looks like both players played it well. I even like KK's bet on the turn, as trips are actually quite unlikely. KK really should bet the river, hoping to get called by AK, definitely getting called by QQ and TT, and hoping the opponent did not have JJ or AJs/QJs and won't raise if he has AA.
-Abdul
I was K-K. After playing the hand, I felt checking and calling on the river was the worst thing I could do. Your suggestion to bet the river is certainly better. But what about check-raising on the river? Or is there just too much money in the pot at this point for A-A to lay down, even if he is "almost" 100% sure I must have a jack? I was pretty sure I was beat. It just didn't figure this player would cap pre-flop after UTG raised and the next player re-raised without a big pocket pair. (Or am I assuming too much against a quality player?) Since I had Kings, I put him on either Queens, or, more likely, given the action, Aces.
Thanks, Abdul.
A check-raise in this particular situation won't work but there's is one scenario in which it might, and that is against an aggressive player that milks his hands for all they're worth and makes up for it, he thinks, by making great laydowns. Sometimes these guys fold winners at the first evidence that they're beaten.
I don't think it fits this scenario well, where the aces apparently chose not to raise primarily due to fear of inducing a fold, rather than fear of trip jacks. In a somewhat different situation, however, one can imagine an overpair thinking itself vulnerable to a trips, but raising anyway. When the check-raise on the river comes, the worst fear is realized and the best hand mucks as a result of his frame of mind.
I recently made a mistake that sort of illustrates this. I don't remember the particulars, but the river card put the third ace on board, and I had no ace but a queen to match a queen on board. I had been leading in last position against one opponent. I was pretty sure he didn't have an ace, but something, probably early aggression on his part, made me concerned about this. Anyway, on the river he check-raised and I mucked before I realized that he should be making this play with another queen, maybe less. (Damned point-and-click poker).
The question is: what is the chance that a back-of-the-mind fear of overplaying might cloud my opponent's judgment?
Very good points, Chris. I think it is possible that this player could have folded to a check raise on the river, but not probable. There are, however, two players who I play against regularly who would have been susceptible to this play, one of whom makes it a pont to show his quality hands when souping to a raise on the river. This guy who shows his laydowns is exactly the type of player your describe: very aggressive, yet quick to soup when you show counter-agression, particularly on the river after calling all the way.
Andy, there's nothing you can do in this situation to change the outcome. Sometimes, regardless of the stakes, you both can play the hand well and lose. If you bet, he calls; if you check, he bets, you call. The only option is to lose more money with a check-raise, as it is unlikely either hand will fold.
ABdul is completely correct. Pretty amazing for someone who I have never seen playing higher than 30-60.
No player worth his salt is going to lay down pocket rockets in a heads-up situation like this with a large pot at stake. Player A should bet the river since he will get called by worse hands unless he is certain Player C would never cap it with QQ or AK. If Player C has a better hand he won't raise because of the open pair of Jacks on the table.
There does not look like much you can do differently in this spot. The only option I see is to check the turn, check-raise the river and pray he thinks you have a Jack. But, I have to admit this likely will not work.
Here are some hands where I thought maybe I went to far in some places. Tell me if you think I misplayed it.
1) The casino was about to close in 10 mins, I rasied UTG w/ QQ. 2 directly behind me cold call, one player in late position cold calls and the SB 3 bets! BB folds I cap (is this too much, i wanted to lose a player or 3 behind me), the one directly behind me folded the other 2 called as did the SB.
The flop came J 7 3 rainbow.
SB checked (!?), I bet, next player raises, late position player folds, SB makes it 3, I reluctantly call (mistake?), and the player behind me caps it. All call.
The turn was
Q
Check, I check, player behind me bets SB calls I raise all call.
River was a small blank CHeck bet call call.
Yes I was superlucky but shoudl i fold to 2 cold on the flop? After the player behind me capped then I actually have odds to call if I think Im drawing to a Q... (SB had AA, mid player said he had 77, and was annoyed.)
2) 3 limp, SB folds I call in BB 47o.
Flop comes 8 9 T rainbow. I bet out as the pot is small and there is a chance I maybe able to pick it up and I do have a reasonable draw, 1 calls next raises other folds... I call as does the other. The turn is 7, I check check next player bets, I fold, call call.
I suspect many will tell me this is a bad bet, but I may have 8 outs, and have a chance to win it right away. (or am I overestimating this chance!?)
3)K 4o in BB 3 limper SB folds.
Flop comes K 95, rainbow. I bet and 2 call. Both players are sufficiently aggressive that I thought it was unlikely either had a K.
The turn is an offsuit J.
I bet again (is this too much?) next player raises other folds. I thought for a minute and assumed he prbly had two pair and it wasn't w/o a K so I decided to call and hope the board paired or a 4 fell. The problem was I a) might be dead wrong and drawing thin,(if not dead if he has a set) and b) even if he had 2 pair w/o a K and the board paired I didn't really know where I stood.
The river was a K. I checked (?), and he checked . I showed a K and he made some comment about having 2 pair...
4) 4 limp I call in SB w/ 66 BB calls BB calls.
FLop comes J J 2. I bet as I think its pretty likely I have the best hand, and I may even get a better hand to fold. ALl fold except the button who just calls.
Let me say I thought either a) he has a J, or b) he's trying to represent the slowplayed J and thinks Im tight and will pbly lay down on the turn...
the turn is an ugly Q. I check he bets quickly and I call,(Is a checkraise here too much?) The river is a small blank, check bet call. He says ,"good call", and I show 66 and he mucks. I shoudl note I dont do this very often but his play didn't seem natural...
Im sure Im going to get a hard time w/these hands, I was just curious to how badly you think I played them.
ALl comments appreciated!!
Hand 1: No, you shouldn't have folded to the double raise on the flop. You've still got an overpair which may yet be good even if you don't improve. Plus there's enough money in there to make taking a card off OK anyway.
Hand 2: I don't like your bet on the flop. See Mason's recent article in Poker Digest about drawing to the "idiot" end of a straight. ("Idiot" refers to a non-nut draw, not to you.) You have almost no chance of picking up the pot on the flop with a flop of 8-9-T. Anyone with a 7, 8,9,T,J or Q is probably going to (at least) call.
Hand 3: I agree with your logic that neither opponent probably had a King, or there would have either been a raise pre-flop or when you bet. But now you've got to consider what they do have. Possibly a draw to an inside straight, possibly middle or bottom pair, possibly a set and, on the turn, possibly a straight. You indeed might be drawing thin or dead. However, once you called and caught a King on the river, I would have bet for value.
Hand 4: If you suspect an opponent might be on a steal, and you've got a small or middle pair, you should make a move either on the flop or turn, rather than let 1 or 2 free cards come that might beat you. Plus you might get him to release a bigger pair than your 6s, suspecting you have a jack.
Thanks for the comments.
In hand 4, I bet the flop, though I checked the turn. I thought it was too easy for him to raise as a bluff and really didn't want to invest another BB to find out if He was bluffing or not. Maybe I should checkraise the turn, but Im not sure.
Similarly in hand 3 either Im right (and may not even get a call on the river) or im dead wrong and ill get reraised. Is checking so weak? I thoguht alot would bet here regardless.
I guess the bet in hand 2 was weak. I suppose I shoudl be albe to name a lot of hands that would lay down and i can't!
Here's a hand I played today in the $30-$60 Hold 'em Game at The Bellagio. (Note the blinds are $20 and $30.)
Two players limped in, one early and one in the middle. I called on the button with KsQh. Both blinds played (and there was no raise).
The flop came Qc7c7s. It was checked to me and I bet. The player in the small blind position called, and the player in the middle, who plays quite well, also called.
Fourth street was the 3h. It was checked to me. I bet and both players called. On the river the 7h came. It was checked to me and I checked.
All comments are welcome.
What happened to checking on the Turn in this spot?
It is too dangerous to give a free card on the turn. I don't think the middle player had a 7, or he would have bet on the flop. I am aware that lots of players slow play thier sets too much, but I will assume that is not the case in this situation because 1) he is a good player, 2) there is a possible flush draw and 3) he cannot rely on Mason to bet the flop for him.
But the small blind could easily have a 7. If the s.b. check-raises the turn, then Mason should fold. In this situation he loses the same as if he were to check the turn, and call the river, but he doesn't give away a free card.
Steve
Although I don't know what the average Joe limps with in 30-60, I would have raised with KQ and the Button in this scenario. The rest of the play seems straightforward. Bet the flop and turn. Given their calls, there is no reason to bet the river as you might be beat. If you aren't beat, you will probably only get called by another Q and chop it up.
I enjoy trying to learn from these posts.
I'm not sure I understand the limp on the button with just 2 limpers, letting the blinds take a cheap/free flop. Is it because:
1). Players limp with better hands such as AA, AQ, etc.
2). A limp on the button here is just as scary, perhaps more so than a raise? So you may still gain control.
3). The game is tight enough to where you want action from the blinds?
The bet on the flop seems pretty automatic. As does the bet on the turn given the club draw, even though you might be subjected to a fancy raise.
At first glance the check on the end seems irrational since no one figures to have a queen or a 7 for that matter. But maybe that's just the point. How likely is it to be called by a worse hand? Would the good player in middle position limp with AA,KK, QQ, etc.? On the other hand, would the sb call with any pocket pair or a hand like X3c? I have a funny feeling I am way off in my analysis of this hand. I'm looking forward to other responses.
It seems as though the play of this hand was based not only on the fact that you knew the one player played well, but that he knew that you knew he played well, and that he knew that you played well also.
His overcall on the turn suggests that he has at least a Q, and maybe a seven. I don't know what else he could have. The pot is small, so I wouldn't think he has a flush draw... particularly since you'd think he (the good player, or GP) would have lead bet this uncoordinated flop with nine outs and a reasonable chance at stealing the pot.
If he's got quads on the river he's probably thinking one of two things; either that you have nothing and will likely bet one more time to try and steal, or that you have a hand you like (namely a Q) and will try and value bet. Hence his check. It's hard to give him credit for quads since he didn't check raise the turn (or lead bet) and because there arent' many hands involving a 7 that a good player will call with up front, but it's not clear what else he could have. If he's got a Q you'd think he would have made some noise at some point, particularly with two suited flop.
That said, I think the GP should have lead bet the river IF the SB was any kind of player at all. If the SB is a bad player than it makes sense to just check, since the SB might call your bet but not overcall his bet. However, since he overcalled the turn his hand he's kind of 'given his hand away', so if he knows you play well then he knows you've noticed this and won't try to value bet with something like pocket 8's with two callers on the turn. But there is a chance that you might make a crying call with an underpair.
Preflop: Calling is okay because the limpers are from early and middle positions. Since you are on the button already you don't have to raise to buy the button.
Flop: Betting is fine because you have to find out where you are and don't want to give a free card to the flush draws.
Turn: Your play is fine because the situation is similar to the flop with a small card coming on the turn.
River: I am surprised that you didn't bet. It is true that you will not get any calls from missed flush draws and will be raised from someone who has the case 7 (i.e., your betting will have no value.) But, it is not likely the case 7 is out because most of the time you'll be check-raised on the turn. So, there is some chance that someone will have middle pocket pairs who'll pay your off. Someone may also think you are trying to buy the pot. I would value bet in this position 90% of the time.
My guess is one player was on a flush draw and the other had AK or maybe a pair smaller than Queens in his hand.
I am with Kokiak in that someone had a busted draw and the other player had a small pair or AK(the small blind).
I would have checked the turn with Mason's hand. Betting the turn in that spot is very dangerous because he's risking all kinds of tricky raises from the other two players. Check-raise bluffing is not out of the question for the small blind! The risk of giving a free card for the flush draw is not too significant because KQ may already be dead.
Checking on the end is too conservative! Had the other players had anything he would have heard from them already.
I don't know Mason. This hand seems quite routine to me.
You may have wanted to Raise with KQo in late position since it doesn't seem like anyone else has a better hand.
On the Flop you bet of course. On the Turn you bet again because of the Flush Draw. If there was no Draw you may have wanted to check the Turn since the only card that really hurts you is the Ace and someone may have you beat aready. You also set up a Bluff catching opportunity on the River against someone who may not have called the Turn.
Now on the River you check because you will most likely Split or be Beat by any caller. Your River bet has no positive expectation.
OK where is the trick,
CV
I assume most will agree with the bet on the flop and the turn and thus the discussion will center around just calling pre-flop and, most especially, checking on the river.
Just calling pre-flop is consistent with S & M advice to not raise in a multi-way pot with unsuited high cards. I would have raised to try to get the blinds out, but I understand the logic of limping.
On the river, you have to suspect something fishy. The good player especially probably didn't put you on a Queen since you didn't raise pre-flop. You should have been raised by someone to this point. I would suspect either both hands are missed flushes or you might be looking at a slow played monster. Is this the thinking behind your check on the river?
Now I have never played a game where it is correct to call in the SB with anything when the Pot hasn't been raised.
Now with High Cards where you don't give up much by limping in late when there have already been callers you may have an other opportunity to get the SB to play poorly because they have gotten themselves domintated with Kx or Qx.
Just a thought.
CV
Re your 2nd paragraph, I do understand this is part of the logic of not raising pre-flop with big unsuited high cards. For me, I prefer to raise and try to eliminate some competition. But your point is a good one. And maybe sb did indeed have Q-weak kicker and thus Mason wouldn't have gotten his calls on the flop and turn had he driven him out pre-flop.
Re your 1st paragraph, I routinely call with just about anything in an unraised 30-60 pot, where you only have to call $10. Most of the players in my game do the same, which doesn't mean we're correct, but it does mean that many players have come to the same conclusion, namely, that it is usually correct to do so. I believe S & M recommend never folding in the small blind when it only costs you 1/3 of a bet to see the flop. In this case, sb was getting 14-1 for his $10, assuming BB doesn't raise, which is a pretty good assumption considering there were 3 limpers.
While this is true, once you have enough players in you are going to have to hit the board -- usually the flop -- to win. This is a disadvantage of having someone dominated since it makes it harder to hit your hand.
"Just calling pre-flop is consistent with S & M advice to not raise in a multi-way pot with unsuited high cards. I would have raised to try to get the blinds out, but I understand the logic of limping."
Also, in this structure, you are a little less likely to get the blinds out in this situation.
On the river, you have to realize that mich of your value is lost by the third seven falling since if you are now called by something who holds a queen with a weak kicker you will split the pot. So even though the probability is very high that you have the best hand, it is very low for someone to call with a hand that you will beat. (They will fold an unimproved flush draw and you split against another queen, but if a seven is out you have trouble.)
Preflop, I would definitely consider raising. I wish that you could tell us more about the limpers and to a lesser extent the blinds. I often don't raise limpers with KQo, but in this case it feels like you have the best hand and you'd like to take control.
Andy and Chris above discussed the merits of letting in weaker kings and queens in the blinds in order to get them in trouble later. While this has some merit, you are also giving the sb 14-1 odds, and the bb "infinite" odds. Even a hand like Q2o is not going to be a 14-1 dog to your hand, so by the FTOP they are still not making a mistake to call. What you are hoping for is a sort of "implied odds" of domination.
This still seems okay, as long as you can count on making up for this overlay you are giving the blinds postflop. However, also consider this: some dominated hands may call even if you raise, so raising may let you get in money with a considerable favorite which is always a Good Thing. Even those hands which you don't have dominated are probably not big favorites agaisnt you.
Any thoughts on this?
Flop and turn bets are no brainers for the most part...
On the river I would probably bet but it is close.
David
"Preflop, I would definitely consider raising. I wish that you could tell us more about the limpers and to a lesser extent the blinds. I often don't raise limpers with KQo, but in this case it feels like you have the best hand and you'd like to take control."
This is an example of where the play in this game may be a little different than it is at the lower limits. First, many players are limping with the stronger hands at this limit, second, some players are very aggressive and are a little quicker to three bet (and this includes the blinds), and third, this structure does make it a little more likely that the blinds will call a raise.
However, even with that being said, I do agree that the decision between raise and call (before the flop) is very close.
Pre-flop I agree with calling when two other players limp in. King-Queen offsuit is a fair hand but not worth raising since the limpers could easily have cards you need to improve thereby crippling your hand. I would be more inclined to raise with Ace-Jack offsuit since in those situations where no one has anything an Ace-high with a Jack kicker can get the cheese where as King-high never will. But I wouldn't raise with Ace-Jack offsuit here either. I don't think having the button turns this hand into a raising hand.
On the flop, of course you bet your top two pair/excellent kicker when all four of your opponents check to you. You could easily have the best hand and you don't want to give a free card to a Club flush draw.
On the turn, when your two opponents check you should continue betting with what would seem to be the best hand and again you don't want to give out free cards to a flush draw.
Not betting the river is the most interesting part of this post. Will a worse hand call? I don't think so because someone with a pair of Jacks or Tens would have raised pre-flop. Someone with Nines or Eights or some other pair might have bet the flop. Someone with a Queen would have bet the flop. Someone with a Three might call but would they have called a flop bet? I don't see a worse hand calling here. Someone with a Seven might be tricky enough to slow play and attempt a check-raise on the river. I like checking it down on the river since I see no viable upside to betting.
One hand that could potentially call the river is an ace-high flush draw that missed but stands to beat most bluffs on a board of 777Q3.
I like betting the river here not only because I might have the best hand, but by betting I won't have to show my cards when nobody calls, which will be the majority of the time. I want people to think I may have stole one from them. By planting a little doubt in their minds I'll get more calls later when I have the nuts.
Also, I want people to know that when I get involved in a hand it's liable to cost callers the max to see it to the end. Makes 'em think twice when whenever I bet.
I don't view that as a good reason to risk $120
Yes, but by showing your hand you may "plant in their mind" that when you bet you have it and this will help you steal pots later.
Very true, it can work both ways. My answer was made in the context of my own playing style. The people playing against me are used to seeing me show down a good hand, often the nuts, and I am already able to steal more than my share.
Haven´t seen any answers.
How about a preflop raise in case the blinds are tight and the limpers are not known for not known for limping with monsters? If it works you could reduce the competion by half.
I like the check on river because one of the two limpers very probably has a Q so the pot will very likely be split, and a bet now has a relatively low EV at best, but if there is a seven, KK, or AA, a bet will lose you two more big bets.
Mason,
I don't understand why you didn't raise before the flop. I just don't see the benifit in letting the blinds in for free, or close to it. Clearly if you raise, the blinds are worse off. Do you think the limpers gain so much by your raise that it isn't worth it, or is there some other reason?
The flop bet seems obvious.
I am also surprised by your play on the end. If the river hadn't been a 7, I would understand it. But the 7 actually hit your hand, because it is now less likely that one of your opponents is slowplaying a 7. Or are you afraid of AA or KK?
William
I think I would have played this hand exactly the same. I don't like raising with K-Q, I would rather see the flop for one bet. I bet until the river, then if checked around I check.
One thing I think about after this flop is that if I had raised pre-flop, then come out betting, I would be put on Q with good kicker or higher pocket pair, and most likely get less action by lesser hands, and only called by better hands.
OK I get it . . . the 7 killed your kicker. That makes sense.
I still don't understand why no raise before the flop. I mean it would be a disaster if one of the blinds has 94 and the flop is Q94. Isn't this exactly the sort of "mathematical catastrophe" you talk about in you book?
William
I also think raising before the flop dramatically increases the chances to steal post-flop.
Sometimes this is the case, and is probably true here providing the blinds both fold. But your raise will also increase the chance that when the flop comes someone will check a good hand to you, and against three or four opponents this is not always desirable.
William:
I have already answered your questions aboove. I do want to add that I believe an expert and a weak plyer are both likely to check on the end. The expert sees almost no value in his bet, and the weak player is overly afraid of the seven. The merely good player will reason correctly that it is most likely that he holds the best hand and thus bet. He won't take into account that there will be very few calls where his hand will be best. (Again, if the third seven doesn't appear, this changes things since a weaker queen will now lose instead of splitting.)
With 2 limpers in and last position, I would have raised with KQ. But, I also see the logic for calling as well.
Flop and turn: I would have bet also.
River: This was a great play to check at the
river. The SB likely had a Queen and you
eliminate a check raise by the 7, if there
was one. I don't think I buy the logic a
worse hand would call here.
Has anyone read this book? Here's the blurb about it from the ConJelCo web site:
No Fold'em Hold'em, D. R. Sherer. Strategies for winning with the "little" cards in medium and low-limit Hold'em. Other books tell you how to win with the big cards but winning with the little cards takes a special set of skills. This book is for advanced players only. It may be hazardous to your bankroll if you are not in this category. 109p. #P45, $19.95.
Hmmm.... I'm a somewhat advanced player, already know how to win with the big cards.... Maybe I could pick up an extra $5-10/hr with the small cards, and use it to buy that pretty bridge over the Hudson.
Anyway, anyone read it? What did you think?
B$
You should read MM's review in the appendix of Gambling Theory & O.T. He gives it a 3/10 and says that the only reason he doesn't rate it lower is because of some good tourn. advice.
Read MM's review and definitely buy Gambling Theory & Other Topics for this and other book reviews as well as an abundance of other well written material.
What it says basicaly is if your in a game that nobody will bluff and they will only bet there big hands for value so you can safly fold your bad hands you can play small cards for a profit.
Also when the flop comes with big cards and you bet they will fold to your bet fearing good cards. But when the flop comes with small cards and you make a hand the big cards will pay you off because you could not be playing to small cards.
The only minute amount of good advise in the book was that if you raise with small suited connecters you might be able to steal the pot if big cards come.
Other than that it was the stupides book i on poker i ever read. Conditions would have to be absolutely perfect for you to make any money on small cards all the time.
Thanks guys, for the responses I expected. I have "Gambling Theory...", but I leant it out so long ago that I forgot about the book reviews. My buddy must be done with it by now.
I'll just have to find some other way to come up with the money for that bridge...
B$
Most of it is not worth reading and will likely get you into trouble if you follow the advice.
Dave in Cali
I'm heading to Reno, NV today. Can anyone tell me where I may find good high-limit HE in Reno? I'm looking for $15-$30 and above.
Thanks in advance!
Your only shot is at the Peppermill where they sometimes start out with $10-$20 and then agree to go to $15-$30 or $20-$40. This normally occurs only on weekends. They also only rake $2 which is the lowest anywhere I know of.
The only place to play medium limit is the Peppermill. If you want to play no limit, the Eldorado has a game. Blinds are 3 and 5 with a 2 dollar drop. Buyin is $300.
Vince Lepore was very helpful compiling this list a year ago. Since we have so many new posters now I thought it may be very helpful to them.
Please contribute to this list if you can think of anything we left out.
I believe that each of us find specific types of players "tough" to play against and others not so tough. But what I believe would be useful would be a general definition (or at least a discussion) of what entails "tough opponent".
Thus MY opinion: A "tough" opponent is one that:
1) Understands poker: cards/people/position/odds etc.
2) Plays to win.
3) Does not appear to steam or tilt.
4) Appropriately applies pokers tactics: bet/raise/check-raise/check-call/fold.
Poker tactics include overly aggressive raising irrespective of cards held.
5) Mixes up his play
6) Is unpredictable except that you know he's gonna be TOUGH.
7) Usually has a controlled demeanor at the table.
REMEMBER: “THE TOUGHEST OPPONENT OF ALL IS YOURSELF”
I think that a tough players motto is "no presents" i.e. when they have an edge they try to gain as much as possible, when not, they try to lose as little as possible.
This entails A LOT e.g. hand selection: when a tough player has a good hand, he will raise a lot to extract money/make opponents fold (=maximum gain), when he has a bad hand, he will discard it (=minimum loss)
BTW: Forget 7). Weak players can also be polite
I would add always plays his best game regardless of the results.
When you are losing, the weakest players can become the "toughest".
"Appearing to tilt" pays much more handsomely than being on tilt ;-)
An interesting hand came up last night, that while rare and without risk of loss, posed quite a few problems. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
The game is 3/6 Hold 'em played in Las Vegas. While I should give a description of the nature of this particular game, I'm afraid it would be too persuasive. I believe an analysis of the players actions is sufficient to get a feel for the game.
I am in the big blind. The person in spot 4 calls, all others drop to the small blind who calls. I have J 9 offsuit and check. The flop comes J J J. The small blind checks, I check, the last player checks. The turn card is a 4. The small blind checks, I check, the last player checks. The river brings a K. The small blind bets, I raise, the last player drops, the small blind calls. The small blind shows me a K. I show him the J.
While I would like to give my opinion, I would not want to persuade anybodys thinking. The actions of the players tell alot of the story.
Everyone played correctly. And, so?
I'm not sure where "spot 4" is, though. If it's late, then he made a mistake by not raising with any king that he would play.
-Abdul
I don't flop quads often enough to know how to play them. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that you are supposed to check and wait until the turn or river to pull the trigger.
You're right, Jim, it doesn't happen often enough to know, or worry about knowing, what to do. I like to bet the flop, which, in a bigger game, will be called frequently by someone with as litle as just just a lone ace, because they feel you would never bet if you had the quads. Then you can check the turn as if you're scared and frequently induce either a bluff bet or a call on the river.
Background: a week or so ago, our hero participates in a long thread regarding the not-quite-eminent AKo (to raise on the button with many limpers or not to raise and feel the slings and arrows of 2+2ers' scorn, disdain, and disapprobation) and play Al Pacino opposite several very good Keanu Reeves imitations (ever stoic, composed and competent under fire).
Scroll forward to Thurs. eve; I return to the card coliseum sans sabre and sans Sabretooth. It's 3-6 Texas Hold'em (back to the bear pit after a thorough walloping at 9-18) and I'm Mr. Button staring down, after a few uneventful rounds in the ring, at Mr. Big Slick, who refuses to return the favor. Well, all save one of the prefatory hombres ante up (translation: all but one limp in) and I -- traitor to my cause -- hear myself yelling RAISE GODDAMMIT at the top of my lungs. Well, the blind boys call my bluff as do the rest of the cowpunchers and I'm now thinkin' to myself, "What in tarnation's name are you up to, you gobslobberin' fool?" Oh I try to put up a brave front (which is hard on the ol' ticker, not being cut from the same quilt as that Keanu Reeves feller), but my Nikes is quakin' like Cherlize Theron's Friday night date. The dealer swipes a card off the top and burns it quick and easy. Panic grips me and in desperation I take to flailin' my arms in all directions and quotin' from scripture like a prairie preacher. Then it suddenly dawns on me: by wish and by wisecrack, I've never even glanced at the good book! Suddenly I notice a sly grin eminatin' from the dealer's mug and I am just sure as fire is hot he's meddlin' with Destiny. Furious with this vilest twistedest miscreant in the whole of creation, I feel my top lip curl and every other muscle clench up good and hard. The whole bloody mess is his fault and I'm not gonna sit there and stand for it, nosirree Bob. The bloody miscreant peels a card off the top of the deck and flips it forward. Then another. And another. And I'm looking down at the sweetest three cards this side of San Antonio: Q J 10.....
If it were me, the flop would all be suited, and not in either of mine.
n.t.
One of many good flops for slick which is why you must always raise against any number of limpers regardless of your position.
.
I have taken notes over the past few weeks of a few hands where I wasn't sure what to do. So I thought I would ask some of the people here who are much more knowledgeable than myself. My typical game is moderately loose and moderately agressive. Raises will get some respect but it is almost impossible to steal the blinds unless you are on the button. The hands I have questions about are:
1. A-Jo in early position (EP) Is this hand worth a raise to narrow the field?
2. A-Qo in EP. Call or raise?
3. A-Ts in EP. Call or raise?
4. A-9s in EP. Call or fold?
5. J-Qo in middle position. Call or fold?
6. K-Qo in late position with a raise. Call or fold?
7. J-Qo in the big blind when someone has raised and only one other caller. Call or fold?
8. T-Qo in small blind with a raise and four other callers. Call or fold?
In general I still think I play too many hands. For questions 6-8 I have in the past called but have started to fold and I think I am saving money.
Any responses would be very much appreciated.
For a moderately loose/aggressive game, I offer the following:
1. You'll often narrow the wrong field with your raise. Very borderline. Whether to play or not depends how strong your flop/post-flop game is compared to your opponents.
2. Tend to limp, but don't be scared to raise either. If you limp, make sure to limp with some of your stronger hands too, so you're not predictable.
3. Fold. A real potential money loss hand, because if you're raised from behind, then flop an ace this is trouble (because the swollen pot means you'll often hang around longer than you perhaps should be).
4. Fold; same as #3 but worse.
5. If unopened pot, you may wish to take a shot at the blinds if you think that's a reasonable possibility. Perhaps okay to call in late-middle after a limper or two if you can outplay them flop and beyond. Otherwise fold.
6. Depends way too much on who the raiser is, who's in the blinds, and the presence of any cold-callers. Can't answer this one for you.
7. Again, depends too much on the tendencies of the raiser and the cold-caller. Lean towards folding, as QJ is dominated by most raises.
8. Tend to call. 7 2/3:1 odds to call, provided you don't fear a re-raise. You phrased this question somewhat ambiguously though; you didn't tell us whether the raiser was in early position and everyone else cold-called him, or the button raised after everyone limped, or what. It makes a difference.
1. A-Jo in early position (EP) Is this hand worth a raise to narrow the field?
Generally not although I can't say that it can never be the case or that I have never tried it (and failed)
2. A-Qo in EP. Call or raise?
Generally raise
3. A-Ts in EP. Call or raise?
Generally call.
4. A-9s in EP. Call or fold?
If the game is loose, a call is the proper play. If it is tight, you may be better off mucking.
5. J-Qo in middle position. Call or fold?
A toughie. Much depends on how well you play after the flop as compared to your opponents. If I stand to get some unreasonable action from some weak playing opponents, I would call. Against a not so weak field, I would muck. Of course, if I haven't played a hand in a couple of hours I might raise in an effort to steal the blinds. Even the live ones take notice when Rip Van Winkle raises.
6. K-Qo in late position with a raise. Call or fold?
Guys like Brier, Hanson, Feeney, Nebiolo etc. have convinced me that mucking is generally the correct play.
7. J-Qo in the big blind when someone has raised and only one other caller. Call or fold?
Where is the raise coming from? Where is the limp coming from? Who is limping and who is raising? These factors may sway your decision but folding can't be too bad a decision.
8. T-Qo in small blind with a raise and four other callers. Call or fold?
Ou est le muck?
"K-Qo in late position with a raise. Call or fold?"
SKP wrote: "Guys like Brier, Hanson, Feeney, Nebiolo etc. have convinced me that mucking is generally the correct play."
SKP: This might help explain why you had poor results when you were here in Las Vegas. Routinely calling raises from good players with a hand like this should prove expensive. There are many situations where you would raise yourself with this hand, but once someone else has raised it should hit the muck.
Yes. looking back to last October (when I was last in Vegas), that certainly was a leak in my game although I did not know that it was a leak. Amazing how much your game can improve by participating in this Forum and heeding the advice of the many top notch players that post here.
It's funny. When I first started playing HE seriously in early 1996, I thought I was a pretty good player by the end of the year. Looking back now, the skp of 2000 would murder the skp of 1996 and I am sure that the skp of 2005 will slaughter the skp of 2000 (assuming I am still playing then given my penchant to switch hobbies every 5 years or so - it used to be tournament Scrabble before poker - it may be stocks the next 5 years).
In any event, I owe much of my improved understanding of HE to this Forum. Thanks Guys.
1. A-Jo in early position (EP) Is this hand worth a raise to narrow the field?
The only time I like AJ is in a short handed game
(6 or less) players. I vote for a fold.
2. A-Qo in EP. Call or raise?
Raise.
3. A-Ts in EP. Call or raise?
Call
4. A-9s in EP. Call or fold?
Fold
5. J-Qo in middle position. Call or fold?
Fold if raised in front, else call.
6. K-Qo in late position with a raise. Call or fold?
Fold
7. J-Qo in the big blind when someone has raised and only one other caller. Call or fold?
If the raise is early, fold. If in middle position or a steal on the button, call. Also, call in a short handed game.
8. T-Qo in small blind with a raise and four other callers. Call or fold?
Fold unless the small blind is 1/2 or 2/3 the BB. If it is, you can call, the odds are there.
My answers to your questions are as follows:
1. Just limp don't raise with AJ offsuit. 2. Raise with AQ offsuit. 3. Just limp don't raise with AT suited. 4 Fold A-9 suited in early position. 5. Limp in behind others with QJ offsuit. Open with a raise if first in from middle/late postion. 6. Fold KQ offsuit when faced with a bet and raise ahead of you. 7. Call with QJ offsuit for one bet out of your big blind. 8. Fold QT offsuit for a bet and raise from your small blind. Use the Ciaffone rule.
.
As I recall the Ciaffone rule states, "Since the button is worth half a bet, don't call any hand in the small blind you wouldn't call on the button."
The "Ciaffone Rule" has to do with calling raises out of your small blind. The rule says that if your hand is not good enough to cold call a raise from the button you should not call the raise from your small blind either since having the button is usually worth a fraction of a bet. It is an interesting guideline and helps you put things in perspective.
This is what I'd do. As you can see, a lot of it "depends."
1. A-Jo in early position (EP) Is this hand worth a raise to narrow the field?
There's early position and then there's utg. I muck this thing utg but might raise if there are 4 people between me and the button that are likely to fold small pairs and won't do something tricky like cold call with queens or 3-bet with eights. Otherwise I limp.
2. A-Qo in EP. Call or raise?
Raise.
3. A-Ts in EP. Call or raise?
Call.
4. A-9s in EP. Call or fold?
Call. Muck utg or when it will certainly cost you 2 bets to see the flop.
5. J-Qo in middle position. Call or fold?
I tend to fold in early middle and raise when opening in late middle, but it depends on who's behind me, particularly who's in the blinds. (You want folders).
6. K-Qo in late position with a raise. Call or fold?
Fold unless the raiser is very loose.
7. J-Qo in the big blind when someone has raised and only one other caller. Call or fold?
Call unless the raiser is very early or very tight. JQ against an overpair is a disaster but for 5-1 see the flop. (Of the positions I've taken here I'm least confident of this one.)
8. T-Qo in small blind with a raise and four other callers. Call or fold?
Generally call. Playing QT for a raise in the sb is a dumb idea. However, the scenario you present is rare and tends to occur in games where seeing the flop for 2 bets isn't much of a mistake.
I will post my response before reading the others to see how I fare against their advice.
1. A-Jo in early position (EP) Is this hand worth a raise to narrow the field?
I usually fold UTG or 2nd URG, but may raise later than that if first in. It depends somewhat on who is downstream from you and how they play, but folding this hand in any early position in a full game is not all that bad.
2. A-Qo in EP. Call or raise?
Raise, but be somewhat careful if you get reraised.
3. A-Ts in EP. Call or raise?
Call. Try to build the pot rather than drive players out.
4. A-9s in EP. Call or fold? Fold unless the game is really loose passive, then perhaps call. If you play it be very careful if an ace flops.
5. J-Qo in middle position. Call or fold?
Usually fold unless game is very passive.
6. K-Qo in late position with a raise. Call or fold?
I would fold depending on what I thought of the raiser. A tight player raises and I am out. Maniac I would call or reraise.
7. J-Qo in the big blind when someone has raised and only one other caller. Call or fold?
Call because you are getting 5.5:1 odds.
8. T-Qo in small blind with a raise and four other callers. Call or fold?
Borderline. Pot odds make it tempting to call but your hand is very vulnerable and makes lots of great 2nd bests.
Dave in Cali
I thought QTo was the BB but it was the SB. If in the SB, fold.
Just saw this 20-40 hand take place on Paradise poker about 2 minutes ago.
UTG raises. The 2 players next to him coldcall. The 2 blinds call. 5 way action.
Flop: T54 rainbow.
Checked through
Turn: Offsuit 9
Checked through
River: 3
Checked through
Hands shown:
sb- KJ off suit
bb- A7 suited
UTG- AK
first cold caller- Muck
second coldcaller and the effective "button" on the hand - 9d8d (this guy takes the pot)
This hand may qualify for a clinic on how not to play hold 'em.
i'll likely miss a couple but i'll give it a shot.
whatever 2cnd utg could have had, he should have folded or 3 bet. well, i don't think this game was loose enough to try to get multiway pots with KQs or the like. in typical games never ever be the first cold caller of an open raise. never.
i am not going to fault the 98d for calling because his call insures at least one blind. and while i think i still fold there, it's not that big a deal.
small blind begging for trouble with his preflop call.
on the flop. either blind can take a shot at it. the pot is not that small and they should know this guy utg is going to drop is overcards (well, i assume so since he wont bet them). this is a pretty harmless flop. no one is likely to have something. assert yourself. force the action.
utg should bet. he may (and did) have the best hand. there are no reasonable draws and a bet is very likely to win the pot.
the first cold caller can bet the flop too. it almost doesn't matter what he had. but he probably had overcards and a backdoor straight.
the "button" can also bet the flop. especially if one of the rainbow is a diamond.
on the turn. KJo has nut gutshot plus overcards. plus he can represent the failed flop check raise. this is a must bet.
if i am in the bb or utg and somehow i didn't bet the flop. i don't think i try the turn. i don't like the weak A in the bb. and unless i can get pairs to fold thinking i slow played TT, there is no way a bet with AK is profitable there. they shouldn't be in that position, but i can't fault their turn play. they just missed their chance.
my hunch for first cold caller is AQ. this puts him basically in the same boat as utg. a weak pair will call you down now. the time to bet was the flop. it's bad policy to try to steal a pot on the turn after allowing the flop to be checked through in late position. i have to agree with his check (unless he had KJ or, god forbid, QJ. in which case a bet shouted from the rooftops.)
i cannot believe the second cold caller checked the turn. he is alomost assured to have the best hand. and it is sooooo vulnerable. this may be the clearest bet ever in the history of poker.
i don't really blame anyone for chickening out on the river. the A highs and the pair think they can win a showdown without risking a bet and the others think they will be called down by the A highs and pairs. i really don't know how to play a river in a hand like this because if i were playing in any of the positions it wouldn't have gotten to this point.
i hope i caught some of the same errors that you did. also, great post bellow about bluffing paired boards. i agree with you entirely.
scott
Good analysis.
But I do part company with you on the flop play. I don't blame anyone for not betting the flop (not even AK). While I almost never check on an unimproved AK as against 1 or 2 opponents, I will often check against more opponents (when the board is unpaired) as there are just too many ways you could be called or raised.
On the turn, I agree that KJ should be betting. And I don't know what the hell 9d8d was doing...that's about as obvious a bet as it gets. Missing a bet here with any 2 cards may be an error. Missing a bet with a pair of 9's is just plain silly.
On the river, I agree that there were no real errors.
I watched that game for about 45 minutes. It looked great. Tons of weak play. I think I am going to go back on Paradise fairly soon now that they have some 20-40 as we don't get games bigger than 10-20 around here.
I don't agree about the river at all. 98 should absolutely be for value. Others will suspect a bluff and he is likely to get called by A high.
William
Yes. Missed that one. I thought he already screwed up on the turn by not betting but you are right, he screwed up again by not betting the river (although the river gaffe is nowhere near as big an error as the turn gaffe).
Mind telling us your PP Handle?
Later, Mr._Fish
I would rather not if for no other reason than to avoid being lambasted on the Forum for the many dubious plays you will see me make in every session:) Seriously, E-mail me and we can trade info if you wish.
Pre-flop I think the second cold-caller who had 98 suited was playing bad poker. It cannot be right to pay 2 bets upfront with only two players in the hand having a medium suited connector like this. The small blind's call of the raise with King-Jack offsuit is also a mistake. If it were suited the call would be okay given the multi-handed action that is developing. The big blind calling with Ace-Seven suited is okay since this closes the action but if he were not suited I think he has a clear fold.
On the flop, I cannot fault anyone. With 4 opponents I believe it would have been a mistake for the UTG to bet slick with just his over cards. Make it one or two opponents perhaps three then a bet would be okay but four is too many.
On the turn, I think the small blind should lead with his gutshot and two over cards. Bets like this frequently take the pot outright and he has lots of outs if he is called. I think the second cold-caller should have bet his pair of Nines when it is checked twice to him on the turn.
At the river, I don't see how anyone can bet.
UTG: I don't think he played this hand that bad. Could have bet the flop maybe. sb: calling legit raise with KJo. bb: I don't think he played this hand that badly. first cold caller: didn't see his hand. second cold caller: calling legit raise with 98s. Not betting pair of nine's on the turn when it was likely the best hand.
First Cold calling a UTG raise is terrible without multiway action.
The flop is scary to AK because he has got to think he is beat, and even if he isn't he will still get callers. By betting it he doesn't say, "I just got 2 high cards!". The pot is so big that he may want to bet and possibly get raised by a Pair of Tens just so he can narrow the Field. If AK had bet the Flop on this hand he probably would have won.
The Turn should have been bet by someone! The river should have been bet by the Pair of 9's!
I see people calling raises with JKo all the time and it makes me smile.
CV
I was playing the other day in 5/10. the game was a little loose, a few guys on streaky raising pre-flop(they would raise a few in a row then go back to tight play) I was dealt suited connectors several times in this game just about every time in mid position. Just taking the time I had mid-high connectors 6-7 thru 8-9, how would y'all play these in an unraised pot. I never kept them, and in turn never would have lost when the board never helped any of them. How do y'all play them???
Kevin
I rarely play them. Only in late position with a few callers. Very rarely I will play them in middle position if one or two early callers and I don't fear a raise behind me. I feel that suited connectors are very much over rated. I have some friends that will play from almost every position. Occassionally they will hit a straight or flush but many time they will hit middle pair and not be able to let them go and end up losing too much money. If there are many people in the pot they are OK because when you do hit, you will win a large pot.
The game you were in sounds tough because of the large number of raises. I guess it depends where you sat in relation these guys that raised a lot, if you were sitting to the right of them then you could go in a little more when they didn't raise. If they were to your left you would have to fear being raised after you went in. But in general, I would stick to playing them in late position in an unraised pot and only occassionally in middle position.
I only play them in middle pos. if around 5 players see every flop and there is not much raising, other wise i wait for late pos. and 5 callers. If i am in late pos. and only 1 person has called i do not try and get tricky in low limit i just throw them in the muck.
Wow I really like these hands. But if the game is aggressive and I'm in early position I have to sadly toss them in the muck. If you are never playing them (in a 5 10 game) you are definitely playing too tigght. Ill take a suited connector anyday of the week over KJo.
YOu want to play them if you can see the flop cheaply and get multiway action. If these two conditions generally aren't met you may have to toss them. There are exceptions, all fold to you in late position you can raise w/one if the blinds are tight. Or if one player raises and 6 cold call Id call w/one.
Suited connectors are grossly overvalued in Hold-Em literature. They play best in unraised pots with some multi-handed action but having to pay multiple bets to see a flop with them is bad poker. I limp in behind others and I will not cold-call a raise with them unless in my blinds. I don't want to be the first one entering the pot with them. I might open raise in late position with JT suited or T9 suited.
I will occasionally raise with 89, 9T, TJsuited in late position with many limpers and even UTG once in a great while. In tight games (few players seeing the flop), 67suited must be handled differently than in a no-fold'em game in which nearly every combination is played. Generally I would muck, but it's valuable to vary one's play a bit occasionally. Let's say you do call and you're last to act against 1 limper and the big blind; the flop comes T 7 3. Big blind bets, limper folds, I think you should either raise or fold. Big blind may fold his J7 or even T4 fearing a better kicker (KT, QT, JT are just the kind of hands you could have limped in with from late position). If he calls and checks the turn, you have the option of checking behind and seeing the river card for free.
40-80 Hold-em
An interesting hand came up at my table. I am UTG and I passed. The player to my left raised. He was stuck big time playing hold-em and everyone at the table knew he had just lost a bundle playing pai-gow in an attempt to get even. He was playing with a sense of desperation. He was playing a lot of junk for single or double bets regardless of how many players there were or position. He was also playing real fast. However when he raised before the flop or made it three bets he generally had a reasonably strong hand.
All passed until the small blind made it three bets. The initial raiser capped it.
The small blind is one of the most successful players in the card room. However he primarily plays pot limit hold-em or Omaha. Occasionally he will play limit poker. He is not real familiar with the limit players, but he was well aware of the present situation.
The flop comes J68 rainbow
The small blind checks and the initial raiser bets followed by a check-raise and call.
A 2 comes on the turn. There are no flush draws. The small blind leads followed by a raise, reraise, and a call.
A King comes on the river. The small blind bets and there is a call.
The small blind turns over KQo and the initial raiser disgustingly destroys his pocket Queens.
I was very surpised by the play of the "skillful" player. He obviously did not give his opponent much credit for a hand or his ability to play. However even if we assume the above is true three betting with KQ and poor position is not a smart play. First of all the initial raiser probably has a better hand, and secondly and more importantly, the initial raiser is going to play aggressively from the flop even if he has nothing. In all likelyhood the small blind will not flop anything. So basically the small blind risked three bets (in this situation it was capped so four bets) with KQ, when he is first to act. Nothing came on the flop and he elected to play the hand as aggressively as possible against an equally aggressive player who was stuck like a pig, who wouldn't lay a hand down for anything.
This is a play I see winning poker players make with a high degree of frequency. We as players fail to give the live ones credit for a hand and often times we are fighting an up hill battle against them. If they have the best of us we can't outplay them because they won't lay down a hand. In this particular situation the live one was very unlucky. His opponent hit a three outer with one card to come.
Bruce
I agree. 3 betting pre-flop out of position with KQ offsuit is simply bad poker. Having no hand and no draw, the small blind was trying to bet his way to victory and then got lucky and hit a 3 outer at the river. I have seen many tournament players and big bet players play this way. It doesn't work very well in the long run in a limit game.
I also see a lot pot limit players play like this. All they talk about is implied odds with a particular hand. That' their excuse for playing out of position hands and why they long term can't beat the game. They may get them in pot limit but you can't manufacture odds in limit.
Bruce
I suspect the SB was a seasoned gambler who recognizes the value of streaks. Though they are totally illogical, they happen in all forms of gambling. We have all been on rushes where everything works. The poor fellow with pocket q's was on a negative rush where nothing works. In craps the house has the edge but in any given hour or 2 they may loose tons. It seems the old salts jump on every crazy bet on the board and win. I have seen very good poker players go after a guy who has been loosing everthing for the session, somehow knowing the loser would lose.
Here is an area that I've never fully understood and would love some help on: Playing overcards on the flop and after the flop.
Here is a hand I played the other night that I am not very happy about how I played. I think I played it extremely poorly.
It is a 5-10 casino dealer's choice game and this hand was played as holdem. I am UTG with AKo, I raise, the next player folds, the next player reraises. This player is OK by the standards of this game, but is still pretty bad. One player calls $15 cold from late middle position. The small blind proceeds to cap the betting at $20. I don't really know what to do when it comes back to me, but I call, I think this is correct, please tell me if I am wrong. The small blind is a tricky player who I believe plays fairly well. He doesn't have very good preflop hand selection but he plays well post-flop by the standards of a low limit game (ie. he makes people pay, and seems to read people fairly well, thereby knowing when to push a marginal hand). This is my impression but I am still fairly inexperienced.
4 players see the flop, there is $85 in the pot (but at the time the hand was played I had lost track of the actual pot size, I knew it was big).
Flop comes Qxx, rainbow. SB bets out, I call (I didn't know what to do here), next player calls and the preflop cold caller folds (?).
3 players see the turn with $100 in the pot. It is another blank. The small blind bets again. Here, I have no idea what to do and I mindlessly call. I was confused as to what the SB had, and how I should play my overcards. I didn't know how to properly handle my overcards. As I said, I think the SB is a tricky player. I've seen him play J's in a similar mannerin a very similar situation, but I also consider QQ (I'm dead), AQ (also drawing slim), AK (not sure of the odds of this, but if he had AKs I could see him playing it similarily), and I thought about KQs and AJs as well. The next player folded (he later told me he had TT) and we see the river heads up.
The river is a blank, there is $120 in the pot. I decide that I have to call. I think there is a marginal chance that he might have played AJs, or something like that, in a similar manner. Of course he shows me KK.
Now, when this hand was played I got confused. The confusion distorted my thinking and the result is that I lost track of how the hand went down and what chances I had of winning the pot. I didn't know how to play my hand correctly on any street. I hope someone can please help me.
Call reluctantly preflop. You have already invested ten dollars and you will have four way action and the betting has been closed. Keep in mind that you very well may be dominated and that you need a big flop.
On the flop fold. You have two players to act behind you so it very well may get raised behind you. Two players have shown strength preflop and you have no pair nor a draw. This is a bad situation to chase overcards. As it turns out you were only drawing to an Ace. With the flop even though it didn't turn out this way you could have been up against AQ and had no outs.
Bruce
I pretty much agree with Bruce. You were correct to raise pre-flop and once the betting is capped I think you still call. However, once you miss the flop you have to abandon ship, especially since the SB is showing strength.
You have to realize that AK is still a drawing hand and unless you hit the flop it is not that good. After the flop you merely have ace high... a pair of deaces beats you. With all the pre-flop action it is very likely that someone has a hand like AQ or better and, therefore, you have very few outs so you have to mucked your cards and fight another battle later on.
I use to take 1 off on the flop all the time with AK, it cost me a furtune, I now only do if the A or K hitting will not make a strait and if the board has a 2 flush on it my A or K is that suit or i fold. Getting rid of this leak i believe has saved me a lot of money.
Pre-flop your initial raise is fine and your call of a double raise back to you is okay but you must realize that you could be up against another AK or even KK or AA.
You have a clear fold on the flop having no pair, no draw, and no hand. You are being bet into with the possibility of having it raised behind you. You have 6 outs at best but they are not necessarily winners since they could give someone else a better hand. Your play on the turn was pure charity having no hand.
I have read almost one half of Johns's book. I am thoroughly enjoying it. I find it thought provoking and most stimulating.
John presents a hand in a section titled "Strategic Thinking in Hold'em". Basically in this section John outlines the thought process involved in playing a hand and compares how an average player and an advanced player might think through a hand and actually play it.
The presented hand on fifth street has a board of QT744 with the Queen and Seven being suited but no possible flush on the river. Our hypothetical player has AQo and is heads-up on the flop and turn and is also first to act.
John goes on to say that the average player thinking that his opponent doesn't have a Four and the fact that he has been calling the whole way, has a better hand and he might as well bet his hand on the end.
On the other hand the advanced player feels that his opponent is on a flush or straight draw which is busted on the end. He feels that if he bets there is no possible hand that his opponent can call with, so the best course of action is to check and hopefully he can induce a bluff.
I certainly can't argue with John's logic, but is this really the best way to play the hand on the river. If your opponent has a busted draw and you bet on the end he will most definetely fold. However if you check he certainly may bluff at the pot. How often will this happen? I don't know, but a lot has to do with how aggressive your opponent is. I think most opponents when you have shown strength will probably check along with you.
Now what happens if your opponent is not on a draw and he actually has a piece of the flop. Perhaps he has a pair of Tens with a flush draw or a pair of Sevens and he wrongly puts you on AK. Or he has top pair with a weaker kicker than you. John suggests that since your opponent never raised it is unlikely for him to have top pair. If you check on the end in this situation you will most likely miss a bet. Surely most opponents will call on the river if they call on the turn.
What scenario is more likely to happen? Can we induce a bluff more often than a player calling with a weaker hand than ours. Somehow I think betting on the end will be a more profitable play.
Bruce
I would tend to agree with you, if it is a weak player i would bet every time. If the player is agressive i might try this as a alternitve way to gain a bet, it is nice to have a few tricky options up your sleave.
I agree.
This essay appeared in Poker Digest prior to showing up in the book. I said then and I will say it again that this is one of the best poker essays I have read. That said, I too felt the same way you do about this example. In fact, I think (although I could be mistaken on this), I E-mailed John and expressed the same thoughts to him as in your post. John can correct me if I am wrong on E-mailing him.
In my experience, guys find all kinds of reasons to call on the river. As well, in this scenario, most guys know that bluffing is futile because they know that if John checks here, he is doing so not with the intention of folding to a bet. After all, if John was bluffing, would he not fire another bet himself? And if John was betting a weak Queen, he certainly would not fold to a river bet given that the other fella has played the hand passively. The point is that the other fella knows this and therefore will be unlikely to be induced into bluffing.
I would rewrite John's essay as such:
Inexperienced player thinks "well, I have the better hand and may as well bet again"
The more advanced player thinks "ok, I will check and try and induce a bluff"
The even more advanced player thinks "Well, if I check, it is unlikely that I will induce a bluff. I will bet because he may put me on a bluff and call (or possibly bluff raise) with a weak hand. Making the bet here will also provide cover for those occasions when I am indeed bluffing".
As is often the case in poker, the clueless and the well advanced player use the same road but use different maps to get there.
Doesn't much depend on how likely it is that your opponent will call with a worse hand? Some weak/loose players will constantly make crying calls with all sorts of terrible hands. Against this type of player, I would think a bet has value. But against a tight player who is much less likely to call with a worse hand, but may have hit a miracle card with his draw, then wouldn't you be betting off checking and inducing a bluff?
Kevin
True. But in my experience even tough players (correctly) call on the river more often than being goaded into bluffing. After all, if John raised preflop and continued betting through to the river, even tough players can see that there is a chance that John may be driving all the way with AK and therefore a call with say middle pair is warranted. On the other hand, a tough player is unlikely to bluff here because he would know that John likely did not check with the intention of folding to a bet.
I think John is right once you consider how the whole hand might have played out and the fact that your opponent is aggressive. With AQ offsuit and acting ahead of your opponent you probably raised pre-flop. Your opponent
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 6:05 a.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mgoodwin@skadden.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:51 a.m.
Posted by: Fistdantilus (jbgregoire@csbsju.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: new guy
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:40 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Keyser Soze (keysersoze_aa@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:29 a.m.
Posted by: SimonSays
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:52 a.m.
Posted by: bishop (ihlfan@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: Fistdantilus (jbgregoire@csbsju.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:08 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Rich (rcorrea@succeed.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: rob (r_sch@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: Rich (rcorrea@succeed.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: greg (noncomposmentisman@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:20 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (dave@genbio.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Rich (rcorrea@succeed.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: tobar (tobar832@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 7:40 a.m.
Posted by: BANDIT
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Kid "Rock" (ethan_van@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Richard F (fakhry@chariot.net.au)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin (kljcorp@speedsite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: skp (Supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Fat-Charlie (charles_parker@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Kid "Rock" (ethan_van@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: PP
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (DavePoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (DavePoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: wolverine (mfl1@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: poker ethics
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 25 July 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: greg (noncomposmentisman@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: TONY G (tonyg49@mail.idt.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: greg (noncomposmentisman@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 10:40 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo (csharcourt@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin (kljcorp@speedsite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: target (dmorr@cardplace.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 8:22 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 3:08 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 12:01 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:25 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 26 July 2000, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:25 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 6:14 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: rob (r_sch@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin (kljcorp@speedsite.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: tt (tnbtseng@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: Kodiak (wkgordon@ptialaska.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Take The Points
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Kodiak (wkgordon@ptialaska.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: rob (r_sch@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Kodiak (wkgordon@ptialaska.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: greg (noncomposmentisman@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:11 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: rob (r_sch@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:21 a.m.
Posted by: Big $lick
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: GP (gregp@gci-net.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (DavePoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: Big $lick
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 9:42 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (dave@genbio.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Murdoc (raptor@takethisout.cs.stanford.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: greg (noncomposmentisman@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: DA
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: clinteroo (csharcourt@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: skp (Supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 7:41 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 11:05 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 7:38 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (dave@genbio.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (dave@genbio.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: skp (Supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: skp (Supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:43 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 9:49 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 24 July 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 9:40 p.m.
Posted by: Bishop (ihlfan@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 12:21 a.m.
Posted by: clinteroo (csharcourt@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:02 a.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (DavePoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:58 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:15 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: TONY G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: clinteroo (csharcourt@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 2:38 a.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (DavePoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:28 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 1:35 a.m.
Posted by: PokerPL (DavePoker1@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:18 a.m.
Posted by: skp (Supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:29 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 3:58 a.m.