![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I'm trying to get to sleep, but this issue is not letting me:
In my past few sessions I've had to deal with pairing the middle flop card a few times. I can't think of an exact example, so I'll create a hypothetical one. Say I'm holding 67 in the blind and the flop comes K72. In my first few sessions I've been check-folding against any action, and a few times I wound up laying down what would have turned into a winning set. Next session I decided to stick with these hands if I could make it to the turn for one bet, and it was indeed more profitable. However, I'm thinking that it was just short term luck and will not pay off in the long run. Here's why:
Odds of turning middle pair into a set is 2:45 on the turn and 2:44 on the river, which means that I need pot odds of at least 1:22 to stick with the hand. Even with implied odds after I make the set, pots usually don't get big enough to lay these odds. And not only that, but there's the chance that my made set has completed someone else's full house if they flopped top or bottom set. Then I'm just drawing dead except for my only out, which is quads, which is 1:44. Longshot city. So, by my math the only way to continue with middle pair is to either pray for a free turn card or wait for it to happen in an ENORMOUS pot (and would you stay with 67o in a capped preflop pot, even if everyone were in it?).
thanks for your comments, shooter
Your analysis only considers the possibility of turning a set. There are other ways to win with middle pair: you could bet out on the flop and everyone could fold; you could check the flop and raise the bettor on the flop; you could call the bettor on the flop and bet out on the turn; you could call the bettor on the flop and raise on the turn; and you could improve on the turn, not just to a set, but also to two pair, which gives you 3 additional outs.
Before trying these plays, though, you need to consider a number of factors: your table image, the style of play of the other players, the position of the bettor, the texture of the flop (K-7-2 is good for you), the action pre-flop, etc. I'll leave it for others to elaborate.
Good luck.
shooter,
With a screen name like shooter one would think you would be more aggressive ;-).
Anyway, think less about check-calling and think more about good situations to bet with middle pair. Per your example, if in the blinds in an unraised pot one should often be betting at a flop of K72 with a 67. This works best against about two to four opponents who normally come in for a raise with a good king. You will get it right then against average players more than your fair share. And if called in more than one place you can bet again if you make your five good outs, any baby card or a scary king. Against one caller, you can generally bet the turn no matter what comes.
I posted this without reading Andy's response yet and would not be surprised if he came up with the same basic idea.
Regards,
Rick
Here is where I save loads of bets. I just muck if there is action anything more is chasing and your "luck" may never catch up with your misses. You basically missed the flop. I just muck the rags and never look back.
So, Andy says that it depends on my table image and the situation, Rick says to bet out and be aggressive on the flop and the turn, and Rounder says to ditch the hand and forget it.
And I was worried about asking a question with an obvious answer! I've gotten three totally contrasting answers.
back to the drawing board. . .
shooter
That's why I always bring a die to the table. When I get in a pinch, I bring it out and roll for a solution. Raise? Fold? Even I go with decision number one. Odd is decision number two. More complex problems require each side to have its own choice. If things get really hairy, I bring out both dice and choose from 12 to 36 different actions that any of the experts claim to be correct for that given situation.
Now, some might say "hey, that doesn't work. Observant opponents will catch on to your die rolling tell."
To that I say most opponents aren't that observant anyway. And even if they are, I never say which side means what so they couldn't possibly know what I'm going to do.
I reccomend this technique for all those trying to bring their game to the next level.
Dan
Dan,
I like it. Do you think it will put my opponents on tilt?
Regards,
Rick
I don 't think Rick and I had totally different answers. I tried to point out some situations where you could win the pot even without help beyond the flop. Rick's response was quite similar.
Indeed, there are times when you should follow Rounder's advice and fold to any action, and times when you should be aggressive per Rick's advice. You need to consider many of the factors I listed in my earlier post. There are no "obvious" answers when you flop middle pair. Experience, knowledge of your opponents, flop texture, and pre-flop action need to be considered before a strategy decided upon.
Andy,
I thought we were pretty similar too. You went into more detail and I liked your post.
Regards,
Rick
:-)
General question.
Suppose you raise in middle position (first one in) with pocket Aces. Everyone else folds except for the BB who calls.
The flop comes innocuous. The BB checks. Do you think that it is ever correct to check (slow play) pocket Aces in this spot?
Suppose you KNOW that no matter what 2 cards the BB is holding, he will automatically bet the turn if you check.
I would contend that in this case, the right play might be to check the Aces and automatically raise the turn. You might not want to do this if the flop came with 2 connected cards or maybe even 2 suited cards, but I think that if it is completely uncoordinated (Q52 rainbow), this might be a perfect opportunity for this play.
Comments?
Yes, you can slowplay aces headsup on a rainbow flop, but only if you are not in a habit of automatically betting the flop as a preflop raiser.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Nore that if you limped in with aces and are against aggressive BB, the best play is check behind on flop, call the flop and raise the river. It's a small pot and losing it to a free card is not a big deal, but you can extract maximum from a weak hand.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
With most hands, two big cards, a draw or a pocket pair, you're going to bet the flop almost all of the time as soon as he checks. That may sound predictable, but it's the right thing to do. Therefore, if you check, even a weak player will often go on alert. Against most opponents, your checking the flop just makes their fold on the turn easier.
Of course, if you're sure he'll bet the turn if you check, by all means check. However, it's important that he also be willing to fold on the flop. If he isn't, checking the flop is usually a mistake.
After betting the flop, if I'm pretty sure my opponent hasn't improved by the turn and will almost certainly fold, my preference is the check there. This makes me look more conventionally weak and tends to induce a bluff or a call on the river with any pair.
I'll write this before reading Izmet's and Chris's response despite the risk of a "Fekali enema" if we disagree ;-).
Against one opponent, it is often correct to slowplay aces but a thinking opponent will often be suspicious if you check the flop unless he perceives you as a wimp of sorts who would check with overcards.
Now you wrote: "Suppose you KNOW that no matter what 2 cards the BB is holding, he will automatically bet the turn if you check. I would contend that in this case, the right play might be to check the Aces and automatically raise the turn."
I agree.
Then you wrote: "You might not want to do this if the flop came with 2 connected cards or maybe even 2 suited cards, but I think that if it is completely uncoordinated (Q52 rainbow), this might be a perfect opportunity for this play."
I think you got this backwards. With the suited or connected flop it is more likely he has a draw and you want to punish him now. With the rainbow, it is more likely he has nothing and you want to trap him.
Now I'll go check and see if I'm going to get that Fekali enema.
Regards,
Rick
Then you wrote: "You might not want to do this if the flop came with 2 connected cards or maybe even 2 suited cards, but I think that if it is completely uncoordinated (Q52 rainbow), this might be a perfect opportunity for this play."
Rick wrote: I think you got this backwards. With the suited or connected flop it is more likely he has a draw and you want to punish him now. With the rainbow, it is more likely he has nothing and you want to trap him.
Rick, maybe it's too early in the morning either in California or Germany (where I currently live), but it seems to me that we both said the same thing!
Puggy
Puggy,
I warn you that I just got up and haven't had more than half a cup of coffee yet -;) .
Now that I reread your post we did say the same thing. I was thinking of whether I would just call the turn bet or raise depending on how coordinated the turn looked. Against one opponent who would auto bet, I would just call again if it was somewhat uncoordinated (i.e., try to trap him). If the turn made the board a little bit scary (from my perspective), I would now raise just in case his hand is now coming within range of beating me.
Next time I'll finish my coffee first.
Regards,
Rick
I am in agreement with Chris Alger's analysis. The BB will expect you to bet, so why disappoint him. If you fall in the habit of checking with good hands, and betting out if the flop misses you in this situation, you will soon become easily "read" by observant opponents. What would you do if you had raised with AK, for example, and got a rag flop. If you have any hope of making someone with a small pair ever lay down, you had better be prepared to bet out to best leverage your position. Now on the other hand, if you develop some sort of random sequence where you check some good hands, and bet with others to become more unpredictable, that's another story. I still think you are better off in the long run betting your hand.
I find I can sometimes make the maximum by betting the flop, which my opponent expects me to do regardless of the flop, then checking behind him when he checks the turn. Lots of opponents will now bet the river and you can then either raise or call depending on the board; others will now call your bet with very little, figuring you for a steal with just two hight cards. You probably would have lost him on the turn but when you check they get suspicious.
Here's hand from a recent game. 5-10-20. Typical game. One or two tough players and,of course, some loosey goosey's as well. I've not been in many hands at all because I'm seeing no cards. I'm on the button and have pocket 7's. All pass to the weak player on my right who limps. I raise thinking it'll get me head's up with the limper. SB passes but BB calls and limper calls.
Flop 2 - 7 - 9 (rainbow). BB, who is a strong player checks as does weak limper. First, I hardly ever slowplay and choose to check. There's not a card in the deck that's really scary on the turn except maybe an 8. Any card J or higher could easily give someone a second best hand that they think makes'em best. Anyway I check and when I do the BB seems a little disappointed. (I think he was trying to check raise)
Turn card is a K (I don't remember if it put a flush draw out or not). BB bets, limper calls, I raise, BB reraises, limper says "I gotta a draw now" and calls, I cap it and BB and limper calls.
River is a 9. BB checks, limper checks, and I bet. BB shows a K7 hearts, says "that 9 saved you" and mucks, preflop limper mucks and I drag a pot big enough to put me on the right side of things. (I was stuck about 60 bucks from blinds and flop folding.)
Anyway the point of this is that I think that my river bet was a loser. The BB could easily have had a bigger full house (most likely K9 from all the action on the turn, although 97 is possible but I don't think he'd check two pair on the flop.)
Would anyone on this forum check it down on the river here? Or is a bet almost always correct? I'm not advocating weak play but it seems that my hand here isn't nearly as good as it seems.
BTW, I respect the BB as a player but I'm not in "fear" of him. On the turn I know my hand is good because he knows I don't have trip kings so he'll give plenty of action thinking I'm on AA or AK or AQ. In fact that's what he put me on when he mucked at the river. Also, if I'd have bet the flop BB probably would've checkraised and forced the preflop limper to my immediate right out, and I wouldn't have got his action on the turn either. (I know preflop limper could've hit hit 10 or J or Q, whichever inside straight draw he was on to beat me but I'll take those odds every hand if possible.)
chris
Go ahead and bet on the end. This weak player wouldn't have checked anything that strong with all that action but probably has a calling hand(A-9 or KQ) BTW, where do you play 5-10-20.
R
3 handed Pot-Limit HE game with 1-2and live 4. You can bring it in for 20. I'm up about $800, player B is a maniac gambler who will play any two cards and bluff with any 2 cards(Up 150) and player C is decent player but his luck is running badly.(Stuck 900) Player B already stuck it to him when decent player had AQ and maniac had 7-3o and the flop came AQ7. Decent bet 60 and maniac called. The turn was a 7 and can you hear a rebuy. Anyway, the last hand of the night goes as follows. I'm in the small blind with 88. Maniac is in the BB with Q8h and decent player has AA. I bring it in for $20 and maniac calls. Player C (BTW. he is short stacked) raises to $60. I know he has a big hand but he only has $125-150 more and I'm trying to take maniac's stack.
The flop comes 7-3-2 with 2 hearts. I bet $70 and Player B calls. Decent player puts in the rest of his money and we both call. The turn is the 8s. I have top set and maniac has a pair and flush draw. I bet my remaining $400 and maniac calls. The river is the 6h and maniac takes the whole enchilada. Since this occurrence player C can not let it go and continues to go on about how lucky I was to catch the 8 in the 1st place. I keep telling him that he's an idiot and I wasn't after his lil' short stack and that I was a huge favorite to take down the side pot and I was actually very unlucky. I stuck in my stack with top set which at the time was the nuts...How much more can I ask for? I told him that it was not near as unlucky as the last time we played. I stuck my $500 in before the flop with AA against QQ. One player is all I had to beat and not 2. Obviously, a Queen came and I lost but I thought that was worse then his. I would have loved for 2 blanks to come and took the side pot and he could have the main but he still doesn't get it. Who got punked harder? Me with all my money in before the flop with AA against 1 opponent or him with 1/3 of his money in pre-flop with AA against 2 opponents? I'm no math genius but I think it's obvious. I have had 2 bad run-ins with Pot-Limit but I still enjoy it very much. I haven't committed my chips w/o the best of it yet so I'm not really upset other then losing money. I have replayed the 8's in my head and it's just a hand I couldn't win. Oh well, there will be more. My friend doesn't post on 2 plus 2 but I'm going to get him to read your responses.
Razor
You did. AA is a big fav against QQ - getting your money in pre flop was a good move he hit his 2 outer.
AA against 2 players with all the collective outs is much less of a fav.
I was playing in a Limit HE tournament a couple of weeks ago and had AA got in a raising war with KK - we raised out 2 wood be players and I commented after I won the hand I was glad the other players mucked when they did.
A local player said you want them in - I disagreeed - I said I wanted to win the pot heads up not take a chance against 2 more players with many collective outs that would beat me. Rather double up than lose a big one any day.
You got punked harder but at least the other guy had a real hand. Your call with the 8's is pretty nasty. Why not wait for a better spot against the maniac? Your 88's are jack shit against any higher pair and barely a favorite against two overcards. You also know you're gonna be paying a lot more after the flop when your friend moves in his stack or bets the maximum. Are you anticipating the maniac calling you down to the river with no draw and no pair? Cause just about any pair he could conceivably pick up has a good chance at being better than your 8's. Sounds like you can't get away from a hand and use implied odds as a bad reason to play. The maniac calls preflop with 73o and calls a max bet on the flop of AQ7 with 73o and you're rushing to get into a confrontation with him?
Poker Prodigy,
The guy with the aces could not hurt me at all! He only had 150 in front of him and already 60 in the pot. If the maniac catches any piece of the flop I will take down his stack if I A. Flop a set(7 1/2-1) or B. He flops a draw and doesn't improve. Any two overcards and he would have re-raised pre-flop!
I think 7 1/2 -1 is pretty good odds to risk 60 to win 800. Unless I'm not a math prodigy that would be better then 13-1 and that's not including him just picking up a draw and missing. I could be wrong but I don't think so in this case but you were right about one thing...I got punked
Later,
Razor
Here is a 5-10 hand I played recently: I was in the big blind holding Jh 8h, everyone folded to the small blind, he raised, I called. The flop came J x x, the small blind bet, what is my best move? Should I raise on the flop, then fold to a reraise? Should I call on the flop and look at the turn card before raising? If I do this, do I fold if the turn is an overcard and he bets into me? I know that I have not provided a lot of info here, but I had just sat down at the table and had no prior knowledge of the small blind's play.
Thanks, Brian Flanagan
Brian,
Your call of the big blind is correct getting 3.4 to 1 minus rake. In fact your call with almost anything here unless you know the small blind will only raise with the biggest pairs. Then you would still call most hands getting those odds head up where you cannot be squeezed if you flop something.
Now you have flopped top pair, no kicker. Not knowing the opponent, I would at least call him down. Head up there are just too many hands a random opponent can have and you should not get pushed off too easily.
But the better play may be to raise the flop when he bets. I'd like to know the opponent a bit more before making this play. Let's say he reraised. First, this doesn't mean overpair against anyone with any play to him. Plus you will now be getting 7 to 1 on your call and you would have five outs minus redraws. But the fact is he more likely has overcards or even only one overcard or an underpair so I still would want to call him down.
If he has one of the weaker hands (especially overcards), don't be surprised if he checks behind you on the turn. This may mean that the best play may be to call the flop and lead the turn. From there on it gets more complicated and maybe others will step in as I need to get ready for work soon.
Anyway, I wanted to write a brief response but I have rambled a bit and my coffee is finally made. The point is that you cannot get pushed off a hand too easily when you have position on a raiser and you know the raiser knows it will be heads up (unlike an UTG raise by a solid player where it would be correct to throw away a dominated king in the blind).
I'm sure others will weigh in and further confuse you :-).
Regards,
Rick
I think that any reasonable person would raise with one person to go when in the SB and a slightly better than average hand. Do you call? Debatable. Personally, I'm not too sure I would unless I had a better read on the player. Your hand, suited or not, is still pretty close to average. Let's face it, if you flop a four flush you're going to drop. So your hand is average, his hand stands a reasonable chance to being anywhere from slightly better to completely dominating over you. But then again, it might not be. So you flip a coin, it comes up heads, and you throw in your 5 bucks.
Now the flop comes. It doesn't smack you...but it's a nice tap on the shoulder. "psst," it whispers. "Bet me." Your only option is to raise. There's a good chance that even overcards will fold to your raise and there's a really good chance that whatever he has, you beat it right now, with or without your kicker. If nothing else, your raise, assuming it's not reraised, asserts your control when the turn comes.
If he reraises you, or if he calls your raise and an overcard comes on the turn which he bets, you might want to consider going into call mode through the river...or just flat out folding. I can't tell you which one is better. Like most decisions, the situation dictates the action.
Dan
Do you call? Debatable. Personally, I'm not too sure I would unless I had a better read on the player.
Calling an open raise from the SB while holding J8s in the BB is *debateable*? Anyone who folds here with J8s against an opponent that isn't a known rock (or known to be very passive in the small blind specifically) is a fish of the weak-tight variety.
Your hand, suited or not, is still pretty close to average.
Which means it's an easy call. When the small blind raises, you're getting 3:1 on your call, and you have position. As such you should call here with the majority of your hands, and J8s is in the top 1/3 or so.
Let's face it, if you flop a four flush you're going to drop.
Huh? Why in the world would you fold a four flush??? You should probably raise your four flush at some point, not fold it.
If he reraises you, or if he calls your raise and an overcard comes on the turn which he bets, you might want to consider going into call mode through the river...or just flat out folding.
You should almost never fold top pair in a heads up situation versus someone in steal position just because they three-bet the flop, unless that opponent is terribly predictable.
-Sean
i pretty much agree with rick.
"but rick didn't decide on any particular play," you protest.
exactly. don't fold. raise now or raise later or raise never. you have a lot of leeway heads up.
what i would do would be heavily intuition dependent, but right now i am feeling call the flop. bet the turn if checked to. raise the the turn if a blank falls. if a big card falls call him down.
one reason not to raise the flop is that almost any player will call one more small bet to see the turn card.
scott
"one reason not to raise the flop is that almost any player will call one more small bet to see the turn card. "
This might be a reason TO raise the flop if the player seems semi-weak tight. You can get an extra bet out of him here when he folds on the turn anyway.
Puggy
most playersm, who are holding little or nothing in the sb here, will bet the turn and fold to raise if they still have nothing. or call a flop raise then check fold the turn when they miss. you make one more sb with the best hand by raising later. if the guy is so weak tight my flop call causes him to check the turn, then yes, i raise the flop for value.
scott
mighty good point...
Brian,
I would definitely raise the flop. With top pair against one opponent, you are a clear favorite to have the best hand. Your poor kicker is not a major concern heads up against a possible steal attempt. If he has even one overcard, you want him to fold now rather than drawing out on you later in the hand. A reraise from your opponent would slow me down, but I would not release the hand, I would call him down all the way to the river.
His preflop raise was very likely an attempt to steal the blind, and his bet on the flop could very well be a bluff, semibluff, or a bet "to find out where he stands". It might be different if you knew what kind of player your opponent was, but don't let an unkown opponent outplay you when you are a clear favorite to have the best hand.
-Kevin
....., because of the dirty behavior of a Maniac
I was in a game 6-12 TH, by the time I reach the “river I was drawing for a “Strait” and the other opponent was drawing for a “Flash”.
The “river comes and neither of us make the hand.
The other guy, as soon as the “river” card hits the felt is calling his hand; saying loud Flash!! – me, being disappointed slam the cards on the table face down, believing that the guy is got his Flash. The dealer see the guy’s cards that are not “flash” and is saying that he cannot do this ( calling his hand ) but only because my cards are not both face up he get the POT money ( aprox $200 ). One of my cards was face down and the other was face UP. The King from my cards was face up but the other was face down.
The other guy had garbage ( 2 small red cards, a 3 & 6 red ). So, my hand would have been stronger, but the pot money goes to him, according to the dealer!
Believing of not, the guy accepts the money, and continue to stay there like a PIG!
I may have been wrong when I slam the cards on the table, but I’m convinced that you cannot call verbally your hand saying i.e. FLASH!, just to confuse the other player!
That’s dirty poker by my standards and it should not be allowed to happen.
I call the pit boss over, but he was saying that because my cards looks like I was throwing my hand away the rules give the other guy the money!
Nevertheless, the guy keep playing, a lose all his money by the end of the night. I make some money by the end, but I was frustrated by the fact that somebody is allowed to just b.s. call his hand in purpose to mess things up!
The entire incident has happened in Bay 101 Club.
Go Get’s all!
I fell for a similiar angle when I first started. It only cost me 30$.Look at the bright side you will never fall for that again,lesson learned.
If I was called over as floorman you would have got the pot if those facts were verified. This would be based on some latitude the Los Angeles rule book gives me and the desire to apply the principle of what is fair. I'll elaborate further late tonight if anyone is interested.
Regards,
Rick
Correct me if I'm wrong, but cards speak, right? And even if you "muck" your hand, if it hasn't been completely mucked (as in combined with the other cards) and can both be turned over you can get the pot regardless.
If it happened that one card was completely mucked, while the key card, the king, was still up...I have no idea. I'm not a rules expert.
Dan
If you slammed your cards down in front of you and not toward the dealer as in mucking, and you didn't say 'you win', why didn't the dealer tell you to turn both cards over? Your message said the floorman said it looked like you threw them away. If the cards were in front of you with one card up it looks like a bad call. Once when I had a winner I only showed the card that made a straight and the dealer said turn both over since each player had to have both cards turned over.
I don't understand why cardrooms continue to tolerate angle-shooting like this, but on the other hand as long as we remember that cards, and not players, speak, we won't have this problem.
Cards do speak but all cards must be turned face up
(because of the possible chance of ringer cards)
The question is, were both of your cards still in front of you? If one of your cards made it into (touched) the muck, you have a dead hand, and therefore cannot win the pot, even if the single card that was remaining made a winning hand. A dealer cannot read an incomplete hand, so ypu must have both cards to have a "complete hand". I guess the important thing here is never release your cards until you see that you are beaten (not TOLD that you are beaten) or you are pushed the pot.
If in fact both your cards were free of the muck, the floorman made a very bad mistake.
Mike
You shouldve gotten the pot. I had something similar to that happen to me. I had bottom pair by the river and it was checked around nobody bet and everyone had high cards i mucked my hand but before the dealer mixed it with the pile i realized my mistake and spoke up. The dealer turned over my cards and awarded my the pot. It shoud have been yours.
actually, you should have won the pot, because you should have held onto your winning hand, in fact, in this casem the dealer made a mistake by awarding you the pot. Just because a hand isn't mixed into the muck, doesn't mean it isn't dead. It only has to *touch* the muck to be considered dead
Is the dealer's hand part of the muck ? In other words can a player ask for his cards back while the dealer still has them cuffed, before he puts them in the muck? This happened to me once when a player dished a winning hand then asked for it back, the floorman gave it to him.
Mike,
In Los Angeles a hand can hit the muck and still be retrieved if it is in the best interest of the game.
I can provide some examples if you are interested but email me (to notify me of your post) as I am hardly able to keep up as I am pretty busy right now.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I work as a floorman at Hollywood Park
Was out of town on business yesterday, and dropped into their local casino. One game going: 5-10 Dealer's Choice. Couple of the players I recognized and vice-versa, but most of the crowd unknown to me, and I assume me to them as well.
Had played about 45 minutes, and had not yet picked up a hand worthy of putting money in voluntarily. Was down about $30 just from blinds. Game had got a little short-handed (7 players) so we had gone to 1 blind of $5. I pick up the red Q's in the blind. Four limpers, I decide to raise. Everyone of course calls.
Flop comes down Js-Jc-4h. I bet out and they all call. At this point, I strongly suspect someone has caught trip Jack's and is waiting to pop me on the turn. Much to my delight, the turn card is the Qc. Now I suppose I could have slowplayed it, but my thought was, "What could they have possibly called with after that flop?" I figured I would get paid off by anyone with a pocket pair, perhaps, and certainly anyone who had caught a Jack was going to raise. So I go ahead and bet, and they all folded.
Did I get too aggressive on the turn, or was betting out correct? Thoughts?
Dunc,
You should probably check. You have a very strong hand and chances are minimal that somebody will draw out on you, so you want to get as much money as possible into the pot. Betting in the hopes that someone will raise with 3 jacks, has the effect of driving out weak opponents who otherwise might put in some money. If you run into 3 jacks, you still may get to check-raise, depending whether this will get the most money in the pot.
If somebody has 3 jacks, they are going to bet. Heck, if it's checked around to the button, somebody in late position might even try to steal it with little or nothing in his hand.
If a bet comes from early position, right behind you, I would check-raise as this will get the most money in the pot. If a bet comes from late position with several players in between, I would smooth call so as not to drive anyone out.
If a raising war happens to develop on the turn, get in there and put in some raises with the other aggressors.
Even if nobody bets the turn, your check will encourage people to call you on the river, "on suspicion".
In any event, I would bet the river. Heck, you might even get raised (probably by 3 jacks or maybe a smaller full house), in which case take the gloves off and reraise.
So far I have neglected the remote possibility of being up against pocket jacks. If you are against this, you will start to figure it out around the 4th or 5th raise, at which point you have to step on the brakes.
-Kevin
I know my hand was super-strong; in fact, about the only was I could be beat is for someone with Jx to catch a 1-outer at the river. Anyone with AA, KK, or JJ would have in all probability raised pre-flop, right? My point was that I guess I gave these players too much credit, given the fact I didn't know many of them at all. My thought process was that anyone who had called that flop after a raise out of the blind was NOT likely to fold the turn. Now obviously they all can't have trip Jack's, but I did not expect the whole crew to fold to 1 more bet. I felt betting out was one way to get as much money as possible into the pot. Once I had played a couple of hours with these guys, I learned that they were horrible players who were calling with a hope and a prayer, and I should have slow-played my nut full. I went home with a couple hundred profit after 3 hours, so it wasn't like this one hand ruined my night or anything; it just bugged me a bit at the time.
No! Dunc, you weren't making one cent more on this hand.
I have to say that you played the hand correctly. Four callers smooth calling, you have to figure that one of them has the jack or at least a four because there is no flush or straight draw present. There's probably a small pocket pair or Ax present as well, I mean what else can they be calling with.
If you check, the only player who's going to bet is a jack, because what kind of queen would have called your flop bet without having raised pre-flop? Even QT isn't going to bet now, probably. So, you could go for the check-raise, but I prefer the bet because any jack will raise, allowing you to three-bet. If you are lucky enough for two jacks to be out then it's cash city, especially if one has a good kicker. Plus, you raised pre-flop which doesn't suggest that many jacks other than AJ or, very remotely, JJ. Anyone thinking might put you on overcards or overpair (which you had).
Since there wasn't any jacks out there, everyone believed you had the jack or overpair. Had you checked and then bet the river, you might have gotten one more call from someone suspicious, but you would have foresaked the possible raising war that would have happened on the turn. Such a raising war wouldn't happen on the river because the jack would have already sprung to life. So, I agree with the way you played it wholeheartedly.
Later, you say, it turns out that these players are terrible. So, the bet is still correct. If they are really that weak let 'em call, if they are strong they'll raise anyway.
Consider the requirements for slowplaying in TOP and I don't think they are present here. No one is going to improve, if they've got it, they've got it already. Keep betting because it's the only way to win a big pot which is the kind you want with your hand.
MDMAniac
I think your analysis of the hand was correct and I would have played it the same way. I would have been positive that atleast one J was out there (what else would they be calling with? a 4?) and would have had the same thought process as you. I would have bet out hoping to get raised, then depending on the player and the position either called or reraised. If i call I check raise on the river, it depepends on the other player and how aggressive he is if I think he would play back at me on the turn, I would absolutley reraise if I think a reraise will scare him then I'd just call but as far as the way you played the hand I see nothing wrong with it. Just my opinion, I'm certainly no expert.
x
I think the hand could have been played either way. By betting, you could get calls from players who maybe picked up a draw which they wouldn't have bet.. By checking, you allow players to catch a K or A on the river with which they might call you down. I don't see how anyone could strongly disagree with either strategy nor why you should be upset over your decision to bet.
Good luck.
If they all folded to your turn bet then they had nothing (not even a draw). So you would not have gotten anything out of them on the river either.
Betting here is the smart move. If someone has the jacks or a str8 draw they will probably pay you off here. Jacks might raise you and you can re-raise.
Maybe you could have gotten one bet out of a bluffer by checking the turn AND the river, but it's hardly worth it. I think you will make much more $$ in the long run the way you played it.
Sean
I rarely say anything while playing a hand (less than once per session), but this week-end the following situation arose early in the session. In two orbits I called once and have put no other voluntary money in the pot. Seems like a cozy game.
4 players called, I called on the button, SB folded and BB checked. Flop was T22. Everybody checked. Turn was 7, everybody checked. River was 5, everybody checked to me...
As I bet, I said "My hand is weak so a check-raise bluff will probably work."
What do you think?
- Louie
Sounds like A5 suited (maybe even 56 or 45), and you're trying to deter someone with a 7 from raising you, since you'll call anyway, but don't want to.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Why didn't you bet the flop... seems like a good place to try for a steal (and if you have ace high you might have the best hand on the flop)
Shawn
I think it works if you're not planning on calling every check raise and figure it will deter some of the possible check-raise bluffs. For that purpose, in fact, I think it would work very well.
Louie is a 60-120+ caliber pro (I'm not sure what level he plays, but he talks that good a game), therefore his tell is in the opposite direction from normal. Let's see, normally someone would say that with a weak hand trying to appear strong by trying to appear weak, so Louie must have a strong hand, perhaps 55 for fives full of deuces or even 22 for quad deuces. Cha-ching?
-Abdul
I'm not a top caliber pro but I made a comment tonight during a hand and I don't do it much at all either. I had pocket 4's and there was a raise and 2 calls to me. I called and 2 others did too. The flop came 4-4-A...Hallelujah Jesus! I couldn't check quick enough and it was 30 to me in a heartbeat. I just called. On the turn the obvious ace bet out and I called...Everybody dropped. The last card was a Q and it looked as though he liked it so I said...I know that card helped you but if you bet I'm gonna raise you! He did bet and I did raise and took down a nice one. He later whispered that my saying that made him think I had nothing and it gained me $60. Not a fortune but 2 big bets nonetheless.
Razor
I think everone with less than pair of sevens will fold and I think that you either were being honest or had 2,2.
Vince.
I think if you were on a flat-out steal, it would be risky to say anything. They've seen you soup for two rounds, they've checked three consecutive rounds, what is to be gained by saying something now unless you've got big'uns? Nobody else has a T or a 2, so you're hoping someone caught a 5 or will call with no pair.
i would have checkraised bluffed you and won the pot.(dont let me down im sticking my neck out against the heavy opposite opinion.)
This reminds me of the "poisoned chalice" scene from the movie "The Princess Bride". As you will recall, Barzini (Wallace Shawn) poisons one of two chalices of wine and then offers one to Robert (Cary Elwes). Robert distracts Barzini and rearranges the chalices. Barzini then tries to divine which of the chalices is poisoned (did he switch the chalices or leave them in the same position hoping that I would think he switched them? etc.). Turns out Robert had developed an immunity to the poison over time by taking small amounts of it.
THEREFORE, I can safely say that you have a big hand. I would not take the bait. You should never try to use reverse reverse psychology on a Sicilian.
You have a monster.
If you were using reverse reverse reverse psychology, as I think Vincent Lepore suggested, you are up on a level where I don't think your opponents can catch on.
I'm sorry -- Ray Zee was the one who suggested you were using reverse reverse reverse psychology and that he would raise you.
Actually, Robert poisoned BOTH chalices. It was his proposition bet, but the prop was that he would poison one chalice, and Barzini, with his greater intellect, should be able to determine which chalice was poisoned. As you indicated, Robert had developed an immunity to the poison, so he merely poisoned both chalices, and therefore didn't care which one Barzini picked to drink.
This is related to Mike Caro's advice. He has suggested that a good way to food an opponent is to suggest 2 possibilities. Often, when you do this, the opponent is working so hard on figuring out which one is true, that he forgets to consider any third or fourth possibilities (the truth).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Nice! I couldn't remember how he got the poison into both chalices, so skipped that. Very good analogy to Caro's table talk. appreciate your appreciation of my allusion. I have added a new layer of admiration for you.
"that a good way to food an opponent "
Fossilman,
Could the above be considered a "foodean slip"?
Vince.
BTW - You seem to have confused me with a good analogy made complex by to many possibilities. I like the "Barzini" reference even though I haven't seen the movie. The point here is that most players will base there call on hand strength alone in this situation. Pot odds are certainly not there. Maybe that is the key. Maybe Louie, Brilliant as he is, is saying "Please Call, I have a monster, knowing that almost all players will fold.
BTW I checked, and it's "Vizzini", not Barzini. It's a crime to never have seen the movie.
"Barzini" is the name of a Mafia Boss in the "God Father". I thought it was odd.
Vince
I love both movies! Interesting amalgam -- maybe there should be a combination of the two. "The Princess Don"? "The Mafia Bride"?
I like what Gregg said that you probably had something like A5 or K5. No I don't think you had quads. You can loose the pot to somebody who is rather unknown to you.
Scott and Greg are on the right track, although I'm a little surprised Greg didn't follow through with the correct conclusion.
In the movie the Sicilian switched cups unbeknownst to hero, and as he began to "drink" he gauged hero's reaction which was passive. Sicilan then figured Hero figured HE had the OK cup meaning the Sicilian must have had the OK cup and he proceeded to actually drink. HaHaDOH! Hero was calm since it didn't matter one iota what the Sicilian did since both cups were poisoned and he had the immunity.
Hero didn't actually SAY only one cup was poisoned but let it be "obviously" infered. So, as Greg pointed out he had already fooled the Sicilian into the either or guessing game. The Sicilian wasted time playing a game he couldn't win rather than figuring if he should actually play at all.
Back to the hand. Its REALLY obvious that nobody, including me, has very much if anything. By suggesting that a bluff-raise will probably work I get them thinking whether a bluff-raise will probably work or not (no duh); which has the unsaid but "obvious" inference that I have a hand "strong" enough that they need to bluff to win (such as a stiff 5). They thus don't bother thinking a CALL will work...
... which of course it would since I obviously had nothing. It was a waste of time since the bluff was a done deal anyway.
- Louie
Like my Grand-Master's Bridge, President of the US, and NFL Quarter-Back careers, I kabitz better than I play.
.
Since its "obvious" nobody has much especially ME, having checked twice in last position; this is a prime check-raise bluff situation and thus Ray's response. This has nothing to do with the comment, however; which was the focus of the post.
- Louie
Playing in a mostly loose 4-8 Hold'em game in the BB. Two positions from my left a moderateley tight player who is down to about $25 in front of him open raised the pot and two of the loose guys cold called. I had the 74 of clubs and had been givin up on a lot of my BB's lateley so I decided to make one of those periodic loose calls for the session. Is this too loose? I usually make 1-3 of these calls per session (usually 6-8hrs) because I play so damn tight that even the idiots start to notice. Anyways I took down a big pot because I flopped top and bottom pair and the opener had pocket tens. Well I got chewed out and started to wonder if my call was a little too loose or way too loose. Anyways what do you guys think? Goat.
Some times you have to do what you have to do.
A few loose calls a session keeps the yahoos guessing and that is good.
If you're not calling with 74s in BB for one bet, sharks will soon be swarming your hometown to play you when the word gets out.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
a routine call for me. especially in a tight game.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Goat,
I'll put in my two cents without looking at the answers posted so far (although I'm sure Rounder said you were way too loose).
I would need only one more caller to call it about a break even call in the blind with a small, suited, double gapper. Remember, you call closes the raising. Next, you are calling with a hand that will not get you into much trouble (as opposed to a hand such as KT off suit which will often be up against a better king raising UTG).
So if this was a leak it was a pretty small one. You could probably plug it with some chewing gum.
Regards,
Rick
A good "loose"call. There's already $30 in the pot and you can close the betting for $4. I'll take my chances with those odds with 7-4s.
I'd like to call in this spot more times than not. However I think I would have mucked it here. The two loose cold callers might have your 7 in their hand or even a 4 which reduces you chances of winning with a small pair. Also the original raiser is short on chips. But how short. He's got enough to charge you if you flop a draw but does not have enough to pay you off if you make it. You are not getting implied odds from this guy and he would be the most likely to give you good action if you flop something if he really does have something.
What makes you think the cold caller have a 7 or 4 in their hand? Of course it's possible but why more than any other card? I think it's an easy call because you're closing the betting and can get away from it real cheap.
"What makes you think the cold caller have a 7 or 4 in their hand? Of course it's possible but why more than any other card?"
I don't actually think they have a 7 or a 4 but it is the possibility that they will play more card combination which might actually have these cards that I consider a slight minus. For example:
loose players: 57s, 67s, 78s, 79s, 7Ts, 7Ks, 78o
maybe a little tighter players: 67s, 78s, 79s
tight players: none of the above
I remember that when I played the lower limit most loose players didn't really mind calling with all these hands. For me all this means is when I make a pair I have more things to worry about. Maybe something like calling a early raiser with KT or QJ. I would like to have the added equity of knowing that chances are if I make a pair of 4's or 7's that nobody will have me outkicked and maybe I can win with just a small pair or as an example:
Flop is K 7 2 (offsuit). I check. Raiser bets and both callers call. Pot = 11.5. I'm getting 11.5 to 1 and odds are 8.4 to 1 to spike 2 pair. These callers are loose so I guess the question is do they have my 7. If they do I'm a cooked goose.
P.S just a small minus to me when considering whether to call or not.
Hi there!
I'm GoldFish, have been playing poker for a few months, read HFAP, Krieger, and Lee Jones, and enjoy this forum even more than those books.
Check-calling is often quoted as the typical example of weak-tight play. There are no doubt exceptions where check-calling is fine, and I wondered if the following situation would fall into that category.
I'll explain the reasons for check-calling all the way till the end, and hope to be severely criticized for my inadequate thoughts.
I'm on the button with KJo.
3 limp in, and I just call. Reason: although this hand probably does not play well in a large pot, raising here would not get anyone out, and the hand is way too weak for raising. The blinds call, leaving 6 in the hand (confirming the loose-passiveness of the game).
Flop comes K 9 4 rainbow.
BB bets, 2 fold, I just call. Reason: Although the flop is one of the better ones for my KJo, I cannot be very sure the bettor does not have a better kicker, or 2 pair, or trips. Moreover, since there are not many overcards that could hurt me, I did not feel I had to chase out drawing hands. SB folds. 3 of us are left.
Turn is a 7. BB bets again. 3rd player folds, and I, again, just call. Reason: I thought this was a typical situation where my raise would only be called by a hand that would beat me. Apart from that, I don't see any hand I would like to chase out. In other words, either I am beaten already or I would chase out a weaker hand. And folding with top pair, no way!
River is another blank. BB bets again, and I just call. Reason, basically the same as before.
BB turns over KTo.
Although one might argue, given this result, that one could have put more bets in the pot, I would guess that on average (with BB having different hands) you would lose money by being more aggressive here.
GoldFish
Since everyone limped in, I would assume that he is betting top pair with a weak kicker to find out where he stands. I think you should have raised him on the flop to represent two pair. Since two pair will usually check-raise or reraise from early position and trips will call a raise so he does not lose you.
KJo is a pretty weak holding for a multi-handed pot and I might even consider folding this preflop.
However, once the flop comes, you could consider raising - by just check-calling you risk calling all the way to the river and losing to AK or KQ. However, if you raised on the flop, you might scare AK or AQ into checking the turn - saving you money when you're going to lose. Also, you would be re-raised by K9 or K4 and you could fold, also saving you money if you lose.
With this hand and this flop, there are many ways to lose, and the best play is the one that minimizes your loss - and raising actually does this better than check-calling.
~DjTj
I see your point, thanks. But if the BB is an aggressive player, I suppose you would not try to raise/fold on the flop, as you won't stop him from betting anyway. Agree?
If you raise after the flop his actions should give you a very good indication of what he has. If he reraises you, you have to figure that his kicker is better than yours. So, then you fold and save money. If he does not reraise you ( especially if you know that he is aggressive ) then you can put him on a weaker kicker which allows you to be more aggressive.
If your on the button you weren't checking and calling when the BB bet out...You were just calling. I probably would have popped the flop to get him to check on the turn or find out a little more but you didn't describe the BB.
You played it right in most cases. There is nothing to draw to, your hand is very likely to be best, and you can chase out players you don't want to chase by raising. You also can't chase out better hands. With more players in, you'd want to chase out more players.
Read the "Playing in extremely tight games" section of HPFAP. Then ask yourself if somewhat frequent check and call players are weak-tight.
GoldFish--
I think that your preflop call might be a little shaky, but I would probably do the same given the situation.
I would raise on the flop because you're on the button. No, you aren't going to get a better hand to fold, but you aren't going to get any information either. If you are reraised, you can probably drop because he ain't going to reraise with KT or worse, unless you know him to be capable of something like that. Plus, what does he have that's better? Maybe two pair, but any big king he probably would've raised with. If you raise, you find out. You don't have to worry about losing worse hands becuase they will call one more bet because they have better odds Keep in mind with a lot of people calling, there are second pair/singleton aces out there. Nothing wrong with charging them a little more.
On the turn he'll check, I would bet. If check-raised I'd consider how tricky he is. I'm assuming this is low-limit so I would probably fold, since most players ain't tricky enough to check-raise the turn with a worse hand then you have. If they all call, you should feel good.
Make your river decision like you normally would. Your way of playing isn't terrible, but you probably cost yourself a couple of bets. Plus, it never hurts to have an aggressive image.
MDMAniac
In a 15/30, 2/3 chip blind game.
I'm in the SB with QQ. UTG, a local pro/host raises and folded to me. I reraise, BB drops, and UTG reraises, I just call heads up.
UTG and I have juked each other before with bluff inducing etc, and playing at multi levels of thinking. He is tough, aggressive, will bluff, and keep the pressure on.
Anyway, The flop comes Axx rainbow.
I check call - I don't like betting into this player since he is unlikely to give up information by calling or raising predictably. He is likely to raise with most hands. Many times I will lead bet against most players. Others, I might check raise and lead on the turn.
The turn is a Ten I check call again. Since i check-called the flop, check calling the the turn is very reasonable to me since this maximizes bluff inducement and minimizes loss to a better hand.
The river is a Jo. I Bet out! He looks at me and flashes KK and folds! I managed to make the under pair good after bets on every round! This is a very rare betting sequence for me and only attempted against the pro. I probably would have called an aggressive river bet and he is the type to keep the pressure on and of course capable of tough folds.
I'm just wondering if the more "straight forward" sequence of check-raising the flop and leading on the turn with plans to fold against a turn raise, may have been a little better/safer.
Anyway, The multi level thinking led me to some quick and dirty bayesian analysis with a hint of game theory bluffing on the river. I believe I had pot odds to bluff a weak but better hand out.
I hate playing against tough players. You have tough decisions and you either look like a hero or a total idiot. If he had AK, I would look like an idiot or a total fish.
Any comments on any level would be great. In this situation I played his hand more than I played mine.
hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
Albert,
It's late and I'm thinking only on level 1.9 right now but I like the bet on the river. You have to call his bet given the fact that you have played so passively (which was not wrong) and the only hands he could have that he would raise with would beat you so you could fold to a raise.
But the hand he had was a real possibility considering his cap pre flop and the fact that one ace, one jack and two queens are already out. So kings is the most likely pair. Many of these players will lay down kings to a surprise bet. He probably figured that if you were betting now it was because you feared he would check behind with a weaker hand than two pair. Good play.
Regards,
Rick
I'm not sure about this one Rick.
The pro sounds like an aggressive player who would play AK the same way that he would play the kings.
After the flop, I count 12 ways he could have AK, 3 ways for AA, and 6 ways for KK. And even if you're "lucky" and he does have kings, you can't be sure to get him to lay them down.
Yes, there are 9.5:1 odds to call the flop bet, but against an aggressive player, you are most certainly going to have to pay 5 more small bets (to win about 14 total).
Maybe I'm thinking fuzzily on this one, but I think you should just lay the Qs down on the flop.
Puggy
Puggy,
There is a small chance that I was winning all along and that he would call with a worse hand. or fold a slightly better hand. One of those "two way river bets"
There is no way I can lay down QQ on the flop with this player. If I check he will bet any pair and if I bet he will many times raise with under pairs to maintain the lead and positional advantage.
I must admit the J was a scary card for me on the river. Luckily it was for him too. It is not inconceivable that he would play A9s the same way.
Basically I mimicked a slow play here or two pair/set on the river.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
You say he is a tough pro but I've got to wonder about that since he showed his KK. Unless he wants to increase your perception of his ability to fold.
20-40, I am on the button with As-9s. Loose player limps from middle position, another loose player limps behind him and I limp as well. Small blind, who is also loose, calls and big blind, unknown player, doesn't raise. Five of us take the flop.
Flop comes A-Q-3 rainbow with no spades. Small blind bets, big blind folds, both limpers call and I call. Turn is a red 7. All check to me. I bet. Small blind raises. Both limpers cold call! I call.
River is 2s. Small blind bets, both limpers fold and I call. Small blind has pocket 9s and I win with my Ace.
All comments appreciated. I can foresee criticism for not raising pre-flop and/or on the flop.
Some comments on my thinking: Small blind is wild and his bet on the flop is by no means certainly because he has an Ace. Neither limper raised, so I felt they might had either just a Queen or an inside straight draw with K-J or K-T or J-T.
On the turn, when they all checked, this confirmed to me that probably no one but I had an Ace; when SB raised, I still was not sure he had me beat; since no one raised his flop bet, he might be pushing a smaller Ace or had some other hand I could outdraw. I also felt the limpers could have picked up a flush draw or even had 5-4 for a belly buster draw. (They are very loose, and one was, by his own admission, on a major tilt). So once they contributed an extra 4 big bets, I felt the pot odds justified my overcalling.
On the river, I called for the size of the pot.
Unusual, I think to call a bet on all 4 streets, including one raise, not improve from the flop, and win against that many opponents.
Can't criticize you for not raising preflop or on the flop with this hand specially if you don't think it will thin the field. On the turn I like your chances and the wheel seems a distant possibilty. Pre flop no raise I like A9 as most loose players are incapable of just calling with AT and up.
I must say you won this hand cuz you had the best hand not cuz you out played anyone.
Thanks to all who responded to my Pre-Flop Play Questionnaire, whether by posting to r.g.p., the 2+2 forum, or by personal email to me.
There were around twenty responses, and I have collated the results below. These were the criteria for the answers:
> I have put together a little questionnaire on pre-flop play below, on some > of the close calls come up quite regularly. > > Please assume that you have just 'sat down' in a $10-$20 holdem game > *online*. You therefore have no read on the players, none of whose names > you recognise. Therefore, the decisions must be made purely on the merits of > the cards.
There are a couple of points to be made before I list the answers:
[1] Some people gave more than one answer to certain questions. I had to discount these, unless a preference for one of the answers was given
[2] Some people responded to people who answered the questionnaire, in order to discuss just one or two of the original respondent's answers. Where possible, I have included these single answers in the final figures.
[3] The answers of 'Maniac', on the 2+2 forum, were ignored as he elected to raise at every opportunity, and I considered that he was not taking the questionnaire seriously :-)
OK then, the survey said....
> (1) 85s in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
CALL [88%].....fold [12%]
> (2) 77 on the button. Two limpers so far.
CALL [61%].....raise [31%].....fold [8%]
> (3) 88 on the button. One middle-position raiser so far.
RAISE [54%]....fold [38%].....call [8%]
A classic case of 'Pump It or Dump It'!
> (4) AJs under the gun.
RAISE [47%] CALL [47%].....fold [6%]
The first tie, and Eric on 2+2 is hereby named and shamed as tighter than a nun's **** !
> (5) TT in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it > three bets
CALL [44%].....fold [38%]....raise [18%]
This question caused perhaps the most interest and discussion with advocates of all three options. It is a *very* tough decision, but I must say that, on balance, I would be inclined to lay it down. Not only are you out of position, but it might be capped pre-flop if you just call, and there is a real chance that one of the raisers holds an overpair, in which case you're in BIG trouble. If there is no overpair out, then there's probably THREE overcards which beat you, so I think that almost *all* of your equity here is in hitting a set, and I don't think that the pot is laying you the necessary odds for that.
> (6) AK in late position. First in, you raised and the big blind made it > three bets.
RAISE [53%].....call [47%]
A photo finish here. I must say I like the call. If you hit your hand you can get the extra bet in on the flop or the turn with position, so you may as well wait until you hit rather than gamble here.
> (7) A9o on the button. One limper so far
FOLD [41%].....raise [33%].....call [26%]
The closest of all here, with all three options getting at least a quarter of the vote. I like the raise here, but it is close. I don't like the fold one bit though.
> (8) 22 on the button. One limper so far
FOLD [64%].....call [29%]....raise [7%]
I must say I like the call here. If you limp the flop is likely four-handed, which I think gives the implied odds to shoot for the set. You have position, and it is hardly inconceivable that the deuces will hold up!
> (9) QJs under the gun
FOLD [47%].....call [29%]....raise [24%]
Another question with genuine three-way action. I must admit this answer surprised me - OK, it's out of position, but QJs iks a hand that can win a lot of ways and I think that throwing it away is wasteful. having said that, I don't like the raise either - that's just asking to end up heads-up in the pot with a three-bettor holding JJ, QQ, KK, AA, AK or AQ, none of which is a remotely pleasant proposition.
Nope, for me this is an easy call - but only 29% agree with me....!
> (10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always > raise?
RAISE [79%].....limp [21%]
Funnily enough, I've just had precisely this situation on Paradise Poker. I would have considered limping, but I was stuck and wanted to make this hand a winner, so I popped it.
Middle position with KK (heh heh) made it three-bets, I capped it and two others came along for the ride. Flop came A-7-4 offsuit :-), and I checked it around; there was a bet, a raise, I happily made it three bets and all four came along for the turn! [why, I don't know!] Turn was a rag, I bet and got two callers, and the river was another 4. I bet my Aces Full, got one caller and dragged a nice pot :-)
Anyway, back to the quiz; I hope you enjoyed it and hope that it might be of some value to you in actual play. We got such luminaries as Mason Malmuth responding so the answers should be of some use.
Mark
Mark A,
Good job doing all this work and presenting the results. I see a lot of material for threads but I may have to hold off starting any involved ones for a few days as I'm sort of buried in home improvement hell.
Regards,.
Rick
"> (4) AJs under the gun.
RAISE [47%] CALL [47%].....fold [6%]
The first tie, and Eric on 2+2 is hereby named and shamed as tighter than a nun's **** ! "
Whoo-hoo!
In a more serious vein, if I knew the game better I might well have played it. However, I am not a person who gives a whole lot of extra value to suitedness. I see it as adding a seat or two in terms of position. I don't normally play AJo in the first three seats after the BB, so I won't tend to play AJs under the gun against a table of complete unknowns. Marginal hands should not be played up front.
And, yes, most people who don't play aginst me very often do tend to see me as tighter than a witch's **** B>}
Thanks for the moment of fame, Eric
Oops. I forgot which simile was being used, and mixed two together. That's what comes from making sure your kids don't hurt themselves or each other.
Eric
6-12 game. Fluctuating between a somewhat normal game and a crazy game. UTG limps, two callers in between, I'm one off button with black queens and raise. Button and sb muck, BB calls as does everyone else.
Flop comes Ad Kd 10c. Everyone checks to me and I check along.
Turn is another Ac. BB checks, UTG limper bets and callers in between. If either caller had an Ace they'd raise here. If UTG had an A or a K he would've bet flop (crazy gambling oriental). I'm worried about BB more than anyone but I gotta find out, I raise, BB drops and UTG and inbetweens call. River is an offsuit baby. Everyone checks to me and, like a wimp, I check.
UTG flips Q10, turn callers muck and I show QQ and drag a pot. I think the turn callers were looking for one card straights or had j10 or maybe were on a flush draw.
Now after the hand's over, BB is muttering that he threw away a king. And this brings me to my question. In these games, bets do not cause anyone with any kind of hand to drop but raises do. Has anyone here played a hand similiarly to this? If you saw this play would you classify me as a maniac?
I don't make these plays all the time. (it was putting it out there to get cut off) I am a fairly tight player preflop and on the flop but I do fire some chips on hands I choose to play (when I think I have a reasonable chance of either having the best hand or causing lesser hands to fold). I was representing AK or AQ. This game was the kind where a KQ would checkraise the flop, all kind of weird plays. Difficult to put anyone on a hand but selective pressure could move these loosies off a hand occassionally. Anyway, what do y'all think?
chris
6-12 game. Fluctuating between a somewhat normal game and a crazy game. UTG limps, two callers in between, I'm one off button with black queens and raise.
Well played keeping in mind that you may have to dump hand on flop.
Flop comes Ad Kd 10c. Everyone checks to me and I check along.
???????? Why check here? With this flop you're almost positive you are beat. Bet it. If you get check-raised great; now you know you are beat and you can lay the hand down. Okay, you could make a very weak point about your broadway straight draw but the reality is this... you raised with a good hand preflop in a multiway pot. The flop is a nightmare for your hand (especially in a game where the players play any ace and most kings), and if you continue with the hand when you are beat you could easily make your straight and still be beat. Let's also remember that almost all 6-12 and below players play any two suited cards, so if the J of diamonds falls to make your straight you are most likely beat, and if any other diamond falls along with any J you are likely beat. (That's *if* someone doesn't already have a full house or make one with your J.) Your set is probably no good if you hit it unless the board pairs in which case you could still be beat.
Turn is another Ac. BB checks, UTG limper bets and callers in between. If either caller had an Ace they'd raise here. If UTG had an A or a K he would've bet flop (crazy gambling oriental). I'm worried about BB more than anyone but I gotta find out, I raise, BB drops and UTG and inbetweens call. River is an offsuit baby. Everyone checks to me and, like a wimp, I check.
Huh?! You couldn't get me to call here (let alone *raise* with someone else's money :))) Okay you may have a point about UTG betting the flop with an A or K but many stereotypical gambling asians also love to check raise. What are you putting the two middle cold callers on? Flush draws (*both of them*) on a board where even an idiot knows that they could be drawing dead.
Then you call yourself a wimp for checking the river?! (I would be thrilled to just get a chance to show down this hand without having to put any more money in the pot.)
Bottom line: You got very lucky to have won this one and in general will get tortured if you proceed with hands like this one on this kind of board. Look for an excuse to get away from underpairs in a multiway pot; not for excuses to continue with *usually* second (or even third or fourth) best hands.
Regards- Lone Star
Thanks for the skewering. I don't see any value to betting the flop. Automatic flop bets mean nothing. So why bet the flop and get someone married to the hand.
Hold'em is a game of position; taking advantage of position does not simply mean bet at any opportunity. I admit if the inbetweeners had dropped when UTG bet the turn, my turn play is more easily justified. On the other hand, if BB had come out betting the turn I would've dropped. Or if one of the inbetweeners had raised when UTG bet, I would've dropped.
As it was I knew I had the UTG bettor beat and I felt pretty strongly that I had the callers in between us beat. So the only person I was worried about was in the BB. Now I don't know if he really had a king but what's more important is that I know he's not a caller; he's a semistrong player that plays his hand, he doesn't huff and puff and call people down; consequently, I felt that raising was the best play for two reasons: 1) It would get the BB out (remember at this point he only has one small bet in because he was the BB) 2) Give me the chance for a free showdown (not a small consideration given the 3 tier betting structure) Also if anyone bet into me on the river I don't even have to think about calling.
I appreciate your comments Lone Star but I think auto betting the flop, when you have an underpair, overpair, top set or nothing is a mistake. Sometimes you can check the flop to take a free card. Sometimes you can check the flop to get more action later. But one thing not betting the pot does is grow the pot, which keeps people in. The more people in the pot, the stronger your hand has to be to take down the money. Sometimes, especially with weak players, the time to get aggressive is on the turn. With a checked around flop (especially when you're perceived as a strong player) people get frisky with draws and second pairs and so on and you can isolate them with your overpair to middle pair or your top pair/good kicker. On the other hand if you auto bet the flop draws know you have some kind of hand and will check and call. As a result you can't isolate them.
It seems, to me, that hold'em is a game where manipulating your opponents into exposing themselves when they're weak and pouncing on them to extract the maximum amount of money. If you always play the same way; i.e. bet, bet, bet at every opportunity your opponents are more likely to play closer to correct, in other words they're more likely to check and call. But if you can get them to bet into you when you're strong so you can raise them, or check to you when you're weak so you can take a card then you've gained a tremendous advantage.
In any case, I was wondering if anyone has begun to take of advantage of these kind of turn plays. I guess it should be said that if I'd have AK or trip kings I probably would've played the hand the same way. On the other hand if I had trip 10's or trip A's I would've bet on the flop. I guess what's weird about lone star's post is that she suggests betting the flop from weakness but I checked the flop from strength. In other words, if my hand is good giving the other players a free card isn't likely to hurt me and if I bet all kind of bad things can happen.
chris
chris,
Another thing your flop check does is mimic a slow play. They expect a pre-flop raiser to bet this type of flop and when you don't they are usually concerned that you really have a big hand (despite the fact that you generally should not slowplay given a jack or a queen makes a straight).
If your read was this good on the callers of UTG's turn bet then the raise was defensible. In addition to the BB, I do think the UTG "crazy gambling oriental" could also have a king and even such a player will often lay it down when the board pairs the ace since he may believe he is drawing dead.
I have made plays similar to this when I flop bad but my check can look scary to my opponents because of my pre flop raise. An example would be an UTG raise with QQ or JJ and the flop is AKx. If I had several mediocre callers who "realize things" at a certain level then my check is very intimidating. They will often check behind on the flop. When I come out betting on fourth street they tend to put me on AK or a big set. Now if I am raised I know I am up against a hand and can play accordingly.
Regards,
Rick
In Response To: Re: Unusual 6-12 hand
>i>Thanks for the skewering. I don't see any value to betting the flop. Automatic flop bets mean nothing. So why bet the flop and get someone married to the hand.
Sorry if that's the way you took it. I was merely pointing out that the way you played this hand will cost you big time in the long run. I actually agree with you on the flop bet. My initial reaction was check it through on the flop and fold on the turn to even one bet. The consistency of this flop and the number of people in it make it such a slim possibility of winning that I don't think it's worth even one bet. *However*, you seem to be married to the Q's until someone PROVES to you that you are beat. If that is your mindset then bet the flop, let someone raise you, then get away from the hand for one small bet. With your play of raising the turn it costs you 4 small bets to find out that you are beat (in the about 95 times out of a 100 that you are beat).
Hold'em is a game of position; taking advantage of position does not simply mean bet at any opportunity.
I agree. Again, my initial thought is to get away from it without putting in another dollar. *If* you are determined to know that you are beat before laying it down, bet the flop.
As it was I knew I had the UTG bettor beat and I felt pretty strongly that I had the callers in between us beat.
And you knew that you had them beat again how? Could it not be that they were trying to check-raise the flop with a very strong hand expecting you to bet it, or perhaps that they flopped a huge hand and are themselves waiting to raise on the turn when the bet size is doubled? I don't understand how you *know* that you have 4 people beat.
I felt that raising was the best play for two reasons: 1) It would get the BB out (remember at this point he only has one small bet in because he was the BB) 2) Give me the chance for a free showdown (not a small consideration given the 3 tier betting structure) Also if anyone bet into me on the river I don't even have to think about calling.
1)Actually the BB has two small bets in after calling your preflop raise. 2) I think your chances for a free showdown most of the time are slim. I don't like the play of being willing to put in two big bets on the turn only to lay it down to one big bet on the river, but then again, I don't like the turn play at all.
I appreciate your comments Lone Star but I think auto betting the flop, when you have an underpair, overpair, top set or nothing is a mistake. Sometimes you can check the flop to take a free card.
True. And you could make a good argument for checking it through on the flop to catch your free card if your idea was to continue with the hand if and only if the turn card was a J (and tread cautiously if it is the J of diamonds). (Okay, you could argue that you could continue if a Q hits hoping the board pairs.) It's the turn play of raising once your hand looks hopeless that I don't like.
Sometimes you can check the flop to get more action later. But one thing not betting the pot does is grow the pot, which keeps people in.
Again, I agree. Let me reiterate. Your holding of QQ looked great before the flop; now it is a *really*, *really*, weak holding on this flop in a multiway pot. You don't want more action later. You want to get the heck away from it before it costs you more money!
Not betting "grows the pot". Eh???? I have no idea what growing a pot means. (Something like growing my plants?)
What it sounds like to me is that you are trying to make the result of this hand justify the way that you played it. Simple truth: You got lucky and won a pot that you won't win the vast majority of the time. If you do persist in going forward with hands like this the average 10-20 or 20-40 pro will torture you with them. Fortunately, most 6-12 players only notice their own holding and don't pay much attention to how you or anyone else plays so it won't hurt you too much at this point.
In any case, I was wondering if anyone has begun to take of advantage of these kind of turn plays. I guess it should be said that if I'd have AK or trip kings I probably would've played the hand the same way.
Confucius say Mistake to let opponent suck out on you for free when holding top two on very scary board...
Confucscious say anyone with a draw will call one bet on flop. This wasn't a 10-20 or 20-40 game; if it was it would never have been checked around on the flop. I can't say that I had a tell on the UTG player, just that he bet a lot and would've bet the flop if he had a K or an A b/c it would've given him a gut shot to broadway also. I think that the A on the turn strengthens my hand in this case.
The percentage play is definately to drop on the turn, and that's what I would do the vast majority of the time. Other situations you bet the J high flop with your queens and an ace turns and you drop there. I felt comfortable with the play, and I only have to be right one out of 6 times to make it a good move money wise. Table image wise, the only reason I can profitably make plays like this one is by successfully making plays like this one. Did you follow that? It's probably a thin wire to walk but when I have a conviction I act on it. Sometimes I lose a couple bets, other times I gain a couple bets. Maybe I should've lost the pot. I don't want to see a queen as it kills my hand.
growing the pot. enlarging the pot. making the pot bigger. I find it hard to believe that you couldn't figure out what i meant by growing the pot. I don't want the pot any bigger right now, so that gut shots are getting closer to correct odds to chase. I think its called manipulating pot odds. I still don't get the point of "charging" players when you have a vulnerable hand and you know that they'll call anyway. I also don't get betting when you know a player could checkraise with a flush draw or an ace. Maybe you could ask Abdul what he thinks. thanks
chris
You're right about getting married to queens or any hand. Although I think most players play AA worse than any other hand, there are times that an underpair is very possibly the best hand. When you hold KK and the flop is AAQ is much better than when you hold AA and the flop is JJT.
Abdul's opinion concurs with mine. Check flop, fold turn (unless turn is J) against multiple opponents.
Incidentally, the only reason my response was as harsh as it was (and I apologize for that) is that I think you are a good player (based on your posts and the amount of thought that you put into the hand) that has the potential to be a great player. One of the traps for otherwise good players is going too far with a hand after the flop because it was a good hand pre-flop.
Best of luck to you.
Regards/LoneStar
Much appreciation, Lonestar. No need to back off from your assessment of the situation. It was a risky move on my part. Or maybe just plain stupid. I can go too far with hands occassionally but there's always some kind of justification. That's probably what happened here. A creative thinker can justify any play in his own mind. I have to admit that I played this hand wrong; especially, considering the inbetween callers. In retrospect, I either got lucky or god himself was whispering in my ear. In either case, if that exact situation were to come up again I'd lay down on the turn facing a bet.
Thanks for your insights.
chris
Salinas,
Check the flop? I've never seen you check a hand @ Richard and Terrea's in H-Town. Actually, As long as you know your players which you usually do then I think your play was fine, but against unknown I bet flop and fold the turn as Lonestar said. I'm still working for those guys... Are you still in Wyoming or was that a nasty rumor...I'm posting under Razor now in cognito...Hey, it's something different and Chris was already taken.
RS
P.S. You still owe me for radio time(C.D. usage)
??????????
This LoneStar is from Texas, not living in Wyoming, in fact, has never been to Wyoming.
Sorry.
Regards
I had an interesting hand last night that I would like to hear opinions on. The game is 15-30 HM, Bellagio, fairly typical weeknight game with two weak players (one really weak) and the rest of the table fairly solid.
I'm in the SB with K9 offsuit, three limpers back to me, I call the one chip, the BB checks. The flop is K-9-2 rainbow. I bet, BB raises, fish cold calls two, decent player cold calls two, I make it three bets, they all call. (Four handed to the turn). Turn is the 7 of spades putting two spades on the board. I bet and get raised by the BB, the other two cold call two again, I just call (thinking I must be against a set as there is no real draw on the flop and now only the second to a possible back-door flush draw). The river is an offsuit 5. What's your play?
I elected to check, feeling that I was beat on the turn. All of my opponents check behind and the hand is good. I saw one of the cold callers cards (KJ) but can't figure what the others had, namely the BB. He is a solid pro that would have raised with AK preflop and also likely would have raised with KQ.
Did I play the hand right? Opinions appreciated.
Regards- Lone Star
I say the BB is on K2 or 92. Since he is in the blind and could have anything in an unraised preflop pot I have to put him of 2 pair but he may have had a weak K too and made a move at the pot.
I think you played the hand ok.
Couldn't BB have K7 or K2 or 92 of spades?
chris
I was going to call out KJ as a decent players hand but you beat me to it. (by the way was he the one who had it or was it the weak player). Also which one of the flop cards was a spade? I think BB most likely hand is 92. On the end I think it's best to check although if you can safely lay it down if raised then maybe it's best to bet.
A weaker two pair or trying to muscle with spade draw are more likely candidates than a set that he slowplayed on the flop (foregoing the last raise). With K2, waiting for a safe card and raising your flop bet looks better to him than trying to get them out on the flop. When you consider the chance of him having K7, you're more than even money to take this pot.
Whatever hand he had, it was clearly vulnerable. This is what I tend to think when someone good stops raising on the flop and raises out on the turn. In all liklihood they raised the flop and the turn, in part, trying to get the pot heads up, not necessarily trying to go for full value raises.
If he was indeed vulnerable, then you can pretty much rule out a set, as that kind of flop was exactly the kind that makes a set really strong. I agree with some of the other posters, but I wouldn't rule out a pair with an ace kicker either. Or any other king for that matter.
Hindsight says bet the river, but then we all know how good hindsight is.
- Andrew
"... we all know how good hindsight is". Nonsense. There are plenty of people who cannot predict the past. These are called "Recall Selective" or "Reality Challenged" people. I call them "Prefer 'should' over 'is'", "I cannot stand being wrong", "I cannot dare to adapt", "Feelings outweigh Facts" people, or "Socialists".
You can bluff these guys 10 times in a row but they still "know" you have something the 11th time you bet. or you can show them 20 solid hands but they still "know" you are bluffing. They can make 10 guesses to your Astrological Sign and then say "I knew it".
- Louie
It takes a special kind of decent player to call cold in small pots with a no-over-card gut-shot. They surely have pairs. 5 of you have at least a pair of Kings, meaning at least ONE of you does NOT have a King. The only hand at least as good as a pair of Kings that does not HAVE a king is 92; and the only player that can have that is the BB.
So if they are reasonable you have the best hand if the BB has a 92 and the two solid players each have a K not good enough to raise pre-flop but good enough (K2s) to call cold the blinds who by the turn obviously each can beat a pair of Kings. That's obviously not a common situation.
On the other hand the only hands that CAN beat you are 3 sets of 222s, one set of 999s, and one set of KKKs and the owner of the big sets chose not to raise pre-flop. Perhaps the BB has a set of 222s, chose not to slow play, and the callers have KJ and K2s. That's also obviously not a common situation.
If your choices are reasonably-very-slim or an-opponent-is-out-to-lunch ... Out-to-lunch is MUCH more likely. If so, there are now LOTS of combinations where you still have the best hand (vrs only 2 reasonable opponents) and could 3-bet with fained confidence.
On the other hand ... if you DO have the best hand expect the river to get checked. You could therefore very REASONABLY call the turn raise and bet the river unless its a 2 or 7 or A; figuring all other cards make a straight possible and you won't get raised by the set.
- Louie
I know a lot of solid players who don't raise with AK and know few who raise with KQ from the blind. He could have AK and raised the flop to get others out and raised the turn to try to get you to check the river. He could have K2 or 92 in the BB(Who Knows) One of the others obviously has QJ or Q-10 and was going for the gutshot on you. Now I'll read the responses and see what the smart players think.
Later,
Razor
I agree with this. Obviously, Lonestar knows the player better than any of us, but it seems to me that many top flight players would choose not to raise out of the BB with Big Slick/Big Chick. BB's play on the flop, turn, and river is consistent with AK (perhaps even KQ) and also with any 2 pair hand. However, his check on the river is inconsistent with K7,K5,K2 or frankly any 2 pair hand given the texture of the flop and final board.
Oh... I forgot to add that in my view, you played the hand well. It's pretty tough to 3 bet the bb on the turn because as you say, he quite easily could have a set with all the strength that he has repeatedly shown. However, in my short Vegas experience, I have found that many top flight players will just smoothcall on the flop when the bet comes from their immediate right in an unraised flop. If this guy falls in that category, a 3 bet from you may have been called for on the turn.
About a month ago there was a thread regarding balancing your hands. I have tried to incorporate this into my own play and wanted to get some feedback regarding my giudelines. When up front the first three positions to the left of the big blind i raise or three bet with all pairs fromm 77and up. I don't cap with my big pairs as then i would lose cover for my 77-TT. I also three bet with AK and AKs. I feel this gives me a wide range of hands and much harder to read,i also throw some of the suited connectors into the mix. Of course after the flop i pound these hands pretty hard since i have represented a big hand and continue to pound unless i feel i am beat. For early position, are these realistic guidelines? Any comments appreciated. Ice
I would rather be playing these hands later in the game like button and one or 2 off. I just hate being out of position with a weak holding.
Rounder
I can't disagree with you,however (here it comes), in the games i play in you have to do something to vary your play or you make it to easy for your opponents to steal from you when rags flop and you came in raising in early position. If you only come in raising with big pairs or big cards i believe the better players will run all over you. AS a matter of fact thats exactly what happened to me and why i have expanded my raising hands. In addition, if i come in raising and big cards flop i can steal the pot,if small cards come nobody is going to put me on a 7 (i raised with a pair of 77's) and i might get lucky and hit a straight. Playing tight aggressive is definitely the way to go but you have to figure out some way to balance otherwise your just target practice IMO. Ice
That is fine MY point was when I do this I do it IN position - you stater you do it early and that is something I just hate doing - playing weak hands out of position. I vary my play just fine but I do it in position. Otherwise we agree - prettymuch.
Rounder;
If you play various stuff in only late position players are going to observe this and adjust accordingly. I pretty much expect any player on the button to do what he wants (call, raise, fold, play junk) because EVERYBODY knows what a comfortable seat the button is.
e.g. If a button player takes a big pot with 87o I'm not going to go 'Wow, this guy is loose'.
I didn't say the button I said late - but if you want to play weak hands early be my guest - nothing worse than playing junk and being out of position.
That's too many pairs to raise with early. Instead of knocking out hands like AJ and KQ, they'll just isolate you. And if they know enough to reraise you, they'll also play hard when any big cards flop.
If you fear or respect the opponents (you're playing in a "bad" game) you should ..err.. could follow Caro's tight early position advise rather than the early position 2+2 advise which is "averaged" for "fair-to-good" games. This makes JJ a MARGINAL hand UTG in a full solid game.
Your selection seems too loose to me, but could perhaps be justified if you are really going to outplay the opponents later; meaning you interpret their actions accurately meaning your raise causes them to play predictably also meaning they fear you and you don't fear them. This is consistent with the type of game where you can confidently "pound until obviously beat".
- Louie
Balancing hands is a great idea as long as you are against players who are fairly observant. In many games, especially at the lower limits, this won't be the case and you won't gain anything from the balancing.
I'm also not too keen on balancing with mid-range pairs up front since their main value is from flopping a set. I much prefer to work in a hand like 76s, (as we explain in HPFAP), since it will have shock value as well. The problem with raising with a pair of eights, for example, is that some of your opponents will think that you have played correctly. On the other hand, if you take a 76s and raise up front, and get lucky and win in a showdown, it will not only have that balancing effect but your opponents will remember it for a long time. (By the way, if I am able to win the pot with a hand like this without a showdown I never show it since I want to be able to make the play again.)
The other day this week-end I haven't played here in 3 months and I haven't voluntarily put any money in for the first 3 rounds (uncharacteristic for me). I call in SB with 98s, BB checks, and 5 of us take the unraised flop. Flop is Q83. I have already decided to check since the last two players seem aggressive, we check to the "punk" (who I've never seen before) on the button who bets. I raise, every body folds.
As the punk folds he says "This guy never raises without a solid hand". What have we learned about the punk? What are we going to do about it?
- Louie
Louie,
We have learned that the punk will give you credit for a big hand when you raise, so he is a good target for a bluff raise. Of course, you have to pick the right situation(s) to do this.
We have also learned (if we didn't know already) that he didn't have a big hand in that spot, so he will bluff or semibluff when checked to on the end. He is a good target for a check-raise, either for value if heads up against him, or use the check-raise positionally to knock out other players by making it two bets to them.
We have also learned that he talks too much and gives away his thought process. So we will listen for future clues to how he thinks and plays.
-Kevin
Maybe he was setting you up. I've written here before, I like to look stupid at first and leave as soon as the players figure out who is playing who.
My reaction is different. I think has absolutely nothing, would love to be able to call Louie with any pair, and is setting up a reason in his own mind to call in the future.
One hand does not a session make.
The session is made up of a series of hands and moves to set up other hands. I can't comment on the punk until I know a bit more. He may just be a fair player who observed a tightish player making a strong move.
I'd have to see more of him to make a decision until then I have to put him on being a fair player.
What have we learned about the punk?
That he's dangerous. Not only is he capable of bet-folding, something which really poor players to seldom, but he is capable of throwing out tangential remarks which may or may not be intended to throw you off of your game.
Keep an eye on him, be willing to check-call more against him with mediocre hands, and let him do himself in with over-aggression.
- Andrew
As you have played very few hands in the session and have never met the player:
a) He has had you under some sort of covert surveillance and has rightly or wrongly formed an opinion. b) He is not good at expressing himself and is voicing the opinion that a seemingly tight pre-flop player (an impression that you may have created) will only raise top pair good kicker etc. post flop. c) He is making a statement that cannot be substantiated by the evidence available. He may be doing this deliberately or he may be prone to giving his opinions on any matter to anyone who cares to listen.
If a) or b) and you are happy with the impression you have created, you do not need to do anything, if not, you could show your 98s. He may have folded something like Q5s.
If c) and he is making an unsubstantiated statement deliberately - you have to ask why? The main reason I can think of is that he wishes to be known as a player who only bets a reasonable hand and will fold that hand in the face of opposition rather than a player who was trying to steal an apparently unwanted pot. He may believe that this impression will allow him to successfully bluff in hands like the one under discussion and also encourage other players to occasionally bluff against his strong hands. You could move seats to his right hand side. This would allow more opportunities to check raise and if he raises, you will be able to assess the rest of the table before acting.
When I'm checkraised in this sequence the first possible hand that comes to mind for the Sb to have is top pair/weak kicker, the second hand that comes to mind is middle pair/good kicker or middle pair/some kind of secondary draw like a three flush.
Why the button would bet with less than middle pair here I don't know. But if he is prone to open himself up to these kind of plays with no hand he doesn't seem to be a strong or even competent player. I'd play him as the aggressive until someone raises him type of player, the kind that bets overcards just because he's got overcards, the kind that doesn't pay attention to the texture of the board before attempting a semibluff, that kind of no brain/short memory player.
chris
My take was in line's with Dave's option C: he implied he bet a reasonable hand and would have called the raise except the tight-wad raised him. No, he was stealing and plans to steal in the future. It also means he doesn't call raises without a reasonable hand; this encourages me to bluff-raise or semi-bluff raise liberally, since if it doesn't work emmediately I don't need to continue on the turn since he's a favorite to call then also.
So I plan to check raise or raise HIM often.
Chris said: "Why the button would bet with less than middle pair here I don't know. But if he is prone to open himself up to these kind of plays with no hand he doesn't seem to be a strong or even competent player. ... that kind of no brain/short memory player."
Huh? Competent players don't flat out steal unwanted uncoordinated pots? The only reason NOT to steal is so the opponents don't EXPECT you to steal and start regularly check-raising you. What do you mean "no brain/short memory player"? Competent players don't flat out steal unwanted uncoordinated ..err..mmm.. what was that?
- Louie
Isn't it a general rule that one should play tighter in an unraised pot? As a wider variety of hands could possibly be out. There are 5 players in the hand.
Yes, Louie I think it's pretty stupid to bet on the button with absolutely no hand against 5 players. Players that often bet in that position and fold to a raise or a check raise are simply giving their money away. It's likely enough that someone is going to checkraise here. If it's likely that someone is going to checkraise, how much of a possibility is it that everyone will fold.
I understand what you're saying, Louie. And against 2 or 3 players a bet will win it occassionally. But against this many players I don't think it's a good bet very often.
chris
"Isn't it a general rule that one should play tighter in an unraised pot? As a wider variety of hands could possibly be out."
Making a variety of hands "wider" means adding weak ones. These weak ones make good hands less often. I agree that a K6532 board is "safer" for AK if four players called cold than if they called a single bet, and I would be more likely to bet for value. But in general I'm more aggressive when there has been no raise: I'm more likely to bet KT again on the turn with board QT84 if there was no raise pre flop. You can certainly peg a players exact hand much more often in a raised pot but that hand is more likely to beat YOURs than some cheese hand.
So "no", you need to keep higher standards (selective "tight") in a raised pot, and "no", I think you can (overall) bet less hands safely (aggressive "tight") in a raised pot.
You don't need to know WHICH weak hand will call in order to bet for value.
- Louie
Why doesn't this WEB service put you back where you were after you post a response in a thread? Instead it leaves you where you must start again way up at the top of the index. That's not fun.
for WEB police and the supernatural phenomenon known as the Wrong Forum Man.
While I have often asked myself the same question that you are posing now I must tell you that I find it inappropriately placed. This problem is not specific to the Hold'em Forum itself. In the future, try Other Topics, aka the Exchange Forum.
Til we meet again.
WFM
I don't know what the Exchange forum is. Anyway, this is the perfect place since this is where the offense is made.
Go back to bed.
Here at work (Nescape 3.0) the same thing happens. But at home (Netscapce 3.1).
Thus, just like at the table, you have to consider phenomenonom in its context. <-- this is to WFM like garlic is to Vampires.
- Louie
Does anybody know if the L.A. clubs spread Pot Limit hold'em?
call hollywood park casino and ask for jim deleany or rod peate. they spread a pot limit of around 5&5 or 5&10 blinds fairly often. starts early evening. half the players play quite well and the other half o well. commerce may have one during tournaments also and i think they are trying to get one as well. just call.
Thanks Ray!
At first I thought some of my posts might have been deleted, but then I looked at the thread, and it seems that the forum has gone wacky.
Is the world crumbling to pieces around us?
Here is a link to the wacky thread. Note that the quoted message doesn't exist in the thread below.
Weird stuff.
- Andrew
The forum went wacky long ago my friend...
In the Sklansky video, David points out that in the loose games hands like KJ and AJ offsuit are garbage. I tend to disagree even though I see DS and MM as the immortal gods of poker. I have done very well with these hands simply because so many players play A-anything, K-anything and a few play anything-anything. I can flop a K with KJ then get paid off with big pots. It seems that the draw outs occur very frequently but when the hand holds up the pot is usually so damn big that it is profitable in the long run. Did I just misunderstand something in the video regarding these hands or have I been lucky in making these hands profitable for me? Should I muck them in early position? How about a loose passive game with minimal raising going on? Thanks for insights........ Goat
AJ is a different hand than KJ - AJ is much stronger.
KJ is a nasty trap hand 2nd best a lot. Looks good plays bad.
I would play them in early position for a call, but not a cold call. I wouldn't call a double raise with them. However, I think a combination of passive pre-flop action and a good flop make these playable hands.
IMO -- Jon (just dropping in).
It depends on the game. In a loose- passive game you should call. However, if a solid - tight player raises I would definately fold the kj and strongly consider folding the aj. Like yourself, both of these hands have been very good to me.
I suspect they refer to the fact that in tight games, either you get little action or are beat, since you really can't expect reasonable players to call early position raises with QJo.
I think that it depends a lot on the type of game. I won't call two cold with these hands if a solid (or even somewhat clueful player) has raised in front of me. If a real weak player raised before me, and I'm in late posistion, I may pop it to see where I stand (also depending on table image, and the like). Keep in mind this is a fairly loose ram and jam California 6-12 game.
I would play them much more cautiously against a good field, but like Jon mentioned, there are so many players in these type of games that play Ace-anything, and many that play King anything, they will often pay off (although there's always the player who caleld you down with King Deuce, and spikes a duece on the river =).
Max
I realize the whole trap hand aspect of making second best hand too often but in these loose games most players dont even give a flying shit what their kicker is. But this is the type of hand that was deemed garbage in the video for loose games. Are these hands generally worth a limp from early position with little fear of a raise behind you or should one generally fold because the risk is too great?
Go ahead and play these from early position - nothing wrong with them but you have to get away from the hand if the flop is bad. And remember if you play it early you are out of position.
Let's say you play the KJ and the flop comes AQx and have to act 1st. OR you play AJ and the flop comes KQX now you are acting 1st. being out of position with a weak holding is a bad thing but that's just me I really hate playing weak hands out of position.
This hand comes from a very live game, lots of action, just the type I seek out. UTG raises and I'm next with AA. I 3-bet and it folds around to the SB who calls 2 1/2 bets cold, BB calls as well. UTG caps it and it's a 4 way flop of K Q Q rainbow. Small blind bets out, Big blind flat calls and UTG raises. Decision time and I like it not at all.
Let me know how you might undertake the play of this hand from this point. Assume unknown opponents of the loose fishy variety. I'll post the rest of the action after a couple of responses.
I think you should fold. SB diddn't call 2 1/2 bets with a bad hand. Also, the BB just called the flop ? with what ? I think fold, but not because of AK (utg) who's trying to figure out where he's at. There must be better opportunities. If you don't believe there's a Q, call, and watch the SB or BB pop it. KQ is a definite possibility in one of those hands, AK under the gun, KK wouldn't raise yet. This means you have 1 out. Even if these are idiots I think you're drawing slim. IMHO
I don't like the looks of this at all. KQ is a possibility so is KK and a Q of some sort is possible in the blind. Live possibilities that you can beat are TJ, AJ, AT, AK, KJ, KT, You are looking at a 2 outter here if there is a Q or KK out there any way you cut it. I may dump it here or call. Since you said assume loose fishy variety - I think I raise. But I don't like it at all.
If one of these players ia solid I fold.
I sure wouldn't do any raising. Try to get to that next card as cheap as possible. Catching another Ace would be ecstasy. Seems like there could be a lot of hands these might guys have that you could beat. How likely is KK? Of course a 'Q' is your biggest worry. Small blind is probably trying to claim the Queens for his own to help him steal. UTG doesn't believe him. No one suspects your AA. Anybody with a single K and decent kicker is feeling like a contender too.
Fold. You are beat with likely only one out (entirely possible that someone else has an A, possibly even AA).
It's almost a given that at least one Q is out, possibly even KK given that it was capped preflop.
There's a slim chance that your hand is best against loose fishy opponents but I don't think calling multiple bets (and it sounds like it will be multiple given the action on the flop) to find out is a good idea. It will cost you much more the times that you are beat than you will recoup the small number of times that your hand is best.
Regards/LoneStar
Call the bets on the flop and the turn. You might not like the action but it doesn't make you less than a 5-1 dog, which is at least what you'd need to be to justify a fold. Certainly the BB is no threat -- he just called, something he might do with a gutshot broadway. UTG? He started out jamming, so he doesn't have to have any of this flop. The SB is your biggest worry, but you can't muck aces just because somebody leads into a KQQ board. You might consider raising on the cheap street, but the SB could be betting with any queen and he'll just call.
Wait until the SB check-raises two or three likely callers on the on the turn, then let it go.
I think the decision here is to fold right now or to go all the way to reach the showdown. Calling or raising to see where you are (or taking control of the hand) does not work in this type of game. In a game like this, it is hard to predict the future action and even harder to put them on a hand based on the action. If these are reasonable players, I would fold my hand here since there are no many hand would call the cap before the flop and bet/call/raise on the flop without a Q in a 4-way pot. If they are really bad players who don't know what they are doing, I would just call and try to keep the cost at minimum to reach the showdown.
regards,
jikun
Scott,
What a bad flop!. It is hard to put anyone on an exact hand but the action seems to indicate that a queen is probably already out (my guess it is held by the big blind) along with a hand with an ace. I would hate to argue with someone who advises folding here.
Since you did say these players are loose and fishy I would call the flop raise which could very well be a hand like AK. Now if either blind makes it three bets I would do no more than take one card off. You may be drawing to one or even no outs here.
Now that I think about it, can I change my answer back to fold?
Regards,
Rick
I managed to get my aces into the muck in less than 5 seconds, no regrets. I couldn't imagine too many hand distributions where I was still ahead at that point. My error was assuming a reasonable group of opponents. This bunch was collectivly insane, bless them all. They got 2 bets each in on the turn of a 7 and checked around the river of a 3. Small blind shows KJo, Big blind has JTo and UTG hold a well know name hand of K4o. Too bad I was new to the table, I might have had some better idea of the quality of the play.
In most cases I consider a pair flop a reasonably good one for AA, mostly when the pair is small. In this case I was in pretty good shape but just couldn't see it.
Thanks for the responses.
Against a line-up as weak as that, I'd muck too. I figure I'll have all their money soon enough any way. spitball p.s. are you Scott Horton the curler?
A lot of players wouldn't play a really big hand until the turn. The flop raise in this type of situation is often meant to move you off of a hand. When you re-raise pre-flop your opponents have a pretty good idea as to the quality of your hand. If someone had a full here I don't think they play it fast on the flop.
In this situation you are likely chasing three Q's. True, a few players in a game like this will think to disguise their hand until the turn, and fewer still will over-play a likely second-best hand to drive out a better one. Still, against an awfully weak line-up, like the one Scott posts about, there is no special hurry to aquire the money you are likely to win by being patient and just betting the nuts or the near nuts. They'll pay you off.
The distinction is opponant strength. In a normal game, your point is well taken. spitball
Before I even read your results I was going to say "I think you're stuck with this one to the river." In these kinds of games, any pocket pair or any king in the hands of your opponent is going to see this one to the river, probably for several bets, and anyone holding even the crappiest draw (like T9 or even a backdoor flush) will be calling along. The 6 or 7 weak-tight responses above mine all make the mistaken assumption that very live, loose fishy opponents play rationally. Sometimes one of the two remaining queens will be in the hands of your opponents. So what? Your hand will hold up often enough that you'll show a profit.
I've made worse folds in similar games where the pot was bigger, the board was scarier (contained an overcard to my pocket pair), and my opponents had few outs against me, although like you, I didn't realize exactly *how* loose my opponents were.
-Sean
You think a raise is weak/tight?
I say either raise or fold, but you can't like this at all. If you stay till the turn, you only have 2 outs most likely, depending of course on the reaction to your raise. I think you have to be prepared to drop this hand very quickly. If you make it to the turn and the A hits, you can then get a little creative in your play.
Being newer at this, I would welcome all feedback to my answer, thanks.
Muck it. It's not worth putting in those double size bets on the turn and river when you may have a two outer hand. It hurts but sometimes those are the breaks. You may have the best hand but those double bets will kill you when someone has a Q or less likely KK.
I recently read a series of articles in Card Player by Lou Krieger entitled "A Beginning Course in Texas Hold'em." In Part II he lists three tables containing his proposed starting hand requirements. I cross indexed them with the starting hands requirements I found in Sklansky's Hold'em Poker. (Note: I haven't read HPFAP and have no idea if his standards have changed; not also that my formulation of DS's standards are the result of my interpretation of his Strategy section in Hold'em Poker).
I found some interesting differences. Below I have listed the starting hands that each author recommends playing that the other doesn't.
Early position:
DS: Every hand he recommends Krieger also makes Krieger's list.
LK: 77, 98s, ATo, KJo
Middle Position:
DS: Axs, 97s, 87s, 76s, 65s
LK: 66, 55, Q8s, J8s, KTo, QTo
Note: Krieger recommends playing Axs down to A6s.
Late Position:
DS: 85s, 74s, 53s, 32s, 76s, 54s
LK: Every hand he recommends KS also appears in DS's standards.
Note: DS's qualifies these hands by saying that many players need to be in to play them.
These are my results from a crude attempt to cross-index these two authors' starting standards. If I have incorrectly portrayed anything please let me know. I haven't provided any analysis as to the significance of the differences -- I'll get to that tomorrow. I just wanted to get this posted. Any comments or observations until then are welcome.
Jon
They are posting starting hands based on different games. Krieger is a bit lower around 4-8 if I remember correctly while Sklanskys are for a mid limit game. Remember these are guidelines and individual games will require different standards.
I think DS has greatly overvalued suited cards but I think that is great as most of the money in the pot comes from some player(s) chasing a flush.
As a general trend, DS loosens up more than Krieger does as position improves. I think this is consistent with EggmanZ's observations that DS is writing for a more experienced audience who would better be able to play these hands.
Early Position: Especially since he is appealling to beginning (and presumably low limit) players, I find Krieger's hand recommendations disturbing. Even as a beginner, I would not feel comfortable playing 77, 98s, ATo, and KJo in early position. ATo and KJo are problem hands; 77 gets its value from flopping a set (and thus should be played cheaply -- of which there is certainly no guarantee in early position). Because of its speculative nature, I wouldn't play 98s, because I would want to play it cheaply and against many players -- neither of which I can guarantee in early position.
Middle Position: I don't like Krieger's recommendation to play these weak gapped cards in Middle position. I might play them if I had a really good read on the players in late position. I am not sure why DS's recommendations at this level make sense either. They seem speculative -- either they hit two pair or a straight or you fold. With he risk of a raise behind I am not sure these are wise to play in middle position either.
Late Position: I agree with DS's recommendations here (not that I am really qualified to dispute them). If they can be played cheaply against many opponents (as DS recommends) I would expect them to have a positive expectation.
Jon
My Pre-Flop Play Questionnaire seemed to amuse a few people, so I have taken the liberty of producing something along similar lines. This time, though, it is a Post-Flop, first-to-act questionnaire. What I have done is taken the five questions from the original quiz that had our hero in early position, and produced two alternative flops for each of those scenarios.
We are first to act in each case, so the choice is Check or Bet. However, if you wish to check. please indicate what your intention is if it is bet behind us, i.e. Check-Fold, Check-Call or Check-Raise.
Sometimes the suits are consequential to the question, and sometimes not. If they are not, I have omitted them from the Flop cards, and one should assume that the flop came three-suited.
The game should be assumed to be the same; a $10-$20 game at Paradise Poker in which we have just been 'seated'. This choice is not made for any reason to do with online poker; rather it is merely a construct to create a scenario where we know nothing of our opponents save the limit at which they play, and hence we must simply play the game purely on the merits of the cards.
I will allow seven days for responses, which can be either posted at r.g.p. or 2+2, or emailed to me, and then I shall post the results.
I hope you enjoy the quiz!
Mark
(1) 8d5d in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
We CALLED here (88%), the big blind checked and we saw the flop five-handed.
[1A] Flop.....As - 7d - 6d
[1B] Flop.....8 - 2 - 2
(4) AdJd under the gun.
Call and Raise tied here (47%), so my casting vote for CALL counts! Five players saw the flop, and the big blind checks to us.
[4A] Flop.....Kd - 6d - 9h
[4B] Flop.....Q - J - 5
(5) ThTs in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
CALL was the decision here (44%), and middle position promptly capped it! The flop was three-handed.
[5A] Flop.....A - K - T
[5B] Flop.....9 - 6 - 2
(9) QdJd under the gun
Fold was the decision here (47%). However, this is MY quiz, and I'm not wasting a perfectly good QJs, so we CALL! Middle position raises, the button cold-calls, and we call, and see the flop three-handed.
[9A] Flop.....Q - J - 3
[9B] Flop.....A - T - 9
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
The decision here was RAISE (79%). Middle position makes it three bets, next player caps it, and the button cold-calls the cap, as do we, taking the flop four-handed.
[10A} Flop.....K - Q - J
This time, there are three cold-callers of our raise, and the flop is four-handed
[10B] Flop.....A - Q - 4
(1) 8d5d in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
We CALLED here (88%), the big blind checked and we saw the flop five-handed.
[1A] Flop.....As - 7d - 6d
Bet. Unless you have some reason to believe that the player to your left will bet in which case you would checkraise.
[1B] Flop.....8 - 2 - 2
Bet unless you have reason to believe that many players will call you and you have reason to believe that if you check, the only person who may bet is the button in which case you would checkraise.
(4) AdJd under the gun.
Call and Raise tied here (47%), so my casting vote for CALL counts! Five players saw the flop, and the big blind checks to us.
[4A] Flop.....Kd - 6d - 9h
Bet. Once again with the same qualifier as in the 85 suited question.
[4B] Flop.....Q - J - 5
Check. A Queen is likely to be out there with the number of limpers in the hand. I would peel one off if the bet came from left and there was no raise. I may checkraise a late position bettor but less likely to do so here as compared to the 822 flop in one of the above questions. If I don't checkraise, I would fold.
(5) ThTs in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets CALL was the decision here (44%), and middle position promptly capped it! The flop was three-handed.
[5A] Flop.....A - K - T
Bet and 3 bet it if raised and keep driving on the turn. If raised on the turn, I would probably proceed more cautiously therafter. Lots of ways to play this hand though.
[5B] Flop.....9 - 6 - 2
A toughie. Just betting on the flop ain't gonna do you much good to find out where you are at because you are going to get raised regardless of whether you are ahead. I would probably check-call the flop assuming that there was no raise. I would bet the turn assuming no A,K,Q came off and strongly consider folding at that point if raised.
(9) QdJd under the gun
Fold was the decision here (47%). However, this is MY quiz, and I'm not wasting a perfectly good QJs, so we CALL! Middle position raises, the button cold-calls, and we call, and see the flop three-handed.
[9A] Flop.....Q - J - 3
Go for the ceheckraise either on the flop or turn but mostly the flop. If 3 bet on the flop, you have lots of room for some creative play on the turn. Obviously, you could try for the checkraise. But against strong players, the better play might be to bet again on the turn if a blank hits which would allow you the chance to get 3 bets in on the turn.
[9B] Flop.....A - T - 9
Betting is not recommended as a raise by the preflop raiser is eaxctly what you don't want. Either check-call (usually) or check-raise (sometimes) is the route I would take.
10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
The decision here was RAISE (79%). Middle position makes it three bets, next player caps it, and the button cold-calls the cap, as do we, taking the flop four-handed.
[10A} Flop.....K - Q - J
The flop is not a very good one for you although you likely have 6 outs (albeit not all of them may be clean outs). Most of the time, you are in a defensive "call all bets on the flop" mode. The good thing about that is that you are certainly in no danger of giving any free or cheap cards by playing like a girl (my apologies to feminists everywhere).
This time, there are three cold-callers of our raise, and the flop is four-handed
[10B] Flop.....A - Q - 4
With a set of Aces, I would normally not try to get very cute. I would just bet and hope someone gets frisky with me so that I can get my creative juices working on later streets. Usually just hammer away. One of the worst things to do (and something which I see all the time), is a check-call on the flop and checkraise on the turn. Way more money can be made by showing strength early. It's a case of being deceptive by playing a strong hand strongly.
Mark,
If Paradise Poker is anything like Planet Poker I will assume it is a moderately tight and mildly aggressive game with only a few soft spots and no maniacs.
(1) 8d5d in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far. We CALLED here (88%), the big blind checked and we saw the flop five-handed. [1A]Flop.....As - 7d - 6d
We flopped a huge draw. If the ace is out I don't think it would likely be on our left since a good ace probably would have come in for a raise. I don't want the raise to cut off my action so I would bet this out and prefer the whole field to call over taking it right there and have them all fold. Worse case is one caller.
[1B] Flop.....8 - 2 - 2
Bet this out. They have to fear the deuce a little and our hand is not strong enough for a check raise.
(4) AdJd under the gun. Call and Raise tied here (47%), so my casting vote for CALL counts! Five players saw the flop, and the big blind checks to us. [4A] Flop.....Kd - 6d - 9h
Bet. You will take it right there sometimes and you may eliminate a player or two improving the chance that the ace or jack can win also. Again, a raise is unlikely from your left.
[4B] Flop.....Q - J - 5
Check with the intention of folding to an early bettor and raising a late bettor. This flop probably hit somebody and you can't take heat.
(5) ThTs in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets CALL was the decision here (44%), and middle position promptly capped it! The flop was three-handed. [5A] Flop.....A - K - T
Bet out. Start worrying if you only get called by the middle position player.
[5B] Flop.....9 - 6 - 2
Check with the intention of calling one bet but not a bet and a raise. Good turn cards other than the ten are an eight or a seven giving you seven river outs against this probable overpair.
(9) QdJd under the gun Fold was the decision here (47%). However, this is MY quiz, and I'm not wasting a perfectly good QJs, so we CALL! Middle position raises, the button cold-calls, and we call, and see the flop three-handed. [9A] Flop.....Q - J - 3
Check with the intention of raising the probable middle position bettor. I wouldn't argue with a bet though.
[9B] Flop.....A - T - 9
Check with the intention of calling a bet and a button caller but check raise the initial better if the button drops. If he reraises, you set up a check raise if you make your draw on the turn.
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise? The decision here was RAISE (79%). Middle position makes it three bets, next player caps it, and the button cold-calls the cap, as do we, taking the flop four-handed. [10A} Flop.....K - Q - J
I'd say we are behind right now. Check and call a single bet. Against a bet and a raise we have some tough decisions. You could easily be up against a set and the aces may not be live. Your best out may be a ten but it could be for only half the pot. I wouldn't worry about an ace making somebody a straight with this action.
This time, there are three cold-callers of our raise, and the flop is four-handed [10B] Flop.....A - Q - 4
Check with the intention or calling. Go for the check raise on the turn. I wouldn't worry about KJ or JT not being driven out of the pot since they should not be in there.
This quiz has so many "it depends" type of situations that I hope you have the time to organize all the responses. Of course, I answered without checking skp's answer yet.
Regards,
Rick
(1) 8d5d in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
We CALLED here (88%), the big blind checked and we saw the flop five-handed.
[1A] Flop.....As - 7d - 6d
>> Bet
[1B] Flop.....8 - 2 - 2
>> Bet
(4) AdJd under the gun.
Call and Raise tied here (47%), so my casting vote for CALL counts! Five players saw the flop, and the big blind checks to us.
[4A] Flop.....Kd - 6d - 9h
>> Bet
[4B] Flop.....Q - J - 5
>> Bet
(5) ThTs in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
CALL was the decision here (44%), and middle position promptly capped it! The flop was three-handed.
[5A] Flop.....A - K - T
>> You dog B>) My rational for calling was that they would do your betting for you if you hit your set. My plan here is to call it down, unless circumstances later suggest I play a more active role. Check-call.
[5B] Flop.....9 - 6 - 2
>> Check-call with the intention of a more aggressive play on the turn. Might check-raise if later position player is first to bet.
(9) QdJd under the gun
Fold was the decision here (47%). However, this is MY quiz, and I'm not wasting a perfectly good QJs, so we CALL! Middle position raises, the button cold-calls, and we call, and see the flop three-handed.
[9A] Flop.....Q - J - 3
>> Bet.
[9B] Flop.....A - T - 9
>> Check-call
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
The decision here was RAISE (79%). Middle position makes it three bets, next player caps it, and the button cold-calls the cap, as do we, taking the flop four-handed.
[10A} Flop.....K - Q - J
>> Either a maniac game or "next player" rates to have a Big Pair. Probably a six-outer in the latter case; who knows in the former. Check with the intention of calling up to a single raise.
This time, there are three cold-callers of our raise, and the flop is four-handed
[10B] Flop.....A - Q - 4
>> Bet; it's what they expect. Hope AQ is out there. Checking to give someone a chance to build a calling hand is probably also worthwhile, but I prefer to err on the side of betting.
"[10A} Flop.....K - Q - J
>> Either a maniac game or "next player" rates to have a Big Pair. Probably a six-outer in the latter case; who knows in the former. Check with the intention of calling up to a single raise. "
Actually, this is probably more like a three outer. Now I might have to consider folding to a single raise. No, still call a single raise. Calling a double raise might be possible in either case, provided two players didn't go to war on the turn.
My default option on all of these would be to bet except on 10A (AA with KQJ flop, 4-way capped pot). Here'd I'd check and call 1 and usually fold for two, depending on the players).
Here are mine, I haven't looked at others yet....
1a) Bet ( I might check though if I know a bit more ) 1B Bet
[4A] check and call (and raise if most players trapped)
[4B] check and fold but check raise if the only action is late and looks weak. Close, betting out is not bad.
5A] bet ( this is going to be tricky )
5B] bet ( ditto )
9A] Check Raise
9B] bet, check is not bad either.
10A] check and see the action
10B] Bet
As usual, I will post my own responses prior to reading the other responses. My feeling is that there will be some significant differences among the way that various players will play just the flop (so I will include turn action if relevant to the way I play the flop). Here goes:
(1) 8d5d in the (half-bet) little blind. Three limpers so far.
[1A] Flop.....As - 7d - 6d
Bet out with the intention of calling if raised. Bet the turn with the intention of reraising unless turn card is A (whether the turn card makes your hand or not.)
[1B] Flop.....8 - 2 - 2
Bet out, reraise if raised, fold if 4 bet.
(4) AdJd under the gun.
[4A] Flop.....Kd - 6d - 9h
Bet flop, call if raised. Bet turn if not raised on flop; check turn (if raised on flop), check raise if turn is anything but K.
[4B] Flop.....Q - J - 5
Had you *raised* before the flop, you could now play this hand with some confidence thinking there's a good likelihood that weak Q's would have folded before the flop. Since you wimpily :-))) limped in, you should be passive on the flop. Bet with the intention of folding if raised, or check with the intention of calling one bet only, check fold on turn if turn card does not improve your hand.
(5) ThTs in the big blind. Middle position raised, and the button made it three bets
[5A] Flop.....A - K - T
Say UGH! really loud in your head :)) Check flop. Call one bet back to you, maybe call two bets. **Do Not go crazy on this one. You have a set but the chance that you are against a bigger set is pretty high and if that is the case you will get tortured on this hand. Check turn, call one bet back, I would fold for two bets back to you (you will occasionally get pushed off the hand if both players have just A or AK but you save yourself getting punished the times you are against a bigger set).
[5B] Flop.....9 - 6 - 2
Play exactly as above for same reasons although I wouldn't argue against a check raise on the flop. Your hand is not as big and thus not as tough to lay down if it gets raised and reraised behind you.
(9) QdJd under the gun
Fold was the decision here (47%). However, this is MY quiz, and I'm not wasting a perfectly good QJs, so we CALL! Middle position raises, the button cold-calls, and we call, and see the flop three-handed.
[9A] Flop.....Q - J - 3
Bet flop, raise if reraised (I'm expecting an overpair, AQ, or possibly even AK to raise here). Call if 4 bet; bet turn unless turn card is A, K, or 10.
[9B] Flop.....A - T - 9
Check call. Check call turn unless you hit your straight.
(10) AA under the gun. Do you sometimes just limp, or pretty much always raise?
The decision here was RAISE (79%). Middle position makes it three bets, next player caps it, and the button cold-calls the cap, as do we, taking the flop four-handed.
[10A} Flop.....K - Q - J
Check; call one or two bets back to you, fold if three bet back to you.
This time, there are three cold-callers of our raise, and the flop is four-handed
[10B] Flop.....A - Q - 4
Check call flop. Check raise turn. Bet out on turn if the flop checks through.
Regards/LoneStar
Mark,
Flop 1a,
I think that you would bet out here, it would seem pointless to pay the $5.00 to play the hand if you are not going to bet it when the flop hits you. Also, you would have to see where you're at in the hand. You only have 2 outs to hit the nuts, but 9 to hit the diamonds. Another thing to consider is that even if you do hit the hand on the turn and let's say there are 4 people left in, there is a good chance that you are beat with higher diamonds. If you get raised on the turn, that may very well be the case. I know that you said that 88% would call here (from previous survey), but I feel that can very well be a troubled hand even if you hit it. In which case, is it worth the $5.00? A good friend and mentor once told me, play good cards and your decisions become easier.
Flop 1b,
Again, bet out here and hope you don't get raised by the big blind. Again I feel that you have to be ready and willing to give this hand up if necessary.
Flop 4a,
I like this hand obviousley more than the last one. I say bet out and watch the action, your drawing to the nut flush.
Flop 4b,
Check - call (unless it's raised before it gets back to you, if so, I would release it quickley) if you don't improve on the turn, release it then. with five seeing the flop, you would have to figure that one would have the Q.
Flop 5a,
Again, a troubled hand in a pre flop capped pot. These hands tend to get me in trouble. Check - raise the flop and try to find out where you stand. If you get raised or it's raised before getting back to you, you could very well be up against a higher set, in which case you would be drawing dead.
Flop 5b,
I would think that you would bet out here or check raise. You have an over pair to the board with no flushes to worry about. Although, with it capped pre flop, you may be up against a bigger pair and only drawing to 2 outs. If you check raise here, you should be able to find out and know where you are at.
Flop 9a,
Check - call, and most likely check raise the turn.
Flop 9b,
Check - fold if bet. Not enough money here to chase the A.
Flop 10a,
Bet out with your over pair and be very careful of a set. If raised, re-raise, see where you are at in the hand.
Flop 10b,
Check - call. If someone bets at it, which is very likely with 3 people behind you, call and check raise the turn.
I am newer at this and would welcome some feedback on my answers. I found this to be a very interesting quiz with some very difficult choices to make given the created scenarios. Thanks Mark.
From, Just learning
Early: Play any Pair from AA to 77 (total 8 combinations). Any Two cards combinations from A to T, K to T, Q to T and JT( suited or not , total 18 combinations )
Middle: Play the Early positions combinations and add the following:
66,55 A9s,A9,A8s,A8 K9s,K9,KT QT,Q9s,Q9 J9s,J9,J8s T9s,T9,T8s 98s,98 87s,87 76s
Early = 26 Middle = 23 Total = 49
If I play this way I win constantly in every session. As soon as I start getting loose in this two positions and not following the above description I start to go into negative $$$
Am I to stiff? .. Or am I crazy? .. I really will appreciate your sincere comments!
Go Get’m all
.
Early: Play any Pair from AA to 77 (total 8 combinations). Any Two cards combinations from A to T, K to T, Q to T and JT( suited or not , total 18 combinations )
Middle: Play the Early positions combinations and add the following:
66,55 - A9s,A9 - A8s,A8 - K9s,K9,KT - QT,Q9s,Q9-J9s,J9,J8s - T9s,T9,T8s - 98s,98 - 87s,87 - 76s
Early = 26 - Middle = 23 - Total = 49
If I play this way I win constantly in every session. As soon as I start getting loose in this two positions and not following the above description I start to go into negative $$$
Am I to stiff? .. Or am I crazy? .. I really will appreciate your sincere comments!
Go Get’m all
What do you play late. Seems a bit loose to me. Your middle position plays are way to loose - but if it is working for you go for it I can't see playing these hands wit decent players and not coming up in 2nd place a lot.
You are really asking for trouble playing hands like KT and K9 along with others like Q9,J8 these are among the worst trap hands.
I think that you are too loose. In the long run, you are going to find yourself in second best hand situations.
"Any Two cards combinations from A to T, K to T, Q to T and JT( suited or not , total 18 combinations )"
I'll just comment on this. You might be able to get away with this at the lower limit such as 3-6 or 4-8 I don't know. One thing I do know is if you play all of these hands in a middle limit game you will keep on loosing rather steadily.
.
let's say you go in with a KTh suited early position with a call. A couple of folds, and a couple of late position calls.
the flop comes Kc - 8d - 3s. You bet, and are raised... you can't reraise, because you could be dominated by a kj,kq,ak,aa,kk,k8. Also, if you call, you would have to check and call to the river, not knowing if you are beat on the kings.
If you stuck to limiting those two card combos, you would not only profit more, but you would save yourself a lot of the headache as you wonder whether their kicker can beat you.
a.
Take it from me, please. Your play is the Henny Youngman of poker.
romo
If memory serves the chances that "KT" is the "best" hand with 9 players left to act is about 10%. Without a suited or pair draw hand in a multi-way pot, playing out of position with the worst hand is an unfavorable situation.
Drop the trouble hands.
"Am I too stiff? .. Or am I crazy?" Lets not get personal; but be sure its you big head that makes your decisions.
- Louie :)
Good and helpful.
All three of our hosts should answer them.
We tune in to learn.
In a recent 15-30 session, I went on a nice rush and was up over $1000 after two hours. Then this happened: I'm in the big blind with AsKs. The table is loose. Middle position player (MP) raises, very loose guy (VL) cold calls, I re-raise, MP caps, and VL calls. Flop is a tasty Kh-9d-2c. I bet, MP calls, VL calls. Turn is the 9c. I bet and both call. River is 3c. I bet and both call. I show and MP mucks. VL shows 8c-10c. (any comments on the hand are welcomed).
Now this should make me want to keep playing even more, right? And yet I felt like even though the game was still very good and I felt good, my luck had turned. Sure enough, the cards cooled off, I got snapped a couple more times, and I gave back almost 2/3 of my winnings.
I guess my question is -- how much do you listen to The Little Man in your head when he tells you you are about to go on a slide? I mean, the game still looked great on paper, and yet I had a feeling things were about to go bad. And in these looser games, the variance is so high that a bad hour or two can be very expensive.....
On the other hand, it was still early, and maybe, as George Costanza once said: "my Little Man is an idiot."
I didn't listen to the Little Man! (I did leave after my KK, with which I had raised preflop from early position, lost to the BB's 6-8 offsuit. That was enough for me).
Some times the game changes and you don't realize it.
Eigther a player or 2 or some one changes their playing style it doesn't take much to make a good table tough to beat. My little man tells me to leave when I am up $700 or when the game is tough to beat.
I don't believe in a run of bad cards I simply don't play them. There is the very unusual occurance when you are 2nd best all night - this happens. Since I avoid drawing situations and play very few hands I guess I reduce my varience a great deal.
What if you are up $700 in an hour and you still love the table (same lineup exactly as when you started)?
I go - I have done it in 45 min. And I leave.
Silly huh, but dicipline is my middle name.
I respect that. Discipline is not my middle name. It's not Herbert, either. Thank God.
You quit when you get up $700, regardless of time or game conditions? Does this give away some edge in particularly juicy situations?
I've always subscribed to the "life is one continuous poker game, with annoying breaks in between" theory.
[Not that I even get up $700, so what do I know?]
Why $700 I don't know but it is my number. I have hit for $400 in 1/2 hour and got up and cashed out.
Why not. There is an old saying you can sheer a sheep many times but skin it only once.
Isn't it more reasonable to place limits on your losses rather than your wins?
I let the game do that some are just very hard to beat.
If the game is too tough to beat because of the mix of players I get a table change - I know if I am at the right table I will win. So putting a stop loss is not a useful thing for me to consider.
What are you talking about? How did the game change when someone hits two running clubs to make a flush with no other draws on the flop? If you can still beat the game and are not tired you should not leave if you have a good handle on the players. The discipline is in playing your "A" game for long periods of time without starting to think lady luck is blessing you and playing ATC (any two cards) If you win $700 in 45 minutes and didn't get incredibly lucky why would you leave a table that gave you that kind of action on your big hands. Ridiculous!! "The Little Man" costs good players money.
anyone that believes in luck, cold cards,little men in head, can still be winners but if you make your decisions using these things, you are a gone goose in the gambling world. sorry.
Okay, fair enough.
Determined as I am not be a "gone goose", though, I'd like to request a follow-up from you. Are you saying that a player should always base his decisions to play on or go home on objective factors (what I called how the game looks on paper) and never be swayed by a perception or sense (the Little Man) that it's a good time to quit? Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophesy -- if I believe that a bad beat or other event marks a turning point, then it just becomes one?
The part about the "self-fulfilling prophecy".
If you all of a sudden believe that your luck has changed and you're going to lose, it may become more likely for this to happen. The main reason I would foresee this happening is that you would start playing worse. You might tighten up preflop, which is good, but would you continue to make all of those raises that knock out players behind you (thereby increasing your chances of getting your 1 pair to hold up and win)? Would you continue to make all those value bets that gain you extra money? In other words, if you believe your luck has turned, there is probably a good chance that you'll lose your aggression, and either become a calling station, or a weak-tight player, or some mix of both.
It can be self-fulfilling. Your job is to prevent it. If you can't stop yourself from playing worse, then quitting is the next best solution.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I play a pretty unconventional game where I regularly stick my neck out against weak players. This style REQUIRES confidence and feel. If I feel unlucky, can't beat a particular player, or whatever, then my confidence and feel are gone and unless though discipline I can nit down and play "correctly", I'm a "gone goose".
Now I know there is no such thing as "Am on an unlucky streak" but if I FEEL it, then I'd better leave. This is consistent with the "believe you are a favorite" objective approach to decision making since HEY! I am no longer a favorite if I feel I'm not. This approach may not apply that well to the more standard by-the-book solid players who don't need to feel good to raise with top pair 2nd kicker.
The authors are right that this stuff SHOULDN'T matter and you are much better off if it doesn't. I believe I'm right that since it DOES matter to most of us we are better off dealing with it than pretending it doesn't.
- Louie
Jumping into any of the fine 2+2 books after leaving helps me change "is" to "should", at least a little bit at a time.
I agree with you 100% Ray. Fluctuations from $1000 to $300 in a $15-30 game are not that rare. It really,really is a long run gamble. There are many problems with the concept of "listening to the little man in your head" approach that they will no doubt cost you money in the long run as opposed to clear and rational thinking. The best players I see don't let short term fluctuations affect them.
Nolan Dalla has a very insightful article about 'when to leave' in the March 3 Card Player. He deals with several important concepts like momentum, control, and time. Perhaps your 'little man' was telling you that you'd lost momentum, needed to re-establish control over the table, but didn't have time to do it. spitball
Isn't there a passage in Theory of Poker that says something like "if the game is bad, get up. If the game is good, pry your eyes open with toothpicks if you have to. . .just keep playing"?
"So long as you remain a big favorite, you should stay, even if it means using toothpicks to prop up your eyelids. But if the game has changed so that you're an underdog, you should quit whether you're a winner or loser." (Page 7 in the old edition "Winning Poker," Prentice-Hall, 1983)
Also, on the previous page: "Thus, whether you are winning or losing on a given night is not in itself important, and above all it must not affect your play. It's easy to get steamed, or disgruntled or discouraged, when you're losing. However, you must be disciplined enough to play every hand correctly, regardless of how you are doing."
I would say that 1) it you have to use toothpicks to prop up your eyelids, you're not a big favorite, no matter if you think you are; and 2) if you are not disciplined enough to play every hand correctly, regardless of how your doing, you should indeed quit, because again, not matter what you think, you're no longer the favorite.
I also remember reading somewhere that the factor that affects who wins the most among top players is who goes on tilt the least. (Malmuth?)
.
to clear things up a little but not much. i mean that if you quit because you feel you are now unlucky and will continue to be unlucky you do not understand gambling at all. if you quit because you WERE unlucky and feel it has disturbed you and you can no longer play well that night and you realize that the next cards coming have an equal chance to be good or bad then you are conducting yourself in a winning manner. although it hurts you to have to quit because of emotions. but emotions we all have and they do affect all our play somewhat.
Nice post.
Arnold Snyder wrote an article in Card Player magazine about when to quit also in Gambling For A Living should take a look.
The Little Man is our control of our mental state! Get out of control Get out of game! (winning or loseing)
Not like before, my mind is not sticking on the winning and losing which can really affect my play. Instead, I always monitor the quality of the game and my concentration level during a session, which I believe is the only thing that can make a difference on the long-term outcome by using our human force to decide when to quit. Actually I have found in some occations that I lost my winnings back because the game is getting bad or my concentration level goes down, but I didnot realize that myself at that time.
regards,
jikun
which the less informed attribute to bad luck or bad cards.
Since you quoted George - so did I.
I just saw this -- nice one. The last few weeks, there has been considerable (bankroll) shrinkage. But since I play every hand correctly, I don't care.
I generally have to drive a long while to play, or endure some awful travel and waits. If you are quitting because you got tired and can't keep playing ok, or just got irritated and felt this would affect your play, then you did a good thing unless you are playing for a living.
If you are playing for a living, you should be: good enough to play pretty tired and still make good decisions and not get upset by such things (at least not to the point that it alters your play).
At the English casinos that I play holdem tournaments in, the cash side-game of choice is generally six-card pot-limit Omaha (!)
Now, I know from the tourneys that there are plenty of fish swimming in these games, but to a player whose sole cash game experience has been California & Nevada limit holdem (and the occasional pot-limit holdem game over here) six-card PLO is somewhat daunting!
Anyway, my question is - is there any software out there that would come close to simulating this unusual(!) game? I suspect a standard four-card limit Omaha simulator would not be nearly good enough...
Many Thanks
Mark
Mark,
I'm not aware of any software that simulates Pot-Limit Omaha well (or even at all) as it is just too complex. As I understand it, 6-card is easier in a lot of respects - if you haven't got the nuts or a draw to the nuts, forget it. Even the nuts is no good someimtes for example if you have the nut straight on the flop with two suited cards. Reuben & Ciaffone's book has a short section on each of 5- and 6- card Omaha.
In my experience, there are many more sharks and many fewer minnows in the Dealer's Choice cash games than in the tournaments. Be very careful.
I've only just started playing cash games (played 1, won 1 - hardly a statistically significant sample) after 2 years practising in Tournaments, and while 2 years may be a little over-cautious :-), I would advise you not to play a cash game unless you are totally familiar with the game being played.
Where do you play ? I may be able to point you towards some Stud or Hold-Em cash games. You can respond here or E-Mail me andy@pokersoft.co.uk .
If you are interested in Pot-Limit software generally, check my website www.pokersoft.co.uk. As ever, other poker software products are commercially available :-).
Andy.
In 4 card Omahaha there are 6-2card combinations. With 6 cards there are 15. This means in a game where the nuts is OFTEN out, there is about a 2.5 times less likely it is NOT out.
You need to play the nuts or big draws to the nuts. You need to be able to count your outs and gauge your chances of getting paid off accurately since you will often be facing a 2:1 call on the turn.
In Omahaha straights are weak; in this game there is no such thing as a straight until the river, where you can EXPECT to split it. Even monster 22 out straight draws aren't going to win much money here. Most of your straight wins should be "accidentally" where you had or were drawing at something else. There is no such thing as the "2nd nut flush". Even 2nd full house is a suspect hand.
Your profit will come from brain-dead types drawing to non-nut straights, K-flush draw, or small sets; or those that pay you off the river when YOU make the obvious hand you were drawing to.
- Louie
Six-card Omaha is *easier* than four-card! There are no tough decisions; if you don't have it, someone else does.
I just started playing Hold' Em in my local casino about 3 weeks ago and have done fairly well. The only table that is usually going is a 3-6 table. I play fairly tight but have run into a problem, one that I experienced 4 times last night in a matter of 45 minutes... I had pocket 4's twice, pocket 6's once and pocket 3's another time. I'm confused about how to play these hands pre-flop...do I raise to drive players out or just call. After the flop do I fold if I don't have trips???
Needless to say, I didn't win one of the hands. I raised the pre-flop once with my 6's and fell to a pair of 9's by a guy who had A-9 suited and got a 9 on the river....the rest of the time I called and folded after the flops produced nothing.
Am I better off just raising the whole time if the board has nothing but low cards?? (10 and down)...
I really have no idea what to do in these situations...as I have to see the flop but wonder what value there is in paying for the turn and river...
Thanks in advance.
Eric
With these hands you want to get in as cheaply as possible and get out if you miss the flop. i.e. No set no bet.
At this limit, it's probably not worth the effort or the money to get tricky with this hand.
E.,
Check David Sklansky's article in the latest issue of Poker Digest if it is available to you (BTW, the article is not on the web site).
There is a twelve part question that he answered on small pairs before the flop. He first answered this in Card Player in about the sixth of seventh issue back in 1988 (it was originally a fourteen or fifteen part question). I would know since I was the author of the question along with the group of three questions that immediatlely followed.
Would anyone who understands publishing etiquete know if there are any royalties in this for me as it has now been recycled twice (it was also in "Poker, Gaming and Life")?
Regards ;-),
Rick
It took me a long time to see the logic behind why I shouldn't play low pairs in early position. It almost seems counter intuitive. "But, I've got a pair already! That's better than most other starting hands out there!"
This may be true, but by thinking this way, you fail to consider a few important points.
1) In early position with 66, there's no guarantee that you're not up against AA - 77 starting hands further down the line. These hands, no doubt, will kick your ass in a showdown. Now if you throw your bet in, someone else raises, and another later on reraises and it comes back to you. What do you do? Throw 2 more bets in to chase after a longshot or concede that you made a mistake calling in the first place and fold? Why get into that situation anyway?
2) I don't care if 66 is the absolute best starting hand at the table, if a single overcard hits on the flop you cannot guarantee you have the best hand anymore. 66 might beat AK. But what about AK, QJ,and 10-9, all playing against you? You're pretty much dead in the water in the vast majority of the flops.
Now that we know why you can't play them early, let's see how you can win with them: wrap around a straight, or hit your trips. You'll hit your trips on the flop 1 - (48*47*46)/(50*49*48) times, or 11.75% of the time. In other words 2 out of every 17 times.
The other 15 times you'll lose, and if you lose putting money in the pot in early position and then calling raises...or worse yet raising and contributing even more money to someone else's pot, you will never ever make enough money back on those 2 times you do hit your trips to compensate.
Hope this helps.
Dan
if you don't feel comfortable, then play for the set. that usually means calling. fold in early position unless the game is rather loose. raise 5 limpers in late position. cold call if you will have at least 5 opp. (assume one blind will call the raise, unless you have evidence otherwise.)
do not call a bet on the flop without a set. when you become more ecperienced, you will be able to recognize profitable situations for an unimproved small pair. they do exist, but for now just fold.
scott
In typically loose games without a doubt the most value a small pair has is flopping a set against several opponents. Many will call you with almost no chance to win. A set is an easy hand for beginners to play: "flail away until you are raised 2-3 times, then pay it off" is a very reasonable brain-dead strategy.
You are about 7.5:1 against flopping a set, so getting in cheap is important: you want the one time you make it and favorably contest a big pot to make up for the 7.5 times you miss. You need to know that MOST pots have 5 or so opponents and no raise before you should play in early position.
If you have (44) and the board is KJ832, the chances you can beat 4 opponents is VERY SMALL.
If LOTS of players call you can now raise with small pairs late or in the blind, since you will be getting close to your 7.5:1 odds AND the increased pot size will encourage additional loose calls from players who cannot beat the set you hope to make.
Small pairs have some value in short handed 2-3 player contests, such as when everyone folds to the button. The problem is that you will find yourself in sticky situations where beginners will do very poorly. Don't bother against any kind of solid player.
- Louie
What is a 'kill' game or 'kill' button?
E.,
This questions should be posted on the new Beginners Forum. You are lucky Wrong Forum Man has taken the day off and you have been spared his wrath. But since I need to finish my coffee I will answer.
A kill is most often used in split games such as Omaha H/L or seven card stud H/L. When a player hogs both sides of a pot or wins it all because there is no low he posts an extra blind or bet on top a kill button. If it was a 3/6 game the action will usually now be 6/12. The killer often acts last pre flop (in Omaha) but the movement tends torwards having the killer act in turn. In stud there are all kinds of variations.
There can also be partial kills such as the 6/12 Omaha at Hollywood Park. When the pot is killed, it turns into a 8/16 game with the extra kill blind. This would be a 1/3 kill.
You will also find kill games where you post a kill after winning two pots in a row. This is popular at Ocean's Eleven in Oceanside, CA.
There are other variations but my coffee is getting cold. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Rick
Just curious, Rick. Exactly how many cups of coffee do you drink a day?
Dan,
I'm drinking my third cup as we speak. Then I am off to the Commerce to see if I can cash in on all that loose play. But I used to drink about ten cups a day. So now I do things in moderation.
Regards,
Rick
I just think it's humorous that half your posts have "I don't have much time to write, but you caught me while I'm drinking my coffee," in them. Hope you did well this evening.
Dan
Rick,
Am I villain and not a super hero? Do I belong in the Legion of Doom and not the Hall of Justice? Do I use my super powers of super-organization and anal-retention to oppress, rather than uplift? I hope not. Moreover, I have never been mean to anyone, except "Beginner" with his dumb baby-talk posts on the Beginner's Questions Forum.
Rick, you're a great guy, but on the issue of the Wrong Forum Man, I believe you are a cranky Mr. Jamison to my Spider Man.
WFM
For what it's worth I have always considered your comments to be nothing stronger than gentle chiding. You should proudly wear the WFM on your chest and your cape for you provide guidance and order to an otherwise chaotic world. We do not and should not fear you for your mission is not to punish. We should, on the other hand, follow your lead and learn your teachings as we would those of a mentor or teacher or, shall I say it, sage. Count me among your legions for my only hope is that I've posted this on the appropriate forum.
$6-12 at Bay 101. Game is pretty typical, loose and not too aggressive. I pick up
Ac 5c
in seat 4 (acting right after UTG), and I call anticipating a multiway pot. Seat 5 calls, button calls, big blind checks. Flop is
6s 2c Kh
Checked to me, I check, and seat 5 bets. I figured he would not call preflop with a king in his hand, he would have raised or folded, not called. I am fairly certain he's on a bluff.
It's folded to me, and so I decide to checkraise confident that he is bluffing. If he calls I have the three flush and I think an ace will also be good. To my surprise he calls. The turn is a
Kc
Seems like a pretty scary card to me plus I now have the four flush so I bet. He calls again. I'm starting to wonder now, because I figure he would have raised me or folded, not just called. Anyway, the river is an ugly
9s
All I have now is ace high. Should I bet again? Also, how would you guys have played it?
All comments are appreciated.
The real answer here is to fold on the flop. It doesn't sound like your evidence that he doesn't have a K is very good, and it just wasn't worth it to try to bluff this guy out of the pot. In the long run, I think this will be a losing play, UNLESS you have some other evidence that's he's bluffing on the flop, or some reason to believe you can get him to fold his non-bluffing hand (like 88 in the pocket).
Now that you're here on the river, I would check. If this guy has a pocket pair or a 6, it appears that he's gonna call you down, so save the bet. If he had some kind of shitty draw (like 45 for a gutshot straight), you will beat him anyway, and you wouldn't expect him to call your bet. Since it appears that you can't get a weaker hand to call, nor get a stronger hand to fold, there is no reason to bet.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You should not have gotten into the hand with Axs from that position. And if you think that the game is so passive that it's a positive EV play, I think you should fold on the flop.
I figured he would not call preflop with a king in his hand, he would have raised or folded, not called. I am fairly certain he's on a bluff.
Isn't this a stretch? I thought K-x suited would be a routine call against 4 others in an unraised pot from the button. I suppose I'd raise if I thought the blinds were weak players and likely to fold, but I would normally want minimal cost and max action with K-xs.
Fat-Charlie
...is preferable to a bet. If you still believe your read may be right (obviously, you have to be questioning that at this point), it may also be preferable to checking and folding. Here's my reasoning.
The ace will beat most hands that will fold to a bet, and lose to almost all hands that will call---if he called you with a six or a deuce on the flop and turn, or if he had a busted club draw and hit the nine, he's not going to fold now. He also might not bet some hands that will beat you, but that he would have called with. Furthermore, checking may induce a bluff, if he were a (weak) player holding something like 4-5.
The key is that your hand is good enough to win against a busted draw. Since you had the suited ace, you can rule out him calling with a better flush draw on the flop. Had your high card been, say, a ten, a bet might have been preferable to checking and calling, as it now becomes necessary to make your opponent fold in order for you to win.
This is a 5-10 hand I witnessed recently I'd like to post for comment. I was not involved in the hand.
Solid Player UTG (SP) limps, as does another player. Somewhat aggresive mid Position player (MP) raises, cutoff cold calls as does somewhat weak player in the big blind (BB). (SP) now 3 bets, next player calls, original raiser (MP) caps, next player cold calls, (BB) cold calls.
Flop: 3d 7s Qc
(BB) bets, (SP) raises, next player folds, (MP) cold calls, next player folds, (BB) calls.
Turn: Ts
Board: 3d 7s Qc Ts
(BB) checks, (SP) bets, (MP) now raises, (BB) cold calls (SP) calls
River: 9s
Board: 3d 7s Qc Ts 9s
(BB) bets, (SP) and (MP) both call
For those who wish to comment at this point, I'll post the end result in the next post.
Board: 3d 7s Qc Ts 9s
Ending hands
(BB) Qs8s won and dragged a pretty big pot
(SP) AcAd
(MP) KsKd
I see this as an example of Limping with AA gone bad. Had (SP) raised his Aces UTG, he would have stood a better chance at winning. Oviously if (MP) 3 bet (BB) just might have folded the big blind, but who can say for sure. Hindsight is 20/20, but is there a more ideal situation for limping in with AA?
comments?
In a game with several loose players you probably don't need to ever limp with AA. If a 5-10 game seemed to require this play, then it is time to find a softer game ( Like CA 15-30 for instance :) ).
D.
sorry, the 2nd paragraph should read:
Solid Player UTG (SP) limps, as does another player. Somewhat aggresive mid Position player (MP) raises, cutoff cold calls as does somewhat weak player in the big blind (BB). (SP) now 3 bets, next player calls, original raiser (MP) caps, next player cold calls, (BB) cold calls everyone else calls
When a UTG player limps in with AA, you have to consider: is he really a solid player or just a rock with hyper-inflated starting hand requirements?
If he is really a rock, and it's obvious to everyone, then he may be afraid that raising will drive everyone out and he'll only collect the blinds.
I almost always raise with pocket aces UTG, but I also vary my play by occasionally raising with hands like J10s and AQs, so that I won't always be put on a huge pocket pair when I raise UTG. Limping in with AA seems like a pretty weak play in low-limit, since AA rarely stands up against a large field.
Limping in with AA seems like a pretty weak play in low-limit, since AA rarely stands up against a large field.
Why do so many people think this? AA holds up in a nine handed, no foldem situation around 40% of the time. (Think about that for a minute.) For instance, CA game, 20-40, assume 9 people will call three bets on every street, no one folds. The newbies scream *UGH*, don't give me A's! Now, let's work through the EV of this hand that many cry they don't want. Pocket A's contribution to the pot $360 (again - 9 people for three bets each betting round; I'm including the insane raising that they love to do with draws). Total pot size on river: $3240. Pocket A's EV is $1296 or profit of $936 each time that you play them.
I say give me the pocket A's (mine plus all the other seats that don't want theirs - give me theirs too :)))
I'll be happy to sit and take my beats the times that I lose with them.
Anyway the point is UTG's play was fine. (I tend to usually raise with them in this kind of loose game but who cares) - he got more money in the pot with the best hand. I like the play. Did he cost himself the pot by not raising UTG? Maybe, but again, who cares?! He got the most money in the pot that was possible before the flop, and that's how you make the most money with AA. (You failed to even consider that he likely got KK to think his hand was best and therefore got even more money in in the best of circumstances.
I say to all of the newbies: Do a little cheer in your head when many people call your limp or raise or whatever you do with AA. Think somewhere in your mind, 40% of that *big* pot is mine! (Maybe not this hand but in the long run).
Expected value X volume = profit (in the *long* run)
Regards/LoneStar
Limping in with AA seems like a pretty weak play in low-limit, since AA rarely stands up against a large field.
Why do so many people think this?
My reply to that comment is always "If AA doesn't stand up against a large field, what hand does?" I think so many people think that because they feel that AA should always win, and when holding AA, they're more concerned with winning that pot than winning the most money. Even people who know "The objective is to win money, not pots" probably still want to win every pot with AA. I'm sure that if you calculate the additional money that Q8s put in with less than 7 outs on the flop (5 for trips/two pair, about 2 for backdoor flush, but subtract AA making a better two pair/trips), letting the big blind in rather than getting heads up with KK was advantageous. But some of the posts in this thread imply that winning the pot is more important.
I do agree that in loose games, you might as well raise because people will still call anyway (especially in loose-passive games, where you stand little chance of being able to reraise), but perhaps this game wasn't that loose.
An added benefit is that limp-reraising often confuses your opponents, who apparently think that you were merely raising to "build a pot." Look at the hand in question: Mr. KK capped the flop and then thought his hand was good enough to slowplay until the turn, *despite* the limp-reraise from UTG. I've been called down to the river a few times by an unimproved AT or something when I've limp-reraised with QQ or something, because these players seem convinced that limp-reraising is some sort of bluff, or something that only "action" players do.
-Sean
So the BB backdoored a flush with the Qs and beat the overpair vs. overpair or set vs. overpair? Happens all the time. If the BB had the QJs he never made a mistake.
5-10 with a single $1 blind. I'm in middle position when I pick up KK.
UTG is loose and aggressive, but who has also played with me and seen me take some big pots from him. He calls. Another passive loose player calls. I raise.
Folded to UTG who calls, as does the weak-loose player. Pot=$19.
Flop: 9 9 10
UTG checks. Weak-loose checks. I bet.
UTG calls. Weak-loose folds. Pot=$29.
Turn is an A.
Aaargh. UTG bets. I raise. He re-raises (dang, he's not going to be blown off). I muck without showing. He flashes A/9.
A few questions:
(1) Should I have bet the flop? I think this is a no-brainer, but does anyone disagree.
(2) Should I have raised the turn? If not, should I have just called? If I called should I have called the river if a King doesn't come?
(3) Should I have mucked to the re-raise on the turn? I obviously was thinking that he had at least an Ace and perhaps a 9. Therefore, if I don't muck I'm playing a two-outer.
I would have bet the flop and folded for the reraise on the turn. You must figure that the Ace looks scary to him too (you rasied pre-flop). When he bets and you raise on the turn when the ace comes he has to figure you have an ace with a good kicker or a big overpair (possibly aces but the one in his hand and the one on the board make this unlikely), despite this he then reraises you at this point he atleast has an ace and probably a nine (in this case both). Against an absolute maniac or a very tricky player you could call him on the turn and river but against most LL players laying it down is the correct play and against your weaker opponents I'd consider laying it down when he bets out on the turn for the same reasons stated above.
You might even consider folding on the turn when he bets into you.
That's what I said. If the player is especially weak you should fold when bet into on the turn.
If your opponent is wild, then it doesn't really matter what you do. That is, you can construct an argument for either mucking or calling, and either choice will only cost you pennies in the long run. When the decision is genuinely close, what course of action you eventually decide on is fairly irrelevant. All that matters is that your thinking was clear. So, I guess we should ask this: Why did you fold, and why are you second guessing the play of the hand?
You were correct to bet the flop. The turn is a clear fold, even against an aggressive player. He called you on the flop despite (1) your preflop raise, (2) the tiny pot, and (3) a player yet to act - he doesn't have nothing. If he would probably have bet a straight draw or a ten, then he likely has overcards, and the ace almost had to have hit him.
I bet the flop and muck on the turn.
I think maybe you underestimated your opponent he played this hand really well IMHO.
Played it well? He limped in with A9 in a 5-10 game with a single $1 blind and he played it well? He should have mucked it before the flop or perhaps you prefer he raise it "to thin the field." In case people don't know what I'm referring to read Rounder's ridiculous advice way below about JJ vs. AA.
I'd be willing to bhet the guy with A9 would empty your wallet. Seems like a good player to me and you don't.
Hmm...this coming from a guy who would 3 bet with JJ vs. AA to get heads up and hopefully flop a set advocated limping in with A9....interesting.
XX
Aside from the question of should A9 be played up front. In a loose five/ten game A9 suited should probably be played from anywhere. I agree with Rounder here. A9 played his hand very well. A9 thought he let you improve when that A fell on the turn. I assume that A9 would've bet into you if a K or a Q fell also. However loose he is you gotta wonder why he's betting when the A comes off? He probably figures you to raise here so he can 3bet. All in all, I think A9 played it very well and KK waaaaaay overplayed his hand. I think Mason comments below that raising the turn will cause a lesser hand to fold and a better hand to at least call if not raise back.
chris
I think that A9 played like crap preflop.
Calling the initial $1 blind is just fine. With the structure of this game, if there is a reasonable chance to see the flop for $1, the I would play any 2 cards (with the caveat that you MUST be able to outplay your opponents postflop). However, once it is raised, and you now have to put in $5 more, you should be playing tight. A9 is too likely to be running into a better A or a pair 99 or higher, and cannot afford to pay a full bet preflop here, especially when everyone else between him and the raiser had folded (so there is only 1 guy left, and A9 is getting at best less than 3:1 preflop).
He got in 5 small bets postflop, so he didn't too badly there. However, the call of the raise preflop is a huge mistake, IMO.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
When you raised him on the turn what hand did you think you could beat or where you trying to make him lay down an ace. Did you stop and think what he was betting. It's hard for me to come up with a hand that you could beat.
caliing the flop and then betting out on the turn when the board pairs on the flop is such a common bluffing oppurtunity that against all but the weakest players I think it's correct to raise back. I've seen this play so many times that I won't lay a decent hand down for a bet on the turn against all but the weakest opponents. After the reraise, then laying it down is correct against most player IMHO. I guess this depends on the type of players you usually play against.
This is a good flop to bluff on the turn except when the ace comes. The raisers hand could have an ace. If the turn came with a small card then it's good to bluff. With the ace on the turn There's to many hands that could call.
I agree that its probably not correct to bluff when the ace comes but that doesn't mean that a loose agressive opponent wouldn't bluff.
"1) Should I have bet the flop? I think this is a no-brainer, but does anyone disagree."
Yes.
"(2) Should I have raised the turn? If not, should I have just called? If I called should I have called the river if a King doesn't come?"
This is a tough spot and a lot depends on the particular opponent that you are up against. Since you are describing your opponent as loose and aggressive I doubt if your raise will make him fold if he has you beat. However, your raise will make him fold if your hand is best and you don't want to do that. This means that you should probably call him down as long as you think there is a reasonable chance that he would try to represent the ace. (Remember there is a small chance that you can catch a king.)
"(3) Should I have mucked to the re-raise on the turn? I obviously was thinking that he had at least an Ace and perhaps a 9. Therefore, if I don't muck I'm playing a two-outer."
Very few players are capable of reraising in this spot without having a big hand. You should probably fold unless you are against a total maniac.
"(2) Should I have raised the turn? If not, should I have just called? If I called should I have called the river if a King doesn't come?"
This is a tough spot and a lot depends on the particular opponent that you are up against. Since you are describing your opponent as loose and aggressive I doubt if your raise will make him fold if he has you beat. However, your raise will make him fold if your hand is best and you don't want to do that.
This pot is small enough (8 sb on the turn) that I think folding to the turn bet can't be very wrong. But, that aside, two comments:
1) Loose-aggressive opponents love to use scare cards to bluff and semi-bluff. One advantage of the raise and fold to a reraise play is that if he's betting QJ or something, you charge the draw.
2) Loose-aggressive opponents seem to be incapable of folding, and if he's betting a worse hand like a ten or a smaller pocket pair, he'll probably call the turn raise.
This assumes the opponent is really loose-aggressive, and not simply "loose preflop, and selectively aggressive postflop," which is actually closer to the description of a tight-aggressive player who simply plays a lot of hands.
-Sean
Raising the turn is a mistake. The board can be seen by both you and your aggressive oponent. If he has an Ace and or a nine you have 2 outs. Since he limped under the gun A,T or A,9 is not out of the question. however with A,T he probably bets or check-raises the flop. If he is aggressive I think he raises with Anything A,T or better. So that leave him with a weak Ace or a small pocket pair. When the Ace comes on the turn he can't bet a small pocket pair into an prefolp raiser when an Ace comes. He must have put the raiser on a Big Ace or a big pocket pair. He may be loose and aggressive but he's no maniac. Evidenced by a call only with A,9 UTG. A maniac raises this hand. There is a chance that he has a small pair and bets the turn representing the Ace. But as Mason stated if that is the case a raise will only get him to fold and you don't want him to fold. A call is a better play and a fold not out of the question. The big problem with a call is that you will be faced with a tough decision if he bets the river. If he checks you can bet with confidence. With a weak Ace, not A,9, he doesn't get passed the flop unless he is one of the worse players around. And if that is the case don't worry about it, fold the turn because there will be plenty of opportunity against this guy when you have the best hand.
Vince.
2-4 Hold'em (yeah, yeah - I should move up, but I'm poor...)
I limp in middle position with 5d6d. 5 players see the flop.
The flop comes 2h3h4h. Its checked to me and I check. The loose guy next to me (call him APT - Always pairs the turn) bets. SB and UTG call and I call [is this a good play here? ] - I didn't think the loose guy would even re-raise me with the flush, so a raise won't get any more information - and, I can't be sure I'm leading.
The turn comes 3s and sb (big fish) bets and UTG folds. I raise [the right play?] and APT thinks for a while and re-raises. Fish calls and I fold [correct?] figuring that there's a flush out there and a trip 3's with full house outs.
Is this the way most of you would have played this hand? - calling the flop and raising the turn and folding to a re-raise...
Thanks for any opinions, ~DjTj
Its not how I would have played it. Checking and calling seems pretty horrible. Sure you're beat if someone has the flush, but they could easily have A5 or a high single heart. You have four callers here. They cant all have flushes. If you raise you'll probably thin the field, and make the draws pay. By not raising on the flop you get in to a mess on the turn. Good players with Axh or Kxh may well slow play the flop, but small flushes need to raise on the flop to get rid of players drawing to another heart. So if you are against a flush its a biggie. Full house outs? I know you're in 2-4 so you cant discount someone playing 23 or 34 etc. but its unlikely, and anyway, who cares about their outs? You've got them beat right now.
Finally if the players are as fishy as you suggest you usually cant lay down hands against them. Thye could be playing with anything, in which case my strategy is usually to try and thin the field on the flop, where its cheap, and then check and call to the showdown. If two players start raising one another aggressively then I'd get out.
I would have considered the hand a dead issue on the flop. BUT probably would have bet the flop depending on the vibes I got on the flop represented a flush and got away from the hand on the turn with the action and cards you describe.
56s in mid position. This is why it is bad to play these rags out of position. Hard as hell to win with them and costley when you hit and are 2nd best.
Play them but on or one off the button you won't regret it.
I think this is a great example of Sklan and Mal's reason to bet: to get information. Bet on the flop and if you're observant of their reactions, you'll know if anyone has a made flush yet, and it'll only cost you 2 bucks. This is where experience comes into play big time.
This type of hand is a 'pump it or dump it' hand. But don't be passive, IMO.
shooter
"I limp in middle position with 5d6d. 5 players see the flop."
I would probably fold this hand in middle position.
"The flop comes 2h3h4h. Its checked to me and I check. The loose guy next to me (call him APT - Always pairs the turn) bets. SB and UTG call and I call [is this a good play here? ] - I didn't think the loose guy would even re-raise me with the flush, so a raise won't get any more information - and, I can't be sure I'm leading."
I generally play these hands slow. This is because you might already be beaten and if your hand is good, the next card can easily beat you.
"The turn comes 3s and sb (big fish) bets and UTG folds. I raise [the right play?]"
It's close, but even though the board paired this is not that scary a card.
"and APT thinks for a while and re-raises. Fish calls and I fold [correct?] figuring that there's a flush out there and a trip 3's with full house outs."
I don't know if there is a full house out, but it is almost a certainty that you are beat. The fold looks correct to me.
"Is this the way most of you would have played this hand? - calling the flop and raising the turn and folding to a re-raise..."
I don't know if it is the way most people would play the hand but it looks reasonable to me.
I think the whole idea of APT thinking before a raise is a pretty strong suggestion that he has a monster. How often do low limit players think about raising, with just a mediocre hand? He is trying one of his silly moves to try to decieve you probably. These players also (from my observations) often will slow play a flop with the flush then raise on the turn. Lets say he really was thinking here- Well he probably has the trips. If that is the case then that is just another way you could lose on the river. Even if the fold was wrong you wouldnt be losing too much in the long run-unless the pot was huge. Lots of cards on the river could beat you, I think its check and call or check and fold-betting wont gain enough info and you know that $2-4 players dont know how to fold even if you do bet or raise.
The order of bad cards seems to me to be: Heart(10), 5 or 6 (4), pair (9) leaving the other half the deck as "good" cards (an Ace being particularly good).
If checking the flop due to paranoia is correct why is it BETTER on the turn when you got an on-average BAD card? After weighting for likely damage (a heart is an obvious disaster) is the 3 still "bad" (meaning if you could take it back should you)? Is there much merit to being aggressive on the flop figuring to charge the routine "one time" callers (A5, stiff Th) AND encourage the opponents to not raise the turn unless you are beat (making folding the turn easy)?
- Louie
DjTj -
First, to Rounder and Mason - DjTj didn't say, but if the usual table pre-flop behavior has recently been lots of calling and not much raising (fairly typical in a 2-4, 3-6, 0r 4-8 game), then these suited connectors are great to play from at least middle position and often from early position. In this particular hand, you would have liked better position after seeing the flop, but most of the time you either flop a strong 8- or 9-out draw or else you fold.
In these low limit games, people can be in on anything, and I think you have to play the flop aggressively - come in with a bet. The worst thing in the world for you would be if it got checked around and then a fourth heart hit. Again because of the limit you are playing, if there are four hearts on board, anyone holding the 2© will call all the way in.
I think you probably did right by folding when raising broke out on the Turn.
Dick
My standard play here would be call a single bet on the flop, again on the turn, again on the river. You will win often enough to not lose money doing this, and if you start betting or raising yourself, you will never drive out a hand that beats you, only hands that you can beat already.
The only time aggression is helpful is if no one has a made flush, no one has the single Ah (nut flush draw), AND your bet or raise drives out all the non-nut flush draws. You will occasionally lose here to a single player with a single medium heart (say, Jh9c) who would have folded had you played more aggressively, but in the long run I think this is outweighed by winning extra bets from the 1 and 2 pair hands that you DON'T drive out by playing the hand aggressively, and by not losing more bets to the made flush when you play the hand aggressively.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree that hoping to drop ALL the stiff heart draws is hopelessly unrealistic. But I disagree with your notion of aggression. Aggression will ALSO help if the heart draws and other weak hands are going to call anyway. While you may not want to raise a better on your right for your solid reasons, this doesn't mean you don't want to raise after there are a couple callers and doesn't mean you should check.
It depends on whether you can get lesser hands to call your likely winning hand.
- Louie
Last night this hand came up. After the hand some players mumbled how bad I played the hand. I disagree but, I'll see what the readers think. The game is 20-40 holdem with two loose players, three soild players who generally play higher, the rest are average to good. The game has been loose to this point. UTG raises, two callers, I call with J10s, button calls sb folds LB raises to 60 all call. Six see the flop. Both raisers are soild players. The flop comes J 8 7 with one of my suit. LB bets UTG raises all fold to me, I stop and think for 5 to10 seconds about what they have than call 40. All fold behind me, the LB reraises to 60 UTG calls I cap it at 80. I'm not going explain what I put them on or why I capped it. I would like to see if other people read this hand like I did and if they think I played it wrong. I won the hand but, that doesn't mean I played right.
UTG big pair or A-K, SB similar, you've got at least 10 outs (not counting backdoor or the possibilities they both have A-K/A-Q). Easy call, not sure I'd have capped it, although that will ensure you get paid off. I don't see that you played it bad, although the cap was iffy.
Joe Joe,
You made two mistakes in the play of the hand in my opinion. The most costly was the call before the flop.
UTG raises, two callers, I call with J10s, button calls sb folds LB raises to 60 all call. Six see the flop. Both raisers are soild players.
I'm pretty sure you made this call because of the two cold callers and your hand's straight and flush potential. The problem is that with a credible raiser your hand goes down dramatically in value because it's very likely that if you make one pair it will not be good. Run through the hands that a credible UTG raiser has. My opening requirements are 88-AA, AJo or better, A10 suited or better, KQ suited. (I occasionally throw in a raise with 9 10 suited or 10 J suited but not often enough to be a concern here.)
Compare your holding to these hands to recognize how often you are beat and/or beat and dominated. Your hand will usually be second best and you will end up paying off a fair number of bets. There are only a few of my raising hands that you are even drawing live to.
The BB reraise is a bit concerning but not nearly as much so as he reraises after he knows there will be several callers. He could have as weak as 33 or 87suited and know that he's getting pot odds on the raise. Your call here is fine. (Once you've stuck your neck out, you have to call the one more bet).
The flop comes J 8 7 with one of my suit. LB bets UTG raises all fold to me, I stop and think for 5 to10 seconds about what they have than call 40. All fold behind me, the LB reraises to 60 UTG calls I cap it at 80.
Your hand is likely not best at this point but you have many outs to make the best hand. The only mistake I can see that you made is the long pause before calling. You've basically announced that you have a weak hand and aren't sure if you have odds to call. If I ever find myself thinking too long in a hand in which I don't have pretty close to the nuts, I generally fold for fear of getting attacked by an astute player that recognizes your pause as meaning that you have a weak hand and/or weak draw. That same player also will often fold when you hit your hand thereby reducing your implied odds.
After you decided to call, I like the cap. If you are committed to going forward with the hand (and you must be after you called the two cold), the cap makes it appear as though you had the nuts and were considering reraise or call (as opposed to what your opponent could have and did you have odds to continue with the hand).
There's a good chance that even an overpair will now check to you on the turn. If given an opportunity, I would check it through on the turn if the turn card is not a 9 or J. (I don't think I would even bet the turn if the turn card is your suit. A semi-bluff most likely won't work here as both of your opponents have said they have a big hand. You will have to make a hand to win the pot.)
Regards/LoneStar
I agree with most of what you said But , before the flop with four way action and more callers to come I play J10s. I know this can not be the best hand and there may be a big pair out but, you do have to take some chances.
You were right when I capped it I was going for a free card. I put the reraiser on a big pair and thought he would check to me on the turn. The turn came a Jack it was checked to me I bet. LB called UTG folded which made me happy he didn't have a jack with me. I bet the at the end and big pair called.
Thanks for your response
I went for a puff when I was one hand away from posting the big blind. A few quick drags and I was back in the game with a forced post of $15 one to the right of the button. 5 limpers before me. I check with the lovely 5c10s. Button calls as do both blinds and we have a 9 handed flop.
Flop: Js5d2s
Big blind (a weak player) bets. UTG (a fairly good preflop player but one who plays a tad too soft after the flop calls). Others fold. I call. Button and sb fold. We are 3 handed on the turn. Pot size: $125.
Turn: Qc
BB checks. UTG checks. I check.
River: Kc
BB checks. UTG bets and I call almost instantaneously. BB folds.
Put me on a thought if you will.
P.S. "You play like a fish" is an acceptable answer.
well, i know your not a fish so...
you can't think that you are winning this pot. only 98 or 87 of spades are possible utg hands that you can beat. you're only getting 6-1.
that means you have to be trying to manipulate your image. or you want everyone to see utg's cards. or something. maybe you are trying to keep this guy playing soft postflop. trying not to give any pot stealing ideas.
i think that's what you are doing, but i don't think it was a good move. one hand will not change peoples dispositions. if he is currently adverse to playing aggressively then he is very likely to remain so. i would only make a call like this if i thought this pot would stick out in his mind. say it was a huge pot or something. then i may call knowing 99% sure that i was beat. but this hand is just too innocuous to be worrying about things like that.
scott
It wasn't tobacco you were smoking and you thought your 10s was second nut flush.
Or, you put UTG on AsXs and thought your small pair might hold.
I should clarify my comment on the soft postflop lay of UTG: He is certainly not averse to raising with top pair on the flop. In fact, disregard the comment about his softness altogether as it's likely to mislead.
To Sammy B: hehe...got a nice chuckle out of your post.
"This call can't be anywhere near the negative EV of that cigarette ..."
I think to make this call correct, I have to be pretty sure that I have the bettor beat and the BB is not going to over call, which is not an easy decision in this case. If my judgement on the bettor's bluff is close, raising may be a better play.
regards,
jikun
Yes. Raising may be a better play.
In any event, several players at the table thought I made a goofy call. I am not convinced that it was so goofy but I will post my reasoning tomorrow. I gotta vamoose for now.
skp,
You wrote "…and we have a 9 handed flop."
Does Canada accept immigration of a politically incorrect citizens of California (BTW, if this helps I don't smoke but may be the only non-smoker in the state who doesn't begrudge others smoking)?
One thing that strikes me about this hand is that the field really was narrowed down on the flop so you had a lot of dead money to shoot at. For no other reason than this, your late position call(s) can be justified.
I was going to blather on but my ride is waiting to go play so I will leave it with just that one comment.
Regards,
Rick
RE: 9 way action
It is a feature of the games that I play in: If UTG and the player left of him limp in, there is a good chance that you are going to have 8+ players see the flop and often without a raise. The early limpers have the effect of starting a "calling frenzy". I believe that the guy 2 to the left of the big blind has a big "say" in shaping the number of players who will pay to see the flop.
In any event, here was my thinking on this hand. As it turned out, UTG mucked without showing his cards after I called so I don't know what he had.
The call at the end was really driven by the fact that I had the 10s which as it turned out was a key card in reading UTG's bluff. If I had 5c10c for example, I would not have been able to call; At best, I could only call based on a "guess" that he may be bluffing.
Read on the flop:
Given the 9 way action, it stands to reason that if UTG had a Jack, he would raise the flop to limit the field. As the flop offers no reasonable 2 pair hands, UTG's call most likely signifies a spade draw or perhaps a set which he decided to slowplay.
At this point, the weak player out of the bb could have anything with a pair of Jacks being the most likely holding.
Read on the turn:
We are now 3 handed. UTG's check at this point denies a set thereby confirming that he likely has a flush draw. Furthermore, it stands to reason that he doesn't have the Qs as he would have bet.
It continues to be difficult to put bb on a hand. But I still thought that a pair of Jacks was the likely choice. He checked because he did not like the Queen.
Read on the River:
UTG now bets when the King hits. The board is J52QK (no flush). If I am correct in saying that UTG had a flush draw going into the river, the only hands he could have at the end that beat my pair of fives are these:
As,10s; Ks,10s; 10s,9s; or posssibly Ks,9s (it's unlikely that this fella would play Ks,9s UTG but not impossible. It is highly unlikely though that he would play Ks8s or worse). He could also have AsKs but this is also unlikely given the lack of a preflop raise and lack of a flop raise.
Now, I hold the 10s which means that he probably has only one hand (i.e, Ks9s - an unlikely one at that) which beats my pair of 5's. I put him at the end on Axs or 87s and the ilk and therefore called.
As jukin says above, it may have been better to raise to ensure that bb didn't overcall with his probable Jack or possible King. If I had to do it again, I probably would raise. However, at the time, I felt that UTG's bet plus my call would convince bb that one of us had him beat. It was the reason why I called quickly.
In any event, I think that there is something to be learned from this hand: An innocuous looking card like the 10s in your hand may in fact be a key card in helping you read your opponent's hand. Usually, key cards are the Ace of the trump suit. For example, in pot limit Omaha, if you hold a dry Ace of Diamonds and the flop comes with 3 Diamonds, you probably have a good chance of stealing the pot because you and ONLY you can know that no one has the theoretical nuts. In the same vein, the 10s in my hand held a great deal more significance than what might appear at first glance.
Another resaon to raise at the end would be if UTG had As5s although I don't think he would bet with that hand at the end although he may well call with it if someone else bet.
i find the calling frenzy us even more pronounced in nl. even one limper protects the pot from most steal raises. then everyone feels safe to limp in.
i agree with your reasoning. as we discusseed in the email, i read more into the 'a tad soft'. that's mainly because i thought if he was really a tad soft then you wouldn't have said anything. he would have to be rather soft for you to bring it up at all. now i see that you just meant he wasn't going to raise the flop bet with a flush draw and an overcard. in that case your play seems correct for the very reasons you state.
scott
"I think that there is something to be learned from this hand: "
SKP,
The above is correct. The something to be learned is that "hind sight is 20-20!" The fact of the matter is that you smelled a "fish." I doubt you did all that thinking at the table. The pot was big enough to call just to pick off a bluff. But then again you are a lawyer maybe your mind works like that on the fly.
Vince
You are half right. I certainly did not go through the elaborate exercise of eliminating all of the various hands he could have had while at the table. But it did occur to me at the table that this guy could not have Ks10s or 10s9s (In thinking back, I don't recall putting my mind to the (im)possibility of As10s). The unlikelihood of AsKs and Kxs is not something one has to consciously think about at the tables, that decision is something that comes without any thought at all.
We all have days when our "minds work on the fly" or when we are in our "zone". Too bad, it happens so infrequently.
Was it exceptional poker skills that led you to deduct your opp couldn't hold the spade ten or did you just peek at your own hand (5c 10s)? ;-)
...the point was...ah, never mind....exceptional skills of course:)
I have a hard time believing that you're opponents are that predictable. I like the reasoning, but I think it works better on paper than it does at the table, where all but the absolute tightest players can show you just about anything at any time. For instance, in this case it wouldn't surprise me if your opponent called with An AsTh, thinking he might as well peel one off w/ an overcard and a three flush. If he's playing 22 under the gun (which you suspect he might, since at first you considered the possibility that he had a set), then he's probably also the type who'd play and offsuit AT. Anyway, I don't think the river call was as bad as you think it is, although I think if I'd called the flop (don't know if I would, but I've made weirder plays than that) then I probably would have bet the turn when it was checked to me.
Oh for sure, the read could be off but thankfully the pot odds don't dicate that I have to be right a great percentage of the time.
On the possibility of the player peeling one off with As10h....actually, when a fair to good player calls a bet from his immediate right in a multiway pot, I just automatically assume that he is not calling merely on the strength of one overcard. Thus, for example, if the flop was rainbow and an Ace had come off on the turn and this guy bet, I wouldn't even consider the possibility that he was now betting with just a pair of Aces. I would assume (really without much thinking involved) that he has better than a pair of aces as I would have subconsciously integrated my knowlege that he would not have called the flop bet with just an overcard Ace. Of course, where you have a suited flop, he may well be calling with Axs and gone on to pair up on the turn. So, in that sense, I am not sure I agree with your assessment that if the guy could play 22 preflop UTG, he could peel one of on the flop with As10h. I would always play 22 UTG preflop in my games (unwisely at times as you know from the other recent thread). On the other hand I would almost never peel one off with As10h when the bet comes from my immediate right on that flop.
Good point. However, understand that you're the exception. There are always a few players who understand the basic difference between a 'good shorthanded' holding and a 'good mulitway holding', but "as a rule" I think the same guys who are calling UTG with pocket ducks are the same yahoos who get married early and often to ATo. Just a thought. Either way it wasn't a bad river call, although like I said I I think I would have bet the turn when the overcard dropped.
In this hand I made five mistakes and ended looking like a genius.
I am dealt AKc and call. First mistake. There are four players on the flop which is 3,4,5 with two clubs. I have the nut flush draw. The player to my right bets, I call the others fold.
The turn is the 2d. I have a wheel. It is checked to me. I bet and get raised. I open my big mouth and say, "Oh, got an ace too, huh?" A very rare and large mistake for me. I gave away my hand and assumed I was up against another wheel, focused now on splitting the pot. I had made my second and third mistakes.
The river is 2c and I have the nut flush. It is bet into me and I make my forth mistake of ignoring the paired board and raise. I am reraised and make my fifth mistake and cap the raise.
My opponent triumphantly lays down 6, 7d. He had flopped the nut straight, my stupid comment about the ace caused him to focus totally on his nut straight, ignoring the board. When he saw the flush he was devastated. He decided that I had put a major play on him, manipulating him into a bad loss. He and all the others in this ten-twenty game consider me to be very tough. He explained to the others how I had out played him. He got up from the game, leaving the others looking at me like I was a genius. I did not make the sixth mistake of relieving them of their misconception.
Hey how about this one.
Today I was in a tournament and had pocket 9's pre flop I raised and said got to protect my aces. Sure eneough AKQ flopps and it is checked to me I bet all fold - I show the 99 next hand I have AA I say really got aces this time and all call me to the river - I win huge pot.
Some times it about doing the wrong thing at the right time.
I felt comfortable doing this as I was running all over this table and had a real edge on this bunch.
Do you yell "Pair the board" just before the river?
Two comments:
1) Limping with AKs is fine, and sometimes preferable. The hand plays well both multi-way and heads up, and by limping you encourage people to come in with weaker aces and weaker hands of that suit. You should reraise if raised after limping, as that will cause some people to put you on AA or KK and also people will be less likely to raise you when you've limped with weaker hands that you'd like to play for 1 bet.
2) I think ignoring the paired board on the river is ok. Think about it: after you told your opponent "You must have an A too" and he *reraised* you, doesn't that mean he probably doesn't have a set or two pair that has now improved to a boat on the river?
BTW, was this hand online? I'm curious where you playing that there was a cap on raises heads up; I know that's the case in most online cardrooms but I haven't heard of a "regular" cardroom with that rule before. (Although I've only played in a few cardrooms.)
-Sean
1.5 - not raising the flop. Your hand is pretty obvious when you call so it was a mistake to think you just gave away your hand. 2.1 - presuming his mostly likely hand was also an Ace. 4 - is not a mistake. 6 - letting the opponens think you are very good when you could easily have had one of them explain to you what happened, such as by saying "Huh?". 7 - after watching a player 3-bet with a straight when the board just paired AND flushed and forget you most likely called the flop with a draw (which Ace did he think you had?) and then go off in a tizzy AND tried to elevate the opponent (rather then diminish himself); considering such a player a "tough" player.
- Louie
A strange hand came up at my 5-10 game tonight which got me so upset I decided to leave the table rather than play on tilt. It was a loose-passive game (my favorite). I am in the SB holding 4s7s. 5 other people call and I decide to take a shot. Flop comes 3d 5s 6s I come out betting, thinking that a lot of these loose players are going to call me down all the way and pay me off. Indeed, 3 people call me. Turn comes 3c. I bet, BB folds and a loose player in mid position raises. A guy in late position calls, I reraise, and the remaining 2 players just call. The river comes Ac. I bet, both players call. I flip my straight, first guy mucks, and the guy on the end turns over 3s 6d!!!!
I have 2 questions about this hand. First, was my reraise sound? And second, did I get what I deserved for playing (and betting)weak cards against loose players? Notice that against a tight field my hand was probably unbeatable. In fact against a tight field I might be inclined to check and let them improve to second best. But against a loose, unpredictable field who knows!! Any advice on this hand would be appreciated!
Pot odds are laying you 3:32 for your call. Not bad, really. That flop is a wet dream. You got your straight and you're one away from a straight flush...at the moment you're golden. But only for the moment. If another spade comes you can't guarantee the best hand. If the board pairs, you can't guarantee it either. In this case, that's exactly what happened.
Don't be upset about this loss. The guy played crap and he got lucky. That's what you're upset about. But don't slowplay this hand either regardless of how the opposition looks. Had the opposition been tighter, a 66, 55, or 33 could have still beaten you, and you probably would have lost a lot more money in the process. The fact is that there are just way too many cards out there that will force you to slow down on the turn or the river, despite having the best hand on the flop.
If you choose not to play 47s in the SB regardless of pot odds, fine. But I don't really find fault with it. But grab as much money as you can while you still can when something like that flop hits.
Dan
Mike,
Don't worry about spilt milk. You correctly called half a bet in the SB.(Few hands are not worth a half unless you have reason to believe the BB will raise)
You flopped the gadget and bet and I've never seen a loose passive game where two pair on the flop would fold. I like the re-raise... Full house player could have made trips on the turn. I took 2 horrible beats last night but each time I'm taking them better.(5-10-20) About a 450 pot. I've got pocket 8's and flop is 8-7-7 Everybody is in there drawing to flush and straights. River is a Jack and player has Pocket Jacks...Ouch... Here's the real funny one. Later on 3 handed Pot Limit freezeout and knocked other guy out. I'm dealing and I've got $20 left I look down at aces as my opponent says raise. I go all in and he turns over 2 kings Flop AKKrag-rag. Very funny... Where's the jackpot when you need one. Mike, I have taken an unbelievable number of beats lately and although bad for my bankroll, it has been good for me for later on. I've been playing about 3 years now and I sometimes feel immature when taking a bad beat, especially when the player played the hand horribly but just keep sticking your stack in when you've got the goods and let the perverbial chips fall where they may and hopefully that will be in front of you.
Good luck,
R
Mike said
"Don't worry about spilt milk. You correctly called half a bet in the SB.(Few hands are not worth a half unless you have reason to believe the BB will raise)"
I really disagree with this comment. It is a really costly concept. Your stuck with crap out of position. And we all know you can hit a flop real hard with rags and still be in 3rd place.
I only recommend this 1/2 bet thinking for the better post flop players. One who can get away from a loser early and usually outplay their opposition.
Example: I'm in BB with 5-To 5 limpers. Flop comes 568 rainbow. I bet 3 fold I get raised I reraise a player I have been beating all night looks at me flashes a 55 and mucks to my "straight" he says I'm not going against a straight for this small pot.
I knew I could get this guy to lay down in the BB with this flop so I did it.
Hmm...bad strategy I think overall. 47s is plenty good to call half a bet with lots of limpers. Against 2 player including the BB I'd much but its a hand with big drawing potential and should be real easy to play on the flop and beyond. The great thing is when you hit that flop bad players will often call with just overcards against your two pair, straight, or flush hoping to hit their hands. Sometimes you will have 3 people or more drawing with 1 flush card in their hand(i.e. lousy draws except the guy with the ace). Sure you lose sometimes but the action you're getting from so many players makes it well worth it.
There have been several recent threads on stupidest things seen at the table or something like that. Your opponent here with the 55 has to qualify. There are 5 limpers and you are in the bb. I will assume sb also called. That's 7 small bets. You put in 3 bets on the flop and he has put in 2 before he folds. So, rather than calling one more sb in a 12 sb pot, he folds his set to your "obvious straight"...ya, that qualifies all right...where is this game?...sounds like it might even be better than the ones I play in.
"Your opponent here with the 55 has to qualify. "
SKP,
I take it you believe this guy?
Vince
Well, I am not going down that slippery road again.
Wow!
I can hardly imagine a game where you can get players to call loosely preflop (as Rounder has described in previous posts), and then get them to fold hands like a set on the flop just by reraising them.
I hate to say it Mike, but if you leave the room you play in now, you will have a hard time matching this hourly rate. Even in the fishiest games I played in SoCal, I never saw someone get bluffed off a better hand as good as a set on the flop. If they just played 20-40 like that, you could play full time for a couple of years, and have enough to retire permanently.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Rounder-
I respect your opinions and respect your play. However, I think this is more of an example of your opponent playing like an idiot than it is of your post-flop wizardry.
I've made plays like that. They worked and I believe they started a downfall of tricky playing.
Look out!
He must believe he's against an overset not a straight.
A strange hand came up at my 5-10 game tonight which got me so upset I decided to leave the table rather than play on tilt.
I don't really see what's strange about it. You flopped a straight + flush draw ( + straight flush draw), and someone hit a 4-outer with trash. In juicy games like these, that'll happen all of the time, and you need to realize that a healthy chunk of your profit comes from the goofballs who play 63o. Count your blessings that he played like a passive idiot postflop and you lost the minimum. As you play more, you'll begin to get used to the beats, but the sooner the better, because it sounds like you had to leave a good game because you were upset.
First, was my reraise sound?
Sure. If you held bigger cards and the cards on board were bigger, you might be more cautious because full houses are more likely, but with small cards like that, I wouldn't really worry about a 3 pairing. When a low-limit opponent raises when that three hits, I would put him on trips; if he reraises your reraise, then you should probably slow down. (Although if he's the loose-aggressive type who'd raise and reraise with a 3, I'd probably pop again.)
And second, did I get what I deserved for playing (and betting)weak cards against loose players?
With a ton of loose limpers, it would be very weak to fold 74s in the small blind. You played this hand fine; you should be proud that you didn't stupidly slowplay.
-Sean
Thought a straight flush beat a full house (think we have a typo here).
Hey you said you like loose passive LL games this is what you will get, at times - It is called a bad beat.
Deal with it.
PS you played the hand OK I just question your starting hand standards here even for 1/2 a bet.
The typo comment was wrong - just got up and am a bit fuzzy. :-)
Rounder,
I guess we will agree to disagree on the half bet. I take into account that unless he flops a four flush, open ended straight, flush, straight, two pair or trips that the player folds. I wrote that I would call a half a bet more with 5 limpers with 47s and I would also do it with a lot of other hands.
Razor
It's not the 1/2 bet I am worried about it is the trying to make a silk purse out of a OH you know what I mean. I just don't like being in the worst position playing crap just because it only cost 1/2 a bet.
I cannot see the logic in it.
I'm not talking about playing crap. This isn't K2o. I can make a lot of hands with 47s as I'm sure your aware...I can also get away from the hand easily! If the flop comes 4-8-9 or 7-A-2 I'm not in it anymore. That being said I promise you if I call the 1/2 bet 10 times I will hit a flop and make it stand at least once. Let's say the same situation(same # of callers and BB checks) I get the minimum 1 bet from each player and they all fold the turn and I make the same money that I lost calling the 1/2 bet. Well, as we all know in Low limit HE I would get a lot more then that so it would be well worth it. If you don't see the logic in it, no sweat. Rounder, I have read a lot of your posts and was suppose to meet you at Sam's Town...I just started posting under a new name because a lot of people I play with were talking about posting and I just would like to be anonymous with my posts and responses so Razor sounded good.
Later
I think I know who you are Raz. - I see the logic in your thinking my feeling is I don't want to get tangled up in 10 hands only for the remote possibility of hitting one of them. You are assuming that 1 in 10 flops is gonna hit your 74s in fact the flop may NEVER hit that flop - there is no guarantee it ever will - I have these guidelines I don't play cards in blinds I wouldn't play for a full bet for less than a full bet and I don't play suited cards that I wouldn't play off suit in that position.
If you are who I think you are I played with a guy who played with you in one of those clubs in your town.
The logic is that you've got about a 17% chance of flopping either a good draw or a big hand, and you're getting something like 11:1 for you're money. Too, you're getting pretty good implied odds if you do flop the draw.
"I decided to leave the table rather than play on tilt."" <-- excellent choice.
"It was a loose-passive game (my favorite)" <-- No duh?
"I come out betting Well, the same thing except thinking this is a "strange" hand. And the part about wondering why he "just" called. And the part about feeling like an idiot for getting in the last bet with a loser. And the part about going on tilt. And the part about thinking I deserved it. No, good players do NOT get outdrawn more often with small cards then do weak players. And the part about forgetting that tight players are much more likely to have started with a pair and therefore flop lots more sets. And the part about slow playing against tight players who are likely to fold their overcards and are more likely to bet if you check ... OK, never-mind this one.
And the part about thinking loose players are unpredictable: I predict that they play lots of hands and go to the river with any pair or draw and are only vaguely aware of the notion of "drawing slim or dead" and either bet or raise far too often or far less often then they are supposed to and when they call its more likely "pair trouble" (if any) than "kicker trouble".
- Louie
Recently I've been playing against more loose-aggressive opponents than usual, and while I'm doing reasonably well in 15-30 and 20-40 games, (which I attribute to competent playing skills and excellent game selection skills), every so often I'll severely misplay a hand and make bad decisions that end up being quite costly. I think I play reasonably well in multi-way pots, and heads up pots, but I've found myself getting in trouble against 2 or 3 loose-aggressive opponents because I'm not sure how to react to a small group of these idiots.
I have several questions/topics I'd like to bring up, but for now, I'll give a single hand that I misplayed and offer it for commentary:
20-40 at Planet Poker. (I'm using an online hand because that allows me to see folded hands at the showdown.) An mostly unknown player who seems fishy (he's called raises with trashy hands like T9o, but I'm not sure how aggressive he is,) limps 1 off the button, and a known fish calls in the small blind. I am in the big blind holding red 7s. I opt to raise the option, because I know the small blind will play at least 80% of his hands there, and I suspect the limper has a very weak hand. Both call.
Flop: 9s8c3s. Pot 6 small bets. Checked to me, I bet out, limper raises, small blind fish calls 2 cold. I decide to call, waiting to see what hits on the turn and also hoping the raiser will take the free card.
Turn: Qc. Pot 12 small bets. We both check to limper, limper bets, small blind calls, I fold, figuring that one of them as to have a Q, 9, or 8, and also noting that the Q means that JT just got there.
River: As, and now I'm liking my fold a lot. Checked around, small blind fish had 75c, limper had 7s3h. Yep, I folded in a 16 small bet pot when the field had only 15 outs against me.
So where's the mistake? I think I should have either folded on the flop, or, after I committed to seeing the turn card, betting out on the turn would have been a better play than check-folding, because it foils the free card play and a weaker hand is unlikely to raise me because a raise preflop from the blinds represents more strength than usual. But how the heck do you proceed versus a raise and a cold caller, even when they're fish? It seems like the times I decide to proceed with my weakish holding, one fish is out of line but the other has a hand slightly better than mine...
What annoys me most is that if I'd just gone into check-call mode, I'd have only lost $20 more when beaten (assuming the river wasn't bet), and, golly gee, in this case I'd have won the pot. Should I just check-call more, even with vulnerable hands like that?
-Sean
Not much you can do here other than what you did. Sometimes, you end up folding the best hand....cest la vie.
Now, I do think that raising preflop with 77 in this situation is a mistake. It sure sounds like the late position player is one of these types that will raise a preflop raise on the flop with anything just to see how the preflop raiser reacts to confirm that he must have AK or AQ or something. While you know he may be doing that, it still becomes very difficult for you to counteract it when you are out of position with 77 and the flop comes with a couple of overcards. It would seem to me that in the long run, raising with 77 preflop here is way more trouble than it's worth. Furthermore, ironically, you probably would have got the limper to lay down on the flop if you had not raised preflop and bet the flop.
The perceived advantage of raising with 77 preflop is that if the flop comes Axx or Kxx, you can probably bet and take the pot (although perhaps not against these guys if they hit second pair or something). But the point is that you could probably do that even if you did not raise preflop. i.e. since the fella limped in preflop, he probably does not have an Ace or King and you could just bet the flop and it will still look legitimate to him even if you did not raise preflop.
Bottom line: A preflop raise out of the bb with 77 in a 3 way pot is probably not a great idea.
[Raising with 77 after an "any 2 cards" limper and "any two cards" small blind.]
Now, I do think that raising preflop with 77 in this situation is a mistake.
I meant to touch on that as well. My rationale for raising preflop was that even though I know 77 doesn't play well 3-way, I knew that both the limper and the small blind would play any two cards in that situation, and I wasn't completely out of position since I'd be acting after the small blind. I figured the benefits of making them pay two bets with their J4o or whatever outweighed the negatives. It's not a play I'd normally make, but it was a rare situation (finding myself in a situation against two opponents holding any 2 cards.) What would you (or anyone else) suggest as the bare minimum for raising there?
I'm pretty sure the limper would have played his hand the same way had I not raised preflop--this guy seemed to be raising the flop with any pair, and any draw, and sometimes with a fair number of overcards, and I'd probably have found myself in the same predicament (with a slightly smaller pot.)
These situations seem to come up a lot though, where there's someone raising and a fish calling cold that you may or may not be able to beat. I had a similar online hand last night where I had a medium-sized pocket pair (99, I think) in the small blind, 3 limpers, cutoff raises, button calls cold. Flop raggy, I check-raise the preflop raiser and get the pot 3-way between me, the cutoff and the button. Turn an overcard (I think a Q) making a 2-flush on board, I bet out, preflop raiser raises, button calls cold. I figure one of them has to have something that can beat me, so I bail. The preflop raiser bets the river, gets called, and ends up having been semi-bluffing the nut flush draw while the button had KQ, but the scary thing is that after observing the button's play, I think he'd have also called 2 cold with just about any pair he held, including ones that I could have beaten
-Sean
Where's the mistake? How about raising 77 out of the big blind? You are exactly the type of player I've been posting about in the internet poker section.
It's amazing to me that you are playing 20-40 and don't know this is a stupid play.
Brett
I have avoided playing internet poker except on PP for play money for a couple of reasons. The first being I don't live where live poker is readily accessable and I don't know if I want to be able to play any time the spirit moves me. Second, (and my question for the forum) is it easy for players to be partners with other players at the table, giving them an advantage? (either by phone or instant messaging) Some people have told me it is monitored by the poker host and easily detected so not a problem. I would appreciate any comments on playing on the net and how the people posting feel about it.
This is the perfect question for the Internet Poker forum which you see in green to your left under the word FORUMS. However, collusion is a major concern although probably not a major problem.
Sorry all! I found the Internet Poker site after I posted this question. I appreciate the heads up!
If I play in low limit game ( i.e. 3-6 or 6-12 ) I’m losing most of the time, not much, but I have hard time to make a winning hand. If I’m playing in higher limits game ( i.e. 15-30, or 30-60 ) I’m winning all the time, and, seems to me that I can make a winning hand most of the time in this games.
Now, I suspect that I may be to tight for the lower limits games where the players get with almost any hand all the way down to the river.
I don’t know for sure, but this happens already for kind of long time. Since I start playing higher limits game where everybody is playing much tighter I win every time I play there.
Is any explanation to this?
Go Get’m all
Perhaps with more money on the line you are concentrating more and playing better overall.
Well of course you are going to win more HANDS against tight players than loose players since tight players often release weak hands that eventually turn into winners. But I think you mean weekly results.
IMO this is NOT a good assumption; but let's assume "long time" is meaningful and your results are to be expected...
The only reason I can think why are beating good players are higher limits but cannot beat bad players at lower limits is that you have a typical aspiring player's tendancy to presuming you are beat when someone else bets; and the lower limits find players making screwball bets even after you have "defined your hand" and you are releasing far too many winners.
Cute metaphore: Even though there are more bridges at lower limits, there are less TROLLS under them then you imagine.
Or perhaps you are a LOT more confident and play better when you "know where you are at" which of course happens more often in tight games, and you fall to pieces when you have "no idea where you are at" which happens routinely in loose games. Or perhaps you are a highly skilled anticipator and manipulator but keep wasting all this against the lower limit brain-dead types as per Caro's FPS (making you temporarily one of them).
Or perhaps as per several previous Sklansky posts the rake brings you below the earning threshold. If your higher limit hourly rate is small then THIS is my guess.
- Louie
Two players call, sensible hero raises with AJs, 2 players call, blinds call, two call; 7 take the raised flop, good game.
Flop is AJ3r no hearts. Blinds check, Loose-weak-Aggressive UTG bets (who ALWAYS 3-bets any pair), loose-bad calls, Very-loose-bad-??? "target" raises; up to you...
What would you do if the loose-target raises VERY conservatively? Moderatlely? Aggressively? Does any of this change if the blinds and cold callers are selective? Loose? If hero is a woman and there are several macho types in the hand?
Please backup advise with explanation ... since the wife didn't like MY explanations... Abdul has some experience here...
- Louie
If the raiser is very conservative you may be up against the same hand or possibly A3, AQ, AK or possibly AA JJ or 33. I know some players who never bet with hands unless they are so close to the nuts that you know you simply have to fold most of the times unless you yourself have a draw to the nuts. Funny thing is that I will sit next to some clown who will whisper something like "She doesnt play unless she's got a monster", then low and behold he's calling her down a few pots later with second pair. Okay that was kind of off the subject but anyways if they are super conservative, you have a monster yourself but may as well not push to the point where you might be losing lots of money on a hand that could end up being second best. Save the pushing chips around when you have a little bit more confidence in your oppositions weakness. The other's (moderate and aggressive) I would try to just make that pot as big as possible with such a beautiful hand. I would raise as much as possible because they may be raising with as little as a draw just hoping to hit their gut shot. Who knows, some people raise just to have fun - punish them! Well I could be wrong here and I would like to hear what people think of this post too. GOAT
I see this as a whether to slowplay question. Since gutshots to the nuts are likely out, and any number of draws might be created by the turn card, I'd always raise.
BTW, "Two players call, sensible hero raises with AJs," then "Blinds check, Loose-weak-Aggressive UTG bets (who ALWAYS 3-bets any pair), loose-bad calls, Very-loose-bad-??? "target" raises; up to you..."
Where'd the third player come from?
"I see this as a whether to slowplay question." Partly, but not mostly.
I put the "s" on the wrong side of "sBlind" and made the "s" in "checks" invisible. Actually, I was just seeing who's paying attention. Congratulations! Actually, its because there were orginally 8 players taking the flop but for good reason's the question was better if there were 7; and I incompletely deleted one. Doh!
- Louie
I think I see what you're getting at.
The AJ needs to decide whether to become an action-killer or play punching bag. Under the circumstances I think the latter is more profitable, especially if AJ is a woman and there are wife beaters about. The question is when to spring the trap. As with everything else, I'd say the turn.
There's a lot of and's if's and but's here. What's the size of the game. What does very conservatively mean- does she only bet top set. Will the table call no matter what you do- raise or call. If she is very conservative and a raise will narrow it down to two or three players then raise and than hope it's check to you on the turn and check behind her. If she bets in to you lay it down. On the river if she bets either fold or pay it off depending what you think she has. If you can't narrow it down just call. You have four out's if she has a set of three's and the odds look right to call ( if the other callers don't have jacks or aces but, that's poker to put them on hand's) If she's Moderately conservatively- you may have the best hand- a raise is called for to cut down on the odds of the other players who may call. On the turn she should check to you with A3 or 33. Bet or check it depends on what you think she has. If she is aggressive, I play it as the best hand till her raising makes me change my mine.
Pump pump pump it up 'til someone proves they can beat you. You have to punish any ace type players or two other pairs. Any less than that is too timid and you have to let them know that you're willing to let it rip when you have a hand....
Mike
Golly, are JoeJoe and I the only ones in serious doubt whether this is the best hand? A very conservative raiser doesn't have AK; so its AA(1), JJ(1), 33(3), AJ(4), or A3(6); you are a 2:1 favorite to not be beat but a slim 6:5 favorite to have the best hand. If he'll slow play big sets then you are in a lot better shape.
So lets say the raiser is not that conservative and could have any Ace so your hand is clearly worth a raise for value. I think the main interest here is how much money do we want the other players to face when its their turn. The choices seem to me to be 3hb now and 1fb on the turn 2hb now and 2fb on the turn. Do we WANT players to call 2-bets? Are there likely hands that the other players SHOULD call 2-bets but not 3?
Do we want to risk letting in the gut shots for 2-bets if this will also let in the one pair hands drawing dead?
- Louie
Hero (the wife) called and 5 took the turn (6). She two-bet the turn and got heads up and split with the other AJ.
I hate to use this time-honored line, but I have to think much of this depends on your opponents. If they're the type who will call three bets with a gutshot, then you probably ought to raise. If they won't call three bets, then you can probably just call, since they probably won't call two bets either (especially if the flop is two suited, as they must worry about a reraise behind them). Another thing to consider is that since you have two of the six possible 'decent pair' cards, and the raiser must have at least one, AND nobody behind our hero lead be the flop, there isn't much of a chance that anybody else has much of a hand anyway. So, they're probably going to fold no matter what you do. Given this, I'd probably just smooth call and wait untill the turn. If someone has a better hand then our hero, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. You're not folding anyway, so you might as well suck it up and 'pretend' you're ahead, even if you have any doubts. Overall, I have to think playing the hand as if you're behind will yield much less than playing it as if you're ahead.
Playing 4-8 Hold'em at casino. I'd estimate one third of the table is tight weak, a third loose weak (calling stations) and a third is loose aggressive. I'm in the small blind with Kd4d. One player folds; everyone else calls and button(loose aggressive) raises. I call the raise as does everyone else.
Flop comes 6d6h4d. Player from middle position bets -two players fold-button raises I call the raise as does everyone else. 7 players to see the turn which comes 4h. Everyone checks to the button who bets- everyone calls. River comes Jd.
Board now is 6d6h4d4hJd. I come out betting. I didn't figure anyone made their full house since no one raised on the turn. Everyone folds except the button who calls. Button had two black pocket Aces and I won the pot with a King high flush.
Did I play the hand incorrectly? Was I crazy to chase that pot and just got lucky? Should I have even entered pre-flop? I've been playing Hold'em for only 4 months-any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Ummmmmmmmm, I see a few errors here. You had the K,4 of diamonds but you said the, 4 of diamonds was on the flop too? Also you would have had a full house by having the four in your hand along with the 4466J on board but this is impossible for you to have both the full house and the flush at the same time. What really happened?
Let me start by saying if the final board was
6644J then both you and the dealer need to be retired. The dealer for saying you had a flush instead of a full house(4's full of 6's) and you for calling a raise with K4 with only a 1/2 a bet invested to maybe make a 2nd nut flush...Yes, you got extremely lucky. First of all I hope this was a typo on your part and you didn't bet your King high flush into a double-paired board out of the blind. Let me give you some good advice...I spent my 1st 12 mos. in Hold'em playing way to many hands! Tighten up your play! If you have to play K4d then play it on the button for no raise and at least 6 callers before you. I don't even suggest calling then unless your doing it once in a while for variation and/or advertising. I don't want to come off sounding harsh but if your just starting off you have got to make some changes in your play. Look at Lee Jones Winning @ Low Limit Hold'em and what is okay to call with in what position...It is well worth it.
Good Luck and pay attention to the board!!!!!!!!
Razor
typos aside...
Don't call the raise with Kd4d - you have horrible position and a mediocre hand.
On the flop you really can't call the raise - with the whole table in, it seems certain somebody has got a full house or trips - or the Ace-high flush draw.
On the turn, with the board pairing twice, you definitely can't call...
Although I've played in some loose games, I can't imagine 7 people calling on the turn when the board pairs twice, but whatever,I'll take your word for it - if this is the case for many hands, then you've really gotta play a tighter postflop game - its too easy to be outdrawn when everyone is in.
~DjTj
Presuming the 4d on board was really then 3d and you flopped a flush draw:
Assuming everyone will just call and not raise, it looks like you are getting about 12:1 to call; and I would suspect you will actually win more often than that. But you should still fold since you position is bad and it very realistic some clown with 3-bet, then the raiser 4-bet, and there goes your already questionable odds.
It looks like on the turn you are getting 11:1 for your non-nut draw with the board paired. Counting the obvious turn bet it cost you 2bb to win 16 or 8:1 which more than compensates for the increased likelyhood of losing to a full house or A-flush. Again it gets worse since the flop can easily be capped and there goes your odds again.
Understand that you are in worst position vis-a-vis the button; worst position vis-a-vis the likely better; the board is paired, and with so many players B4 flop the A-flush is likely, and with so many post-callers trips or full is likely as are other flush draws which reduce your outs. This is as bad as flush draws get. In your favor is only the huge pot. Mmmmmm, if 8:1 IS worth it its not by much and folding isn't going to cost much.
More important than figuring out playing this hand correctly is learning how to remember it correctly. To do so, you will need to focus as you analyze.
- Louie
You should not have called the preflop raise. No other comments since the rest should not have happened if you don't call.
Also, for future reference; A full house beats a flush AND there is only one 4d per deck.
Regards
Simply a bad call of 2 bets in the small blind for me. Maybe a call for the flush, but even that is risky with 8 callers. One may have the A even if you catch.
Yes, there was a typo-Flop came 6d6h5d and not 6d6h4d. With the turn of 4h and river of Jd making the final board of 6d6h5d4hJd.
Sorry about the typo. Thanks to everyone for responding. I really appreciate all the help I can get.
Take care all.
You raise in early position with AhKc and get reraised by a solid player in middle position. You call. Flop is QsJs9c.
1. What are you thinking when reraised. What is your plan.
2. Now that you see the flop how do you play it.
check, with the intention of folding if he bet... the only hand that he could have that you tie with is AK and many players don't even three-bet with AK (if the person is a tight early position raiser.)
If the A or K comes it likely won't be good, and if the 10 comes you aren't going to get any action with that board.
Shawn Keller
I like the idea of check-calling, depending on how many players called preflop. If there are >= 3 players at the flop, there's enough to call for the gutshot (I know there are 2 hearts on board). The re-raiser might get trapped with a set, or even KK, giving you some implied odds for the gutshot.
If instead an A hits on the turn, I like check-calling or even betting into the re-raiser, if you think you can read his reaction.
Amory
It's just the two of you.
If he believes you to be sensible he should have a premium hand to raise. It is therefore a done deal that with THAT flop, you surely do not have the best hand.
He ALSO should be afraid of that flop with anything except trip Qs or Js. Your draw is strong enough to go to the river. If he's a paranoid type its well worth putting some pressure to encourage him to lay down AA, KK, or AK.
Check-raise now, or check-raise the turn (even of the board pairs) against a player capable of laying down an over-pair.
- Louie
Your draw is strong enough to go to the river.
I like Shawn's answer. What's so good about my draw?
Fat-Charlie
I dissent.
He's never going to lay down AA with this board. After all, you might have KK and your aggressively play won't convince him otherwise.
The problem with him having KK is that it might still look to him like an overpair with a gutshot, and if his overpair is no good his gutshot draw has to be. This is another hard hand to lay down. And I note that this is the only hand he can reasonably be expected to have against which you have a good draw.
So if he can have AA-TT or AK and you check-raise, you're throwing money away more than 80% of the time and wrecking your drawing odds the rest of the time.
This is a check-and-fold situation or, if you're religious, a check-and-call situation if you think the Almighty will make him have kings.
(BTW, I hadn't read your post when I wrote mine below, so don't think I was trying to be insulting).
Sorry, in my haste I read his hand as a 2-overcard gut shot straight flush draw. DOH!
Yes, that changes things considerably. The best you can hope for right now is he has AK also. An Ace probably will NOT win it for you. You have a gut getting 7:1 now and no guarantee of getting any more than 4sb more. Not enough to draw.
Call if the player will 3-bet with so many hands that you should have 4-bet B4 the flop. Otherwise call if he will check a weak hand on the turn; fold if he's for sure going to bet the turn when a rag comes.
Chris: "dissent". That's more polite than I deserve.
- Louie
1. That you need an A or K on the flop or turn.
2. You have AK with a QJ9 2-suited flop against AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/AK? Golly. Roll up your sleeves and check-raise the lying son-of-a-bitch.
Just kidding. Can anyone ever think this is playable?
I don't know- I'd probably peel one here, and deal with it then. After all, there is a chance (however slight) that he has something like 8's, or AJs, in which case you might get a free river. And, you're probably getting about 7:1 to see the turn, although you're implied odds suck if you hit the T.
That's the problem I have: the implied odds suck. If you're behind, you have a thin draw. If you're not behind, you can't do anything about it because you risk betting or raising into a set. So he'll know pretty much what you've got and won't pay you off. If you just check and call, it's probably closer to a break-even situation than I suggested, but there still isn't any discernable overlay. Even if you have the same hand, he has a flush redraw.
The Js is on the flop. If he bets and doesn't already have something then he could have AKs. You're in a lot of Dog Doo then.
"Golly. Roll up your sleeves and check-raise the lying son-of-a-bitch."
Can't say it hasn't happened.
1. I want to connect solidly with the flop since my opponent will have a pair a high percentage of the time and something I beat (AQs) very rarely.
2. After the flop I'm thinking I'm ahead of no real 3-bet hand and can only fold out 88 or maybe another AK. Check, fold isn't a big mistake here. Check, call could bury you in some situations and be a modest winner in others. With the ace of trump I'd play. Mostly I'm down the road.
If you're opponent is indeed solid, then you check, take a card off, then fold if you don't improve.
No good. The K puts a 1 card straight out there and the 10s puts the possible straight flush there. You really are drawing to 1 of 3 tens and then your opponent may have redraws.
Check Fold
It's close either way. Folding isn't bad, although peeling a card is pretty close too. Much depends on what you mean by 'solid' when referring to your opponent; if he'd three bet a small pocket pair then calling on the flop looks a little better.
1). The first thing I think about when re-raised, is what this particular player would 3-bet me with. Some, will always have a group 1 hand. Others can 3-bet with a like AK, AQ, KQs or pocket pairs down to TT. Others still, might have a much wider variety of hands. My initial plan is to come up with the play that will most likely tell me if my opponent has me beat.
2). Once I see THAT flop, I don't like the combination of unclear outs and bad position. Since I'm trying to win chips, and not pots, I am probably done. Check, muck, next hand! However, in a very tough game, against very tough players, I might play it differently for a variety of reasons.
"However, in a very tough game, against very tough players, I might play it differently for a variety of reasons"
How would you mix it up. How often would you be willing to mix it up so as not to loose to much money in this spot. What other (good hands) will cover your mixing up?
I'd bet once, and fold to a raise.
If turn doesn't help then its check and fold.
Nobody else seems to agree with me though, could somebody talk me out of it?
This post won't be as strategically interesting as most, but hopefully folks will find it of interest:
3-6 HE, end of 8 hr. session, my girlfriend and I decide to play one more round. She's BB, 3 callers to me, I call in cutoff seat w/ 8H 9H, button calls, she checks. We take flop six-handed.
Flop: 6H 7H 10H. I have a straight flush on the flop for the first and probably last time in my life. It's checked to me and I slowplay check, button checks. I considered betting out but figured it was worth giving people a chance to improve. Mistake?
Turn: black king. My girlfriend (BB) bets. I put her on kings or a steal (she bluffs a fair amount). Middle position (MP) loose player calls, I call. Of course I want to raise, but I think button may call 1 but not 2 bets, and I fear a raise may even make my girlfriend and loose MP fold.
River: black 2. My girlfriend (BB) bets, MP player calls, I raise, MP player mucks out of turn, my girlfriend says "Reraise all in!" The dealer points out to her that she can't go all-in because she has 7 chips left. Without even thinking I say, "You might as well put your last chip in," and throw out 7 myself.
Showdown: I say, "Sorry to do this to you," and show my straight flush. She turns over AH 3H!!!!!!! Then she begins a lengthy diatribe, the jist of which is that she never wants to speak to or see me ever again. No, actually she took the bad beat pretty well, but of course she and the rest of the table took great joy in busting my chops for taking her last chip. My defense was that I was tired and was solely concentrating on getting the most money in the pot, but of course that didn't fly. Another player's elderly wife told my girlfriend, in all seriousness, "Now he apologized and that's good, but don't you give him anything tonight!"
Strategically, my only question is did I not collect the maximum (from other players not my girlfriend) by slowplaying? I realize that flops like this one are incredibly rare, but we all flop a full-house or something once in a while, and it's always tricky to know how much slowplaying is correct.
What probably happened is your girlfriend, with the 99.9% nut hand, wanted to go for a check raise on the flop. That didn't happen and so she bet out on the turn.
Assuming this is true, and you bet the flop, you would have gotten the button's bet...maybe...and everyone would have folded back to you.
So, in the end, you theoretically missed three small bets here, more likely two considering there's a good chance the button's going to bail for even one bet. But, even that's wrong. Because your girlfriend went all in, you didn't miss any bets. You got the maximum you could have. Congrats.
And yes, she had a great hand. But she really didn't lose too much to this freak occurance, all things considered. It's a good thing there weren't more chips in front of her, though. You'd be playing solitaire for awhile.
Dan
If your game has several "call one time" types you should bet, then consider checking the turn.
You have a VERY SERIOUS priority problem if you don't think a smooch is worth $1. EV doesn't have to be measured in money.
- Louie
Without knowing if your girlfriend gave you anything that night, we have insufficient information with which to judge if you collected the maximum.
With all those players, I would have bet the flop. But not too many of us know how to play a flopped straight flush. I also have only flopped one once.
Twice in two days I was saved, somewhat, by the aura surrounding my opponent. The first time I had a small king in the blind. The flop was K88. The betting went to the river were a third 8 fell. I was heads up against a player I had never seen before. I figured to split the pot with another king. Only pocket aces or the fourth 8 could beat me. I looked at my opponent and noticed an aura of tension about him. I checked, he bet and I called saying,'Got an eight?'. "yeah!", he said.
The next day I have ace-spades and a ten. The flop is 10 9 7 spades. The turn 8 spades. I have the nut flush, without a pair on the board. On the river my opponent bets into me. This man is one of the best I play against. I knew there was no way he would bet into ME without the nuts against that board. I looked at him out of the corner of my eye. There was an aura of tension surrounding him. "I am just going to call because I think John has a straight flush.", I said. He did.
So I was just wondering, do these two hands give me any reason to think I am getting better at reading hands?
Even if you are getting better, what good does it do you if you don't act on it?
BTW, what is an "aura of tension"? If you're referring to some psychic phenomenon that you can see, then I have no input for you, as I don't see such things. If you are using this phrase as shorthand for things like the way the guy was sitting, the clench of his jawline, and other hard to define aspects of his appearance, then yes, these are things that the best players are able to see and use to their advantage. The hard part is to know when to use such knowledge to do other than the normal best play for the circumstances.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Lets play these two with your eyes closed.
First hand: Once the player bets you are either tied or beat. Unless he'll VERY OFTEN bluff AND pay it off raising is out of the question.
Second hand: You have the stiff one-card 3rd nuts and few players will bet the 4th nuts AND call the raise, so again, raising is out of the question. If you were correct about this player it was a brain dead easy FOLD on the turn.
Reading hands is a logical thing not a tell thing. Perhaps your perception will help you on other hands but it shouldn't have helped on these two.
- Louie
I agree with Louie's post. . .I'd be much more impressed if you folded both hands. Check-calling in both situations saved you from being raised, but if you knew (through whatever kind of tell you read) that you were beat, folding a monster would show true discipline. Of course, if you folded, you'd never know if you did the right thing or not.
shooter
In both cases you have the third best hand and are in poor position. There is no reason to bet unless you are against a very weak player. Even then, who says he doesn't have the nuts anyway.
The "aura" you saw was probably the player trying to look nervous (re: weak)
Neither of these hands should be bet. Your read can allow you to fold when your opponent bets. Notice that you could have saved 2 big bets here.
It would have been much cooler if you had flashed your hand, said, "hehe, I see your aura", winked at your opponent, then folded before he even bet.
~DjTj
In the hand #1, betting for value with the K may not be the best play. What was the turn play like? Who called/bet/raised? That may give you as much of a clue as what to do on the river as any possible "aura".
Hand #2, you now have the 3rd best possible hand. Any single Js or 6s beats you. Again I assume the check call on the turn? If you are ABSOLUTELY sure he wouldn't bet the river without a straight flush, then fold. But if he is "one of the best I play against" he may be betting with a variety of spades, in order to try to throw you off. Unlike many people suggested above, trying to save bets against a player you DON'T have a lock-solid read on is not something I like to do in limit poker. I would probably have check-called in both instances against typical mid-limit players. I don't think playing in this manner over the long haul costs you much money and may in fact gain you some against players who try to be too cute.
I believe 2-4 HE defies most logic and certainly guidelines of Sklansky et al's book. God knows I have tried to live by their rules which work fairly well in 5-10 and up, but 2-4 is a Monster all to itself. Four weekends of contiuous wins by no means is a threom, but it's a start. Here they are:
1. Play very, very tight at first until you can get a feel for the players. Then just play tight. (on sat 3/4, one player played every flop loosing over 200 in less than 2 hrs. he won some hands, but lost many more).
2. Play only group 1 hands in early position. Later position you can play up to group 4. Exceptions are small pairs when there a lot of people in hand--you can see the flop for 2 bets. (both days this weekend, I saw at least 8 players see the flop. i made it 2 bets or sometimes 3 bets when I was defending the blind and almost everyone called pre-flop). No one folds in 2-4 pre-flop.
3. If you see the flop and get no help, unless you have AA, KK and maybe QQ fold unless you are in late position and can be sure there are no AA or KK out against you.
4. Lots of burned out 10-20 and 20-40 players in 2-4 games. They are the worst players in this bizzare game. (a guy with a stack of hundreds dropped 150 in 30 minutes and was called for the 20-40 game. he said the losses in 2-4 were insignificant).
5. The non-smoking games are much tighter and passive than the smoking games, so you will have to adjust accordingly. Here Sklansky's book advice is good.
6. Once you have knowledge and can show some wins, move up and read, read and practice.
Very good post ratso.
I definitely agree with playing tight at first folding often on the flop. However, I'm not so sure its important to adjust your preflop play significantly with regards to position. Oftentimes I will be in a 2-4 game where it is almost never raised preflop. In those games, I tend to loosen up quite a bit in early position - and in the rare case that there is a raise, I can just fold anyway...and it is true that a preflop raise doesn't get anyone to fold - usually I'm the only person that drops out after the button or the blinds raise. Postflop, since 2-4 players won't fold anyway, position isn't incredibly important either as you will usually have to showdown the best hand.
I like the comments about the players waiting for higher limits - they like to bet and raise a lot to try to push the low-limit players around, but you can get a lot of money off of them when they go after the wrong pot.
Just like other games though, 2-4 is about playing the players - most of them have pretty regimented systems of play: they're almost all passive - the aggressive ones are at 3-6; you just need to categorize them as loose or tight. Generally if there's a raise postflop, you're up against the nuts and can fold.
Those are my thoughts, somehow they've booked me 3 weekends of winning sessions - but it took quite a few losing sessions to figure that all out...
~DjTj
1. Play very, very tight at first until you can get a feel for the players. Then just play tight.
You don't need to play that tight before the flop. You can often limp early with ATo when the game is passive, and even if there's a fair amount of raising you don't want to fold AQs UTG. The time you want to play very, very tight is when the game is very, very aggressive with the preflop betting usually capped.
The big question you should have coming to the table is how passive or aggressive it is. Most are passive. Your opponents will play the best quarter to third of their hands and other random junk -- especially suited junk -- and often won't raise without a big pair or AK/AQ. Aggressive players are more variable, raising with anywhere from 10% to 50% or more of their hands, depending on temprament. Sizing up the table usually takes a few hands. Getting a pretty good profile of each of your opponents shouldn't take more than a few rounds.
I question your failure to distinguish between passive and aggressive games, which I see as the key factor in deciding how to play before the flop. One place where I would agree with you is that when there is a fair amount of raising, say half the pots or so, you can't win just by playing a bit tighter than your loosest opponents. Here you have to play much tighter than the field.
2. Play only group 1 hands in early position. Later position you can play up to group 4. Exceptions are small pairs when there a lot of people in hand--you can see the flop for 2 bets.
This is way too tight unless the game is very aggressive. You should play a few more hands, not quite a few less, up front in passive games, although with more emphasis on suited cards and pairs. For example, you can almost always call with K8s in middle after one or two players have limped, or open with it after no one has limped. When it's only 1 bet and will rarely go to 2 bets, you can play many more hands than group 4 in late position.
For pairs, a good rule of thumb is that you need 5 or more opponents to play any pair for any amount. With that kind of action, you don't need to limit the number of bets you're willing to pay to see the flop, although if your pair is less than QQ you're going to have diminishing returns with every additional bet.
3. If you see the flop and get no help, unless you have AA, KK and maybe QQ fold unless you are in late position and can be sure there are no AA or KK out against you.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds too tight. The basic problem with these games is that you're often going to have a lot of people gunning for you that won't release until 5 cards are on board and they still don't have a pair.
Let's say, for example, that you have 78s and the flop is 832. Let's also say the you somehow know that nobody has a higher pocket pair or a set. How often do you think you'll win? If your pair were a bit higher and you had only one or two opponents, 70-80% of more of the time is a pretty good estimate.
In a loose passive game, however, if you have four opponents each trying to make one pair and holding 5 overcards to your eight between them, perhaps with one holding a lower pocket pair, your chance of winning goes down to about a third.
Of course, in that example the 78 is still the best by far. What you don't want to play is a hand like second or third pair with an unreliable kicker or undercards. Thus if you have 9h8h in middle position and the flop is Ts9d4c, you never want to proceed if there's a bet, a call and players yet to act, even though short-handed this might not be a bad hit.
On the other hand, the pots in these games are often big enough and your opponents often bet and call with so little that it makes sense to go for long shot draws to big hands. If you have AsKs late and the flop is Tc7h2s, and there's a bet and two calls, you'll generally want to take a card off unless you think someone can already beat one pair.
Thanks Chris. Your points are well taken and nicely explained. I suspect I play too tightly, but that play has netted me about $8/hr at 2-4 which I think is good considering the $4 rake per hand. Most games I have been in have been quite passive with 1 or possibly 2 agressive players who are regulars. They win a lot of pots without showing down, but by the end of the night they have gone through $100. they seem to want to loose just so they can go home.
As I become more adept at Holdem, I will loosen up as the game dictates. I have been playing stud for years and my friends convinced me to try holdem. I put aside $300 to learn the game at 2-4. I have learned a lot, but I have a lot more to go. I have primarily been guided by Andy Nelson's Holdem book.
I don't believe your win rate can have ANY statistical relevence here at all.
You're winning 2 BB per hour. Three sessions from now you could be losing 1BB per hour overall.
I like some of Andy Nelson's points. I think he suggests play that is too tight.
If I am winning $8 per hour and play 5 hours that is $40 significant revelent dollars in my pocket. BTY the big blind is only $2 in AC. Andy Nelson's advice in his beginners book is tight, but not too tight for the 2-4 pre flop no-foldem games where I play. I think $8/hr in a low limit game with a $4 rake is pretty good. Certainly I expect to move up.
I think $8 per hour is great. I'm not arguing whether the win rate is good or bad.
Just that it is irrelevent. I only suggest that STATISTICALLY it means nothing. Do this for 1000 hours and I'll pay a lot of attention to it. If you do it for 10,000 then I'll accept anything you say about the 2-4 game. I suspect you'll be moving on up well before that.
Last year, at foxwoods, over 1 extended weekend I won $40 per hour. I know I played reasonable but not great or anything. There were 2 hands that made my weekend. That weekend sample was not relevent either although I played about 30 hours.
Many suggest that the 2-4 game CANNOT be beaten because of the rake.
Why wouldn't the big blind be $2. Did I suggest it wasn't?
It has been stated by many that you must play tight in no foldem games. I believe this to be true with some allowance for the aggressiveness of the the game. You also need to be in there sometimes with your medium suited connectors. These players will know if you only play premium cards. If they see 89s occasionally they won't pay attention that it's only in multiway pots where you have position.
My view of A Nelson is that the play is too tight in general.
First, I agree Andy Nelson's advice is probably too tight.
Next, I think the rake in 2-4 HE is a killer and agree that the game probably cannot be played for profit.
I will move up or possibly out of holdem. I have a nice thing with stud and will probably just tinker in HE for fun. If I move it will probably be to 5-10 omaha/8 or 20-40 high/low stud.
A final fine point: the win rate can be tested significantly to see if (1) the # of winning sessions are greater than loosing sessions (a variant of fisher's exact test) and (2) is the amount of money won per session or per hr greater than 0, using a t-test. Frankly, I think you are correct that the gme cannot be beaten over the long run unless I play against a bunch of idiots......and that is a possibility. Come to AC and you will see.
I'd love to get to AC. Hopefully business will get me in the vicinity one day.
I like Omaha-8 but I am not a big stud fan. I like the game, I just find it difficult to keep my concentration. I expect as I played more, keeping track of cards would get easier.
I agree wholeheartedly with Chris, although I generally don't play quite as loose as he recommends, even if the game is passive. However, I will play any pair in any position, and usually any two suited cards where both cards are higher than a nine. I think suited K's are horribly over rated (and I know they're not rated that highly), particularly in games where players routinely just call with KQo, KJs, KTs etc. and don't like to raise top pair on the flop (which often happens in these real passive games). Also, there's no need to do much raising with suited paints, etc. since they're all going to see the turn anyway, which means you don't need to 'entice' them by building a larger pot. One thing I'd add is that in these loose, low limit games a guy should be doing a ton of value betting. As a rule, if I flop top pair, bet the flop and turn and get no resistance, I'll bet the river no matter what drops. The only exception to this is if the top pair is something like a 9, two overcards drop, the river card is a flush card and I have three or more callers up to that point. But, within reason, I bet just about everything. Finally, I'd like to say that anyone playing 2-4 should move up immediately, since the rake in this game will eventually kill you.
That's a very good point about value betting. I used to lose a ton of bets by checking good and mediocre hands just because the board is scary against players that would automatically call with anything. (Note that it's often easier for them to call than it is for you to bet, because they usually have less reason to believe that you needed the last card or two to make your hand). Not betting these hands also makes it easier for them to pick off your bluffs.
On Kxs, maybe I need to distinguish between K8-9s and K2-3s. These last hands are only good for calling 3 or more limpers in the last two seats when you're positive you won't be raised. I'll play the former in a passive game once I'm a few seats behind the blind or to steal late. In more aggressive games I hardly get a chance to play them at all outside the blinds.
All very excellent points, particularly your distinction between suited K's.
Good post, but one thing I disagree with at the 2-4 tables is the comments about playing ultra tight in early position. At the lower limit games I've seen, position is not nearly as important as it should be in a game with solid players. This is because pre-flop play is generally VERY passive. Lots of unraised multi-way pots that give drawing hands good pot odds. My absolute favorite 2-4 hand is Axs, mainly in late position, but I generally play it in any seat. If the flop creates a 4-flush for the hand, it's looking good since the pot is big and you can be sure another round of small bets are going in before the turn. Not only that, but players at 2-4 can be counted on to play any two suited cards. I've won MANY pots by showing down a nut flush vs. a smaller flush. And players playing pairs or paint cards often miss the fact that the board is 3 flushed on the turn or river.
For example, last time I played 2-4 I dragged a pot with A8c with a board that read something like KcJs7c4d3c. The poor guy was so pumped up over his flopped set of Kings, he was blinded to the fact that the board was 3 flushed. Perfect 2-4 situation, and a very common one.
shooter
ratso,
You wrote: "5. The non-smoking games are much tighter and passive than the smoking games..."
I'm not surprised based on my experience. Given the choice, I would much rather play against smokers than non-smokers. The extra income should add far more to my longevity than second hand smoke will take away.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Early studies on the effects of second hand smoke focused on difference in longevity (being married to a smoker decreased lifespan by about 70 days). The problem with this method is that smoking predicts other health habits and income (couples with two smokers tend to have lower incomes, non smokers the highest incomes and best health habits, and those with one smoker somewhat in between. High income will add years to a lifespan. So the 70 days difference is insignificant.
Recent studies reflect the politicalization of science. Non smokers have the votes and the FDA and EPA are happy to cook the studies to increase their power base.
Watch out, smokers tend to play better now since they have to win more to pay the higher tax for the cigrarette now ;-)
regards,
jikun
Just a tid bit of information. A study was recently published that nicotine improves memory and has helped people with Parkinsons Disease retain their memory. If you don't smoke you might just want to wear a patch. The second hand smoke didn't help, it just gave people eye iritation.
The stereotype that smokers are relatively poor, impulsive poker players is not as valid as it may appear. We all have a tendency to perceive and recall information which confirms our stereotypes while neglecting contradictory evidence.
I play poker with smokers all the time, and I am very glad they must leave the table to smoke; it is the main reason I am a CA pro rather than a Vegas pro.
I was surprised you didn't mention suited cards at all. They can be very good in loose games, especially suited connectors. They are a bit trickier to play than small pairs, but still quite profitable.
I going to Vegas on Thursday the 9th and this will be the first time I have gone to strictly play hold'em. I have taken advice from many people as far as where to play, what limits they think I can handle, where not to play etc.
I happen to live in a small border town that has a casino and therefore I play quite regularly. When I walk into the card room I know most everybody. I know how they play, what they play, who I can bluff, who are the calling stations and so forth. There is normally two 4-8 tables and one 10 - 20 table for holdem on the weekends. Not alot to choose from as far as which table to sit at.
The books and magazines and web sites like this one talk about table selection. I imagine I'm going to have a choice at which table I would rather sit at. Even if the limits are a little higher then i'm used to I would prefer a passive - aggresive table with two or three weak players.
Any suggestions to help finding a table that suits my playing style other then sitting down and testing the water.
Any comments are appreciated W.C.B.
Excalibur, 2-6 anytime, they call it kitchen table poker for a reason, mostly weak or novice tourist with a couple of bottom feeders and rocks. Can easily become a showdown game. Hold your temper and patience, they are gonna show you lots of stuff you would fold.
Luxor, mixed table with at least 3 regulars at most times, an occassional rock, and 4-5 tourist. Games tend to get real good after 10pm on weekends.
Belagio, 1-4/8/8 mixed game some tourist and bottom feeders, most likely passive. Belagio, 4/8/8 the $4 blind brings the aggression out, your lucky if you get 3 tourist. Some 8/16 players waiting. Binions 4/8/8 mostly aggressive game like Belagio.
Station Casinos, 1-4/8/8 watch out for regulars, there every day, lucky to get loose tourist or misguided locals in multiples.
Riviara,Flamingo,Monte Carlo,1-4/8/8 usually good games with at least 3-4 regulars and the rest tourist.
Orleans, 1-4/8/8 lots of regulars, loose, rockish,and in-between,occassional tourist (2) would make a good game.
Stardust, 3/6/6 can be good games late weekends. Has it's share of daily locals.
Stratusphere 1-4/8/8 they tell me the games get good on the weekends, non-existant on weekdays.
Sahara, 1-4/8/8 slow games with tight players during the week,livens up on the weekend.
Az. Charlies,1-4/8/8 lots of regulars everyday, some don't have a clue, some are tight aggressive.
Mandelay Bay 1-4/8/8 check the fight schedule for good games, late at night.
Circus 3/6 hold onto you hat and patience or jump in and swim with the fishes ! Couple of rocks.
Mirage no 1-4/8/8 , 3/6 can get lively, 6/12 can be tough as 10/20 at times.
This is very generalized and of course you realize that a game is only as good/bad as those sitting in it right now. But these are my empressions after living here 8 yrs. and playing mostly 1-4/8/8. .
A good game is where you find it when you find it !!! If you want to avoid locals try finding a graveyard game, you may get lucky and only have 1 or 2 trying to get unstuck, and the rest drinkers.
Hope this helps ! Good Luck !
While waiting mosey around and check: how many callers are there in how many unraised pots; and how many players show down a hand. A visual check would be how many players are holding their cards generally meaning they can't remember them.
If you are in one game and prefer a different one of the same level, ask the floor for a "table change".
- Louie
Regarding table changes, a lot of the time the other game(s) will be better because there are one or two really bad players in it. If you put yourself on the list for that table, keep an eye on it. A lot of the time when you get called the player you are replacing is one of the really bad players. You can always pass.
Regards,
Rick
Harrahs has a great 4-4-8-8 game, consisting of one $2 blind and ten-handed. There are usually two games going in the afternoon with a mixture of locals (loose-passive) and tourists. They also have a bad-beat jackpot.
Russ
Can we assume that this is an extremely tight game?
1/4 BB to see ten hands. If there's lots of action and not much raising then this has got to be a great game.
I forgot to mention Harrah's. I prefer two blinds myself (more potential action) but Harrah's game can be as profitable as any. Az Charlie's also has 1 blind. Sam's Town is also a Haven for all type locals, with a two blind standard (1&2).
PS: The majority of these houses have a "Bad Beat Jackpot". When these reach in excess of $30K the games do tend to change. You get either a bunch of 10/20,20/40 players moving down to attempt hitting a "bankroll healer" or a bunch of retired folks, with no life, sitting and playing AA,AK,KK,QQ,JJ only. This can make for an extremely tight, extremely tough or extremely boring game, if it is overpopulated with these types (just passing time). A large jackpot on the strip will also peak the interest of tourist and insure the game goes all night. Don't worry, their play here will remain the same.
thank you guys for posting a response. I'm staying at the stratosphere. We are going to make the rounds and see what it's like
I was playing a home hold em 1$ chip pot limit game. I am in BB with 7 2 unsuited. No raises, flop comes 7d 5c 2h. some one bets 5$, I raise $5. everyone fold except 1 player who bet. next card 6d. player bets 10$, I call. Next card is 7C, I knew he made his flush, and I acted pissed off, he bet pot wich was at this point about $35, I call that and raise 20$ going all in. He had his ace high flush, I had the full house. Was this a good play?? any comments apreciated. thasnk
I think a better play was putting him on a flush without three suited board cards. Well done.
Dan
2 diamonds, 2 clubs, and a heart... What flush?
Assume it was the 2c instead of the 2h. Pot limit/No limit hold'em can be a very complicated game. One way to look at your flat call on the turn, is to ask yourself what would you have done if a club hit that didn't fill you up? Were you so sure that he was on a draw that you could have folded?
Also, your hand is nowhere near the nuts. On the turn, you are way behind to 75,76,98,43, as well as 77,55,22. There's seldom a definite right or wrong answer in no limit. You have to know your players. You may have made a fine play, or a terrible one. Best of it...
also, great trick -- that acting pissed off when your full house card came. that gets 'em every time. you might also try letting out a big sigh and drooping your head so that they all know you're really really upset that your hand didn't come in. when you don't make your hand, you could let out a 'YES' when that last card comes and then betting the pot. these plays make you a lot of money in the long run.
Well it certainly did work here. 8-)
I believe it's the best tell in poker.
I think most decent players would not only have checked but would be holding their cards over the muck.
PLAYING IN A 3-6 HOLD-EM GAME TWO NIGHTS AGO I WAS IN SEAT 8 WITH POCKET 7'S. ALL PLAYERS CALL INCLUDING MYSELF AND SEAT NINE. FLOP COMES Kh 7s 6h. BOTH BLINDS CHECK AND SEAT 5 BETS,THIS PLAYER IS LOOSE AGGRESSIVE AND HAS BET THROUGH MANY HANDS TO THE RIVER AND FOLDED WITHOUT SHOWING WHEN CALLED. TWO MORE PLAYERS CALL TO ME AND I RAISE, EVERYONE FOLDS TO SEAT 5 AND HE RAISES. SEATS 6 & 7 CALL AND I RAISE, SEAT 5 RERAISES AND I CAP IT WITH SEATS 6 & 7 CALLING. TURN IS A 6c. SEAT 5 BETS AND IT GOES TO 24 WITH MYSELF CAPPING IT AND SEAT 7 GOING ALL-IN. I KNOW AT THIS POINT SEAT 7 HAS A SINGLE SIX AS HE HAD EXPOSED HIS CARDS WHEN LOOKING AT THEM. SEAT 5 BETS IN THE DARK AND THE RIVER IS A Jd. I PAUSE, RAISE AND HE RE-RAISES WITH NO HESITATION. I CALL AND HE SHOWS ME KK. MY QUESTION IS WERE MY RAISES CORRECT OR TOO AGGRESSIVE. I KNOW HE CANNOT HAVE QUADS AND ONLY KK WILL DRAG THIS POT. I THOUGHT K6 AND 67 WERE STRONG POSSIBILITIES JUDGING FROM OTHER STARTING HANDS HE SHOWED AND WITH NO RAISE PRE-FLOP. THE ONLY TIME I KNEW I WAS BEAT WAS ON THE RIVER WHEN HE RE-RAISED. WITH 10 PLAYERS CALLING THE FLOP AND TWO HEARTS I THOUGHT I WOULD PLAY STRONG AND GIVE NO CHEAP CARDS. WOULD ANYONE ELSE PUT HIM ON THIS HAND RIGHT AWAY? ANY AND ALL COMMENTS APPRECIATED.
Repost in non caps.
Since seat 5 didn't raise or re-raise pre-flop, I too would not have figured on K-K. I probably would have played it as you did.
BY THE WAY, DO YOU KNOW ray zee?
I don't ever like to limp with KK. He got a lucky flop and a dream turn. Nothing you can do but lose some chips.
In my opinion you played this hand as well as you could. You got about as many bets in the pot as possible with a hand that is going to win the vast majority of the time. You just ran int the rare situation of set over set, bummer. But I would say given the info you provided there was no over aggression on your part. Goat
Well played, if the player in question is as loose and aggressive as you say. This kind of thing happens sometimes, and you just have to live with it.
Robert B.,
I like to tease ray zee and small caps scott about not using the shift key and they kid me back about how efficient it is to type messages using all lowercase and that I am a fuddy duddy. But at least I can read their messages without going crazy. I tried to read your post but I felt like I was in the front row of a movie theater with a HUGE SCREEN WHERE THE LEAD ACTOR'S NOSE LOOKED BIGGER THAN DONALD TRUMP'S EGO and the VOLUME ON THE THX SOUND WAS SO HIGH THAT BLOOD WAS POURING OUT OF MY EARS.
anyway, if you don't want to use the shift key try all lowercase.
regards,
rick (who probably is already crazy but just isn't aware enough to know it)
p.s. paragraphs are nice too
i know! this post drove me nuts. i was going to post something like "i failed to read your post, but judging from your all caps style you are way too aggressive. try to chill out more. relax. develop a hightened sense of apathy. then you'll be on your way to being as cool as ray and i." but i got distracted and forgot.
paragraph
i am certain you are already crazy, but who isn't? anyone who's anyone a lunatic.
paragraph
i am sure i am crazy. one night i was walking on broadway, a little drunk and a little high, i admit. and a homeless guy, well maybe not homeless. he was counting money in his hand. it just wasn't that much money. and he had the walk of a homeless man. slow and without rhythm, like someone running their first marathon. losing badly, but determined to finish. anyway this man was walking toward me. i met his eyes. (i always do. i like to look at people's eyes. and if i am not looking at him, i am looking away from him, and ellison wrote on the effects of that. the guy was black.) so our eyes meet and the guy says "don't call me dead, i'm alive!" i must have looked incredulous because he challenged "well, ain't i? look at me!" i was forced to admit that he was, in fact, alive. he continued on his way, satisfied, and i continued on mine. but as i replayed the encounter in my mind, i couldn't be sure that he hadn't merely mumbled incoherently and that i had created the whole thing.
paragraph
the dead aren't crazy. so as long as we're crazy we can't be dead.
scott
I beg to differ.
Jamie Uys believes the Gods must be crazy and Friedrich Nietzsche believes that God is dead. So it can, indeed, be the case that the dead are crazy.
Dan
ps On the other hand, some believe that God is love. They also believe that love is blind. Well, Stevie Wonder is blind. So it can be argued that Stevie Wonder is God.
pps To relate this to poker (thus dodging the wrath of WFM), neither crazy people, nor blind people, play poker that well.
ppps Unless you're Mike Caro who is very crazy and claims to be able to play poker with his eyes closed.
pppps It's been said that Helen Keller could play a mean game of gin.
uys, nietzsche. those are some crazy names. sure GOD is dead, but all us gods (also called daseins by heidegger and human beings by less creative folk) are crazy. GOD didn't even make a cameo in that movie, but the human beings, well those that were alive, were crazy. i stand by my assertion.
the cliched syllogism is, well, cliched. but i do like your tie to poker. but i do not agree. well, i agree about the blind people. but not the crazies.
i think some crazy people can't percieve the world as others do. these people get drugged or locked away. others see the the world in additional interesting ways. like dali, 'the only difference between me and a madman is that i am not mad.'
i think this good kind of crazy would be very good at poker. incidently, i like to flatter myself by considering me amongst these. maybe it's because i've been able to avoid the padded walls. knock on wood. i don't want to jinx it.
caro, from what i know of him, is one of these good crazies. i have no idea what he would do with his eyes closed though.
i bet hellen keller was just faking the whole being blind thing just to amaze people with her gin playing.
scott
"heightened sense of apathy" that's a classy one. additionally, great story.
-Joe
yup. and the story is true. well, i think it is. er, you understand.
well, i just wanted to get this sub-thread going.
scott
Rick,
The position of Wrong Format Man is open. You got my vote. :-)
At this limit, the flop is the time to find out where your hand stands, most of the time. When a player puts in the last raise that he is allowed, it is usually a strong hand. He did put in all the raises he could (he cannot raise your cap). As to what his hand could be on the flop depends a lot on knowing the player also. Some might even cap it with the nut flush draw. Most will not with 2 pair. As he limped in with KK pre-flop, then surely he has limped in somewhere before with big hands. The fact that he came out swinging on the turn, after you capped the flop, seems like a big hand.
Just because the player BETS way too aggressively doesn't necissarily mean he RAISES way too aggressively.
If this really is a 5-raise max game and #5 smooth called your turn 4-bet, hehehe, then one raise on the river is OK. Presuming this is a 3-raise max game and you typed 2 too many raises on the flop and therefore you capped the turn:
At some point you need to think about what he thinks YOU have. On the flop you could have some big draw. But when you raise the turn ONCE but definately TWICE he's has just GOT to put you on a big hand. Unless he's brain dead you should flat call the river and probably not 4-bet the turn.
- Louie
To those of you who posted in reference to the hand,thank you,it was much appreciated.
To those of you who posted in reference to the all-caps format, it only took once to catch a clue.
To those of you who left nonsense throughout this post,find a more productive way to spend your time!!!
Hey, I was first in on the CAPS and don't tell me how to spend my time! 8-)
Did anyone mention that you needed to consider the second level here.
The betting was stong and the pot large. What did you think he thought you had? I suspect that he (the KK) figured you were full as well.
The action was very fast by the sounds of it and you did not consider what he thought. You would save the 2 bets on the river for sure and maybe 2 on the turn. His re-raise here let's you know he has something substantial AND he already knows you have a powerfull hand.
It's pretty hard to fold this so the best you could do would be to save bets.
Regards
A solid player raises (second in). You are in the middle position with AK and decide to just call(you are viewed as a solid player by your apponent). Flop comes out 23Q offsuit. Solid player bets into you.
Questions:
1. How often do you just call in this situation preflop.
2. What do you do when bet into.
PUT YOUR SHOES INTO THE RAISERS.
3. If you are the raiser in this case how would play the following hands if you got called by a solid player:
a) AA
B) QQ
c) AK
D) AJs (interested in this one more)
E) TJs (interested in this one more)
"A solid player raises (second in). You are in the middle position with AK and decide to just call(you are viewed as a solid player by your apponent). Flop comes out 23Q offsuit. Solid player bets into you."
1. How often do you just call in this situation preflop. >>> Only of the raiser is predictable after the flop or I can expect lots of callers if I call. Otherwise 3-bet or fold.
2. What do you do when bet into. >>> If the opponent didn't start with a pair he probably started ..err.. you hope he started with a Q. If you don't like your hand enough to 3-bet then a Q flop is a killer. Pass.
3. If you are the raiser in this case how would play the following hands if you got called by a solid player: ..snip hands..>> If the raiser doesn't like his hand enough to 3-bet then he's going to fold unless he has a Queen. Always bet against a solid player; at least so long as he believes I started with a premium hand.
- Louie
1. Almost never. Usually raise, sometimes fold, depending on how often he likes to bluff or how afraid he'd be of my folding on the flop if he had queens or another big pair. If I raise and he 3-bets, it's usually his on the turn unless I improve.
2. Isn't this the same question?
3. With aces or a set, I'd almost always check, except with the 23 on board a lot of players will assume I'd bet here with anything, so I'd bet against them. I'd pretty much always bet the AK, check and (usually) call the AJs, check and fold the TJs (but I never raise early with TJs).
Just call pre-flop - Essentially never from your position.
Since you just called, he will always bet if you are heads-up with that flop. You can get him to drop JJ (maybe), TJs, AJs. That's 4+4+6=14 hands with a raise. He will likely play back (or go to the river) with AK (9), AQ (9),KK (6), AA(6), QQ (3), KQs(2) (35). He may also do this with jacks unless a second overcard comes.
He should have no respect for your bluff - you almost can't have a set, or 2 pair. Or a draw of any sort.
He probably won't put you on AK, but this does you no good unless you hit your hand and he pays you off all the way where he wouldn't otherwise, or you are prepared to call him down or to bluff him out.
One might look at the turn to see if an A or K, depending on how likely your opponent is to continue bluffing or semi-bluffing (and how likely he is to limp with AA or KK in this spot), but you could also be drawing to 0 or 3 outs very easily. With the hands you want him to have (AJs, TJs, he probably stops semi-bluffing after the turn (unless he pairs), so calling him down will yield 3 sb's, not 5.
I think you have a fold against most solid and relatively straightforward players.
You are in bad shape - your opponent suspects you are pretty weak, and he is right. It is hard to imagine a worse flop.
If he also has AK, your pre-flop 3 bet should let you win the pot on the flop or turn.
2. What do you do when bet into.
In a multiway raised pot of a tight game, I would tend to fold here, since the present of the Q can easily make you the second best hand when you hit A or K. When heads-up, I tend to raise a good player, and just call if he is tough.
regards,
jikun
I'd like to compliment you on your insightful and unique style of posing questions. I really mean that. It's obvious you are trying to get inside the heads of good players.
I'm sure you also realize that there is almost never just one way to play a hand. The ever changing dynamics of the game demand mixing it up against all but the easiest opponents.
Solid does not necessarily mean tough in my book. I know solid players who will only raise early with AK,AA,KK,QQ. If this is the case, AK is a muck for obvious reasons. Tough and bad players alike, are likely to raise with a much wider variety of hands. If there's a reasonable chance to play heads up, you should almost always 3-bet. Not because you have the best hand, but because you're certain you have the best position.
After the flop is much more complex and again dependent on dynamics. Who's your opponent, what's your image, what has transpired in the game so far? What has transpired with this particular opponent? Against tough players you definitely need to be more creative. I've often seen 2 great players play a hand in such a way, that one of them resembles a complete idiot when the hand is over. Sometimes 2 tough players will be playing a game within a game with each other.
From first position with AK, betting and check/raising, are both legitimate plays. While checking and calling may SEEM weak, it may NOT be weak against a player whose thinking is beyond the fish level. He may reason you are playing as though you have a big hand and therefore are planning to check/raise the turn. The bottom line is, if you play like a robot against truly good players, you will too often be losing more than you should when you're beat, and rarely making the most when your best. So be creative and mix it up a little!
"It's obvious you are trying to get inside the heads of good players"
Yes
There was a minor editing boo-boo in my recent Poker Digest article. So for those of you who read these things closely:
Replace the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph on the 2nd page (the one that begins, "But in spite...") with,
But in addition to the two-suited flop, there was the near certainty that the player on the button was going to bet anyway.
The editing changed that a bit too much I thought, altering the meaning. Otherwise, they usually make silk purses of sows' ears. :) (smiley face inserted for scott's reading pleasure)
(btw, It was a hold'em article. Hence the hold'em forum)
i thoroughly enjoyed the smiley. thank you very much.
scott
I like to play a mix of tournament and live games, mostly low-limit (it's all I can afford).
The last three tournaments, I've had terrible cards to work with and have gone out about one or two tables away from the final table. What I've noticed is that anyone who plays like they have something almost always wins the hand, since the others tend to fold before the river.
Question: Instead of letting my chips get blinded away, how about acting as if I had something? Has anyone tried this? Will it actually work?
Mark
you mean bluffing? i have heard rumors of this strange concept and would appreciate hearing someone explain it. as i understand it, it involves betting and/or raising with what is not likely the best hand in the hope that your opponents will fold.
but isn't it dishonest? i just can't bring myself to intentionally decieve anyone.
scott
Ignoring scott's sarcastic comments...
If the play really is this tight, you should definitely consider doing at least a little bit of bluffing.
You don't need to reraise with bottom pair, but try betting it sometimes when its checked to you on the flop, think about betting when, you know the feeling, nobody seems to wnat the pot - just bet and take it - its just that easy.
~DjTj
Mark -- I enjoy your work on TV and in fine movies such as "Summer School" and "Stealing Home".
I am not very experienced at tournament play, but I think it's safe to say it's next to impossible to excel at tourney play without doing your fair share of bluffing and semi-bluffing.
Thanks for the answers. I think I've been too tight in my play.
As for my acting, well, I guess it would come in handy in poker.
Mark
10-20 game in Wyoming. 6 handed game in the corner of a local bar. Semi tight, not too wild game. These guys had been playing poker dice, if you don't know the game you're not missing anything. Pretty dumb way to gamble, poker dice that is.
Not exactly collecting chips by the wheelbarrow but doing o.k. Just a couple hands before I had raised the turn with second best pair and an A kicker and bet the river with no help. Fellow two behind me called the river with the same pair but worse kicker. Old cowboy in the SB folded on the river. Well, cowboy had top pair but no kicker. I can't say for sure but he seemed awfully chargrined when my hand dragged the pot. Anyway, on this hand UTG folded. I raised with QdQc, everyone folded around to cowboy(now in the BB). He just called. So it's a head's up pot.
Flop comes Ad Qs 10d. BB checks, I bet he raises, I reraise, he raises again, I reraise, he reraises and I raise again. He calls. I probably give him too much action here as he could have KJ or worse KJ of diamonds. I think if he has KJ of diamonds he probably would've reraised preflop and if he has AA he would've reraised preflop. Also, I know that he expects me to bet with that flop. So why the checkraise? I think he puts me on AK or KK. He knows I'll bet with these hands but he's afraid I wont raise if he bets into me. So he must have a hand better than AK or KK. I think he has AQ or AT or TT. All of which I can beat at the moment. Like I said, I probably give too much action here but with the way the game had been going he's going to put in chips with KJ (definately) but he's likely to put in as many with AQ, AT or TT.
Turn card falls 5c. He checks, I bet, he calls.
River card falls 6s. He checks, I bet, he raises. Well I don't know what to think here. I don't like slowing games down so instead of thinking about whether I should call or fold or reraise, I just call. (Isn't that what Sklansky suggests doing?) I make a crying call and he proudly turns over ---drumroll-- AT. I roll my queens and say "Ship the sherbert to Herbert!" (I picked that one up from an ex-girlfriend in Vegas)
Just happy to take the pot on this one.
Questions: Was I too aggressive on the flop?
Should I have checked it down on the river?
Can I possibly justify folding to the river checkraise?
Have you run into these kind of river checkraises? (I thought that the river checkraise was a pretty bad play. What hands will I fold here? Except a pure bluff or a hand like KQ of diamonds? With KQ of diamonds I might give a little action head's up but I'm more likely to give a lot of action if it's a multiway pot, knowing I have to hit to drive the river action and have an easy fold if I'm holding the same hand on the river)
Given the flop action, would it be better to check the turn to induce a bluff or make a worse hand feel that it's best and just call the river unless the board pairs with something other than a A?
thanks
chris
You probably gave too much action on the flop, but you played the turn and river correctly IMO. After he showed weakness by checking the turn, I would not offer him a free card; he could have had a flush draw. I'd also bet the river after he again shows weakness by checking. Calling his final raise is automatic.
When you know an opponent well and can judge the situation is sometimes makes sense to take a second nut vulnerable-to-redraw hand all the way to the top. But not just because he was chagrined at folding a winner the last hand. So yes, you were too aggressive on the flop. Also, sometime about the 3rd or 4th raise, your assumption that he can't have certain hands because he would have raised preflop simply breaks down -- the reason people slowplay the flop is so they can jam more later.
But his action on the turn indicates that he doesn't have the nuts -- he'll never slowply the nut straight here -- and his action on the flop indicates that he doesn't believe, for some reason, that you can have it either. Which indicates, together with the lack of a preflop raise, no AA. So reraise him on the river. Of course you can't fold.
Wouldn't it be "sherbet to Herbet?"
I'm afraid I'd have to lay in wait for you after a comment like that.
It is "sherbet." And frankly, I might go so far as to actually GET a quart of sherbet and ship it via airmail onto Herbert's head, rather than just lay in wait.
Cowboy guy is a real non-believer and you should play him whenever you get the chance, IMO.
You guys think comments like "Ship the Sherbet to Herbert" are rude? I don't think anyone takes that kind of thing to heart. In the games I play in there's always somebody saying "Send the pudding to peewee" or whatever. Who cares? If comments like that do anything - anything at all- to damage your state of mind then you've got a whole 'nother area of your game to work on.
I think of it like the NBA or NFL. Do you realize how much trash talk goes on on the field or on the court? Not that my games are at that level (more like high school football, hehe) but trash talk or blathering or what you want to call it is part of the game.
Although the talk is heavier, more colorful, and funnier down South, it's an important part of the game everywhere poker is played. And if you don't like all the talk at your poker table, well you know what they say, "the fleas come with the dog."
chris
No question you have the right to say most anything, but even the most even-tempered person gets a little torqued when they lose a pot they thought they had won, then gets a little verbal magic to boot. My only point is, when that happens to me, I'm making a mental note to "take that guy out."
Totally different in a home game, where all the players generally know each other better.
As for the NFL or NBA, the offended party always has the opportunity to bust his opponent in the mouth, which is generally discouraged in poker.
I try to never make anyone a target, unless they are weak/tight or overly loose/aggressive. In my opinion, it's generally a waste of time to target a "good" player (use whatever criteria you choose to come up with who you think a good player is) as the good players wont fall for any trick, ploys or jabbering.
chris
I think I would have done it a little differently.
I would have checked raised the flop. With two pair, he probably would re-raise, which I would just call. I wouldn't necessarily put him on a nut straight as he probably would not be betting that hand.
On the turn, I would check raise him. If he re-raises, I would re-raise one more time to keep him honest. Remember, the only two hand that can beat you are AA and KJ.
On the river, I would come out firing. If he raises you, I would just call because at that point I would probably put him on a straight.
There is no difference to you if he has the straight-flush draw since you have his Qd and if he has a straight it makes no difference if he makes the flush.
"Ship the sherbert to Herbert!" <<- bad politics. Rude.
You gave excessive action on the flop but it could easily be justified since he's pissed at you and expects you to overplay ALL your hands.
I've seen numerous surprise river bets in these situations from players who "are going to call anyway". Once I recognized it they are just giving me another bet since I'm going to raise. I haven't seen too many check-raises from someone with the same paranoid hand they check-called on the turn.
Once you have triggered the gamble in him I would suppose you should NEVER fold and so you must pay him off even though its painfully "obvious" he has the straight.
Hands gambling players will gamble with come a lot more often than the nuts.
- Louie
So what is poker dice?
On his 3rd raise I would have put him and most players on the nut stright and just called him down. I guess I'm too timid.
Scott
Last night playing 4/8/8. I'm not familar with any players nor them with me. UTG limps, I call w/A3d, 4 more call, no raise. Flop = 8d7d3s. Blinds check. Before UTG can bet I peak back at my cards (giving a phony tell). Anyone that plays with me knows I have no reason to normally do this. UTG now bets, I call, all others fold. Turn is 5d. UTG reaches for chips then changes his mind and checks. I bet, UTG checkraises, I reraise, he reraises, I reraise and so does he. Now I'm begaining to worry that I'm up against a straight flush and just call him dowm. He has Q2d. My flush holds up and the reverse tell paid off bigtime. Now I get critisism from HIM for missing at least a bet. I didn't know this guy and although him having 6d4d or 6d9d was very remote I wimped out and just called him down. Comments ? Basically I wasn't ready for the response my reverse tell got. He bit, hook, line, and sinker and would not believe I made the hand because of the tell. My questions. Moving to 10/20 or higher, do tells have any value from regular players here ? When you pick up a tell do you call the player down just to see what it means or do you assume you should do the opposite of what the tell suggest, automatically ? Remember, I'm speaking of regular players with ability that don't normally give tells. If you spot a subtle tell from this player do you believe it ? I played with a fellow once (4/8/8) that telegraghed his every move. I lost a lot to him because I couldn't believe he would continue to give true tells of strength, every hand ! All comments welcome. (I know the preflop calls were questionable).
On the turn, "UTG [who bet flop] reaches for chips then changes his mind and checks. I bet, UTG checkraises, I reraise, he reraises ...."
Reverse tell or not, you have a crying call from here on in.
The problem with these ploys is that they only work against rubes like this -- guys that play garbage up front, jam with the 5th nuts and then give the winner a hard time for not taking more off of them. In fact, given the way he plays, it's a bit difficult to credit him with the thought process needed for your reverse tell to work. Maybe he would've jammed in any event. Maybe you could just as easily stared at your cards with a big sad Emmet Kelly look on your face and shook your head as you put in bet after bet.
Stunts like this tell observant opponents that you're huge. People that play 2 suited cards don't forget what suits they've got. Legitimate peekers that can't remember will only have one of the suit, at most, and won't semibluff after indicating they can't remember what they've got. So when you peek and start jamming, it means "made hand." Peeking and jamming with nothing, now that's a reverse tell.
I think when you do things to stimulate action sometimes you succeed beyond all expectation. You gotta think about why you threw a false tell at this guy and then, when it apparently worked, why you back off after a couple bets? I understand the possibility of the nuts being out there but if a couple of raises makes you automatically conclude that the nuts are out then you don't need to stir the pot with false tells and try to stimulate action that you won't take advantage of.
chris
…, 0.301% and an EV of –8.61% over the Long Run
In a game like 15-30 TH you have a Average Bet over the long Run of $16.30 and it will cost you a $1.40 per 332 hands played in this game. In about a full day of play ( 8 hours ) you will have a damage to your bankroll of about $1.40.
Why would you be playing this hand in the first place anyway?
It has a negative $$$ expectation!
Go Get’m all
You're a nutbar! A3 has negative expectation, my ass. How in the heck do you rocket scientists come up with these numbers? Hold up! Sorry I asked. I don't want the formula that you used to arrive at this conclusion. Let's just leave it alone. After all, hasn't Stephen Hawking "proved" that time travel is possible. I don't have the math chops to debate this subject, all I can say is that poker is a game of stats and feel, not just stats.
chris
”You're a nutbar! A3 has negative expectation, my ass. How in the heck do you rocket scientists come up with these numbers? Hold up! Sorry I asked. I don't want the formula that you used to arrive at this conclusion. Let's just leave it alone. After all, hasn't Stephen Hawking "proved" that time travel is possible. I don't have the math chops to debate this subject, all I can say is that poker is a game of stats and feel, not just stats.” By Chris
Sorry Chris, I was just talking about the pure Statistics in my post, I was just referring to the Long Run of millions and millions of hands in that situation when you get a A3 Suited Hand. I could not agree with you more on the issue that poker is more of an art combined with stats.
Go Get’m all
What if you only play them on the button in unraised pots? Not that I do but does it changs the hypothetical?
I think if you played Axs on the button with 3 or more limpers and you only played when you flopped little trips, two pair or a flush draw, it's gotta be a money maker.
chris
"I think if you played Axs on the button with 3 or more limpers and you only played when you flopped little trips, two pair or a flush draw, it's gotta be a money maker." By Chris
If you played a Axs in that specific situation what Chris is referring to, it will be a “money maker”, no question about this. But if somebody is playing the A3s ( to be specific here ) all the time, it will cost you money in the Long Run.
Go Get’m all
A3 is a dog of a hand and I never play it.
Headcase played this upfront. Unless he knows there is little chance of a raise and a good chance for a multiway, then it's a loser. Even then, you're in poor position all the way.
Also, Headcase pointed out that the call was questionable in the first place.
To all those who agree with chris, please keep playing this hand from any and all positions.
I think if you played Axs on the button with 3 or more limpers and you only played when you flopped little trips, two pair or a flush draw, it's gotta be a money maker.
chris
Where does that say play it from any position? Or play behind a raise? If you're in a loose, game with lots of callers and little raising, then, yeah, it probably will make money UTG, but only if the conditions are right.
You are right! Correct! No doubt about it.
You have said no such thing in these posts!
I hold basically the same opinion as you on these cards I play them Multiway, late position.
I also find that if I modify my standards for loose passive games, I end up justifying the calls with this holding in games where it is not warrented.
Anyway, Apologies for the slur.
?…, 0.301% and an EV of –8.61% over the Long Run
In a game like 15-30 TH you have a Average Bet over the long Run of $16.30 and it will cost you a $1.40 per 332 hands played in this game. In about a full day of play ( 8 hours ) you will have a damage to your bankroll of about $1.40.
Why would you be playing this hand in the first place anyway?
It has a negative $$$ expectation!
Out of what orifice did you pull these numbers? If you ran some sort of simulation, that's fine, but you can't make a general statement like "this hand has negative expectation" without describing game conditions, the player's position, whether or not the game has a rake or a time charge, and a myriad of other factors. Perhaps more importantly, the expectation of a hand is largely dependent upon how well someone plays postflop, which is why sims should only be used as a guideline. Unless a hand is shown to have a large positive or negative expectation, the sim should be taken with a grain of salt.
I have little doubt that in a typical loose-passive 4-8 game, in the hands of a player who plays well post-flop, A3s has positive expectation in any position. It probably also does well in loose-aggressive games (provided these games are loose-aggressive postflop, not just preflop) because you will be able to jam your strong draws (nut flush + pair, nut flush + gutshot, or even just the nut flush) and get paid off handsomely when you make the nut flush or a straight.
I just did some quick Turbo Texas Hold'em sims for A3s. In all cases, I put Advisor T UTG and instructed him to limp with A3s and call all raises, and ran 100,000 trials. The games were 10-20 with a time charge, and 10-20 with a modest rake, 5% capped at $3. The first sim was a loose-passive game in which 7 people see the flop on average for 1.6 bets. A3s earned $2 per hand time charge/$1.52 per hand with a rake. The second was a more aggressive game in which 6.6 people see the flop on average for 1.8 bets. A3s earned $2.11 per hand time charge/$1.60 per hand with a rake. Note that in these sims, our hero is UTG; in the example given, our hero was second to act and followed one limper, which is a better scenario. Also note that A3s should probably fold when it has limped and there are several raises back to it. In other words, I'm working with a "worst case scenario" here. Granted, a game has to be pretty loose for me to play any suited ace less than A8s in early position, but these games often exist at the low-limits, and I'll play A3s in middle or late position in even semi-loose games.
It is also worth noting that there are situations in limit hold'em where any two cards have positive EV, although these situations rarely occur in 4-8 games. There are also situations in limit hold'em where KK has negative EV. I will leave it to others to elaborate.
-Sean
While we're on this, is there a simulation program out there right now that'll take into accounts the obvious folds on the flop? Most of the numbers that i've seen so far have the hand going all the way to the showdown. Are there results of simulations out there, or tools for doing simulations that would let you, say, play A3s only if there's no raise preflop, fold it if the flop completely missed, check and call to the showdown in middling cases, and play agressively on a made or strong flush draw, two pair or straight?
While we're on this, is there a simulation program out there right now that'll take into accounts the obvious folds on the flop? Most of the numbers that i've seen so far have the hand going all the way to the showdown.
Turbo Texas Hold'em sims aren't "showdown simulations." (There is an option for that though, but the program literature warns against using showdown sims too much.) Your "hero" and your opponents play in their specific styles. The program comes with 30 or 40 default opponents, and there are literally thousands of variables which can be altered, regarding many facets of pre and postflop play.
Here's a specific A3s hand from the loose-passive sim (lineup 7, with a modified advisor T as our hero under the gun) just for the fun of it:
Advisor T [UTG] (Ac3c) calls Jerry Jackpot (6s5c) folds GA Joe (Ks8s) calls Regular Rube (5s4s) calls Judicious Jammer (JdTc) calls Regular Rube (Td6h) calls GA Joe (6c2c) calls Jerry Jackpot (7s3d) folds Welcome Waldo [SB](Ts2d) folds Regular Rube [BB] (9h2s) checks
flop: Ah3hTh
Regular Rube checks Advisor T bets GA Joe folds Regular Rube folds Judicious Jammer calls Regular Rube calls GA Joe folds Regular Rube calls
Turn: Ah3hTh/3s Regular Rube checks Advisor T bets Judicious Jammer calls Regular Rube folds Regular Rube folds
River: Ah3hTh/3s/Kc Advisor T bets Judicious Jammer calls
Advisor T: full house, wins $195
I picked that randomly, but that turned out well for our hero. That was a bit hard to follow since there are several Regular Rubes/GA Joes in the game, but the hand was fairly realistic for a loose passive game.
-Sean
and, for example, in some of the other simmed hands, the flop might've come 8c9c10c and advisor t would've folded?
"It is also worth noting that there are situations in limit hold'em where any two cards have positive EV, although these situations rarely occur in 4-8 games. There are also situations in limit hold'em where KK has negative EV. I will leave it to others to elaborate."
You mean outside the blinds, right? If the blinds were tight enough, you would make a profit open-raising from the button with any two cards. (In practice, you would fold a few of the weakest hands to not clue the blinds in to what you were doing.)
If a raiser *must* have AA, then you would fold KK unless a lot of other players were in.
The payoffs in the sim are probably better than real life. Probably a small -EV up front. Of course 7-8 callers for all raises has to be a dream game!
I'll stick to just playing it in the last 3 positions. Without a raise there's a chance my ace is good if it hits.
You can play any suited Ace or King in the middle or late positions if you have enough callers in front and no raise, else fold. However, you must treat them like the suited connectors – if you’re holding let’s say a A7s, and flop just an Ace ( long shot), you will have to play it very delicately. What you’re looking on the flop is a flush draw or a pat flush.
Nevertheless, this play of Suited Aces or Suited Kings has a very high Variance and is a long shot play. The Standard Deviation of this type of hand is very high, your Bankroll will suffer some wild excursions UP and Down the scale.
If you want to do that, Go ahead and play them!
Trying to Help
You spot a tell - by all means use it.
Most no all players giving tells are doing it subconsciously and have no idea they are doing it and players have tells almost all players have them.
But you have to be looking for them.
Here is one I picked up on a fair player - she likes to shuffel 8 chips (4 to 8 chip stack) most of the time when she is on a good hand she will shuffel more chips the better the hand the more she will play with. It is a really good tell and I believe it every time. It has saved me and made me a lot of money.
You know, I do that! I'm always fidgeting with the chips, and I can hold around 8 in my hand. However, in my 4-8 game with $2 chips, its not enough to get bets and raises in so I'll grab more from the stack to fiddle with. I don't think that anyone's picked up on it, but I'll be sure not to do it anymore. thanks :)
I have problems with players who shuffe chips when they are waiting on you to call. The problem is sometimes I do it as well to signify strenght when im bluffing. But i've seen very exagerated shuffling and im not sure how to deal with it. When I finally break my chips to look like a raise sometimes they stop, but im not sure what to make of that either ? I pretend to look at my cards and the board so they don't know im watching them, but i still don't know what to make of them stopping for an instant. With no stoppage i fold. what do you guys think of this tell. I usually only shuffle between deals. If i do it while in a hand you can bet im giving bad information.
The average flush is 3rd nuts which the opponent has. Once YOU 3-bet it he's got to put you on a flush and his becomes a less than 50:50 proposition. He raised twice too often (not counting your tell).
Your reverse tell could easily have encouraged him to raise once too often. So I'd say you played it well. He criticised YOU since his only alternative was to admit he grossly overplayed his hand.
The difference between real tells and reverse tells is that the opponent wants you to SEE the reverse tell and so (1) routinely exaggerates it or (2) KNOWS you are watching so doesn't need to exaggerate it. Noticing exaggeration or knowing what the opponent sees are a subjective things but are the primary keys to using tells. If there is absolutely NO pause (pregnant or otherwise) its probably a true tell.
For example, review in your mind the mechanics you made using YOUR reverse tell. Was it a - Louie
As a part-time professional golfer and teacher, I know that God-given talent is a major factor in determining how good someone will be.
When it comes to poker, how much is talent or hard work? Did the game generally come easy to the top players (talent), or did they have to put in some effort?
Is it possible for a middling player such as myself to become a top player some day? Or am I doomed to a life of low-limit drudgery?
If you think a lack of talent can be overcome, how? If not, why not?
Mark
As an avid golfer and someone who relies on poker to supplement his income I can tell you that it is harder to become a skilled golfer than poker player. First of all, I will assume that you don't have aspirtations to win the World Series, but to be able to win consistently at 10-20 or 20-40 games. The knowledge you need to be proficient is contained in the Sklansky/Malmuth "Advanced Players" book. You'll need the discipline to resist doing things you know are incorrect, no matter how many miserable beats you take. You'll need to play a lot. The aggression you'll see at the higher limit games will take some time to get used to, no matter how many books you read. And, lastly, you'll need a good memory. No matter where you play, you'll usually see the same faces day after day. Get to know their games as much as possible. Hope this helps. Good luck!
"Being good at poker is something like being good at bowling or golf. You need talent to become a superstar no matter how much you know. However with proper coaching, practice, and study most people should be able to achieve one notch below superstar status. Most peole can become 190 bowlers or shoot 77 in golf if they have a coach who can show them all the fundamentals. It is not necessary that they have that much talent. With proper coaching, practice, and study, they can frequently surpass people who have much more talent but who don't want to study and practice the fundamentals." David Sklansky, "A Comment on Poker Books" in Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming & Life
Like all aspects of life some people can just "See"õ¿õ at a higher levels or in different ways than others.
Not to say one can't play a solid game of poker, chess ping-pong or whatever.
It's just that talented players just have that intuitive instinct.
Best of it !!
MJ
Do you find it seems to come and go. The poker intuition is working great and then seems not to be.
Lately I've not been listening to this intuition and in hindsight have seen where I "knew" what to do but did not do it. In most cases this is fold.
Without listening to my "intuition" I have been slipping into a calling station mode of play. Reluctant to bet hard but paying off.
As you can imagine this is not doing my game any good.
Anyone else have this syndrome. If so, it might need a name such as "wimpitis" or "station fever".
Lately I've not been listening to this intuition and in hindsight have seen where I "knew" what to do but did not do it.
Funny how we study this game, fill our minds with all the correct moves and then fail to execute when the time comes. Just try not to do it to often and you can't help but get back in the "Zone"
Best of it !!
MJ
Playing on paradise today and the following occurred:
Me: Ad 10d Opponent: Ah Kc
Flop: 2c 7h 2s 6d 2d
We both have trip 2s with an A kicker. The program declares my opponent the winner because "shows three of a kind, twos -- king kicker "
Is this correct? I Thought the pot would be split. If I am wrong and the program is correct can someone please explain to me under what circumstances the pot is split versus using kickers to determine winner. Thanks
CB
Yes. It is correct. The top 5 cards win. His A/K and the boards 2,2,2 VS your A/10 and the boards 2,2,2. Sorry. You lose.
Coyote
Best 5 cards play. Exactly 5; not 4 not 6. Your best 5 cards are 222AT; his are 222AK.
Then how come when each player has the same two pair, the pot is split. Only 4 cards are looked at to determine a split pot, not five. Am I missing something?
C
Five cards determine a split pot. You always have a five card hand. You had 222TA your opponent had 222KA. Did you misread the board? Niether of you had two pair, you both had trip deuces with an A kicker (that's four cards) you had trip deuces with an A and a Ten, he had trip deuces with An A and a king.
chris
No, its ALWAYS 5 cards ..err.. SHOULD ALWAYS be 5 cards. [AJ] vrs [A2] board=(AK2TT) is a split; you both have AATTK. (Notice the 2's are couterfeited). Board=(ATT92) is a win for AJ with AATTJ since the A2 has AATT9. [96] vrs [87] board=(AAKK8) is a win for 96 with AAKK9 vrs AAKK8.
Apparently you have "missed" several potentially split pots that were not. I suspect you have also witnessed inexperienced dealers playing with inexperienced players where everybody mis-reads the board and some pots are unreasonably split.
One time I had [A4s] vrs [A8] board=(AKK83), the opponent announce he had the winner; the dealer had no idea; I corrected him that it was a split; he insisted he had the winner; I claimed "no, its a split"; he spitefully yelled he had "Aces and 8s!!"; I said "Oh, I have Aces and Kings"; ... after the long pregnant pause he conceded and I silently (and unethically) accepted the whole pot from the dealer. Idiot.
- Louie
Excellent story.
For CB, this hand might help clear it up.
I have A-6 suited. My opponent has A-3.
The flop is A 3 4. Checked to me. I bet and I am raised. I call and the turn is a 2. It is bet and I call. The river is a 4. Checked to me and I check.
The board is A 3 4 2 4 so I have AA446 as my hand.
my opponent has AA443 .
I won with the better kicker. In hands with 2 pair ther is 1 kicker. In hands with 1 pair there are 3 kickers.
One trick: when there is any doubt then find the two cards that do NOT play.
I played at the same table with my friend today in a loose 6-12 game. The table is full of loose players except my friend and I and another player. My friend said 2 hands I played are questionable and here they are:
1st hand: I was on the button and had 2 red 9s. My friend raised from middle position after 2 limpers. One cold caller and I called, so did BB and all limpers. So we took the flop 6 ways.
Flop: K56 rainbow
Checked all the way to me and I bet. 3 callers including my friend. Here I felt these loose players were likely to bet a K, they played pretty much staight forward.
Turn: 3 of 4th suit
Checked to me and I bet. My friend fold and 2 others called.
River: J
Checked around. One showed AJo and won the pot. My friend fold QQ. My friend said both my flop and turn bet are questionable, especially on the turn.
2nd hand: I was on the BB with Qs9s and my friend raised from the cut-off seat after 4 limpers, SB and I and all limpers called. So we took the flop 7 ways.
Flop: Qc3c4s
SB bet out, I raised, one middle cold caller, and my friend made it 3 bets, 3 of us called. So we saw the turn 4 ways.
Turn: 8s
Checked to my friend and he bet, SB called all-in, I and middle player called.
River: 9h
I bet, middle player fold and my friend called. he showed AhQh. My friend said my raising and my calling his 3 bets on the flop are questionable given the possibility of flush draw out(9c may not good for my hand) and an overpair.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
regards,
jikun
On the first hand your friends play is far worse then yours. He raised preflop and then checked-called a king high flop. What was he thinking? If he thought he was already beat then he didn't have pot odds to call and if he though his hand was possible good he should have been betting. Your bet of a pair between top and second pair on the flop when nobody showed interest was fine. The flop made a straight draw possible although unlikely in a raised pot so as a semi-bluff it was probably OK. It might have been best to take the free card on the turn. OTOH if you bet the turn and get bet into on the river then its probably easy fold whereas you might have to call a bet against players that bluff often if you take the free card.
In the second hand I'm not sure about your raise either. With the two flush (and less likely two str8) out there you will get called and made hands will 3 bet you in order to put pressure on the draws so its going to be hard to cut off the other players (which was what you were attempting to do, right?). Once you were 3 bet you had more then the correct pot odds to call (something like 1:25).
…, I play Blackjack ( Card counter ) for over 20 years, and I’m doing great! I just start to learn TH a couple months ago.
As you say:
”1st hand: I was on the button and had 2 red 9s. My friend raised from middle position after 2 limpers. One cold caller and I called, so did BB and all limpers. So we took the flop 6 ways.”
Calling a raise from the middle position when you have a pair of 9s is OK!.
Now, the Flop: K56 rainbow come and you should have checked because the overcard ( i. e. K ) on the board.
Go Get’m all!
He's on the button here, not in middle position. The bet on the flop, in LAST position is good. Nobody else is representing a K. Note that this bet caused the best hand to fold when it was checked around to the button again.
The friend could have check-raised here (on the flop) and won the pot.
On the flop it works something like this.
1) Check (see what others do)
2) Raise the button better. He does not "for sure" have a king. The in-between bettors probably do not. Force them out.
3)a)Bet the turn if not raised on flop b) If re-raised consider folding.
4) Check the river. A King is not going to fold and he might bluff.
1ST HAND: Your friend really misplayed his hand here. The least he could do was bet the flop. Once everyone checked and you bet, he could checkraise as it's too coincidental for the button to always have top pair and then he could lead bet the turn if no A comes.
I think your flop bet would be a solid play in a regular game although another good play could be (since you might be beat already - as you were in this hand) to check the flop with the intention of folding to a bet if the turn card is ten or higher (except another king)and raising a bet if the turn card is 9 or lower (except fold to a bet out of the blind if the 3 or 4 pairs).
2nd hand: If the SB has a tendancy to bet his draws into raised pots then you can easily justify raising his flop bet, esp. with 3 to a flush. Once you're 3 bet from the preflop raiser you can more easily put him on hand, AcKc, AA, KK, QQ, AQ (although AcKc is least likely as his hand is so powerful that if an A or K or club comes off on the turn he'd like to be bet into so he could raise. QQ is also pretty unlikely because you have one.) Once SB calls your raise and your friend's reraise and doesn't cap it, it's pretty easy to him on the club draw (do you know if that is what he was in there on?)
You have an easy call on the turn with the spade. With that river card I think it's close between betting and trying for a checkraise. You shouldn't try for a checkraise if your friend is likely to be too nice and let you showdown for free even when he thinks his hand is best. You shouldn't try for a checkraise if your friend consistently fails to bet top pair/best kicker on the river. If you can't checkraise your friends who can you checkraise? But if his betting arm is automatically in motion when checked to then a checkraise is probably better than betting into him.
chris
I think your play is pretty solid here. In first hand, I believe the bet is ok with the K on board. You get to find out where you're at on the flop. Many players would check a K with poor kicker here, but the flop is the time to find out where you are at. This is also a decent flop to bluff at. Also you gave no free cards to hands with overcards to your 9's. No option but to check the river here, with the J showing up. I believe you need to be the one giving advice to your friend, and I'm getting sleepy. You have a definite call in the second hand on the turn with the flush draw, and top pair. And top two pair on the river, surely a winner as it was.
No time to read other responses.
Hand1: You assesed its unlikely nobody has a King and you bet accordingly. This knocked out the QQ and gave you the best hand on the turn. This is good solid poker. You should DEFINATELY bet this hand even if you KNOW he has QQ since there is a reasonable chance he'll fold and that's +EV big time.
Hand2: You're getting 24:1 to take one card off the deck. That's not quite enough to play for your 3-flush only but PLENTY to play for your pair. Besides a set the opponent has the best hand he can have against YOU, but the combination of your 2 outs and back-door flush should encourage a call. Notice you are MUCH better off if he has AA.
It appears your friend appreciates mostly "the best hand" and does not appreciate "pot odds" nor the inherent advantages of betting. Either that or he was pissed you beat him.
- Louie
***Hand1: Take notice that your friend's position LOST him the pot; your position WON the pot***
I think you played these OK. You got the best hand to fold in the first case. You would do this every time if you could get this result.
It's possible you should bet the river but what is the chance a single J would fold here.
Hand 2 - You call a multiway pot for 1/2 price with 7 way action. This is OK.
You raise the better and call the raise. Well, at least you know where you stand. There is at least a better Q, a flush draw or a set. You are beat BUT the pot is big. Call and hope for a nine or a NIKE flush. Fold right away if you miss. You pick up the flush draw. With four players and the large pot there is no way to fold now. It was lucky the SB didn't bet and allow your friend to raise ( which he probably wouldn't have).
Nice hit on the nine. I assume there was no set nor a 10-J for a straight and you won a nice pot.
Thank you all for the comments. Some points I have collected: Check-raising on the river is an option on the 2nd hand, since I was pretty sure he had an overpair or AQ, and a 9 is not a significant card in that case (I won a nice pot); having position is so important that can turn a losing hand into a winner as indicated in the 1st hand (although I lost that particular pot).
regards,
jikun
Lately, the forum seems to enjoy some multiple part questions.
Here's another one that's been giving me lots of problems lately. I realize that the answer is very much game and situation dependent, but I'm looking for some general guidelines - maybe some answers with some if-then-elses.
Suppose you raise in early-middle position with AJ. You get 1 cold-caller. The blinds fold and you are heads-up.
A. The flop comes Q85 rainbow and the caller is solid.
A1. Do you bet the flop?
A2. If raised, do you automatically muck?
A3. If called, do you bet again on the turn?
B. Same flop but the caller is now on the loose side and agressive.
B1. Do you bet the flop?
B2. If raised, do you automatically muck?
B3. If called, do you bet again on the turn?
Any differences to your answers if you had AK? Thanks all in advance for the responses.
Puggy
Suppose you raise in early-middle position with AJ. You get 1 cold-caller. The blinds fold and you are heads-up.
A. The flop comes Q85 rainbow and the caller is solid.
A1. Do you bet the flop?
Yes. Steal.
A2. If raised, do you automatically muck?
Not automatically. But you're only getting about 8-1 on a call, so you can't really go much further with the hand if you don't think the opp is likely to be bluffing or semi-bluffing, which with that flop it appears he's not. It would be a bit closer to an automatic fold if it weren't for image considerations.
A3. If called, do you bet again on the turn?
Typically, yes. But not always. It's somewhat dependent on what the opp has seen you do recently, what you think he puts you on.
B. Same flop but the caller is now on the loose side and agressive.
B1. Do you bet the flop?
Yep. Steal from him too.
B2. If raised, do you automatically muck?
Less automatically than before. But it depends on just *how* loose/aggressive he is. If he's at the exreme you may sometimes just call him all the way down with your ace-high. In less extreme cases your call may hinge on things like how likely you think he is to back off and check on the turn - which in turn is partially dependent on your current image with that player.
B3. If called, do you bet again on the turn?
Again, less likely than before because now your bluffing equity is less, but your bluff inducing equity is greater. But you want to know your player to be calling with ace-high at this point in the hand.
Any differences to your answers if you had AK? Thanks all in advance for the responses.
Yes, quite different. Two overcards is much better than one. You can push them more, and call with them more.
A3. If called, do you bet again on the turn?
Typically, yes. But not always. It's somewhat dependent on what the opp has seen you do recently, what you think he puts you on.
I'll change that "typically" to "often" or maybe just "sometimes yes, sometimes no". It's VERY dependent on what you read him for and how you think he'll respond to that second bet.
...I was a little hasty above. Given your specific example of a Q85 flop and a "solid" player calling your raise cold, you have a problem. True solid players more typically 3-bet if they play against a raise. One of the few hands many might call cold with though is KQs, so if he calls when you bet you need to be cautious about betting again on the turn. It's less a problem against more typical players who call raises cold a lot. Also, just generally against solid players, you have to ask, what is he calling with?? He didn't call cold preflop with AK did he?, So the chance he's waiting to raise on the turn (e.g., maybe he just called with AA just to vary his play, or he's going to play KQs aggressively, or he expected more callers and called with 88...) is a real problem. You have to adjust for that.
In the first situation with AJ if I bet and they raise I "almost" never call unless they are really aggressive. Most people wouldn't raise there without at least a pair so you are drawing to six outs, and even if they check the turn (best case senario) you still have to hit to win. Also if they have you drawing dead with a hand like AQ or better all you do is get yourself into trouble.
Shawn Keller
Hand1 (solid caller): You have about the worst hand you can justify and got called heads up by a solid player that understands your raising requirements and understands "trouble". The flop was a disaster ..err.. very bad; even KQ4 would be better.
You probably started with the worst hand, the flop hurts, you are out of position, and the opponent is good. Since for strategic reasons you need to check and fold SOMETIMES after raising, this looks like a good time to me. Unless the opponent is in the habit of routinely folding the flop in which case you can take ONE shot at it.
Hand2(loose aggressive caller): You can very realistically have the best hand right now so folding against an aggressive player is just about out-of-the-question. You should BET if this will cowl THIS opponent into not bluffing later. Otherwise check-and-encourage-the-bluff-and-pay-it-off.
AK: Hand 1 is much better, Hand 2 is not that much better.
Since for strategic reasons you need to check and fold SOMETIMES after raising, this looks like a good time to me. Unless the opponent is in the habit of routinely folding the flop in which case you can take ONE shot at it.
I think there are better times to pick for your rare check-folds after raising (say, when you raised as variation in your play with 7c6c, got called by two solid players [thought this sold players calling raises stuff is generally unlikely anyway], and then the flop comes KdQdTh).
Here you're getting 5.5-1 on a steal attempt, combined with an additional chance the opp will just call and you go on to win in any of a few other ways. I would guess a bet is near break even if there's somewhere around an 13% chance he'll fold on the flop. And that seems quite realistic, because although his cold call preflop is curious and may mean KQs or some other trouble, it may also mean that for some reason (expecting more callers, tilt...) he called with a hand like TT, 99, ATs, KJs, JTs, or something else that he may well fold.
If you KNOW that he is truly skilled (which is brought into question by his call rather than 3-bet, but we have to take Puggy's word for it), AND that this was no moment of tilt, AND that he had no reason (such as a loose game, expecting more callers) for an atypical call with something less than his usual standards, AND you know that he repsects your play and isn't lowering his standards just to play against you, then I'd say you can just assume you're in trouble and check and fold. But I think typically the chance he'll fold on the flop is enough to justify a bet, no?
[Thought this sold...] = [Though this solid...]
John wrote:
Here you're getting 5.5-1 on a steal attempt, combined with an additional chance the opp will just call and you go on to win in any of a few other ways. I would guess a bet is near break even if there's somewhere around an 13% chance he'll fold on the flop. And that seems quite realistic, because although his cold call preflop is curious and may mean KQs or some other trouble, it may also mean that for some reason (expecting more callers, tilt...) he called with a hand like TT, 99, ATs, KJs, JTs, or something else that he may well fold.
John - one question. Are you saying that you would muck TT versus an (early) middle position raise?
Puggy
No, not necessarily. If I thought his raising standards from that postion (early middle) were very tight I would. But I would typically 3-bet most players that I play against. (I would muck the 99 and the other hands mentioned unless this was a somewhat loose raiser, [in which case I would 3-bet with at least some of them] or it was quite a loose game in which I expected to pick up several other callers. They're all good multiway hands, but not generally hands you want to be playing against an early or early middle raise from a player with decent raising standards.)
Much of what I wrote revolved around the fact that under routine conditions really good players only rarely call raises cold preflop. (Besides the KQs, another they might do it with is AJs, so there you're okay betting.) If they have a hand they're willing to play against a raise they usually 3-bet. Now, there are players who might be considered by many to be "solid", who are a notch or two below the ones I'm referring to in skill. I would see them as "semi-skilled, but not really good" or something. Some of THEM might frequently call raises cold. They might have hands like the ones I listed, or they might do it with AK and a few other hands. Against them I would say the bet on the flop in the situation you describe is especially right (especially if they see you as tight, and respect/fear you) since there are more ways they could miss that flop.
I should add that specifically on the button I might lower my standards a notch to play some hands like the ones I mentioned against that raise. Still, I'd be 3-betting at least some of them, while others would depend on things like who is in the blinds and whether I wanted to let them in...
Yes, 76s flop KQJ is an excellent check-and-fold situation.
Sometimes I forget that my inherent respect ..err.. irrational fear of trouble hands is not generally appreciated.
So the solid player Early raises and while you HAVE seen him raise with 76s its very rare and you know he probably has a solid hand. You have ATs. The opponent is a big favorite to bet no matter what flops. You do not intend to call unless you flop something.
"Something" is pretty much a T, A, or flush draw which will happen about half the time. With the flush draw you are an underdog. You are a either a favorite with the A and a dog with a T (early has KK) OR a dog with the ace and a favorite with the T (early has AK). All-in-all it looks like you are going to show down the best hand about HALF the time you flop something; which will be about half the time. Your position about cancels your trouble when you flop something, so if you have good implied odds its not by much.
So you are considering calling expecting to win 1/4 of the time. Bad call.
From this I conclude that if are true solid calls before the flop he's a big favorite to call ON the flop. My statement about "routinely folding" and your "5.5:1 odds" agree in principle but I'll concede yours is more useful.
- Louie
About the players on the table: 9 players, 8 of them pretty loose, only the player to my right is "semi-tight".
I´m in the second position after the blind with KQs. UTG (semi-tight) calls, I raise, and - even to my suprise - the whole table calls the 2 bets, no more raises.
Flop comes KT6 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet, 5 players call (including one blind and UTG).
Turn: A, 4th suit. Checked to me, I bet, next player raises, everyone folds, I call (I was pretty sure, he didn´t have the straight, he´s rather the player who slowplays the nuts on the turn with players behind him. I rather but him on AT, A6, KT, 66 or even T6s).
River: K. I bet (planing to fold if get raised), other player calls, I win.
Any comments?
m.a.
You hit a 7 outer? I don't quite get the river bet, not because you fear a raise but if he bets you're more likely to get overcallers between you. I think you'll make more money by check-calling than bet-folding to a raise.
chris
x
You should really check the turn... if everyone is in there for 2 bets someone must have you beat on the turn. I like your river bet though, even if this guy had the nut straight he might not raise you since you could have a full house, and it will probably check around on the river if you don't bet, if he has 2 pair.
Shawn Keller
If "4th suit" means you picked up a flush draw then well played.
Since it really LOOKs like you have Kings and it appears the opponent has 2-pair, the King on the river is an obvious killer and expect the opponent to check unless he can BEAT 3-kings; so, of course, you need to bet yourself.
- Louie
I like the bet but not if you plan to fold to a raise. The pot is too large to fold so make the 1 bet mistake rather than allow yourself to make a 15 bet mistake.
He may bet a weaker hand anyway (not often but sometimes) so you don't lose the full bet. If you're bet into you can call and only lose the one bet you would have folded after being raised.
I think the "proper" expert play could backfire on you. Does your opponent know you would lay down a big hand like this?
No, the other player can´t even imagine, that anyone in the world could lay down trips in this situation. This is one reason, why I love to play in vienna. :-)
Thanks for all of your responses.
Regards
m.a.
Same players as in the hand before.
I´m in the SB with QQ. 5 calls to me, I raise, everybody including the BB calls.
Flop: 964 rainbow. I bet, 3 players call, one player raises, others fold to me, I reraise, 2 players (including the raiser) call, others fold.
Turn: 2, now there are 2 hearts on the board. I bet, both call.
River: K, no flush. I check, both check, I win. (Flopraiser shows me his TT).
Any comments (I´m very interested what you folks think about checking the river. IMO it was a weak play. I might have gotten even 2 calls on this really loose table)
Regards
m.a.
Yeah you should bet the river because if somebody happened to spike a king they are going to bet if you check, but they will probably just call the river if you bet. The only way it can hurt you is if someone hits 2 pair like K9 or some other garbage... even then they might not raise you... and against some people you can lay it down to a raise on the river.
Shawn Keller
I'd bet the river with QQ. If there were 2 raises, I fold. With 1 raise (probable King?) I'd definitely call and possibly raise expecting the other person to figure me for AA or a set. (Maybe that is why I should not play 10-20 HE)
You have no reason to suspect the King hit anybody. Sensible opponents will know that even if you ARE running a bluff (AK) then you just paired your King and so one pair is almost worthless so they are unlikely to pay it off. Tenacious opponents will call.
So if both opponents are tenacious I'd bet for value.
- Louie
With 1 or 2 players, I tend to bet on the river, and check with more players in.
regards,
jikun
Sane LL table; no pros, no maniacs, no calling stations. 4-5 players see the flop on average. This time it’s 8, however. I’m in BB with Js8s and see the flop upraised.
It comes Qh10c9d. SB bets. I figure a raise wouldn’t push out anyone who can draw out on me. I think a smooth-call will get me more money. All but one of us call and we see the turn seven-handed.
It’s 7s. SB bets again. I don’t see how anything has changes and call. Again, only one more player folds and now six of us see the river.
Another 7 comes. SB bets. Now I’m worried. What could SB have to continue to bet into so many callers. I think that he may have flopped a set or has Q7. But if my straight is good, there is still 4 people behind me and only two of them have to call to make a call better then a raise for me. I call. One other person calls. SB shows pocket 9’s. I say “nice hand” and muck my hand like I had top pair. The other caller mucks too.
Actually, you were still in good position. When you're behind the strong hand at the table, that's good position even if he's the only person you happen to be behind.
And, in fact, your position was much better than you think. You flopped the nuts and the second best hand was right behind you. You have the ability to raise it, reraise it, cap it, whatever, and charge everyone else at the table premium to draw to their hands.
Go ahead and reread what you wrote: "I figure a raise wouldn’t push out anyone who can draw out on me." I'm not going anywhere, feel free to reread it again.
Home in on those key words "draw out on me." That means that they're losing to you right now. That means that if they don't draw out on you, they will lose. That means that anyone with a pair, two pair, those darned trip 9's, will NOT beat you more times than they will. Go ahead and raise. Not just because you want some of them to fold, but because, with the current nuts, you want the people who are dogs to you to put more money in. That's your huge pot that they're contributing to. Either you win it right then or you charge every wannabe winner extra money to earn the pot.
In this instance you lost. And chances are you couldn't have gotten the trip nines to fold and would have lost whatever you did. But if that 7 didn't hit on the end you would have won...and you would have won a lot more money by being aggressive than by just calling.
Dan
Thank you for your comments. You have a good point about my position but, perhaps, i didn't put it right. What i meant is that, had i been on the button, i would have put in one or two more bets and would have lost them. Because I always had many limpers behind me, i felt that not raising will win me more money as it will not push out weaker holdings by making them call two cold. Had i been in the late position, i would agree with you that I "would have won a lot more money by being aggressive than by just calling". However, in the position i was in i felt the other way. What i wanted to point out is that, unlike most times, i benefited from being in an early position.
Actually a raise could knock out someone with a weak king unless they are pretty loose, and een looseish players with an 8. In which case you'll be happy when a J comes. Even if you split with an 8 he is taking a lot of money away from you.
I felt that at that table somebody holding only a gut-shot in a middle position would fold to one bet. If they were in a late position, after many have called, they would call too, but then the odds of them getting there are covered by all the limpers and it is still better EV then seeing the turn three-way.
IMO, it wasn't being 'out of position' that saved you money on this hand. It was betting the hand unbelievably passively! Personally, I would have started the raising right away when the SB bets. You do not have the "current nuts" as Dan says; KJ beats you. You do not want to give anyone in late position anywhere close to the right odds to catch a gutshot J; nor do you want someone with a runner-runner flush to pick up some sort of draw on the turn that might run you over. However, when you do smooth-call the flop bet, I think you have to raise the turn to charge the limpers the max.
In this case, the trip 9's will not fold and you will lose the hand anyway. Them's the breaks, but I still have the opinion that you did not play this to the best of your advantage.
Hmmm....KJ, you say? What kind of scrub plays that?
Sometimes it's people like me with their unbelieveable brain lapses that allow people like you to make money.
Dan
Thanks for your input.
You said: "You do not want to give anyone in late position anywhere close to the right odds to catch a gutshot J." On contrary, i think, that will make me more money in the long run, especially if it is by encouraging other callers.
You said: "nor do you want someone with a runner-runner flush to pick up some sort of draw on the turn that might run you over" If a second of a suit came on the turn i would have raised. But, i think them calling on the flop with three to a flush makes me money.
Dunc hit the nail right on the head. I actually like your smooth call on the flop, as this makes it even easier to pound away on the turn. Post-flop, however, you played the hand like a complete wuss.
Consider, the fact that you were in the blind gives the bettor the chance to bet, several callers in between, than you raise...depending on how aggressive the set of 9's is, he may even reraise. This knocks out pretty much everyone on a gutshot draw. When the seven came, you were done regardless, but like Dunc said "Dems da breaks".
Played the hand like a chump...
Mike
Even some 2 pairs might fold if you at least raise the turn. The gutshots to a bigger straight would and even that is good. You have the #2 hand and are probably best. You must raise. Getting double bets from 2 players is better than getting single bets from 4 players when those extra players have 11-1 shots to beat you. They are not going to pay any more on the river after they miss but they will charge you double when they hit.
You would have lost anyway, but a raise was in order.
You said: "Even some 2 pairs might fold if you at least raise the turn." I guess i don't understand why it is better for me when two-pair folds to a raise instead of calling one bet. If they don't have the proper odds to beat me, i'd rather they gave me at least one bet. In fact, if i new that everyone was going to cold-call my raise i would raise. But, i was afraid that i would get less return if i did. Whether i was right in thinking that, is a different question.
"when those extra players have 11-1 shots to beat you" They all would be needing the same card: a Jack. So, the more of them are out there the better for me.
If somebody can show me the math that points at a situation where it was better EV for me to raise, anytime during the play of that hand, i will be very greatful.
It is better that they call for the "new" pot you are building that does not include the money already in the "old" pot.
It is better if they just fold and give you more chances at the old pot.
Suppose that there is no set but just 1 top pair (drawing dead), 1 2 pair and 1 gutshot against you. Suppose the 1 pair bets in front of you. You want all the players in for the new pot. You have the best and they are drawing slim. For the old pot however you would rather both the draws fold! Give you that money right away.
The old pot is much bigger than the new pot thereby the raise to drive out even 1 draw is good.
Obviously if 2 players are drawing to the same Jack then you want either both or none in.
The cheaper the draws get in, the more correct they are in their call. More draws mean there are more "correct" callers against you. Even though you win more when you win, soft play causes you to lose more often. You must raise to make the following calls less "correct".
This is math. No numbers are needed in this case.
Tarzan say: Pot is big so bet lot. 8-)
If the pot was small then a slowplay might be correct to increase the size. In the case of a small pot then the chasers calls are so "incorrect" you don't want to chase them off.
You win more by raising to give drawing hands a chance to fold then by "Just calling".
Yeah, I like your synopsis a little better than mine!
I figured that it needed to be spelled out. Sort of a "can't you see that .... blah blah blah".
If someone continues to argue against my point of view then I'll re-examine what the heck I'm trying to say. It's a laugh when you find out you were wrong in the first place.
jp789 states "You win more by raising to give drawing hands a chance to fold then by "Just calling". "
Previously I quoted Tarzan "Tarzan say: Pot is big so bet lot."
A new synopsis is
Tarzan say: "Tarzan like big pot. Tarzan protect pot! Tarzan no want any little monkey take pot"
I like the way Tarzan says it.
The math is all or none. What is meant here is why give four players an easy call for an 11 to 1 if you can help it. I understand your point and do not fault you for the way you played since there is no flush draw. But imagine AJ being against you and the turn or river brings a K. Now your K high str8 looses. True you would have lost this hand anyway, but when you allow many callers a shot at you it's call "implicit collusion" and collectively they have good odds to outdraw you. I would have raised the turn, getting 2bb from 2 players pays the same as 1bb from 4players. You could also end up splitting with another Q high.
Once I flopped a set of 10s with 1 player against me. flop = 10,Q,A I check, he checks. turn = J now I have to pay off his 1 card Broadway while he tells me he would have folded for a flop bet. I didn't WANT him to fold on the flop so I slowplayed and cost myself the pot. There is a theory in low limit that says to call from 2nd position with a made small flush if you have a table full of callers. The A flush draw is not going to fold anyway. But slowplay is always dangerous. Another example: I flop a A high flush against a late raiser, flop =Q,8,5 same suit. I slowplay he checks. Turn is another 5, I check again trying to get a check raise. He also checks (he lost all aggression). River = 5. Now his 5's full of pocket tens beats my flush. You think I missed a bet ? Slowplay is a touchy thing, when you do it, it better be with an unbeatable hand and a small pot. Take the small pots, and try to win the big ones now, because if not, YOU are trying to get lucky enough to remain the best. Doesn't always happen ! This is a fault of mine as well so I do understand your delimma, but two pair can fill to. Failure to raise with what you think is the best hand is a slowplay. Failure to BET with same hand is stupid if you think no one will do it for you. IMHO
3-6 LL Hold'em on Saturday Afternoon
2 early callers to me.
I look down and see QQ so I raise.
All call so 5 see the flop of A83r
It's checked to me and I bet it.
SB folds. The BB is a friend and solid player who reraises me. One other limper calls and I lay down my Q's.
BB bets again at the turn and the caller mucks so I don't get to see his hand.
Post script. This is a week later and I ask him what he had. He says rags and that if I reraised him he would have mucked, but he knew I would lay down KK or any pair that didn't have an A. The thing that bugs me is he is right. Is there anyway to play this hand past his raise?
If your friend is a decent player he's got to know that you'll raise with AK or AQ so you can't put him on AJ or AT or any ace b/c he's likely to check/call fearing that you have a good ace. If he has AK or AQ how often will he reraise yourpreflop raise? He could very possibly have A8s or A3s but wouldn't he bet into you hoping that you have a good ace that'll raise so he can 3bet the flop or set up a checkraise on the turn.
There's a big difference between a checkraise that wants you to call and a checkraise that wants to win it right there. Some players checkraise with good hands, others checkraise with medicorehands when it looks like it'll win the pot or set up to win the pot on the next street. It totally depends on your read of the checkraisers motivations.
All that being said, this guy might be your friend and all but that doesn't mean he not lying to you. He could have had a little set or top and bottom pair. I had "rags", he says, hoping you'll call him more often in the future when he has a hand.
chris
Next time reraise HIM. You fold of an underpair was the right move here. BTW he could have been lying about the rags.
Post deleted at author's request.
What if Dude had said "oh, you have two pair? I guess I'll just call." Now things would start to get interesting....
The more I think about this hand the more I think you shouldn't bet the flop at all if your two opponents are tricky or one of them is very tricky. If you're ahead there aren't many cards that will hurt your hand and you could induce a bluff from an aggressive player. Autobetting the flop is not good poker and you're not taking advantage of your position.
The vast majority of the time that I bet in late position Im ready to 3bet if checkraised. If you don't want to 3 bet then you probably shouldn't bet if there's a chance that you'll be checkraised.
By the same token I will rarely just call a late position bettor in early position. I'll either bet myself or checkraise or fold, although I'll just call a raise much more often in early position than in late position, either to bet again on the turn or try to checkraise the turn or, of course, to check and fold to another bet.
I don't know if this is perfect poker but it seems to get me a lot of action on my good hands, I get quite a few free turn cards and I don't get checkraised that often.
chris
The ability to muck a big pair is a sign of player that isn't extremely weak. When you play too consistently, however, observant opponents -- even one that aren't all that good -- can erase any advantage you get by playing tight against them. If you constantly muck big pairs to ace flops, you're playing a weak-tight game.
Consider how infrequently your friend needs to be bluffing for you to be able to call his raise. You're getting 14-1 immediately against a 22-1 shot against hitting a set on the turn (assuming he has an ace). That looks like a big difference, but let's say he'll take a shot at you 10% of the time. You'd break even at 6-1 pot odds, assuming nothing implied. If he bluffs here with even modest frequency you'd still experience a postive return by calling bets on both the turn or the river. Of course, how the hand is played on the next two rounds will give you more information and allow you to reevaluate. A king or a board pair on the turn might get him to call off the dogs, and then you'd be looking at something like 18-1 payoff to take take an 11-1 risk.
Better yet, make him the predictable one. Let him know that you can 3-bet here with queens. Make him afraid of messing with you too much.
The interesting thing about this hand is that if your opponent knew you would lay down a big pair to an ace, he should be raising you as often as he can without getting you to alter your behavior, at least against him. That translates into frequent raising. If you had only the barest inkling that your oppponent knew this, you should definitely have called. In fact, I'm amazed that he told you, but I guess that's what friends are for.
I'm surprised noone else mentioned this, but the important thing here is the limper who cold called your friend's checkraise. If it weren't for that, you could consider playing on against a tricky opponent as your friend seems to be. But you have to assume that either the checkraiser or the cold caller has something which beats you.
Thanks for the help everyone.
He's a good enough friend that I'm 99.99% sure he's not lying about what he had. Also he told me not to expect him to play it the same way next time, a good way to try to keep me off balance which is obviously something I need to do more of myself.
The biggest parts of poker are knowing your players and thinking both when you’re at and away from the table. I think my biggest problem with this hand is that I couldn't see any other play than to fold so I did. Hopefully next time I'll consider my other opitions, reraise or call him asking "two pair?".
Think of it this way; if your friend is a solid player, what hands could he have that include an A? He'd three bet an AK, so that's out of the question, and he'd probably muck an AJ0 or worse, and maybe even an ATs. What this really leaves you with is AQ (16 possibilities) or AJs (4 possibilities). Further, with this ragged looking flop, he might slowplay a big A and wait to pop you on the turn. Overall, I think there's enough doubt here to try a three bet, or maybe a call and lead bet on the turn. Against a straightforward opponent this is an easy muck, however, and in most 3-6 games straighforward opponents are all you're up against. If you 'always' mucked this hand in this situation, you wouldn't be losing much.
Other answers pretty good.
I was just add that it really is a function of the multi-way nature of the hand. If this were a move that was heads-up against you, there are a lot of options for you to play back or call down. Since there were potentially quite a few loose players that would play on with any ace here, it is usually not a good idea to try to pick off a bluff.
D.
When you folded you are getting 13-to-1 to see the next card. That means that your fold only has to rarely be wrong for you to have made a mistake. (This includes the possibility that you might snag a queen.) From your description you were clearly against someone who would occasionally make this raise without a hand. Thus you should have called.
Even in a 3-6 game where most players play any ace, and one of them just cold called the check-raise?
It almost seems that if he doesn't have an ace the cold caller is probably slow-playing a set of 8's or 3's.
D.
This illustrates one of my mantras about routinely calling raises on the flop. Your friend has to take TWO shots at you to make you lay down your QQ rather than just the one. Combine this with routinely "just" calling raises with reraise-worthy hands and it discourages players from taking these shots.
I hate it when I check-raise with a small pair and such the solid better calls. Now what? Bet again, but I don't like it.
- Louie
8-16 game. 8 handed. We had just bumped the limit from 4-8 to 8-16 about an hour ealier. Loose aggressive game but not the wildest in history. UTG calls, pass, pass, Tight/aggressive player calls, pass, Weak/Tight player calls on button, Sb passes. I'm in BB with TT, I raise, UTG calls, T/A reraises, Weak/Tight looks at me and passes, I cap it, UTG calls and T/A calls.
Flop 2d - 7d - 9s. I check, UTG bets, T/A raises, I reraise, UTG folds, T/A just calls.
Turn is 7c. I bet, T/A calls. Now I'm pretty sure T/A has just two big diamonds. I bet here, willing to fold to a raise or maybe check-call the river. This player would most likely have put in the first raise preflop if he had AA or KK or QQ or AKs or AQs. So I'm mostly worried about JJ or 99. If he has 99 he could have just called my check-reraise on the flop with the intention of raising me on the turn, that's why I bet the turn. Anyway, he calls.
River is a 2c. I bet and he raises. I don't know why I bet here. Basically I dropped my guard. If my hand is good he'll probably check behind me (as he can't bet for value) and this guy is aggressive and I don't want to run into a bluff raise and a tough decision. I called, not liking it one bit, literally I was ready to toss these turkeys in the muck. He shows AJ of diamonds.
Now about 3 weeks earlier, me and this guy were head's up by the turn and I checkraise bluffed him on the river with 4 to a straight (I was drawing to a flush with an inside straight draw). I was sharing my hand with the woman next to me when I checkraised(thank you, Mike Caro), so after he mucked, he asked the dealer to see my cards after I slid them toward the dealer. (He normally wouldn't do that but I guess some relief leaked into my face when he mucked and now he was doubting his decision and by showing the woman my cards I gave up my right to muck without showing) Well, he saw that I had 89 of spades (and the board was 5s-6s-Kx-4x-3x -no 3 flush).
My question is: Is this one reason why you don't show bluffs? Or checkraise bluffs? I didn't expect a play like this from this guy and I almost mucked a winner. By letting him know that I'm capable of a play like check-raise bluffing does that make me a target? Seems like it did in this case. And no, during the hand above when I had TT,I didn't recall the play I made in the second example, I only realized the possible connection well after the hand was over.
chris
Pretty woman?
Maybe she was pretty 30 years ago. She was an old japanese lady that always had a frown on her face. That's why I showed her my cards.
chris
when you bet on the end, you should have said "ship the sherbert to herbert". he surely would have folded.
I don't talk in the middle of hands, whether I'm holding a monster or nothing. I only talk when the dealer's shuffling.
I don't get why "ship the sherbert to herbert" has stuck in many a craw but now that I know I'll be sure to use it a little more often.
chris
Chris,
(He normally wouldn't do that but I guess some relief leaked into my face when he mucked and now he was doubting his decision and by showing the woman my cards I gave up my right to muck without showing) Well, he saw that I had 89 of spades (and the board was 5s-6s-Kx-4x-3x -no 3 flush).
Obviously the best thing is to not show your cards during the course of play of the hand. In this case when you were using the showing as a tell, or reverse tell in this case as you didn't have the hand you were representing, flip your cards into the muck quickly after he requests to see them. After a little practice it becomes very easy to stick them into the muck making it difficult for the dealer to know for sure which were your cards. Most of the time the dealer will simply refuse then to pull them out.
Many players do remember those who they think "stole" a pot from them by bluffing so as you did; call them down a little more liberally than you would ordinarily.
Well played hand.
Regards/LoneStar
"Obviously the best thing is to not show your cards during the course of play of the hand. In this case when you were using the showing as a tell, or reverse tell in this case as you didn't have the hand you were representing, flip your cards into the muck quickly after he requests to see them."
Be careful you're not breaking your club's rules by mucking your cards after showing someone else. At our local club(s), the rule is, "Show one, show all". If you show one person your cards, you are obligated to show everyone if they care to see them. By mucking after being requested to show your cards, you could find yourself being warned or booted.
SN
"Show one, show all".
And the speed limit is 55 on I90
Which rule is broken more often? .......lol
But I wish that the dealers would call the players on this but we all know how that goes.
MJ
Really LoneStar,
The places I play I'd get away with that maybe twice. Be a grownup and show the hand when you're caught showing off.
I was sharing my hand with the woman next to me when I checkraised(thank you, Mike Caro)
I take it that this move works often enough ?
MJ
I dont think so. lol
This "move", and ones like it, aren't a big part of my game. But occasionally a "move" will bump someone toward the decision you'd like them to make. I concentrate more on making the right decisions as concerns pot odds, is my hand best, if it is how much more can I win, if i don't know if it is how much less can I put in the pot to find out, and so on.
What I meant by "thank you, Mike Caro" is thanking him for writing a widely read book "Body Language of Poker", I knew for a fact that this man studies his game and I knew for a fact that he didn't think much of my abilities as a player, all that combined I figured that it was very likely for him to read me for the straight, even more so because I was sharing my hand with my nieghbor, even more so because this particular woman had a perpetual grimace on her face, so this is the only time I've used this "move" but it did work.
Obviously, this guy is going to call me more (which is allright b/c he already calls a little too much anyway - we played in the same game week after week), but I'd be pretty short sighted if I didn't add that observation to the mix when deciding whether to call, fold, or raise his bets in the future.
chris
Why the pre-flop raise with the T's? You've got three opponents, which is positively the WORST situation for T's, and you're out of position. Then, when a tight aggressive player three bets it from early position, why cap it?
Any pair over 88 I'll cap it with less than 4 opponents or more 8 opponents. Maybe that's a leak in my game. I can't just raise out of the blinds with just AA, KK, QQ and AKs and AKo. Geez, what kind of poker is that? The reraiser and originally limped in middle/late position(MLP) and he just called an UTG kinda weak limper, this guy (MLP) being strong himself would've raised with an over pair to my pair, he also would've raised holding AK, AQ. The button limped as well. How good of a hand do you need to limp on the button with two limpers ahead of you.
I figured I was holding the best hand by far, by far, by far. So I raised. When the original limper reraised, that defines his hand further - he's either got an underpair to my pair or a good drawing hand like ATs or 78s. Since I can semiconfidently put him on a worse hand than mine I capped it. Now we're seeing the flop 3 handed. This is a decent pot to fight for and I'm in the best position because I know the button, well now the button (MLP) will bet regardless of the flop and raise any bet but mine (he's gotta be thinking I'm holding a big pair (which I am, just not that big).
Anyway, I'd much rather be in early position than middle position in big pots. And I'd rather be in late position than early or mid position in small to medium size pots.
Late position is not always the strongest point to operate from. Used effectively, against thinking players, it can be an advantage to be first to act.
chris
5-10-20 hold'em. Private game in Houston. This was months ago. Full game. early limper, I'm in midposition with AQo and raise, button calls, BB calls, and early limper calls.
Flop comes Qx 6x and a baby(can't remember). BB checks, early bets, I raise, button folds, BB folds, and limper reraises. On this uncordinated flop there is one hand she can have here. wired sixes. or a pocket pair that matches the smallest card. I've put $20 in the pot so far and if I just call her down it's going to cost me $35 more. Somehow I'm convinced I'm beat and show her my hand. I show her because I want to confirm my read and know that(whether or not she had the better hand) she'll show me her hand. (We're friends) Sure enough pocket 6's.
Is this solid poker? Is this wimp poker? When I first started playing I would've had to been 3 bet on the turn to convince me that I was beat and even then I probably would've called her down. I know that you can't call everytime you think you might maybe could have a winner if the raiser is bluffing but this seemed like an awfully strong hand to lay down.
How much of all this falls under intuition? Reading hands? I don't know, I know a lot of players and few people I know would lay this hand down under these circumstances. It wouldn't have bothered me if she had shown me QT, although I would have taken that into account in future play (not just her playing QT that strongly but also her knowing that I know that), as it was, seeing that hand bolstered my confidence because I was right on. How many times does this have to happen before you're very surprised when you're wrong?
As it is, I'm finding that reading hands and player interplay is making the greatest difference between winning and losing. Playing properly preflop is pretty easy (at least at a full table), esp. concerning calling raises (hardly ever) and 3betting. Of course, to begin to read players extremely accurately, you need a little time playing with them, unless they are very, very predictable.
Any similiar experiences out there? chris
I was playing a pretty good 3-6 game last week and I was out of the hand on this particular deal. In fact, I just wasn't paying too much attention to the action at all. But I heard "raise" and I looked over at this guy near the other side of the table. He wasn't exactly smiling, but you could tell he was happy about his hand. I thought "I've seen that look before. I've seen that raise before...what did he have then? He flopped two pair!" I looked down at the board. Q87 flopped. The only thing that made sense was 87. Showdown came and he proudly dragged the pot away with...ding ding ding...87! It was even offsuit which was what I had guessed from him.
It's little things like that that give you hope in your poker game.
Dan
chris,
It sounds like you made a good read based on the texture of the board and action. Pardon me if I add the cliché "but you got to know your player". It appears you did.
However, I would think that KQ was also possible if this player is capable of being aggressive on cheap street and doesn't always raise with KQ pre flop. After she sees your laydown of top pair, top kicker, you should assume she may be very aggressive against you on the flop in the future.
This structure is interesting and makes your laydown more correct since you are clearly playing the "scared hand". In a standard structure (i.e., 5/10 split limit) it would cost you less to call her down.
I'll make an attempt to do the math. In 5/10/20 there is $65 already in the pot when you make your decision. On the river the pot will contain $35 more of her money and it will cost you $35 to call her down so you are getting 2.86 to 1 effective odds. Simply stated, you have to ask yourself if you will win at least 35% of the time.
In the 5/10 there is still $65 in the pot during decision time. On the river the pot will contain $25 more of her money and it will cost you $25 to call her down. You are getting 3.6 to 1 effective odds. So in this case you have to ask yourself if you will win If you win at least 28% of the time to make your call worth while.
In the above calculations I don't count the times you are ahead (e.g., she has KQ) and she hits her kicker or the times she is ahead with the small set and you hit an ace or queen on the turn and fill on the river (without her making quads).
BTW, I wrote this in an effort to exercise my flabby math muscles. If I made a mistake flames are welcome and appreciated. This is an area were I am not that good and need to "hit the books".
Regards,
Rick
Chris-
When reading posts from guys like Rick, you have to remember that he plays in Cali, where everyone and their brothers are routinely making, uh... UNORTHODOX plays like three betting a KQ here against a solid player's raise. So then, in Cali this might be an easy call. But in all other parts of the poker world, it's a no-brainer. Muck and be done with it. BTW, Rick, no offense is meant here. And if your math is wrong I'd be the last man on earth to know it.
Chris - It certainly sounds like you are improving your reading skills.
BUT ... If Ray Z reads this, he is going to tell you for sure that you shouldn't have shown it. If you managed to show your hand to only your friend, that would be better. Otherwise, now the whole table knows that you can be blown off top pair / top kicker for one little flop raise, and someone (even including your friend) is going to try it sometime.
Nice decision just the same ...
Dick
The people I play against go through this thought process: At first, they think I'm a decent enough player. Then after playing with me for a little while (maybe 30-40 hours) they conclude that I'm a maniac. Then after playing with me for a long while, they either think that I'm a player they'd rather not tangle with or they think I'm not just a maniac but a complete idiot that doesn't know how to play.
I've been the target of players trying to blow me off hands before and it eventually ends up with me stacking checks that used to be in their hands. Most of these overaggressive numbskulls that confuse laying down a good but beat hand with weak play are just exhigh school football players that've seen Rounder one too many times.
chris
Why, exactly, would someone think you're an idiot or a maniac? That is, what is it about your playing style that illicits this kind of response?
Well, proper aggression can make you look dumb sometimes. Like putting in four or five bets preflop with a hand like 88 heads up against someone that will go that far with Ax heads up, only this time they happen to have JJ. Or calling down a wild one with AK when you think they're on the come and sometimes you take the pot when they're betting on the come and don't get there. Sometimes you raise the flop but don't help and their middle pair takes the pot.
The oldtimer's roll their eyes when that stuff happens and think "I gotta get in that pot with the yungun!"
chris
I normally play in either a 3-6 or 5-10 HE game. One person I know who is a semi-regular at the casino I frequent loves to play 4-8 HE. Whenever he comes to the table (3-6 only) he'll ask the players if they mind increasing the limit. I have no objection to this because if I think I can win money at 3-6, I should make even more with the same players at 4-8. The casino also has no problem as long as everyone's in argreement.
I asked him once why he liked 4-8 so much. Why not just say "screw it. 5-10! Or heck, 15-30 as long as we're in the mood to gamble."
He told me that 5-10 wasn't as good as 4-8. With 3-6 players at a 4-8 table, they see more money in the pot than normal and put more in to chase. The difference with 5-10 is that you use $5 chips, instead of lots of $1 chips. The people who are used to 3-6 would play tighter having to throw red ones in and the pot wouldn't get as big.
Does anyone agree with this assesment? And, if so, what other limits can be increased before breaking the barrier into the next limit and having them tighten up again?
Dan
Dan,
I agree that the psychological impact of a lot of chips loosens up the game. In most places 5/10 is a tight game since it is one chip/two chip and 4/8 is a loose game due to all the chips in the pot. There is another example. Los Angeles used to have 5/10 holdem and no 6/12. The game was starting to tighten up and die off. When clubs put in the 6/12 (played with $2 chips) the action increased again.
BTW, I would avoid raising the limits so much that normally loose players are now above their comfort zone and they start to tighten up.
Regards,
Rick
This is also the reason for the existence of 9-18 games, played with $3 chips. (Instead of 10-20 with $5 chips).
(I think this is a California-only phenomenon--has anyone seen this anywhere else?)
Max
Folded My AA
I was playing in a pot limit hold-em game. This was going to be the last hand of the game. I was dealt A-A. There were 4 players, the blinds were $5 and $15 and I was under the gun.I only called the big blind of $15. The flop was 6-4-3 rainbow. I bet the pot($50). I was called by the button only. The turn was the 4 of clubs, making a pair on board and 2 clubs. I bet $100 of the $150 pot. I was called without hesitation by the button. The river was the 9 of clubs, making a back door flush on board. I thought carefully, checked my aces and the button bet pot which was $350. I mucked my hand because I figured the button was either slow playing trip 4's or made a flush on the river. It ended up that the button stole the pot from me with a King and seven of diamonds. How would you have played it? Daniel McGregor.
I have never played pot limit in my life, but there is no way I lay down A-A in that situation. You know the button guy and I don't -- you should know him well enough to know whether he would make a loose call or two and bluff bet the river. Sounds like he would.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't lay it down either. But, if you've never played pot limit, you'd be stunned at the number of hands you can get blown off of when you're looking at calling a 300$ bet. I think Daniel should have called here, but playing pot limit (IMO) takes quite a bit of getting used to. If you ever decide to 'jump in' and give it a shot, I think your opinion on Daniel's hand will change from 'no way am I laying down in this spot' to 'I feel your pain, brother'.
Tough call. I think your mistake was just calling the BB. I would hve raised the maximum. I would have rather announced my big pair by the raise than to take a chance on someone drawing out on me. The AA is the best preflop hand and can only go down in value unless an ace hits.
A mistake preflop in a pot limit game is almost always fatal against a good player. If I did the same thing that you did (not raise preflop), I may not have called the river for 350 either.
Raise pre flop for a starter.
It must be a great game. K-7 chasing all the way for a gutshot. You elicited a bluff. If he wants a call why doesn't he bet 100 or 150. I'm not a pot limit player but I expect you really need to know your players.
There was 350 for him to bluff at. There was 700 for you to call.
He made a good play as well assuming he thought you were relatively weak. He made a fast call on the turn showing strength. When you delayed on the river he took the opportunity to grab the pot.
Your slowplay of the Aces built a nice pot for you to win but it also cost you the pot.
1) I would have check-raised this guy on the turn as he seems like the kind of guy who would bet anything in a heads-up pot if you show weakness.
2) I would have check-called on the end and hoped to pick off a bluff (or a slim value bet) with this board. There are too many hands this loose guy could be calling with other than a four or a flush draw. He could have some kind of straight draw or pair/draw combination like A5, 55, 76, or 65, or simply two overcards.
Your call before the flop and your underbet on the turn led him to believe you had some kind of middling hand and emboldened him to steal on the end. He did. If you can lay down Aces here in a four-handed game when only one opponent saw the flop, you will get run over in pot limit. I hope you didn't compound your mistake by advertising your BIG LAYDOWN.
p.s. If the everything card like the 7 of clubs slipped off the deck on the river, I might even let Ray Zee steal this one from me.
see above
A lot of folks complained about the limp preflop, but isn't this a typical thing in pot-limit? You are hoping to limp reraise I would assume. It can't be that bad.
D.
I think the players you were against were a big factor. Was it unusual for the BB to get a free ride? If not, then the BB may have bet out on the flop if he caught anything, so I don't think youneed to worry too much about giving him a free card.
Secondly, does the button like to limp with trash hoping to hit a flop? Obviously we can say yes now, but did you know this before the hand? If so, then he is often the type that would bet a raggedy draw if he thought that he could blow everyone else off of their hands.
This seems like one of those hands that you have to commit to or not. I don't like the bet on the flop and turn. I think I would have check-raised the flop and bet out on the turn. If it was checked through on the flop, then carry out the same plan on the turn. Can the guy you were against stand that much heat?
In a four handed game I don't think you need to worry too much about the four being out there (or any oe individual card, for that matter). be pleased that you are in a situation where you have a guy probably drawing really thin and willing to call. of course, you know the players and I don't, but that is my take on it.
This happened in a 3-6 game on Paradise Poker. Loose because it is only 3-6, but not as loose as most 3-6 games I've seen in live action. My image should be good, I've been playing very tight and only lost one hand I've been involved with so far (only 1/2 hour at table).
I'm in BB with AcAs. 3 players limp, looseish but seemingly not terrible button raises. I reraise, all limpers call and button caps it. I put him on KK or maybe QQ. (I've found that most people on PP don't cap with AKs)
Flop is Qc 8c 7c. I figure I have probably have best hand and best draw. Here's where I'm not sure what to do. I decided to checkraise, hoping to draw people with one pair out, since the pot is big. Button bets as expected, I raise, 1 player cold calls, button calls.
So the question is, should I have decided that my hand could take some heat and bet out instead of checkraising, knowing that even if someone makes two pair I can make a set or a flush? If the button raises I can probably raise again (depending on who is still in) and get a lot of money into the pot. I know that either way I play this hand will probably be good for me, but I often have a hard time coming up with the best course of action in similar situations.
So as not to color the replies, I'll post results in another message.
The turn was 2c. I bet, limper folds, button calls. River is Ts, I bet, button calls. Button must have been on tilt, I later found out he had 62o, no club.
You should just bet. As you said you probably have the best hand and the best draw. You want anyone with a pair calling you. At the 3-6 game the Q will probably call you all the way and you might get alot of action if the button has KK with the K of clubs. By check raising you are forcing out all the people who you want in with you.
Somewhat loose 5-10 game, no particular read of the players at this point (I've only been in for a few orbits).
I'm dealt AsJs
UTG Raises, I call (error?), both blinds call
FLOP : 9s 5s 4d
Blinds check, UTG bets, I raise with my nut flush draw. SB Calls, BB drops, UTG Re-raises (I'm guessing an overpair at this point) I call SB calls
TURN : 4s
SB checks, UTG bets, I raise. SB and UTG both call
RIVER : Jh
SB and UTG both check
What would you do at this point?
I'll continue the hand next post
recap:
hand held AsJs
BOARD : 9s 5s 4d 4s Jh
Checked to me and I chose to bet having no other reason to think I was beaten (error?)
Well, SB now springs to life with a checkraise and UTG folows by 3-betting. I fold, SB caps..
SB shows 99
UTG shows JJ
Comments? Was my play correct or should I have seen this coming?
Well, I DID say it was unlikely that UTG held JJ, but not that it was impossible. So you cost yourself one additional BB. Big deal. It was a clear cut fold in the face of the 3-bet. At least you didn't make the mistake of putting in more money. I think that there will be plenty more occasions other than this one in your poker life where you leave bets on the table because you were unwilling to bet for value at the river when you had a good hand, but not necessarily the nuts. Plus I don't think you want to get the reputation of NEVER betting the river without the absolute cookies, for obvious reasons.
You played it right. Sounds like a Paradise Poker hand to me.
KJS
Well, I still think betting the river was correct. SB played his hand very poorly, and could have gotten a lot more money out of it (which is what he should have been trying to do, even though UTG caught lucky on the river). SB should have 3-bet on the turn, since it was clear that both of you had big hands, and he could expect to get paid off. Also, by checking the river, he is making a HUGE error. Who is to say you have the nut flush? You could easily have the last 9, with an A kicker or such, and be intending to check the river.
UTG played OK until the turn. When the spade and 4 came, and you raised, AND the SB called, he should have considered folding. However, if I don't know either of you, I would tend to call the turn and check-and-call the river myself. His real mistake, just like the SB, was checking the river. How does he know you will bet again? I don't think he should risk it. If you really have some great hand that is sure to bet, it's probably a hand that can raise, and then he gets to 3-bet instead of just check-raise for 2 bets.
Better luck next time.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think it's an easy bet at this point. There is a very very good chance that neither of them have full houses. If so, you win no matter what you do, congrats.
But what are the chances they have a full house? 99 or 55? Possible for SB, but he would have been the one to reraise post flop. UTG wouldn't raise with 55, or 44 unless he's a maniac, which you never said one way or the other. 99...maybe, but he filled up AND slowed down on the turn. Why? If he wants more money in, reraise. He knows you'll call.
I think that you've won the hand...and if not I'd still chastise you for at least not betting it out when it's checked to you.
Dan
I would bet again and expect the SB to call with a smaller flush, and perhaps even an overcall from UTG with his big overpair, but that shouldn't happen once the SB calls. But, you never know. If I get check-raised at this point by either player, I do not re-raise but call and make them show me the full. The fact that you have the Js in your hand makes it unlikely that the UTG caught pocket Jacks at the river, but nothing is impossible.
I am also quite sure that someone will comment on the wisdon? of calling an UTG raise with AJ, suited or not.
I would really like to hear about this. Personally, I'm a big fan of AJ and AQ suited or not, because what do you fear pre-flop? AA, AK, KK, QQ, and JJ with the AJ. Admittedly, that UTG raise has me concerned, because with a solid player, it screams those hands, but in late position I would think about calling with the AJ and maybe even three betting with AQ (to narrow the field). Thoughts?
-Joe
Also, an important question: Don't you hate pants?
You rightly fear those hands. Give me a list of hands YOU would raise with UTG that AJs wants to play against? This list should be much shorter than the one above hense the criticism.
True. But, since you have position I think you have to take a flop with a suited AJ. The only time I would consider mucking would be if I only expected one other caller (say, the BB, or someone near the button) or if the UTG was extreeeemely tight.
Joe-I agree that it's not a terrible call in this instance. But let's say you're at a sane table where people respect an UTG raiser. Would you like to play this hand heads-up? Even with your position advantage you're gonna have some pot odds problems if you flop a flush draw. It just might not be a battle worth fighting. And I hate pants, too, but what are the alternatives?!?
You have no reason to believe you're beat on the turn and no reason to suspect anybody has JJ to beat you on the end. Unless you have some tells (like UTG jumped clear out of his seat and DROPPED JJ face up) this is a brain-dead bet.
What, you bet the 3rd best hand out of 3???? Are you an IDIOT??? SUCCER!!! ..... No. The notion of betting only when you are SURE is silly. This means you will be betting often when in hind sight you shouldn't. There is no escaping that +EV reality.
- Louie
I don't really like your flop raise here given yur position relative to the field, the size of the pot, and the likely holdings of the other players. This is a misapplication of the free card play.
You will only drive the blinds off of hands that you WANT them drawing to (smaller flushes, straights, etc.) since you will likely need to make your flush to win the pot. The only hands they might fold teat you want them to fold are AQ and AK.
And you only want these hands to fold if you think that hitting an A or J will beat the UTG aggressor, which seems unlikely unless he likes to bet into a field of three when he flops nothing, or has exactly TT.
Smaller straight and flush draws are going to call anyway, so this in and of itself isn't (I don't think) a compelling reason to not raise (I could be wrong, but I don't think these hands are going anywhere in your average 5-10 game). Too, many-- if not most-- lower limit players will peel a card here anyway w/ second or third pair and an overcard, particularly if that card is a spade, so there's a good chance these hands are going to call as well. On the balance, I think it's a good play to raise with the best draw in a low limit game, no matter what your position. But, I could be wrong.
First, even in just a few orbits, you should have some feel for each player at the table. If not, I suspect you're not paying enough attention, or are new to the game.
Second, AJ, suited or not, is not a hand to be calling a raise with preflop. Unless the raiser is known to raise with such a wide variety of hands that your AJ is probably best. If so, then you're probably better off reraising to ensure that you play this likely inferior hand heads-up, with the dead blind money in there to pay the rake. If it is clear that there will be many players seeing the flop, then you can call with any suited A, but that obviously wasn't the situation here.
I would always bet the river here, even against an opponent who was well known as a check-raiser. There is very little chance that either of them is full, given the board and the actions thus far. Bet and hope they both pay you off. If raised, call.
Hope it went well. I'm gonna read the spoiler now.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If your opponent is predictable then there's nothing wrong with calling with an AJs, since you can either a) hit the flop, and figure out fairly quickly just exactly where you're at, or b) steal if rags flop, or if an overcard to your opponent's pair hits. The only exception, IMO, is when you think you'll get exactly one other caller, thereby forcing you to see the flop three handed.
KJS is right, this particular hand was on Paradise Poker.
I also realized, at the time, my call of an UTG raise with AJs was somewhat questionable. In looking over my notes I did make a note that UTG chased a gutshot straight in early position with a paired board all the way to the river (and hit) so I guess I lost all respect for him at that point. Looks like I did have a small read on this guy after all...
Against an "average" or "typical" online player I would call an UTG or early position raise about 1/2 the time with this holding.
Against a known good/solid player, I think I would fold most of the time...
Against a known weak/loose player, I would consider 3-betting preflop to get heads up...
Thanks folks. I'm still a relative beginner, all these comments are appriciated.
Three betting this hand is usually a real bad idea, especially against a loose player who's likely to call you down with pocket 2's when the board is 789QQ. If you're going to three bet with an AJs, do it on the button against what appears to be a steal raise, or in the blinds against a steal raise.
I haven't looked at any of the other posts, but I'm sure I would bet it.
I play in the Los Angeles area 20/40. It’s seems that 80% of the people chop the blinds. I’m a very tight aggressive player. I stopped chopping the blinds about a month ago, because many of the players were very weak. Not chopping the blinds effects my strategy. I have to raise with weak hands and sometime call with weaker hands, because when you don’t chop the blinds many players take it personal, and you can’t let them run over you. Because so many people chop the blinds wouldn’t it be better if I did too? I want to get along with the players it’s easier to play against them. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
I would never chop blinds, esp. if not chopping, in and of itself, will influence your opponents and change their strategy. It is good to get along with other players, but not to the detriment of your game. If your opponents are already aggressive, then you should encourage them to be even more aggressive. If they aren't aggressive, then I doubt that not chopping blinds will turn them into raise happy, overbetting idiots, if it does then that's to your benefit anyway.
If you just don't like the heat that not chopping blinds might bring, then chop. But I think, if your postflop play and total understanding of hte game is better than your opponents, chopping blinds is basically giving money away.
chris
This all depends on the rake.
When opponents learn that you never chop, they will stop taking it personally; many will continue to be annoyed, however. Many feel that non-choppers are wasting their time by playing head-up (they are paying a time charge to play). You might also find that certain stronger players will try to sit on your immediate left, while weak-tight players will avoid sitting next to you. Though I chop (primarily to "get along" with the other players), I like having a non-chopper on my right.
I chop when asked IF the player is accomidating. I never ask to chop and if someone just assumes it is a chop I won't do it.
Where I play, chopping makes more sense than not. We have a $5 rake. Any time you can keep money on the table instead of giving it to the house, it's better for the game in my opinion. It also speeds up play, is considered courteous, etc.
However, if the game is short handed (reduced rake) or the normal rake is low, it doesn't make sense to me to now chop if you are a good player. I will always chop if it is customary in the game I am playing. But if someone does not chop, I never take it personaly.
This brings up another question...
What if one of the players next to you chops and the other does not? Is it now correct strategy to not chop with the one who will? Is there a disadvantage for you to have to chop with one player and not the other?
It is good to chop with the player on your left and play the player on your right. Assuming they want it that way, otherwise you have to be consistant. You will have position on him.
D.
Just chop the blinds. Most of your profit goes into the rake anyway when you play heads up, and you look like a hard ass when you refuse.
If you are playing in a good game (or at least what I consider a good game) it makes very little sense NOT to chop. First of all, if the game is good (lots of loose, happy callers), chopping should not come up frequently at all. Second, in a "good game" non-choppers may be viewed as unfriendly by the recreational-type players. This may tighten up the game and balance out the effect of you outplaying your opponent when it's between the blinds heads up.
Now in a short handed game, it's a much different scenario. A lot of recreational-type players do not like playing shorthanded. Many of the players who play short handed like the added effect of playing heads up frequently. So, to them announcing "Six handed or less I don't chop any more" will scarcely cause the lift of the eyebrow, and many of the players will take it as their personal policy too.
One additional reason to chop is to cut down on your fluctuations ( at the expense of some EV ).
Another compelling reason to NOT chop is to cut down on the number of shots you will no doubt get eventually from players who suddenly pick up a hand a pretend they don't understand or deny having agreed to chop.
D.
Chopping the blinds is a bad habit. You spend alot of playing time trying to get heads up, now you are in the blinds, heads up and you miserible 7-2o is as good as it will ever get and you decide not to play poker.
Why learn to pick up those small wins, such as stealing the blinds, only to throw them away when you are in the blinds?
Give me a player who will react emotionally to not chopping, give me the seat next to him, how sweet! In a 20-40 game!
The other night the game got short handed and suddenly the choppers did not want to chop. At least they were sophisticated enough to understand the cost of chopping. What is the difference between a short handed game and only two players left in the blinds?
I encourage chopping amoung the other players. I tell them I do not chop because I want to develop skills for tournaments when chopping is not allowed. Being a basically mean person, I love to see one of my oppontents 'do his duty' and with a sad shrug, throw away AA in the blind. Don't have to worry about him for another two hundred twenty hands. "Stiff upper lip, Old Man. Golly good show!" There go two aces from which he'll never see a dime.
What about image? I spend alot of time teaching my opponents that I am very tough, so that they will make mistakes against me, only to 'chicken out' in the blinds?
Ok, so the rake could be a factor. But why play more than two to four hours a month if the rake is killing you?
I haven't read the other responses but here's my take.
First, because of the fact that I get other benefits from being nice at the table, I usually chop the blinds. But if I didn't get these benefits my thinking would be different.
However, in a rake game, where the full rake will come out of the pot, you have to be against a truly terrible player to make it worthwhile. For example, if $3 is going to be dropped, it will be very difficult for you to take a random hand (and that is exactly what you have before you decide to chop) and average more than $3 profit against typical players.
In a time game this can be very different. If you understand how to play short handed poker well you should be able to average a dollor or two per hand against weak opposition. Just keep in mind that when you play short handed like this you will have to play, and bet, and raise, with many weak hands. If you don't have the stomach for it, you are probably better off chopping.
I haven't read the other responses but here's my take. First, because of the fact that I get other benefits from being nice at the table, I usually chop the blinds. But if I didn't get these benefits my thinking would be different.
Poker Essays Volume ll
“In my opinion, chopping the blinds is one of those practices that seems harmless enough but actually damages the game. And when I say damage the game, I mean your overall win rate—assuming that you are a top player-will be reduced. There are many reasons why I believe you should refuse to chop the blinds.” Page 204
Mason I just curious, In the post you said you chopped the blinds. Can you give me a detailed reason why you change your opinion? Is it because the games have changed over the years? One of the main reason I don’t chop the blinds now is because of the essay above.
Speaking for Mason Malmuth . . . ;-)
While he may think that chopping is bad, it's not as bad as turning off other players. My experience is that less than 1 in 20 players want's to play heads up in the blinds. And when someone does want to play, it irritates many players, even those not in the hand who are waiting for the next hand. I suspect Mason feels he makes more in the long run by keeping the game as amicable as possible, than by the $1 or so per hand he makes by not chopping.
Because of our publishing business and other things that I do in the poker world I feel that it is just worth it to me to go ahead and chop. However, if I was just someone who was playing for a living I would never do it in a non-rake game, and I frequently don't chop when I play at the $40-$80 level. Based on my experience, once you get to a game that is a little higher (by this I mean at least $20-$40) almost all of the players don't mind if you don't chop even though some of them would prefer to do so.
Rakes have gone up since that essay was written. But I still believe that it is bad for the game since it allows people to avoid situations they don't like. In a time game I would recommend that you don't chop since nothing is coming out of the pot. I also wouldn't chop in a game where money is dropped from the button before play begins. However, when the rake is coming out of money that you will be adding to the pot, it makes sense to chop because in most situations I don't believe that you can overcome it.
Politics asside and presuming equal sb and bb strength: If the sb was $0 he should NEVER "chop" since he can obviously do better by playing premium hands. If the sb was the same as the bb he should ALWAYS chop since he's out of position. Whether to chop is (also) a function of sb size.
What would you say would be the %age of sb that would compensate for lack of position?
- Louie
Does anyone have a feeling for whether chopping is more common in California or Las Vegas? Before hold 'em was legal in CA, so was stud; consequently all the players were veterans of draw or lowball, both of which featured hands where only 2 or 3 players was the norm. So, theorertically, one might think this would tend to make CA players less apt to chop, because their experience at the poker table wouldn't lead them to believe that playing with only one opponent was a waste of time.
Las Vegas players, however, veterans of stud, were used to the multi-round betting structure and more players staying in beyond the opening round. Perhaps they would be more inclined to chop because their experience makes them feel that a multi-hand game is the norm and a 2 player competition not worth the time for a small pot.
Anyway, I'm not sure this theory holds, for I would estimate that at the 15-30 through 30-60 level in So. Calif. perhaps 75-80% of the players chop, but that this figure used to be 90%. It seems more players, like Dreamer, have stopped chopping, trying to take advantage of the majority who are not used to playing head-up in this situation against an aggressive player.
Your theory is wrong. When I first began to play poker in Las Vegas which was before the legalization of hold 'em and stud in California, no one chopped. Furthermore, there are very few players left in California who were regulars at the table when only forms of draw poker were legal. (Even though I now live in Las Vegas, I am actually one of those draw/lowball survivors.)
Chopping is actually fairly new. It seems to have begun less than 10 years ago and just caught on.
Typical weak loose aggressive game that I play in. I'm in late position with KQh. UTG calls all fold to me and I raise. SB and BB call. Flop comes As7s4c. All check to me and I check. Turn is Qs. SB bets, BB folds, UTG calls, and I fold. Is my fold correct? I was thinking that the SB could have been trying to check-raise the flop, and even if I have the best hand now I could still lose if another spade came. However, it will probably cost me at most $40 to see if I have the best hand, and there is already $120 in the pot plus what gets put in on the river. So I'm getting anywhere between 7-2 and 6-1 odds on my money. Both players are weak so would be willing to bet and call with second pair or worse.
This is one of those hands that cost you a little (in the long run) if you're wrong, and make you a little if you're right, since you can make a strong case for either calling or mucking (or, in some instances, raising). Whether to call or fold is primarily dependant on what kind of player the lead bettor is. If you think he (she) would only bet an A, then of course you should muck. If they're a little trickier, then a call or a raise could be in order. One thing you may want to consider is just calling, then mucking if the bettor leads out again on the river. W/ an A and three spades on board your opponent may take 1 stab at it, but since you raised before the flop he'll probably be reluctant to try it twice.
Robin,
I may not have raised pre flop if the UTG player will limp with decent aces and tend to call you down with ace high. But it is close. KQ in many games must hit a pair to win where a good ace can win in a showdown with no pair.
If I did raise pre flop, I generally would have bet the flop since your opponents should fear an ace. If check raised I would fold. If called I may bet the turn or check behind depending on my read of the caller(s).
By checking the flop, you "induced" aggressive play out of your opponents. That favors calling them down. The fact that you are overcalling an UTG limper weighs against a turn call. So I will chicken out and say it depends on how your opponents play ;-). If they are as described I would at least call the turn and hope that a spade does not fall and you only have to call one more bet on the river (on the other hand, the river may get checked to you and you may have the possible value bet).
Regards,
Rick
The UTG bettor plays fairly loose, even utg. He wouldn't have an ace because he would either have bet it on the flop or raised on the turn. In this game, KQs figures to be the best hand so that's why I raised preflop. A bet on the flop is a waste of money since these players will often call you down with bottom pair and will take incorrect draws to gutshots, etc. The SB is a slightly tricky player but he could have any pair and have bet the turn. That's why I tend to think that a call is a pretty good shot. Of course, it helps to know that the call would have won the pot. Hindsight is always 20/20 but I think I should have called based simply on the pot odds.
Lets get this out of the way: "Both players are weak so would be willing to bet and call with second pair or worse". No. It takes a weak player to rarely bet or call with 2nd pair.
The chances someone having an Ace goes down dramatically when BB folds and UTG just calls. Since this is a "loose aggressive" game the SB will be betting any Ace, Queen, or big spade. So I would say you are a FAVORITE to have the "best" hand right now. Do not fold 2nd pair against an aggressive better who thinks you have nothing; especially those "that are so weak...".
So you know they are loose and aggressive and are willing to bet or call with almost anything, yet you are unwilling to call with a hand that beats a few lagitimate bets but ALL weak ones?
- Louie
That's what I was thinking after the hand. When I said the players were weak and that they bet and called with second pair or worse I should have put emphasis on calling with second pair or worse. When every player is willing to call with a pair it doesn't make much sense to bet second pair because you won't knock anyone out and it's not much of a value bet. I agree that there was a good chance I had the best hand and certainly better than the 7-2 odds I needed. I just didn't think like that during the hand and it cost me money.
There are FEW situations where it is a "mistake" to bet the "best" hand for value expecting calls from "lesser" hands. The exceptions are so rare and not that costly that you should ALWAYS want to bet a hand you believe is "best" (not always including on the river). If you call with KQo on the button and 5 of you take the flop of AQ3 and aggressive players check to you, you should ROUTINELY bet this now and on the turn and USUALLY also for value on the end baring some real threat.
More than once per session you should be betting 2nd pair for value on the river.
Your paranoia with a high 2nd pair should occur when you have reason to believe someone has top pair such as if they show strength on the flop. If nobody appears to have top pair, well then 2nd pair IS top pair.
- Louie
Why didn't you bet the flop? You may have won it right there, and wouldn't need to be posting this question...
In this game a bet on the flop won't win it.
Maybe not. But you should be trying to simplify the game, not making it more complicated which is what you did by checking.
You were the pre-flop raiser. You're SUPPOSED to have a hand! 3-way, there is still a reasonable chance that this flop didn't hit anyone and a bet may win it right there. If you're called, you can start putting someone on an ace or spades. Even if someone did have spades, because of your bet on the flop, they may now check the turn (going for a check/raise). And if they don't have spades, you've made it VERY dangerous to bet into you on the turn.
My point is, you let the SB put YOU to a decision, instead of visa, versa. Now you have to fold, because you let yourself be put to a tough call. Whereas, YOU have position. YOU were the pre-flop raiser. They should be the ones deciding whether to put their chips at risk. If you're not going to use your position, then why raise pre-flop?
"In this game a bet on the flop won't win it." That should be because either (1) they are so selective before the flop that they usually have something reasonable ON the flop (such as an Ace), or (2) they call with virtually nothing. In your situation, betting and getting called is no disaster at all since at worst you have 6 outs and at best you still have the "best" hand such as it is.
Implied but unsaid in Hatter's fine post was that by checking you are giving up the initiative to players who are going to wield it against you; yet these players are not going to TAKE it from you (you realistically do NOT fear a bluff check-raise). By "investing" one small bet you find out right now if they have an Ace (and raise, you fold) otherwise you know you can go to the river (and can generally get there for no more money anyway).
The MAIN reason to check is to discourage them from check-raising you.
- Louie
My question regards how to play against a player who is down a lot of money and betting anything to get it back. He regularly says "I don't care any more" and best every hand.
My initial reaction is to bet tight, with only nut or close to nut hands. But in hind sight I always wish I would have played off of his emotion. What should I do in a situation like this? It happens very often where I play.
I'm not going to completely answer your question, but I will throw a couple of ideas out at you. I'm also going to assume that you are at a full table with one player who has gone on major tilt.
Since he is firing on virtually every hand, it means that there are a lot of hands that you would like to play against him. But there is also a counter-balancing problem. It is that with a full table someone else is likely to have a good hand and if you get in there with anything it could be a mistake.
So the conclusion, from just this and this is not the complete story, is that you can play a few more hands as long as they are the type of hands that can beat him in a showdown without improving. You should also be willing to reraise with many of these hands.
An example would be AT. This hand now might be worth three bets where against a typical raiser you would throw it away. (There is also some discussion on this topic in HPFAP-21.)
I would never 2nd guess Mason's advice.
But I think before you start 3-betting hands like AT, you should consider your chances of being able to isolate this player. If they are good, then you should re-raise quite frequently. But some games do not afford you this luxury. Either because there are too many loose players who will put in 3 bets, or because there are players who, once they figure out what you're trying to do, will now try to foil your strategy. In these cases, 3-betting can prove quite costly.
This is a good point. If the other players won't let you do what you want, you have to back off some.
I am of the belief that the major criteria for whether to raise or not is whether you have the best hand or not. Even if you PREFER inferior hands to fold, whether you anticipate that or not matters rarely (I'm not much of a "manipulate size of pot" fan). The major exception would be hands whose value drops drastically vrs 2 or more opponents rather than heads up such as A2 or K6o.
I would ignore your buddy and 3-bet with any hand you would normally 2-bet. (Well, unless I had the button in which case I'd 3-bet with any hand I felt like.) I would call the 2-bet with most hands I would call the 1-bet so long as HIS raise doesn't tend to reduce the field.
I'd Pretty much ignore him all the time; his money tags along while I maintain my game against the opponents. I'd adjust in situations that are "clearly" correct; whatever "clearly" means to me. If I adjust when I "suspect" or "feel" I'm in danger of experiencing Caro's FPS.
- Louie
When a player goes on tilt in the games I play it seems to stimulate action. I have often seen an on-tilt player begin to run over the table. The other players become confused and begin making mistakes. Then the table begins to adjust and they begin to play back. The pots get big. It is to me, a real money making situation. I become a jackel, hiding in the weeds, watching for a chance. When I see a chance I come out smoking. One skill I work hard at is letting go of a hand going bad, with all the raising and reraising it is essential not to chase. I am not a great lover of pot odds for pot odds sake, but the increased action gives both pot odds and implied odds that are good enough to take a few more shots at seeing the flop. If you get lucky by busting the on-tilt player it helps keep him in the mood. I use 'him' here because women seem to go on tilt less, I could be wrong, there are less women in my ten-twenty game from which to draw conclusions.
I like this response.
I'll add that you need to keep a level head. This time period may be short and you simply may not get an opportunity. Don't compromise your standards just to "get in there"!
I'd like to have tips on playing one on one HE, like on Paradise Poker? I have read HFAP ("shorthanded games") but more detailed and specific advice against various types of opponents might be helpful. E.g. there are many players that almost always call or raise preflop. I know it is a game that takes a lot of experience, but it seems that mathematically sound (e.g. game theoretic) advice could be produced.
Also: How do the "hands to call with" change against various types? What are 'typical' means and standard deviations (I know it depends, but people give meaningful ballpark numbers for ring games anyway).
Play about 2/3rds of your hands; less if the opponent is aggressive; all of them if the opponent dislikes calling with no pair. Consider ANY pair as "top pair top kicker".
Always bet, rarely call against a tight conservative player. You'll win PLENTY of money stealing his blinds.
You MUST win most of the pots where neither of you flop anything; which is most of the time. Now, how do you suppose you are going to win those pots ....
- Louie
I plan to attend my first home game this weekend. I'm going with an schoolmate I've never met to play with a bunch of other people I've never met. I've played in casinos but are there any differences I should be prepared for in the home game?
More importantly, I will be playing either 3-3-6-12 or 5-5-10-20, a structure I have no experience in. What changes do I need to make in my play to account for this? I assume I will be either inducing more bluffs & betting for value more, or bluffing more & check-folding more on the river, depending on the table.
I read an old thread describing a turn raise to gain a free showdown, which makes sense, but what is the defense against this move if I am out of position?
If the double river bet is optional, are there cases when I should only make the single bet?
I would expect some of the weaker players to check the turn in hopes of a double river bet. Is this true and does it mean a turn check does not imply as much weakness as it usually does?
How afraid should I be of river check-raises and how often should I do them? Is a check-raise bluff more effective or is it just too expensive to try?
Any other tips would be appreciated.
Knowing nothing of the particular game you will be playing in, below are some general truths about 3-tiered poker:
1. your implied odds are greater
2. your reverse implied odds are much greater because everyone chases (hands like flopping top pair/best kicker go down in value - you want to win that pot on the turn and you want to get it head's up or three way on the flop.)
3. preflop raises, in my opinion, are very different in this game, preflop raises, more often than not, build a pot - they do not keep the contestants out, because of this suited connectors, big pairs, and AKs, AQs, KQs, KJs and the like are good, AKo, AQo want to see the flop cheap and flop big to merit any action. Flopping big is two pair, a made straight, and(maybe) top pair with a gutshot
4. If you're not suited, except for AKo, AQo, and maybe KQo and KJo, don't even play for a single bet in any position.
4a. Exceptions when you're in the BB, it's probably o.k. to call a single raise with many players with any no gappers down to 67o and single gappers down to 86o or 97o. Even then it's more because you don't want to be seen as a rock or spoiling the fun.
5. If you can't bet the limit on the river, check it down. You don't want to give away the strength of your hand by the size of your bet.
6. Some players try to get tricky, hoping to get a lot of action on the river for double size BB, it fails most of the time. If you're playing properly you should be driving the action throughout the hand. If the pots are big, your opponents are making mistakes by not betting and raising with hands that warrant it.
My best advice is to just use your judgement to determine 1) How often will a worse hand than mine call? 2) How often will I be checkraised in this situation? 3) If I'm checkraised, will I 3bet, call or fold? Obviously if you'll fold to a checkraise it's better not to bet, if you're going to call, you must think you have a reasonable chance to have the best hand and if you'd like to 3bet, then you obviously want to bet.
Personally, I probably don't bet as often as I should on the river in a three-tiered game and even though I get a lot of action on the flop and turn that makes up for backing off at the river, I should be a tad more aggressive on the end.
A note: Of course, I'll bet my flushes, straights, and full houses on the river. I back off a lot with hands like two pair or bottom set when the river made a back door flush or, to a lesser extent, a back door straight possible. It helps to consider whether your opponent(s) think that you think they can possibly have the straight or flush. The less likely you think they think you think they can have it, the more you should check.
chris
p.s. All those checks that you save by not calling the flop with middle pair/soso kicker or taking one off with an underpair hoping to trip on the turn, come in handy when you have a hand. People wont bet into you as much when you raise, or raise you as much when you 3 bet but you need a hand and you shouldn't be in too many pots, or you'll quickly become a target and you'll be yelling "Chips!"
I'm a relatively new player to the game (about 2 months) but I have logged a lot of hours on GPKR. Anyways, tonight I was at a local casino (my 4th time in a casino game) and after a little time (about 1/2 hour) I realize there are two chumps, 5 rocks, two mediocre players and myself (which I consider to be relatively decent).
I think I'm outmatched but I don't leave because I want to get even and I figure if I respect the rocks and abuse the chumps I'll be able to get even and get out.
I finally get up a bit, and the bad players have been replaced by good players and I leave. I think I might have been able to hold my own, but I was unsure.
In a low limit game like 3/6 should I leave a game where I think I'm not one of top players in the game or stick it out because it doesn't really matter? Did I make the right decision?
Staying "to get even" is a potential disaster. Resist that temptation.
I doubt you are "decent" after only 2 months of practice and 4 real sessions. You may understand starting hands and have the discipline to do (which can make you a modest winner right there) it but I doubt you can read hands much at all nor are able to abuse rocks or chumps (yes, rocks can be abused).
But to answer your question: there's not much money left over for the 3rd best player in a low-limit game unless the lesser players are particularly terrible.
- louie
Maybe I'm not a decent player. I was basing my that assumption on my play on IRC poker.
On the net I do fairly well, I'm able to read people's hand not bad and have accumulated about 16K in chips in the 20/40 room.
Is it wrong to assume I'm decent because I play well on IRC poker? If it is wrong to assume... what are some likely problem areas I have?
The expert poker player will never have to 'give points' in poker, because of luck. That is something that I learned from a book and then had to relearn, so that I think I finally get the picture. The more poker you play, the greater luck is as a factor. Then, the larger luck is as a factor, the better you must become to win.
I think Louie Landale answered you better, but my response at least looks at a different angle.
1) Nothing wrong with your decision to leave this table. You are now sitting with 5 rocks, 2 good players and 2 OK players. There is little to be made here unless you are the expert.
2) You are probably not yet a decent player at holdem. I doubt many good players play the free games unless looking to practice against weaker players.
You will need more experience playing for money and in casino action.
After a while (maybe a long while) you will look back and ask "did I really assume that?"
Louie mentions some of the problem aeas.
Staying to get even. The game is either good, average or bad. You are either playing well or not. If you're playing well and the game is good or average then stay.
Abusing Rocks. Also, some players who resemble rocks for as short a period as 1/2 hour or even many hours can be very very tough players who have simply not yet seen an opportunity.
Attitude toward chumps. Abuse them? Make them feel like chumps so they don't come back?
Many poker players feel as if they are the best even when it not even close to reality. A winning streak changes perspective (as does a losing one) when in truth, the cards are just falling good or bad. Good players simply win more and lose less during these times.
There are many other things to mention. You'll absorb them (or not) eventually.
Good Luck!
It will be difficult to explain what could be your problem areas. The main one will be experience
I have never played IRC poker; but I suspect the following: (1) Solid players don't waste their time playing with play money, (2) The "level" (20/40) is almost meaningless, and (3)??These poker sites have an incentive to want you to win so you feel good and play for real, so perhaps they may cheat but more likely put bad computer players in the game??
Even though I don't think Turbo Texas HE plays well, I'd feel more confident if you told me you'd been beating that for a while.
However, if you are comfortable with your own play that you have mental energy to routinely consider what the opponent has, then you are well on your way.
- Louie
Ok. That is reasonable.
And in response I will add that I am currently doing ok against Turbo Texas Holdem, although I haven't put too much time into it because I find it less personable.
But I might put more time into it now. Thank you for your responses. They are appreciated.
Louie wrote: >(1) Solid players don't waste their time playing with >play money,
Now I feel insulted. Actually, there are several other solid players I know who play on IRC.
>(2) The "level" (20/40) is almost meaningless
True. But as you indicated, you don't know what IRC is. While the 20-40 game here is easier to beat than any real world 20-40 game that I've played, it is tougher by far than most 3-6 games I've played.
>(3)??These poker sites have an incentive to want you >to win so you feel good and play for real, so perhaps >they may cheat but more likely put bad computer >players in the game??
IRC stands for internet relay chat. It is a system used for chat rooms on the net. IRC poker is a specific group of IRC chat rooms that each have a bot present that runs a poker game in that room. So, there is no house, just poker players (all originally from rgp, I believe) who banded together and have actually donated money to buy the computers and such needed to run IRC poker. So, there is no "real money" room to move up to, or anything else. There are computer players in some games, but they are there because their designers wish them to be there, to test the playing algorithms they've designed. IMO, IRC is the #1 place to go and play for fake money in order to get some experience before heading into the real world of cash poker.
>Even though I don't think Turbo Texas HE plays well, >I'd feel more confident if you told me you'd been >beating that for a while.
Actually, I've played both, and I think that Turbo is easier to beat. While the players in turbo may be better in certain respects, they don't learn. Since you're playing against real people on IRC, they adapt to your strategies, correctly or incorrectly. Overall, the games on IRC are a better predictor than Turbo, IMO.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well, phooie on me! Good thing I used the word "suspect".
On the net I do fairly well, I'm able to read people's hand not bad and have accumulated about 16K in chips in the 20/40 room.
Is it wrong to assume I'm decent because I play well on IRC poker?
While the level of play on h2 is generally a bit tougher than most 3-6 games, there are two things you should keep in mind when analyzing IRC results. First, there is no rake or time charge on IRC poker. The rake/time charge results in a huge amount of money coming off the table in a 3-6 game, even when the charge is reasonable. It's possible that if IRC had the equivalent rake of the real life 3-6 game, you wouldn't be able to beat it, even if you're currently beating IRC for a decent sum.
Second, while the average h2 player might be tougher than the average 3-6 player, there are still plenty of truly awful players in h2, and a few truly awful players can have a significant impact on your win rate. As a very basic example, on IRC, even in h2, it's not uncommon to have the nut flush on the river with 3 opponents, and one maniac with top pair will help you cap the river, with everyone else calling along for the ride. In any real life game, you'd win 3 big bets on the river, tops (if every opponent was bad enough to call), but in IRC, that maniac will help you win 12 big bets on the river. That extra 9 big bets is a huge amount--the equivalent of 9 hours worth of wins for a decent low-limit player.
-Sean
It is always good to leave a bad game just as soon as you realize it is going to be hard to win money there.
The 20-40 on IRCpoker, since it requires you to win before playing there, is actually a decent test of skill. Not that you are good if you can beat it, but if you can't beat you are certainly no good. I've played for real money at games softer than that one, but most are not...
15-30 game in LA,I had small blind with A4o,big blind was a weak tight player,everyone passed,one position before button raised(maniac who capped before flop with 92s)button called(a drunk who you can't read his hand he sometime capped with 32o before flop and bet or raised after flop with nothing).If I flopped A they would call me with second or third pairs in this kind of game. What should I do?
Fold. Maniacs and drunks can still be dealt good cards, you still have to worry about the big blind and you'll be out of position the entire hand. You still will have the maniac and the drunk directly to your right on all subsequent hands; wait for a better hand and better position and then punish them.
Andy fox's advice was right on. Playing a 5-10 kill game last evening was down $300 and holding A,A . I too was playing with someone who was loud and obnoxoius and dringing quite a bit. He was the big blind/..after I raised (he called) and there were 5 of us seeing the flop. the flop was J 8 3. Everyone checked to me I bet.k the loudmouth and one other player stayed in. The next card was a 5. Checked to me I bet again only the loudmouth stayed in.the next car was a 2. He checked I raised, He reraised (no possibility of a flush)He turned over 8h2h..(There was 1 heart on the flop) I had thought when I sat down he would be easy to beat but as Andy mentioned even drunks can get lucky..I might add he was quite lucky the whole time I was there...I left after that hand....
You should not get into the habit of calling any raises with A4 in the small blind as the BB is apt to call and three-way is bad for this hand, especially when out of position. In your case, you already have a cold caller on the button and you don't know what the BB will do. For all you know, he might pull out a knife. Bad idea to join the party here, no matter what the fish hold.
An exception would be if the button raised and you knew he is a notorious blind stealer. Here, you could profitably reraise to drive the BB out and bet out into any flop. Again, if the BB calls you are dead meat. Remember a good rule of thumb:
Threeway baaaaaaaaad for weak aces and suited connectors.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
"three way bad for weak aces and suited connectors" if I have position like on a button,is it still bad?
Still bad. You should raise with a weak ace or suited connectors on the button to get rid of the small blind. If both blinds are notorious callers, Sklansky recommends limping here with weaker hands, but I usually fold against two blind calling stations.
Heads-up with position, aces and suited connectors rock. Push your ace, any pair, any draw, make the guy miserable. If caught bluffing, do it again next time. And again...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Fold.
I'm battling zb12pg in 1-on-1 HE ($10/$20) on Paradise Poker for about 90 minutes. I was beating him for nearly $400, but have hit a bad stretch and am down to about $50 up. He is a very aggressive player, but not a total maniac. He just put a series of bad beats on me and (I believe) thinks I am on tilt.
I raise from the button with JcTc. He calls. Dream flop comes 9h7c8c. Remember, this is heads-up and he thinks I am on tilt, so I decide to jam away with my monster. Here is the flop action:
He bets.
I raise. He reraises.
I reraise. He reraises. (Freeroll anyone?)
I reraise. He calls.
Turn is (bummer) the Jack of hearts.
He bets. I raise. He reraises. I reraise. He reraises. I call, thinking that it is unlikely, but not impossible that he put in all those flop bets with QT.
River is a brick (3s).
He bets. I call.
He shows T6o (of course). I type "nh" and we both lose money on the hand due to the rake.
Was I a wimp to put the brakes on on the turn when I had the likely freeroll? I started the hand with $1060 and he had almost $900.
Far be it for me to call you a wimp, Michael. Perhaps you were on tilt after all. ;-)
Actually, on the turn, he might have been freerolling on you, althouh it's unlikely, given he put in all those bets on the flop.
Michael always had the 9 clubs to hit.
But yes,of course this guy could have had trips on the flop.
Would he ever stop betting on the flop with trips?
Eventually, since you cannot see his cards, you must believe him for the full house and just call him down.
Skip that crap I said about him having the full house. Mentioning that the other guy could be freerolling on the turn threw me off (Made me think the board had paired). The other guy can't be freerolling here.
Michaels str8 flush is still an out. I think any flush would be good since Michael has the 10c in his hand.
x
I'm leaving for Vegas tomorrow for a week of r&r. I do ok in the 5/10 holdem with a kill at the Mohegan Sun but would like to play in a slightly higher limit game, but am leary of "swimming with the Vegas sharks." My bankroll is around $3,000. Any suggestions where I should be playing? Also, should I consider playing in any of the daily tournaments?
Thanks for your input.
Start with the 8/16 at the Bellagio, and quickly move to the 15/30, being careful with your bankroll. Mirage 10/20 if you want
I'm heading to Vegas this week and was planning on playing the Mirage 10-20 and the Bellagio 8-16. In your post you sounded like both were not very good. Is there a reason? Could you give me any info on how these games are typically?
It depends what kind of games you are comfortable with. I happen to prefer loose/aggressive. The 8/16 at Bellagio and 10/20 at Mirage are usually very solid tight/aggressive games. This is especially true if you plan on playing during the week. If you are choosing between the two, hit the Bellagio 8/16. It's a much nicer poker room, the waitresses are much hotter, and the 8/16 regulars are nice guys for the most part.
I'd prefer loose agressive, to solid tight agressive. Where can I find a game of similar limits that is a little softer than the Mirage and Bellagio 8/16-10/20?
You can try the Horseshoe 10-20 but that is usually hit or miss. Sometimes it's unbelievably good, other times it's really tight. Also, if you hate cigarette smoke, forget the Horseshoe. But that's it. There are only 3 places in Vegas that offer games 8/16 or bigger all the time. You can try the 6/12 at Mirage. I've had very good luck with that game. Hope this helps.
If you want to play bigger than 5-10 in Vegas, you don't have too many options. Try the 8-16 at Bellagio, or the 10-20 at the Mirage or the Horseshoe. You don't have the bank to play the Bellagio 15-30 (I'm not sure you would want to make that big of a jump anyways) or Mirage 20-40. Also, if you'll be there on a Monday, give the No Limit tourney at the Orleans a try. Small buy-in and it's usually pretty fun. Best of luck.
I'm on button with AKh, 5 limp-in and I raise, all call, flop is AcQh3h, player 2 positions to my right bets, I raise, rest fold he calls. Turn 2h, he checks, I bet, he calls. River is 3s, he bets, I raise, he re-raises, I call. Loose the pot, he had A3o.
I just started playing at casino. I've logged about 80 hrs. I'm a tight player (semi rock) and I'm trying to be a little more aggresive. I was up about 200 in about 4 hrs. I had gone heads-up with this player on 3 hands and had won all three.
I bought Krieger's HE "from begginer to winner" and it's helped but I know I need to read and study more. Any advice on what books I should read?
I've learned a lot just by readings the messages at this forum. Comments and advise are appreciated.
HOLDEM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS -- Sklansky and Malmuth is the best book I've read so far. It's mainly geared toward higher limits but has really good explanations of the basics you need to succeed.
WINNING LOW LIMIT HOLDEM -- Jones is a good book that focuses in on lower limit games. It helps to mold the skills you pick up from HOLDEM FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS to suit the lower limit games.
I'm currently reading THE THEORY OF POKER -- Sklansky. This book is is very good at explaining the general concepts of poker but doesn't go into details specific to Holdem. It does open your eyes to ideas you may not have thought of.
CARD PLAYER and POKER DIGEST magazines are excellent sources of information. They are free at most poker rooms. At www.cardplayer.com they have over a years worth of articles archived.
I hope this helps. //Jay
"Those who know to learn know enough" -- Unknown
Lets ignore the case where he has a weak Ace and suspects the 3 just got him half the pot figuring you are both now playing the Q. Players that figure this way AND bet it out are rare.
Here's an excercise: What hand did he just make on the river that you can still beat?
- Louie
You shouldn't raise when the board pairs and he bet into you and you've shown strength throughout the hand. It's a call on the end but there is absolutely no reason to raise. If you don't raise you don't have to consider mucking to a reraise either.
You're recent history with this guy (having won 3 pots off him in the last hour or whatever) should also clue you into the strength of his hand. Losers might get frustrated and become calling stations or get pissed and become maniacs. Calling stations don't all of a sudden bet into you on the river when the board pairs. Maniacs would've put in a lot more action by 3betting the flop or betting into you on the turn trying to represent the flush or even checkraising the turn b/c he thinks you'll represent the flush and he thinks two pair is good enough.
So again, just call the river when he perks up.
chris
I agree with LL and Chris.
Once he bets, just call. He knows you are strong and is betting anyway. He's either hoping you'll fold your top pair or has made a strong hand.
What if he had checked? You don't want to lose a bet but you also don't want to call a raise. I would look very hard for a tell at this point. In the abscence of any info, I would usually bet.
This is something a friend and I were talking about. I am presenting it here as a question rather than something I belive and/or preach. I am curious if the idea is way off base....
Nine of us are sitting at a $3-6 table and every hand we watch as the dealer takes $3-$4 for the rake and flushes it down the hole never to be seen again. This happens 30 to 40 times an hour for a total of about $125 per hour that I can never win. But then a bad player sits down in the 10th seat and proceeds to lose a couple hundred dollars in the next couple of hours. Almost enough to cover the rake for that time period. And for the rest of the session there always seems to be one or two people just giving their money away at a rate equal to the rake.
If the 3-6 game is supposed to be unbeatable because of the rake, what happens if you replace a so-so player or two with a bad player or two? If there is just one completly idiotic call for every pot by some fish, doesn't that erase the rake? Now the money you are winning from the other so so players is not being taxed and paid for by you solely.
When the big fish are in the game paying your rake, play as long as the rest of the opposition can be beaten, regardless of the rake. Once the game turns into a situation where the money generally flows back and forth among rather equally matched opponents (even if you are still a little better) get out, because the rake keeps nibbling at the flow of chips and there isn't that extra bad call or two to feed it.
Now I understand that in any situation it is better that rake be smaller. My question is that if you choose the $3-6 game carefully (I like to play on a Friday or Saturday nite when the fish are schooling), can the rake be "ignored" ? Is the $3-6 game beatable despite the unbeatable rake?
"If the 3-6 game is supposed to be unbeatable because of the rake..."
Nothing personal, but I am getting real irritated seeing this so often. While I've seen few people actually MAKE that statement, it seems to be quoted all the time (kinda of like "people enjoy fruit cake over the holidays." Yeah, anyone you know?).
Lets say it again: In the kind of 3/6 you want to play they get about 30 hands/hour. Your "fair share" of pots is 3 hands/hour so you would pay only $11/hour in rake. But since you are selective you are winning only 2 hands/hour for about $8/hour. So you give up at most 1.5bb/hour compared to a non-raked game. Surely you can beat the 3/6 opponents for more than that WITHOUT some call-all-the-time-sucker.
I have always beaten the 3/6 in LA and am SURE I would beat it now. LOTS of people beat the 3/6. The people who read the books but just don't get it aren't going to beat it, so perhaps rather than look for self improvement its easier to say "it can't be beat".
But to answer your question: Good Thinking.
- Louie
Louie Landale makes beating 3-6 sound easy, it is not easy. Louie impresses me as a well above average player. You better be like Louie and be well above average and be willing to be bored out of your mind, because beating 3-6 is extremely mechanical. Three-six is one game were I would definitly chop blinds. A buck to the dealer? Give me a break! But big pots hand after hand? Hey, hand me my lunch box and hard hat.
Would I chop blinds in 3-6 because of the rake? No, because there is enough emotion already, why throw more fuel on the fire? That player you didn't chop with is now raising you all night just for spite.
"...because beating 3-6 is extremely mechanical."
I don't view it as mechanical since there are plenty of opportunities for some really good plays, such as 3-betting with 2nd pair on the turn since you "know" the raiser has a draw.
There are numerous very big pots where nobody has much and snaging one of them you don't "deserve" per night does WONDERS for your EV.
This is all in addition to the extra bets you can make or save in particular situations because you can read the players so well. Ever cap it AGAIN with just AA on the turn? Well, if its the maniac and two crawlers you should.
- Louie
Poker games change texture very fast, so that what was correct then is not correct now. Certainly there are times when fast and interesting plays are possible. However, plodding toward the river with a hand that continues to look like a winner is what experience taught me to be generally correct, in low-limit no foldem.
Raising with 2nd pair is a play that I use when called for, in ten-twenty it often wins right there, but in 3-6 they might reraise just in case they hit their draw. When they do, or the next player, or the next player hits (you must beat them all remember), what does that do to your ev?
Three-six still reminds me of 'Night Of The Living Dead', you must shoot them through the brain on the river to win, and even then the dealer must sometimes explain it to them. It is not my intention to disrespect them, they are basically just having fun.
I always thought the rake was unbeatable, but I believe it can be beaten by good players. The mix of the table is important. I love calling stations who typically go through 1-200/hr. In a tight, passive game you will not beat the rake, but in other games you can.
This happened in a 30 and 60 game in vegas. It seemed players did it as a standard move. A player up front raises AK ( I didn't kown at the time what his hand was) two callers I'm in big bind with J10s I call. Flop comes 10 6 2 differant suits. I check he bets all fold to me, I check raise, he reraises, I call. The turn is nothing he bets I fold. A differant hand I have AJs middle position two call to me, I call Next player raises both blinds fold the others call . Flop comes J 7 4 First player checks second player bets I raise the preflop raiser three bets it, the first better calls as do I. the turn is nothing . First player checks, I check raiser bets first player calls I Fold. On the show down the raiser had AK the caller had J 10. In watching the game I start to see that it is standard play to three bet with AK when you miss the flop. This seems strange to me. I'm not sure how to play to this. I feel like a wimp to check and call to the river. I could flat call the the flop and raise on the turn, but I like to find out where I'm at on the cheaper streets. I'm told this happens in L.A. card rooms alot. What is the correct play for this.
You are playing 30-60 in vegas and have never seen similar "moves"? I have never played in Vegas (I've only played in the northeast) but moves like that are common in games 10-20 or higher over here, especially on the cheap street. Don't you even SUSPECT people are putting moves on? I would check call with top pair if heads up a lot of the time if only to prevent future bluffs. Check calling is not a particularly strong way to play, but against overaggressive opponents it can be an effective weapon.
I've send this move before, but not as a standard move. I was new to the game so I looked at the game as a normal game that I play. I normally play in Atlantic city. They three bet the flop all day when they missed the flop, not all the players, maybe three players. When there's a bet and a raise both can't be bluffing. To three bet it, the better has to know he does'nt have the best hand and may be drawing dead with little chance of winning with a bluff. I quickly learned not to fold, but I'm still not sure of the correct way to play it. I think the best way maybe to just call and let them bluff there money away. I have three bet AK when I've missed the flop, but every thing needs to be just right and I need to know the players. I think it's a lot better to never do it than to do it all the time.
Even morons will play A-K strongly to at least the turn. One thing you may not have noticed is that the raggedy nature of your hand made you question how good it was even after you hit the flop. However, when you hit the A-Js, what more could you have asked for? If you couldn't play the pair of Jacks for top pair, just what sort of flop were you hoping for?
He was probably hoping not to get three bet on the flop by some doofus with a three outer. All around, this highlights the problem with playing hands like AJ for a raise. But, if you know someone is willing to play overcards on the flop this aggressively, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a counter-strategy; namely, check and call the turn and river.
Full broadsides is how I play against "good" paranoid types who feel shame and just can't stand calling an "obvious" better hand. Real good players no doubt do the same.
Jeeeeze, you're around an 8:1 dog to improve to 2-pair getting around 7:1 in the pot. Even if you SEE his KK its only a slightly bad call. You are giving up WAY TOO MUCH laying down top pair so often.
I would not fold ANY flopped pair vrs a player that appears to only have one over pair. He gives up on his steal on the river often enough for me to make up a lot of ground. Well, the exception is if I have top pair weak kicker and I have reason to BELIEVE he also has top pair.
- Louie
I hadn't given this subject much thought in the past year or so, but Chris' thread got me thinking. Now, it's been well over a year since I capped the betting pre-flop with anything other than AA, KK, QQ and AK, since I don't think in most games that it pays to cap it off with J's, T's and 9's (I'm assuming that you'll see the flop with somewhere between 2 and 4 opponents). However, I fully realize I could be wrong here. So, I pose the following question; what hands are you willing to cap it with pre-flop? What hands are you willing to three bet, assuming a 'typical' game?
What is the cap in your area? If I remember correctly you are from Denver. The limit is 5 raises in the casinos there, but you play in home games right?
Anyway, I cap with AA, KK in pots with more than 2 people, AKs with 4 or more people, and nothing headsup. I feel that capping gives away too much information headsup, unless I am going to be willing to cap it with more than just big pairs, which I am generally not. Perhaps this is because most of the games I play in have people playing reasonably intelligently preflop but not as well postflop. I'd rather wait till I have more of an advantage than put in a ton of money with AK.
Actually, I've never played in a game where there was a cap on heads-up play.
;o)
As far as other siuations, well, I guess that's why they call me 3 Bet.
Brett
If I have the nut at the time I always have the last bet. Since I consider myself a superior post flop player I want to take flops with as few of MY chips in the pot as possible. So with just about anything but AA I will raise and call - except when I don't. :-)
Don't know about capping, but you should be willing to 3-bet fairly often, depending on the situation. If you're next to act after a maniac, you should be 3-betting almost everything you play. Actually, if you're next to act after any raiser and planning to call, you should seriously consder a raise to get the pot heads up.
OH I see, beat a maniac by playing like one.
I only raise in these situations to Isolate the maniac hoping there is not more than 2 in the game - I WILL have all their money over time.
Isolating the maniac was exactly my point. Because of his raise you won't be playing high implied odds hands or expecting a big field. So you'll mostly be playing big cards preflop and you want to be heads up with the maniac. Note that I'm assuming no limpers between you and the raiser.
I often 3 bet, but I as a rule don’t 4 bet. My guess is that only AA and KK have a positive EV for 4 betting, maybe AKs and QQ are break even. Hence four betting gives up too much information. Three betting has already done the job of ensuring the drawing hands don’t have the right odds to see the flop, and failing to get the maximum out of dominated hands probably is not that much of a loss, especially when I might be the one dominated.
Of course against new opponents who don’t know I am not a maniac yet, I will happily cap with AA.
Piers
I'm willing to cap with good drawing hands if there is good amount of action and/or I believe someone will cap behind me anyway.
As an example from a recent play:
I raised with AQs. Next player called(TT). Next one 3 bet(66). One other player in late position called(22) and big blind called(?). I capped with AQs. If for some reason I had raised with something like 98s and had I picked up another caller I would cap it in this spot as well.
I 2-bet more than most so calling a 3-bet looks very natural for me. So I RARELY 4-bet even with the premium hands, hehehe. MOST of my 4-bets have been when raising with cheese in late position and getting 3-bet by a blind and finding myself in a 6 way pot. What the heck, lets 4-bet 87s.
In general, though, you want to raise when your hand is can beat perhaps 1/3 or 1/2 of the raisers hands. Knowing your opponents raising standards is premium information about that opponent.
- Louie
I agree there are situations where players should consider capping it with 7-8s or 8-9s. As you noted, if you get 3-bet when trying to set up a hand and get multi-way action, you may as well make a high variance play in order to keep the hand set up if the flop fits you. Those guys with big pairs will simply not let go of their hands.
Louie,
You wrote: "MOST of my 4-bets have been when raising with cheese in late position and getting 3-bet by a blind and finding myself in a 6 way pot. What the heck, lets 4-bet 87s."
I like this play too. But it is much safer in a place like California were there is a three raise limit. In Las Vegas (four raise limit) this type of play risks too much.
This reminds me that Mason is right (based on an essay of his in "Poke Essays" - I'm too tired and lazy to get up and check the volume) that the three raise limit actually encourages more capping here in crazy California relative to places where there is a four raise limit.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I promise not to do any more Mason Malmuth brown nosing for at least a few more months.
I don't really agree with your "risks too much" reference if someone 5-bets it; since they've already called one double bet they are going to call 2; and I'm going to win this pot very close (possibly more) to my fair share with my "Swiss" or "Guda" cheese so long as the callers are likely to have "Velveeta" or "Cottage" cheese (my flush is unlikely already beat).
I don't recal your Malmuth reference but I made the same observation years ago in Washington where state law restriced raises to 2; this encouraged players to make the first raise since they don't have to appear weak by "just" calling the 3-bet cap; and encouraged players to 3-bet since they can't get raised again. There were LOTS of 3-bet Flop and B4 Flop rounds.
- Louie
The answer is, "It depends"
congratulations- you've just touched on what is probablyh the 'perfect' answer to every poker question ever put forth by any member of this forum.
My "it depends" response was not an attempt to be funny. I am serious. Now, poker players read more and use simulators and practice more. Years ago, there were a lot of standard plays (like in chess etc.). Draw and lowball were so "automatic" that the games got boring and quite predictable. Today, there are few standard moves and plays. One must vary his/her game depending on the other players (e.g. variables). One must vary his style as to not be predictable. If you see the latest books by SMZ, you will see there are a lot of different solutions for the same hands because of variables in the game (i.e. loose/tight; passive aggressive; tough/easy etc.). So, how you have to play certain hands depends on the game and the players.
Good points. The real reason for this thread was to get a feel for what hands most players are 'generally' comfortable capping the betting with. Sure, there are times when one might slowplay A's, or cap it with 7's, but I just thought I'd see what most of the posters usually capped it with in a multiway pot.
Probably, in a multiway pot, you should cap it with any hand you are going to play. Of course, it depends ... :-)
I can't understand it. I like to consider myself a decent hold em player, because I know the basics, read the books, know what starting hands to play with, know when to fold, when to raise, etc. But for some reason I just can't win. I haven't been playing that long (2 trips to AC, and probably 50 hours on Paradise).
For instance, my trip to AC on saturday was a nightmare. Bought in with $140 in a $3-$6 game. Played 4 hours, never saw such a run of shit cards in my life. I'm not exaggerating when I say for 4 hours I did not get dealt one winning hand. Not ONE SINGLE HAND, had I gone to showdown, would have won the pot. Got cleaned out and went home. Lost over $500 on paradise. Every time I get up a couple hundred, I maintain my tight starting hands, but then start losing and get well below even.
I don't think I go on tilt. I have always had a very solid mental game, no matter what sport, or activity I do, so I don't think that's the problem. It just seems that my opponents are always catching that miracle card on the river.
I play mostly $3-$6 on paradise for example, and 2 hands in a row my trip 10 and then trip Q both got beat by someone catching a flush with 52s. How can you possibly win when people play that kind of crap? Should I tighten up my starting hands even more?
Anyway, kind of venting, as well as looking for any advice anyone can give me. Should I play differently in AC than I should on Paradise? Thanks for comments of any kind.
CB
Have you read the Low Limit section of 21st century HE? Perhaps the reason you don't seem to be dealt winning hands is because you're not limiting the field effectively. You didn't say anything about your playing style; perhaps you're not raising enough to protect your hands. Or if you are, consider saving your ammo for the turn sometimes ala HPFAP21.
>Am I a bad player?
Probably not what you want to hear, but yes. With such limited experience, you couldn't possibly be a good player.
Most good players took years to acheive that status, and most players never get there. You have a long ways to go before you even know if you have potential.
I think playing online can be excellent practice, because you get to see lots of hands. But maybe it would be better if you play live so you learn to play the players as well as the cards.
Brett
1stly I wouldn't play PP - it can be corrupt by hackers who knows and collusion is also a possibility.
Let's see youhad crap for 4 hours and lost $500 - blinds would account for about $60 - if you did'nt get the cards what are you playing with. Dicipline will save you a lot more money than you can win.
Try to read up on table selection. Some games are a lot easier to beat than others specially LL.
I lost $140 in 4 hours in AC. I have lost a total of $500 on PP. My discipline is pretty decent when it comes to starting hands, but like I said it just seems that I am being beat by people playing crap like 52s and 48o. Even the $5-$10 on PP has people who play these starting hands. Very frustrating
First, I think you should stay away from Paradise Poker. You won't learn correctly in that forum, and I think rounder is correct. There is the possibility of collusion. Also, my observation is that the cards are not dealt at random, or at least not like a live game.
Second, Your limited experience in A.C. cannot tell you anything. 4 hours without a pot can happen. In my early experience in a 1-5 7 stud game I went 6 full hours without a pot. The key is the amount of patience you have. Can you keep folding poor starters after 4 hours of rags? Can you go to AC, play all night without getting involved in pots if the cards just aren't there? If you can't, then the locals who do so on a regular basis are there waiting for you.
You've got to expect people at the low limit AC games to play crap cards and hand you tough beats when the board 3 flushes. That's just the way it goes. Losing 140 in 4 hours is a lousy night, to be sure, but it's nothing out of the ordinary. If this was a BIG loss for you, you've probably got Bankroll issues. Read up on BR, and be sure not to play with money you can't afford to lose. That's beginner's mistake #1.
shooter
Bad runs happen. Losing $140 isn't too bad. Discipline will help you keep your shirt during the bad runs.
However, you say "I play mostly $3-$6 on paradise for example, and 2 hands in a row my trip 10 and then trip Q both got beat by someone catching a flush with 52s. How can you possibly win when people play that kind of crap?"
I think you need to think along the lines of "How can you possibly win when people DON'T play that kind of crap?" Against sensible opponents you won't make much playing 3-6. Idiots provide you with more money, but at the "cost" of greater variance.
Eric
First of all, when people put bets into YOUR pot with 52s, over the long run, you'll be depositing their cash into your checking account. Also, very few people will admit that they are tilt-prone. To succeed at poker, you have to be your own worst critic. Obviously, you aren't going to play 85s for a raise after a bad beat. That would be too egregious. Would you play QJ offsuit under the gun? or call a reraise cold with pocket 5's the hand after you miss your 10th straight flush draw? And if you think that you're the only person around (even at the low limits) who's read the books, you are kidding yourself. Reading the books doesn't make you a good player. Winning consistently makes you a good player.
IMO, losing "only" $140 in four hours of zero cards shows pretty good discipline. In my 3-6 game, I figure the blinds (3+1) plus one hand per orbit voluntarily seeing the flop costs about $30 per hour. So if I don't pursue bad draws, and get nothing to play, that would be my losing rate. So you lost $140 when my calculation would have you spending $120 just to see flops. That sounds OK.
I started off my hold'em career with a 40-hour, $900 losing streak at 3-6. Of course I am a better player now, a year and 500 hours later, but looking back at my notes, I am firmly convinced that my strategy was superior to that of everyone else at the table [ I have never played against anyone at 3-6 that I thought was truly superior to me ].
Go read Mason's essay "How Much Do You Need?" in Gambling Theory and Other Topics. Then read it again. You can expect "air pockets" of more than $1000 at 3-6 hold'em; I don't have Mason's exact numbers handy.
I performed my own experiment based upon Mason's article. I generated random numbers to look at the patterns. Bear in mind that my random numbers are for a 4-8 game ; so divide the numbers by 4/3 or so. This is on my poker page under Fluctuations Article.
My random numbers made it clear that for the 4-8 game I needed to be prepared for drops of $2000.
Dick
3 Bet has a point; if you've just started, you're probably not a good enough player yet to significantly beat the rake. That said, there is hope; I lost 2 grand playing 2-5 HE before I figured out what the hell was going on (about 150 hours, give or take) , but have looooonnnggg since recouped those losses.
Guy,
I live in Denver, and having a tough time figuring out 2-5 spread. I haven't played all that much of it to really have a good trend, but I have the suspicion I'm still not making the right adjustments to the spread games up on the Hill.
I've heard there is a book you can get at the Rocky Mountain Gambling Store that covers 2-5 in Colorado. Have you read this book, was it very good?
Also, you've mentioned that Lee Jones is murder at 2-5 spread. I'd be interested in why you think that is the case because it would give some interesting insights to the strategy changes.
Thanks,
PRC
Lee Jones' book is just lousy, period. I've posted a bunch on this, but would be happy to go over it again if you'd like me too. As far as the 2-5 game goes, the book is by G. Ed Conly, who actually deals up at Bullwhackers. It's a good book, and if you're planning on playing in this game I'd recommend picking it up. But, if you really want to PLAY, give me an e-mail and I'll hook you up with some low limit action (3-6, 4-8, 6-12 etc.) in Denver. If you're serious about playing then you definitely want to play in the home games in town, where the rake is only 2 bucks. Also, I'm pretty good friends with many of the game runners and can assure you that the games are honest.
First, say good bye to Paridise Poker for REAL money. Are you crazy? Find a nice home game in Happy Valley, or buy yourself Tyrbo Texas Holdem for $90 and play on the computer and see how you do.
I posted the same type of question about a month ago here. I read all the books, know the starting hand requirements, and don't go on tilt. I was down about $1200 over about 250 hours playing online and at AC. After reading the responses I put a lot of thought into my game. I realized 2 things that I needed to change in my game. First, oftentimes after winning a decent sized pot I would soon get a good starting hand that eventually ended up second best. I called these hands down to the river, knowing full well that I was probably beat. This cost me a lot of money. Secondly I realized I wasn't aggressive enough. I needed to raise more preflop with AK, AQ, and high suited cards. If the flop hits me I needed to take control of the hand by raising to make draws expensive.
The results of these changes have been fantastic thus far. Over the past 110 hours I am up $600+ playing low limit online and at the Taj. When I am in a hand, I take control. And it is tough laying down strong hands, even when you know you are beat, but money saved is as good as money won.
First of all, low limit games are filled with drawouts, so you will have to adjust to this fact. It is not easy, but whoever said gambling was easy.
You don't really have to play "tighter", but you do have to make sure your hand is worthy of a play. Pairs and suited aces are the best hands to play.
When losing, I only play A-10 suited or better but I always raise or limp-raise. You also need to make sure you hit the flop solidly. If you can do these two things, your chances increase tremendously of walking away a winner.
Reading books is a good idea, however you need to be aware many things written are applicable to 20-40 or bigger games. In any game below 10-20, you just have to be solid and don't tilt. Learn to control losses, it is more important than running over people.
You also have not played enough to determine if you are a good, bad, or average player. My definition of a bad player is one who knows 5-2 offsuit is crap, but chooses to play it anyway.
The following is one of the most fascinating hands I've had the pleasure to play in quite some time, if only because my opponent was one of the finest players that I have ever came up against. Here's what happened:
It's mucked to me in late middle position, and I raise with pocket 6's (this is a pretty tight 10-20 game). The button calls (hmmmm) as does the little blind (who I'll refer to as EP, for excellent player) and the BB as well. Flop; 5s 5c 2h. EP bets out, BB mucks, I raise, button mucks, EP makes it three bets. What do you do? If you decide to call (or raise) the flop, how do you play the turn?
I would muck figuring the EP for a larger pocket pair. (88, 99, TT, or JJ)
Jay
Fold or represent a big pair by reraising. Fold if he reraises. Then check the turn if you don't spike a 6. Fold the turn or river for a bet if he continues after your flop reraise. SB (EP) has an overpair between 7s-10s. He would have reraised the preflop with anything more. You should not fear a 5 which he shouldn't have out of the SB unless it's A,5 suited and he shouldn't have that either if he's really EP.
I agree with almost everything. 4-bet the flop, fold for a reraise, fold if he bets into you on the turn. But if you take the free card on the turn you have to call him down on the river.
I know that he probably doesn't have a five (but would play a five exactly this way if he had one), he knows that I know this, AND I know that he knows that I would raise this flop even if I had next to nothing. Does this change things?
Yes, if he knows all of that, then he also knows you will raise with a pair and fold without. When you reraise the flop, the only question left is how big? You put the onus back on him, now on the turn he should show aggression only if he has a five or a big pair, to which you can fold unless he's a kamakazee. You should bet the turn if you hit a six or think he has a intermediate pair and WILL DROP. If not, check it down, call the river. If you respect this player but decide he should not run over you, this is how to take a stand. If you get out of his way everytime in this situation as S&M would say "you're giving up too much"!
PS: FP shouldn't have 2,2 either correct ? BUT if fine player keeps coming , show a little respect and get out.
Call him down. Don't be laying down "overpairs" such-as-it-is against good players who may very well be tempted to slow play hands better than yours.
I can't imagine he has a 5, and I know he's convinced you don't. I would reraise and try to take a free card, then call him down on the end. The pot is large enough and there's enough doubt to warrant calling him down.
Given that flop and action in a raised pot and a good player, most likely he had a pair, small chance he had two over with 3 flush. Here on the flop he either tried to represent a 5 or thought he had the best hand. I would just call his 3-bets. What the turn card is can make a different of the play. If it is an A, K, Q, 3, 4, I may raise him with intention of checking the river if not improve, and see how he reacts. If he is good and tough, I tend to call him down.
regards,
jikun
consider the following facts. A) He knows that I don't have a five, and b) I know he probably doesn't have a five, although it's much more likely that he has one than I have one. Further, he called a raise out of the SB, which indicates a decent hand. But, if he did have a five (something like an A5s) you can make a strong argument for lead betting it, since this is probably the best way to disguise it. Too, it doesn't stand to reason that he's 'making a play' when he three bets the flop out of position. If he checked the flop and check raised the turn, then maybe. But putting three bets in on the flop is not usually the way one goes about putting a move on an opponent. So, what could he have? Remember, I'm talking about an excellent player, which means that just gauging the possibilities that he has a five isn't a strong enough analysis (although I think I have to consider the fact that he'd probably play a five the same way).
Guy,
I would think that the chances of you raising with A5 suited first to act in late middle position are about the same as the chances that he would call in the small blind with this hand. If anything, it is a stronger raise than it is a call when the small blind is only half the big blind as it would be in a 10/20 (in a 15/30 structure A5 suited is an easy call).
I also think he realizes that if he does have a strong hand he is unlikely to lose you by betting since most raising overcards will call or raise. I'm starting to wonder if the hand he had was a pair of deuces based on the way you have told the tale so far. So anyway, when will we find out?
Regards,
Rick
Guy,
Once again, I'll try this on my own before looking at the other answers.
Based on his play through the flop, I'm going to put the fine player on either a medium overpair such as 88 or a hand like A5 suited (although the A5 suited is a very marginal call preflop). A pair of deuces is also possible. I would discount big overcards somewhat as I think he would have made it three bets preflop.
"Fine" players will come out betting from the blinds when they hit low trips on the flop mostly because they know there is little need to disguise their hand since so many won't believe flop aggression indicates trips and they probably steal a lot out of the blinds anyway. So in either case (the other case being the medium overpair) you are behind.
The pot is offering 13 to 1. Call the flop. On the turn you will need a six, a four or a three to continue to the river. The six gives you the near nuts and the other two cards give you an additional inside straight draw to go to the river with. The straight should be safe since it is very unlikely the fine player would be in there with 54 or 53.
Regards,
Rick
If you had raised from late position and the button had not called, I would feel a lot better about your hand.
Here, you raised from middle-ish position. So he can't assume you are on a steal. He leads out and then re-raises. I think he has you. I would call the re-raise and pray for help. He is going to bet the turn no matter what. I think I would have to fold unless I hit my set. If I picked up the straight draw, I might call again, but you have to worry a little about 2-2, which seems like a possibility. Tough spot for you.
Post the result!
Guy,
After reading through the various responses and your second post, I have some trouble believing he has an overpair--only because you say this is a "most interesting hand." I'd also discount 2-2 for the same reason. Again, I'm trying to figure this out from the information you've provided so far, not according to what he might be holding in this position.
In addition, I also saw a hand played out with this same flop recently. "EP" reraised with 4-4; turn is a 4 and river is a 3. Full house beats nut str8.
I realize this is an insanely wild guess, but I did witness almost the same hand, except player in your position held 7,6s.
John
Usually, the blinds get random cards. However, for EP to cold call your preflop raise, means that either he also has medium pairs or Axs.
For EP to bet out after the flop tells me he does not have a 5 at all. Either he is trying to take the pot there and then with his medium pair or maybe A2s.
Go ahead and tell us the rest. I'm curious to know the outcome.
I know what you mean BUT every hand is random unless the dealer is not shuffling properly.
The small blind always has random cards. The question is which random cards does he have.
He knows he can't isolate you. No point in him raising with a small pair (2-7). If that's what he has he should fold. Maybe he calls this with the small pairs given the 4 way action and he's in for 3/4 bet.
If he had 55 or 22 then betting out will disguise his hand.
Betting the same way for any over pair or flush draw is an attempt to slow you down.
Heck, he could have AK and might play this hard at you.
Your re-raise kind of shows you don't have quads. You really would have wanted to keep the Button in.
Call him down. Be able to fold if the the Flush or an A or K hits.
"If he had 55 or 22 then betting out will disguise his hand."
C'mon, BetTheDraw. If you are the small blind and you flopped a set, and the action was raised preflop, would you bet it out right away? I dooon't think so. I think your best course of action would be to just check and call and wait until the turn before you bet it out or checkraise.
I was nitpicking on the random versus average thing.
You're not nitpicking. You're saying I'm wrong! Hey, I'm nitpicking again! p-)
However, my point is, since as you say
"your best course of action would be to just check and call and wait until the turn before you bet it out or checkraise"
then the bet will disguise what you have. Obviously I wouldn't bet the full house so therefore I don't have one. When it comes raised back to you then it's time to just call (indicating that you were just kidding).
Regards
Sorry, GD, I got side tracked. Now that he 3bets you on the flop, I would call him down.
What to do on the turn? It depends on the card. Any small cards such as 3,4 or 6, I would bet it out. Any medium to overcards, I would fold.
You go ahead and tell us the turn and the river card. You can wait for awhile before you tell us what EP has but don't keep us waiting too looooooooong. The thread will soon be buried way down below if you wait another day!!
First off, let me thank everyone for their thoughtful and cogent analyses. If I gave my hands as much thought as you guys do, I'd probably be ready for the WSOP. Anway, what I decided (after the three bet) was that my oppoenet either had a) A monster, or b) a small overpair (or maybe something like a pair of 4's). Since I would have played either an overpair or overcards pretty much the same way to this point (although I may have smooth called with A's, I'm not sure) I figured I'd just call the flop and raise (or lead bet, whatever the case) the turn if a T through A dropped. The only thing I was sure of was that my opponent had at least two pair, since I couldn't figure him for three betting overcards. So, as I often do, I decided I'd find out 'what's what' on the turn. A red Q dropped on the turn, he bet, I raised, and he hemmed and hawed for a bit before flashing me-- you guessed it-- pocket 6's. What's funny about this is that me and this player had a hand a while ago where we both had pocket A's, and he got me to lay mine down on the river in what was by then a pretty big goddmaned pot. So, I felt a bit vindicated. But I'm still not sure that I played it correctly, which is why I posted the hand. Too, I thought I'd post it because it seemed to me like a hand that highlighted the 'reverse implied odds' theory, which is something that most players (myself included) don't quite understand-- or, at least don't take into account when we (I) are playing our hands. In other words, it looked to me on the flop like I was going to pay forty more bucks if I was behind, but probably wouldn't get another dime if I was ahead. However, I figured the chances that I had the best hand, combined with my chanced of getting HIM off the best hand on the turn, were enough to warrant a call on the flop and a move on the turn. Again, thanks to all for their responses.
What do you guys think ? 4/8/8 game, mixed table. UTG calls (1st time seeing this player),maniac raises, regular player calls, another regular calls, I call on the button with 5,5, Both blinds call. Flop = 5d4d2h, Checked to UTG who also checks, maniac bets (of course), folded to me, I raise, UTG calls, all else fold. Heads up on the turn. Turn = 7C. UTG checks, I bet the $8. UTG calls. River = Kc. UTG bets, now what should I do with my set, call or raise? I know the answer may be different for each player type. I found out later, this was UTG's 1st holdem experience, I had been losing and taking lots of beats. What should I do , raise for value or play it safe and call ? Results in the next post.
Raise. If he had pocket K's he probably would have made more noise on either the flop or the turn.
I raised thinking he might have just paired his overcards. He reraises, I call, he shows me 6d3d, and had flopped a str8, with a straight flush draw ! This was the end of a bad session for me. Just wondering if conventional wisdom says I should call or if my value raise was reasonable ?
I think conventional wisdom says to RAISE since there are no reasonable hands he can have that have you beat but there ARE unreasonable hand YOU can beat.
Raise, at least, against most players.
Raise. There's nothing you can do but make the long term EV value raise.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
I would definately raise.
Yikes. In my post below, I said that a 6-3 holding was unlikely for an UTG player. Just because it's unikely doesn't mean it's impossible, though. Don't be what we used to call in the bridge world a "results wizard": justifying your actions however offbeat based on what happened. The other posters so far were unanimous in their recommendation that you raise this fool. Just be happy it didn't cost you the 1 or 2 additonal bets you might have had to pay out if this guy bet a little differently. Trust me on this, if he keeps playing 6-3 UTG, someone at your table will soon have all his cash. Just hope you get your share.
Raise. There's nothing you can do but make the long term EV value raise.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
I make this post without having read the above posts. I'd put UTG on King something of diamonds. I would raise him on the river for value.
Headcase,
Raise. What do you think UTG has? The most he can have is A,K. I doubt he has an A,3 or 3,6 unless he is drawing to a diamond flush. Still, never doubt in your cards. You've got a winner here and what you should do is RAISE!!
Raise. Stop and think for a minute about what hands that he could have to beat you.
1. KK - Would he check this flop with pocket K's? Not likely.
2. Pocket 7's - See #1, plus you would have been check-raised on the turn by any sane player.
3. 86 or 63 - Not a very likely holding for an UTG player, even in low limit.
4. A3(probably suited to play UTG) - He should have either bet out or check-raised on the turn, so I would discount this holding as well.
I realize that this was the first time you had seen this player, but when in doubt, you are probably safe to assume he is a reasonable, average player until proven otherwise. When you raise, if he re-raises, I would strongly consider popping him again. I would suspect from your comment that this was his first time in a game that you ran into trip K's, but a more reasonable holding for him at this point would be AK.
Headcase,
I haven't looked at the other responses yet but I think this is an easy raise. If he had a straight I would think he would check-raise the turn. If he had 77 he may have bet the flop or at least check-raised the turn. If he had KK why stop being tricky on the river and not go for the check-raise now? Then again you said he was a novice so I'm getting the feeling this (KK) is what he had unless the king made him two pair ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Thanks folks, at least I'm not the only one that goes down a couple of bets to an unorthodox player. This guy was so passive his bet screamed Danger ! He was always raised by the player on his left, whom he had driven into "Mania" as he tried to isolate the rookie at every oportunity. I was new to a game with a rich history of 1 card draw outs and sheriff's intervention. I held up as long as I could (won 3 pots) with no bluffs, nothing past the flop that didn't fit, and pushing the big cards (which didn't come too often and got cracked immediatly), or staying out of the way. After 2 hours three tourist left +250, yep, all the locals started looking like stuck pigs, (me ? 3.5 hrs -200), just another session at "Happy Hour in LV" !
You ever notice how 1st time luck is magified 10x at HE ?
15/30 semi-loose aggressive holdem game. I was in mid-position with Kings. UTG folded, next player called, I raised, another player folded, next player 2bets, cut-off folded, button 3bets, everyone before my turn folded, I capped, 2nd re-raiser and button called.
Flop was 2,4,5 rainbow. I bet, 2nd re-raiser 2bets, button folded, I 3bet, 2nd re-raiser called.
Turn was a 3. I knew I was in trouble. I bet, 2nd re-raiser 2bets, I 3bet and he called.
River was an Ace. I bet, 2nd re-raiser called and said "I guess we split the pot" and he showed me his Ace, King. I said "I guess so" and showed him my Kings.
Did I play my hand correctly?
I think the turn play was a little too aggressive, because he is not going to fold his str8 (which is very likely from his raising on the turn) and your hand is hard to improve, so why put more money in without the best of it.
regards,
jikun
jikun,
I agree I was a bit aggressive, but at the time I was involved in the action, my thoughts were focused on how to isolate what cards he was playing. Who knows, he might have overpairs like Queens or Jacks but when he re-raised me back, I already knew I was drawing dead. I could not believe my luck when the river card was an Ace. Thanks for your input.
Since you put in $90 on the turn with 3 outs, and were lucky that your opponent thought you were weak enough to have a 6 in your hands (otherwise it costs you $120) I vote no. You did not play this hand correctly.
I just read my own reply, and realized it might sound sarcastic. I apologize. I didn't meant it that way. I just wanted to point out that you played it extremely too fast.
Sorry if I gave off the wrong tone...
He's not going to fold the straight now nor when you catch up. It doesn't matter much if he folds his QQ since he's so far behind. So you are probably drawing dead or maybe HE is almost drawing dead. No point in raising. You voluntarily put in 2 extra bets on the turn being pretty darn sure you had 7 outs to tie. Knowing you were in trouble didn't do you too much good this time.
I also have a personal dislike for capping the flop when you would only do it with premium pairs. By just calling you have a brain-dead check-raise on the turn and STILL are disguising your hand.
- Louie
That's a good point about capping the pre-flop action. However, I wonder if anyone is every paying close enough attention to your pre-flop action to make this kind of deceptive play more profitable than just capping it.
15/30 semi-loose aggressive holdem game. I was in mid position with Kings. UTG folded, next player folded, I raised, another player folded, next player 2bets, cut-off player folded, button 3bets, everyone before me folded, I capped, 2nd re-raiser and button called.
Flop was 2,4,5 rainbow. I bet, 2nd re-raiser 2 bets, button folded, I 3bet, 2nd re-raiser called.
Turn was a 3. I was in trouble. I bet, 2nd re-raiser 2bets, I 3bet, 2nd re-raiser called.
River card was an Ace. I bet, 2nd re-raiser just called and said "I guess we split the pot" and showed his A,K. I said "I guess so" and showed him my Kings.
Did I play this hand correctly?
"Turn was a 3. I was in trouble." Now, when I think I am in trouble, I have taught myself not to bet. Or at least, I think I have. No! I have.
Turn was a 3. I was in trouble. I bet, 2nd re-raiser 2bets,I 3bet(I thought u were in trouble)
At the very least you have to put this guy on an big Ace with all the preflop action. That puts him on a str8 draw after the flop and he hit the 3 on turn and you bet INTO him?? Bad move!!
I would think at this level that you should have put him on some kind of big Ace. Your KK is dead on the turn but you got VERY lucky.
PS: If you know your in trouble on the turn, why bet?
MJ
MJ,
By the way he re-raised me preflop, I put his hand to be an overpair, (not necessarily Aces) as the button re-raised also. In fact, I read the button to have the AKs more likely than him so when the button dropped out from the game, my thoughts were that he could be likely stealing the pot.
Yes, I did an aggressive move on the turn (I consider myself lucky to see an Ace on the river) and next time this happens to me, I will do the logical thing which is to give up my Kings if I'm drawing dead.
"Turn was a 3. I was in trouble. I bet, 2nd re-raiser 2bets, I 3bet, 2nd re-raiser called. "
You thought you were in trouble and you wound up putting 3 big bets on a turn. Why would you do that? The way I see you have 2 ways to play it.
1. Check call. If you check and he checks bet the river for value.
2. Bet if raised call trying to catch an Ace or a 6 for split pot. The pot is big enough. Fold on the river.
I like option 1 since I'm not good enough to save a bet safely here on the river.
Personally, I like betting the turn and folding if raised. You are getting 11-1 to split, so really 5.5-1 on a probably 7 outer, but the button might have ahd a big ace too.
I think he is actually getting 7 to 1. I think 3 of them put 5 bets preflop + blinds. Then he bet the flop got raised reraise and the other guy called. Then if he would bet and get raised he would be looking at something like 7 to 1 for a split. I could be misreading the action though.
Been a while since I played $20-$40 and I'm unsure what is an "appropriate" amount to buy-in for when I sit down. My first instinct is to buy a rack-o-red, 100 $5 chips. However, the alternative is to buy-in for something small, like $200 -- so the question is, will that be perceived as "weakness" (the kid is broke) or "strength" (I guess he doesn't need much) ???
p2w
A full rack of $5 chips is fine, 80 chips minimum. Any less than that and you may be perceived as being a little on the tight side, but a 60 chip buy-in is not uncommon.
Buying in for 40 chips($200) is not only cheap, it borders on being inconsiderate, since you're likely to hold up the game when you don't jump right off to a good start, then you have to flag somebody down for ANOTHER 40 chips?
-pdk
I think 500 is a minimum. I always buy in from 700 to 1000.
You should never play short stacked. Because if you do, you won't be able to get the best of it when you have the nuts.
20 Big bet rule would apply. I always buy in for the 20 X (Big Bet) $800.00 here. I hate playing short stacked.
MJ
I don't think anywill will think "I guess he doesn't need much" when you buy in for a small amount. $200 is a ridiculous amount for a 20/40 game. 15/30 is my usual limit and I would never consider entering a game with less than a rack of nickels. Some people buy in for more than me (one Bellagio regular I know will typically have $1,500 in front of him whether he wins or loses) and some will buy in the for the $150 minimum. I try to be an inconspicuous as possible. Buying in for the amount most of my opponents buy in for helps me to acheive this.
Five hundred is the typical buy in for my Seattle area ten- twenty. I believe eight hundred is the proper buy for ten- twenty. Ten- twenty is the biggest game I can find in Seattle, if I sat down in a twenty- forty, I would have at least a grand in front of me, if I played that level daily I would want at least twenty grand behind me. David Sklansky suggested in a book that five grand was proper for ten- twenty, I have been down forty eight hundred twice before I saw a turn around.
It seems the short stackers are seldom in the game long.
To me, a rack of nickels is the most inconspicuous. I like to promote a tight/agressive image, and such a person wouldn't need an excessive number of chips.
pokr2win
Buy the rack. But if you are asking questions like this I think you can say good buy to the rack - sure you are not out of your depth here.
$400 would portray "weakness"; usually in the form of "paraniod about playing too high and is easy maneuvered out of the pot".
Buy in with two racks or don't buy in at all. If you're only willing to buy in with a rack, play 10-20 instead...and gun for 20-40. What I mean by "gun" is this: Set a goal to win another rack. Once you've won another rack (or even as little as 3/5 of a rack) at 10-20, immediately move up to 20-40. I'm giving you this specific advice mainly because I can sense in your post that playing 20-40 is a "taking a shot" attempt for you.
However, if the game is that good then win 2 racks and freeroll at the 20/40! Seriously!
Buy in for 15 big bets at least. Playing too short gets you pushed around, and you might miss a few hands at first, despite your good play.
I use $500-700 as the initial buy-in. 500 is conveinent for the chip runners, but really 700 is better in case you "hit a hand". For 15-30, I buy between $400 or 500. For 9-18, $240-300 and 6-12 160-200 dollars. Forget the house minimum, it is not high enough for serious play.In fact, I'm also a believer one should have 10 or more big bets on the table at all times. I think this should be a rule in all ring games.
Playing 2-5 Spread Limit Holdem. I'm in late position with AsJs. A solid player limps in UTG. It is mucked around to me and I raise 5. The button calls, the blind folds, and UTG calls.
Flop comes 5-7-J rainbow with one spade. UTG checks. I bet 5. Button calls. UTG check-raises. I reraise. Button calls. UTG reraises.
What would you do? call, raise, or fold?
If everything's as you say there's better than a 90% chance that he's got a set (you're getting about 9-1 effectively), and even if he doesn't the button might outdraw you. Let it go.
If you are going to let this one go do it on the turn, ESPECIALLY if you have the nut 3-flush. This forces the opponent to bluff TWICE which is a lot less profitable than getting to take one shot at it (his raise) figuring you'll let it go now.
I expect you are looking at a set here - you over played the J's when the UTG ck raised it should have set off an alarm a call here is the play I think.
You are stuck calling to the river.
I think now there is little doubt that he had a set on the flop. Your play before the turn would indicate top pair with a great/top kicker. His max bet when the top cards pairs on the turn shows no fear of what would most likely be your top set. I think UTG most likely filled up on the turn. I would fold, especially in light of the fact that the Button likely holds one or more of your remaining outs and you are thus drawing incredibly slim.
Like Rounder, I would have called his check-raise.
x
I called and the button called.
On the turn comes a J. UTG Bets 5. What do you do now?
call he is probably full if not you are making crying calls from here out. You can muck but I don't like that play.
He's full or he's got AJ. You still have only a call if you didn't drop for the flop checkraise. Now, you know he didn't limp with JJ, but AJ,55,77 are still most likely if he's any kind of player. If you really want to know if it's a set, reraise the flop checkraise, you might shake loose AJ, but a set will keep coming . Least likely now is QQ-AA unless he checks the river as in "I surrender". You're hoping for an A or J on the River. If this guy limped in with AA and the A now river's you're ,again, dead meat. You can simplify all of this by folding or just calling him down, but decide on the flop checkraise ! After the checkraise from a solid player you're "hoping" all the way with no draws to be found. If you know he's solid then I would call on the checkraise only because the likelyhood of AJ.
PS: Are you hoping he's betting 6,4 or 6,8 here ? Or could he be mucking around with T,T or 9,9
Call. You now have the equivalent of a gutshot to the nuts and the pot is too large to surrender.
Jay,
You posted:
Playing 2-5 Spread Limit Holdem. I'm in late position with AsJs. A solid player limps in UTG. It is mucked around to me and I raise 5. The button calls, the blind folds, and UTG calls.
There are no solid players in a 2-5 game. There are a few weak tight players (namely the retired folk who attempt to supplement their social security check) and a few wanna be solid players who play a bit better than the average low limit player but no "solid" players.
Flop comes 5-7-J rainbow with one spade. UTG checks. I bet 5. Button calls. UTG check-raises. I reraise. Button calls. UTG reraises.
If I go with your description and that this player is "solid", you call the flop and either call him down or fold on the turn if you don't improve. Let me explain why based on the hands that a solid player could have here...
He limps in UTG. He has either a very weak hand that wants good implied odds of many callers (pocket 3's through 8's; 5,6 suited through 9,10 suited; possibly possibly J10s, QJs, or KJs though debatable as he called a raise) or a very strong hand that didn't want to steal the blinds (AA, KK, AKs, maybe QQ though I don't like the limp with QQ).
Now you raise, the button calls, the blinds fold back to him. A solid player would fold all but the premium hands in the face of your raise and a three way pot. He's not getting odds to flop his set with any of the small pairs (including 5's or 7's), all of his two big card suited hands are most likely dominated (except AK and even that might be in trouble), and he's not getting odds to hit his suited connectors.
I am assuming a $1 and $2 blind or one $2 blind per round.
In the face of this assumption, you call on the flop as you are most likely beat. I took the liberty of reading the response and the turn card, and would then raise on the turn when the board pairs J's.
If you come back and tell me I am wrong and the player had a set of 5's, 7's, or some weird card like a nine made him a straight on the river then I'll reiterate, he was not a solid player as there are no solid players in a 2-5 game :))))
Regards/LoneStar
Lone Star,
I play in Colorado where there is only 2-5 and 5-5 spread limit games with one blind. The 5-5 games are pretty wild with some players capping with as little as 3-2 off suit.
Jay
3-5 games games are spread in Blackhawk with 2 blinds.
True enough,
Solid players muck those small pairs unless the game is very passive. (Don't they?) Never mind the raise, would a solid player play these to start?
In this game however, I believe that he was up against a set. The turn was nice though. If the board pairs again and there isn't quads then he has a winner. I might fold Top pair on the turn but would be committed to the 3 Jacks once it hit.
In this kind of game the player might have had the 2 small pair!
A solid player might limp with 55 UTG but maybe not push it so hard on the flop. We know he has no set of J's so he is on a set and not a solid player or an over pair.
I vote for the full house.
Most players eigther over rate and underrate players routinly.
Rounder,
You admit that he is on a boat, but you don't agree (as you say above) with mucking. I think you have to muck on the turn. Our hero only has four outs (a J and 3 Aces). Plus, we CAN'T FORGET THE OTHER CALLER ON THE BUTTON. He very likely holds one of our outs, if not two. I don't see how the odds are present to justify a call when our hero is drawing so slim. If I am missing something, please fill me in.
Jon
I'm not speaking for Rounder but what you are missing is that the game is 2-5 holdem.
I know you're not really missing that. It's just that in these low limit games almost anything is possible.
Jon,
If it is me and I sized up the guy maybe I muck on the flop if I really put the guy on a set or 2 pair but he is this far and 2 BB to see the hand might be worth it.
I thought the BB folded by now. Must have missed something.
Outs J for quads A 5 or 7 for a full house. 10 outs not impossible bit better than a flush draw.
I call to the river here - maybe I am wrong but I wanna see this one out.
1. Jay's posts make it apparent that there is a caller on the button to our hero's left.
2. Can you really consider 5s or 7s to be outs when you strongly suspect that your opponent holds pocket 5s or more likely pocket 7s?
I might be more willing to call if it were heads up (as I think the button caller is sucking up some of my outs).
A fold is correct only when the third opponent has AJ, as he did. With 3 live aces to draw to, however, a call would be correct given the size of the pot. (It's less than 15-1 against our hero spiking an ace, and he'll get at least about an 18-1 payoff if he does.)
You admit that he is on a boat, but you don't agree (as you say above) with mucking. I think you have to muck on the turn. Our hero only has four outs (a J and 3 Aces). Plus, we CAN'T FORGET THE OTHER CALLER ON THE BUTTON. He very likely holds one of our outs, if not two. I don't see how the odds are present to justify a call when our hero is drawing so slim. If I am missing something, please fill me in.
LoneStar screams and rants and waves hands frantically in the air...
You *cannot*, *cannot*, *cannot* muck top trips, top kicker on the turn!! You may believe that you're beat. You may even be almost convinced that you are beat. You have to be *100%* certain that you are beat to muck a holding this strong and not get slaughtered by an observant opponent. Many times even if your opponent turned his hand face up you should still call if the pot odds justify drawing to your outs that will beat him.
The point that I was trying to make in my first post is to think about all of the different hands that your opponent could have in this spot. If you admit that he could have even a few of the hands that I mentioned, you *must* call.
One of the fundamental mistakes that I believe wanna be good players make is what Abdul calls "seeing monsters under the bed" (ie. putting your opponent on only the nuts or near nuts that beats you). It is a huge mistake to give up a pot that you should have won. It is only a small mistake (and often even the correct play) to make most calls when you are pretty sure that you are beat.
In medicine it's called a differential diagnosis (all of the different diagnoses that could explain a patient's symptoms and condition). In poker call it differential hand reading if you will. Start with a range of hands that your opponent could have; not just the weakest and the strongest but *all* of the hands that he could have and make your playing decisions accordingly.
Regards/LoneStar
Interesting assumption. Is this both you and your husbands opinion, or just yours? (re:there are no solid players at 2-5)
"There are no solid players in a 2-5 game."
Then you have obviously never played 2-5 with G.D.;-)
When it's the only game in town, they're there.
I called and the Button called.
The turn hit blank. UTG Bet and Me and the Button called.
UTG had 55 and the Button had AJ offsuit.
Should I have called down to the river after the check raise or should I have mucked after UTG reraised?
My initial read was that UTG had JJ and hit a set. My plan was to see if the turn would give me a flush draw and muck if it didn't. I didn't expect the J to hit on the turn. When it did I thought he may have the 55, 77 or also an AJ. I decided to call again on the river to find out. Was my decision process wrong? What other things should I have thought of?
Thanks for all the feedback.
Jay
The problem was in misreading his check-raise.
With a raised pot and a bet and a call he has no chance of bluffing. He should know this. There's no flush draw and hardly any straight draw that he could have. If he held KJ or QJ and intended to try to trap you when he checked, raising after you've received a call shouldn't look that good to him anymore (the caller, for example, might have a hand and you could have an overpair). Also, most of the time a solid player will bet out with KJ or QJ. An overpair doesn't make any sense: he would have reraised after limping preflop. So you should be very concerned about the set as soon as he check-raises. Keep in mind that this whole analysis is predicated on your description of him as a solid player.
On the other hand, if he tended to play his top pair hands very agressively or suspected you of bluffing, you might want to take a card off or call to the river. If not, the most profitable play here probably is to fold. Note that folding is a lot less dangerous here than if you raise and fold later, as it won't necessarily tell him that his aggression can get you off a good hand.
Definitely a quality muck UNLESS you're playing at the Central Station, where some of those clowns will keep banging at it here with a five. If you were playing against an average Bullwhacker opponent, you just have to lay down here. Even if you were ahead THIS time, mucking in this situation will show you a profit over the long run. BTW, with these big suited paints I generally like to raise to five as opposed to seven, since there always seemed to be a lot of players who would play 44, 68s etc. for five bucks but would muck for 7. I had a bit of success with this 'half raise' when I played in that game.
This illustrates one of my mantras about routinely calling raises on the flop. Your friend has to take TWO shots at you to make you lay down your QQ rather than just the one. Combine this with routinely "just" calling raises with reraise-worthy hands and it discourages players from taking these shots.
I hate it when I check-raise with a small pair and such the solid better calls. Now what? Bet again, but I don't like it.
- Louie
I took a business trip last week and played two nights in HP. Both games were very loose & agressive with a couple of maniacs in each game. Majority of hands were raised preflop with many of them being capped. On average 6 to 7 players took the flop. Is this typical of LA games? If so, what changes in play should a tight agressive player be making in these kind of games?
I play in Hollywood Park or Commerce everyday. What you just described is Poker Califorina Style. These games are very beatable, but you must hold on to your chips very tight. HPFAP has a section "PLAYING IN LOOSE GAMES" It has helped me greatly. My strategy is simple. I hardly never ever limp in. Never call raises. Only reraise or fold. You have to remember if your hand can't stand a raise you shouldn't be in the pot, because it is highly likely it will be raise and reraise by the time it comes back to you. You should do fine just stay very selective and aggressive. That's the key.
Tight UTG called, 2 called, I raised with 33 one off the button to enhance my aggressive image and GET the button; Button called, blinds fold, UTG 3-bet, 2 called, and I capped it; 5 of us take the flop.
Flop is KT2 2-flush. UTG bet, 1 called, I raised to find out where I was at, button called, UTG 3-bet, 1 call, I 4-bet to get a free card, button FINALLY gave it up, Ah HA!. 3 of us take the turn.
Turn is 3. They check and I check to disguise my hand, hehehe.
River is an A. UTG bet, 1 called, I 2-bet, UTG called quickly, and now the tenatious caller 3-bets, I 4-bet since he'd have to be brain-dead to put in all that money with just QJ, UTG very discustedly called, and the other player tries to 5-bet but can't.
I'll post the results if anybody asks.
How'd I do?
- Louie
What was my error? Fundamentally.
Hi there,
I'm curious about the results-after seeing your posts for a while, this doesn't really seem to be your style =).
I wouldn't have capped it with 33 before the flop, or even raised (but then again, I play mostly in crazy 6-12 California games, so I'm not sure this is a bad play, especially if it's partly an image play.)
I wouldn't have raised the flop "to find out where I'm at" with this flop and your hand, either--I can tell you where you're at--beaten.
I also wouldn't have 4-bet to get a free card--you're 23:1 against hitting your set, and even with all the action, I think you're "spending" too much money on this hand.
You got lucky on the turn =). I like your play from then on, I think, although you didn't mention if the flush got there, and I wouldn't be so quick to discount someone putting all that money in with QJ. At least in the games I play (up to 15-30) a lot of players will call 4 bets with an open end straight draw (and sometimes cap it themselves!).
Like I said though, I play at lower limits--I haven't played in big games, so I don't know if this play would be correct there.
So, what happened?
Max
You assumed one of your opponants wasn't brain dead? spitball
As Arnold Drummond (Gary Coleman) once said on an episode of "Diff'rent Strokes":
"Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"
Your error, fundamentally, was playing poker while on mescaline.
I have to disagree.
I'd put him on PCP, or possibly amphetamine.
You should have folded after the flop Louie ! You will certainly do wonders for your image when you show 3,3. UTG had a big pair, Q,Q I suppose. Caller has Q,J. You should have bet the turn, which was your only chance to get Q,J out when UTG checkraised. They used to tell me "why do all that betting then check when you make the hand ?" How close am I, QJ right?
Louie Landale,
I like your style. And I thought I was the aggressive one. Now, please post the results as I am too tired waiting for GD to post his result in his thread "A Most Interesting Hand".
Fundamentally, your error was to check when the turn was a 3. Your hand was already disguised when you capped the raise preflop. Why not bet it out, you've already got a "monster" in your hand.
You want anyone to talk fundementals when you when you raised four times with 33?
OK...
UTG probably has an above average hand. How about something like KQs? You said he was tight, which means he knows a bit about the dangers of limping in UTG. Late position raised, which doesn't mean much, and he reraised to trap everyone else who wants to call 2 more bets cold or he gets it heads up with you.
So anyway once the flop hits, regardless of the other maniacs at the table, you're a big big dog at this table. But you're trying to represent AA here. Good for you. Except for the 2 flush on board. Now those that are trying for the flush couldn't care less if you had a hand one better than AA, and flush will cream you. So they're if they're as aggressive as you are, they'll ride the raises hoping to take your top pair down hard. What the heck, right? They've already come this far.
But luck be a lady tonight. Not only does the flush NOT materialize by the turn but you actually made your worthless hand good. And you check? Who cares about confusing them? No one would ever put you on 33 and you missed a bet. Worse yet, you just gave the flush draws a FREE CARD to the river. AA or trip 3s, flush beats them both!
But again luck is with you, for I assume the flush did not come. It's never clearly stated but I assume you wouldn't leave that piece of info out. Anyway, your trip 3s probably took the pot.
Overall, hyper hyper aggressive. Not my style but then I don't play your poker game. But that free card you gave on the turn leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Dan
Dumb scale: 1 = Dumb, 5 = Dumber, 10 = Dumbest
Tight UTG called, 2 called, I raised with 33 [4]one off the button to enhance my aggressive image[7] and GET the button[6]; Button called, blinds fold, UTG 3-bet, 2 called, and I capped it[7]; 5 of us take the flop.
Flop is KT2 2-flush. UTG bet, 1 called, I raised [2]to find out where I was at[10], button called, UTG 3-bet, 1 call, I 4-bet to get a free card[10], button FINALLY gave it up, Ah HA![8]. 3 of us take the turn.
Turn is 3. They check and I check [10]to disguise my hand[1,000], hehehe.
River is an A. UTG bet, 1 called, I 2-bet[3], UTG called quickly, and now the tenatious caller 3-bets, I 4-bet [10]since he'd have to be brain-dead to put in all that money with just QJ,
Chris,
I like your grading system. If Louie comes out and actually says that it was in fact him playing this hand. You'll get a chance to grade another tilted moron.
I think you did very well by making everyone here believe you actually played the hand this way. I think you were probably the one holding QJ. ;)
As a fairly new player I have to wonder what were utg and #1 holding. It seems to me #1 could only be holding QJ He's patiently calling all the way but when he made the straight on the river shouldn't he have raised utg's bet?
UTG could have K,Ks or 10,10s He was aggressive most of the way...but why wouldn"t he be betting on the 3rd turn?
My guess is #1 won with QJ???
UTG had AK, KK, AA. The caller had either QJ or two pair, or AA(who knows for sure).
I would not raise an UTG tight player from late position preflop, and I would have done the obvious on the turn and bet.
I can't spend much time thinking about this, my boss is calling me. Interesting hand. You sure skp was not there?
Is this like a trick question? Was this really you playing this hand?
Before the Flop. Why raise the second time since the button won't fold now. Deception? Big pot in case you hit? Not enough callers to warrent a raise here. You've already got the best pot odds you're going to get.
After the flop. You RAISE to find out where you're at! There's a flush draw, a Straight draw and 2 overcards. I hope you at least had the 3 of the flush suit in your hand. No reason to make your 23-1 shot, a 46-1 shot. You're beaten here, then you raise AGAIN and the button (most correctly probably) folds.
After the turn. It's a miracle. If you're not up against a bigger set then you now have the best hand. All of a sudden they check. UTG may have had 2 pair or maybe a set of 10's. He really belives you for the set of K's. Now, after all that betting on cheap street you let everyone play for free. How many ways is this wrong?
When the Ace hit and UTG bets, he might have a set of Aces. The QJs has got to be there as well. Now that you're not best again, you start raising! [JOKE ON] MAYBE TO DISGUISE YOUR HAND! [JOKE OFF].
After reading so many of your posts, I can't believe this is you. Anyway, show me how YOU played this correctly and I'll quit poker forever ..... maybe.
This is a cool, and interesting new way of playing the game of poker. Not even the greatest poker author of all time, John Patrick, is aware of this style of play. You are truly on some next level stuff. Ever consider writing a book?
With this a lot of muscle work, it must be a high limit game. In my game, I would read you as a maniac (of course you're not) from the way you played before and on the flop.
With this much of heat, I would bet the turn knowing I would get called. At that point, we don't know what is going to come on the river and if someone will bet on the river.
On the river, if the caller did not have a tell from you, he was unlikely to have QJ, because he would raise in front of you himself especially the turn was checked around. Still, he could have a set, so I would just call his reraise (4 bets may force the UTG to fold is another reason).
regards
jikun
Louie asks: "How'd I do?"
You mean after you woke up?
"How'd I do?" Poorly, obivously, as every move on every round in what I can only assume is this fable you have told is incorrect.
"What was my error? Fundamentally." Forgetting the fundamentals: There are times to raise with 3-3, to enhance one's aggressive image, to buy the button, to find out where one is at, to get a free card, to disguise one's hand and to assume one's opponent is brain-dead. None of these times occurred in the hand you described.
Most entertaining post I've read since a Fekali enema of perhaps six months ago.
1. I think raising two early position limpers with 33 one off the button and then calling the reraise is "image enhancing" enough (to say the least). I wouldn't have capped preflop with 33.
2. I would have folded when I didn't hit my set on the flop.
3. If you're there for the turn, gotta bet the turn.
Would have been nice to know player propensities as well as the limit.
I put UTG on KK, caller on QJ or AQs/AJs suited to flop.
But what do I know.
This is the most entertaining post I've read in a long time. Thank you Louie.
P.S and I thought my game was wacky this saturday night.
Geeze, guys!! Only Scott and Andy actually answered the question. Special cudos to Chris (but "1000" is a bit high, don't you think?).
Yes, I made up this post up. No, it wasn't me. Yes, hero played poorly-to-terribly at every opportunity. Yes, #1 obviously had the straight. Yes, UTG had a big set probably Aces. No, it was NOT a "trick question" just a "trick situation".
Hero believes fundamentals are for lesser wanna-be's; true experts of his caliber prove it by being "sophisticated" all the time.
Given this fundamental error Hero is fated to make these mistakes. And many more like them since there are so many rationalizations for playing "tricky".
- Louie
Hero didn't "forget" the fundamentals they just don't apply to him. It wasn't "mesculine" it was "masculine".
What exactly again was the answer?
I had all the correct stuff! Trick question, Not You, QJ, Set Aces on river.
I suppose the Hero was playing the free card, find out where you are, raise for deception, check for deception etc. angles just a LITTLE too strongly.
I think that, in hindsight, he played right at just about each point. It was really the game he was in that was the problem. The other players were not good enough to understand all that was happening.
I think if hero moves up a few levels he will do much better.
Yes, you correctly perceived the situation; but that was not the point of the question.
Hello everybody,
Somewhat loose aggressive 6-12 California game. I am one off the button, look down and see AcKs. I raise, 6 people see the flop of 5s9cKh for two bets.
Checked around to me, I bet. 2 people fold, pot is 4 way.
Turn is 2s. Checked around to me, I bet, 1 call, early posistion player raises, one fold, I 3-bet. Both other players call (passive caller goes all-in).
River is 10s.
Turn check-raiser checks to me, I open my hand.
Please comment on my play. I will post the results after a couple of responses.
Thanks.
Max
I can't think of anything that the early position player might have other than 99, and that is what I'd have been scared of. I haven't come across a player who would slowplay the flop and checkraise the turn with just top pair. I wouldn't have three bet. Depends whether the player is tricky enough to bluff check-raise. If it was heads-up I'd carry on, but against two players I'd be sorely tempted to lay it down.
Jon
I believe you're either facing trips or the early position player check raised with a straight draw and a flush draw, most likely QJs.
Could turn checkraiser have K9s or turned a set of deuces?
If he had either hand I don't know why he didn't 4bet the turn.
chris
Max,
A lot depends on the style of the early position player who checked raised you on the turn. With no real draws out there I would worry about a set if he is at least semi-solid and sane and perhaps slow down. If he is a loose and aggressive than I like your three bet followed by your check on the end.
With one player all in, the check on the river becomes the best play. Your opponent knows you are not bluffing and if called you are probably at least a slight dog. If you were head up and there was no allin player, then your value bet would make sense.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. What is the most correct spelling of "all in"?
a) allin
b) all in
c) all-in
d) who cares?
This hand is no fun.
I'd have to give you a 10.
Okay, so here's what happened (I think I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread earlier).
Check raiser had 92o in the big blind, and turned two pair--hence the check-raise on the turn, when the deuce fell.
The all-in player I didn't have a good read on yet (he went all-in pretty quickly-I think he bought short) and it turned out that he had Js6s, and won with the flush.
So, I was in third place with this hand. Aiyah!
Anyway, thanks for your responses--I just wanted some "validation" that I played this hand correctly, as the results were so unfortunate.
Max
Max,
For the sake of integrity of the post, this is response prior to reading the others.
You played the hand fine (whether you won it or not). The turn raiser most likely has two pair (K9 in Vegas but in CA could have any two), or a set and is afraid of the backdoor flush draw raising.
You might get called by a worse hand with a bet here (namely KQ or KJ) but you will certainly get raised by a flush and also probably by a set. I don't see a great deal of value in a bet here. Your opponent's check raise on the turn says he beats AK or he's semi-bluffing in which case he wouldn't call a bet on the river if he missed. With this board, the only semi-bluff I can think of is Q10s, or QJs. Either is not good for a you.
Regards/LoneStar
Lets say I called in late position with A8h and five players see the flop, which comes 6h7cKd. Early player bets, there are two callers before it gets to me.
I have a backdoor flush draw and a backdoor straight draw. Is this worth a call or is it an automatic fold ?
Thanks.
add up your chances of a straight and a flush and an ace winning and the remote chance of an eight. and you will see it might very well be.
mr. z,
He is only getting 8 to 1 on his call. I thought we went through this in a thread a while back and came up with a bench mark of needing about 12 to 1 or so with very little chance of a raise behind. IMHO, hitting your ace is pretty marginal with this flop and action in that you will often be an expensive second best when you hit. And you say hitting an eight gives you a "remote" chance. I would think up there in Montana you would know what remote is ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
I was just about to turn in when I saw this so I am going to be brief in order to be timely. I admit that drawing to runner runner may be a weakness in my game so help me here.
The back door flush is 22 to 1 or so against. The back door straight is a long shot (I'm not exactly sure of the odds but I think it is close to the back door flush). Plus it is a one card straight which will not get much action or often tie. The ace is marginal with this flop. And I still don't see much value in the eight.
Any more thoughts?
Regards,
Rick
Here’s sort of an answer that might help.
If you had just two original Callers who saw the Flop with you and with no one betting into you on the Flop ( let’s say you were first )
Vs two Opps that would only play two cards ten or better
You’re a 3.75 to 1 Dog
Vs two Opps with typical Calling hands
You’re a 3.40 to 1 Dog
The original problem is complicated by:
Five saw the Flop
Early Bets
Two Callers and still one to act after Hero decides.
Rick,
For this call to be correct you need to be getting 6 effective outs. The question is whether or not that's what you have with this flop. There are a lot of things which can push the answer one way or the other. The backdoor draws are worth about 3 outs total. Does the remaining potential of the hand add up to an additional 3 outs? Are the players lible to pay of on the river? What about the chances of hitting and losing?
All in all, I think that this is a fairly close, but -ev situation. I certainly wouldn't normally call here is a heavily raked game, but in a time/button game I might consider it depending on other factors. If you play well, it's not going to make a big difference whether you see the turn with this hand or not.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
Not that anyone will read this way down here BUT
I agree that a call here is a close call. I also advocate taking that money and playing another hand.
Let's look at it from a view of creating a leak in your game. If you call here it becomes easier to make marginal calls that are slightly -ev. From there it is a slippery slope that only the most "in control" players can resist.
Hey,
Thanks for the responses.
Here's what each player held.
Early posistion player (check rasied the turn): 92o
Late posistion all-in player: Js6s
Js6s won with the flush, 920 was second with two pair, and I was in third place with AK. Aiyah!
It was a pretty good game, although a bit high variance =).
Max
Maybe, as long as the pot is worthy. Also, if the backdoor straight draw was 9-10 instead of 6-7 I might be inclined to dump it because you're on the small-end of a backdoor straight.
pokr2win
Automatic fold for me here.
There isn't ever eneough pre and post flop money in the pot to get me to carry on here.
Fold
Your fold here will allow you to see another flop for free (as compared to calling and folding).
I vote for seeing another flop for free.
you are between about 4 to1 and 10 to 1 to win this pot. if your ace is live and you are not up against a killer hand 4 to 6 to 1 is about right. if you are against something like ace king to kill your ace and eight maybe around 10 to 1. so its not clear that is a fold. if you believe that your ace or eight cant win its of course a fold. but if you wont play because of trying to hit longer shots you are not playing good poker. to answer the question that was asked-- it certainly could be worth a call and definetly not an automatic fold.
Hi... I'm a relative newbie to holdem and I want to know where the best place to learn and practice the game is.
I know the starting hand requirements and I'm pretty disciplined preflop, but I think I can work on my postflop game. I have turbo texas holdem, but it's ultra - aggressive preflop and I find that plays much smarter post flop (ie. it folds it gets reraised and stuff like that, where I'm used to second best going to river with you) than my opponents in my casino 3/6 game.
Anyways... I beat it consistently, and if I put the rake on to simulate my casino 3/6, I beat it too. But what I'm looking for is some action against HUMANS... but free... just for practice. Can someone help me out... point me in right direction.
Thanks a bunch. Maybe comment on my ability to beat the game and rake in Turbo Texas playing 3/6. Does that mean anything? or can I suck and still be able to beat it?
I practiced Hold'em (Not TTH) before playing in the casino. It has to help.
Winning at TTH doesn't mean you're good but it sure means you're better than if you don't win against it.
Look online for play against humans. I never have done it but there's IRC poker and free play at the poker sites
Hold did you practice?
x
You said you practiced Holdem before playing in a casino, and you said you practiced without TTH.
I'm asking: How did you practice?
I played a bunch of hands to get the mechanics down.
It was WSOP Adventure which has a number of excerpts from poker books including HFAP.
I would be dealt a hand and I would determine if I should fold, call or raise. I would then check "the book" to see if I was correct.
I suppose I used it like a quiz. I realized that it meant very little just because I could win against it.
I also played it for fun. It is likely the only Gold Bracelet I'll win.
Try Yahoo.games. They have a lot of bad Holdem games, but it is free and it has live people. Start in the Advanced area. it's no foldem so it is like a real 2-4 game. it ain't bad. I cannot access it anymore now my ISP has us behind a firewall.
Get some of your friends together who share your goal of becoming a better player. Play with really low stakes, but play well. Read the 2+2 books and correct people when they do dumb things.
Newbie:
IMHO playing against humans for zero money is worthless. Quite simply the play will be much different when money is involved (why fold?). Yahoo HE is a perfect example.
I feel the TTH software is your best option. But you need to arrange the lineup so that is mimics what you can expect to see in the local 3-6 game. THEN it is helpful.
I would suggest using Lineup #7 with the options of "Raise Less" and "Check-Raise Less" picked at the beginning of the game. I know that matches up pretty true to the 5-10 game I play in Aurora.
Good luck.
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
IMHO playing against humans for zero money is worthless
Depends who the live players are PackerFan1. I would say playing against pre-programmed player profiles for $0.00 is a bigger joke" IMHO
MJ
MJChicago:
I disagree (obviously).
A human player playing for zero money is less helpful in creating a "real game" situation than a programmed computer simulation where the programmed players respond to bets and raises in a way similar to a "real game".
Fortunately we're both able to have our HO's.
All I wanted to express was how much TTH has helped me in my game as a newbie last year. Especially living 2+hours from a poker room.
Packerfn1
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I guess we will agree to disagree on this 1 PackerFan.
My take is that with the right 'live' players (and you get to know who they are)that playing live is better than playing the computer profiles. After playing a few time with these players on-line you get to know them.
I still can't get a word out of TTH's "Myopic Mike"...LOL
So I think that the social aspect of a live game adds greatly to the game as a whole.
Can you develop a table image playing TTH?
Best of it !!
MJ
Who notices table image at 3-6? (besides us) :)
Newbies have to learn to play the cards first... playing the people comes later. I agree that the social aspect adds greatly, but I'm talking about improving your game without having money on the table.
We're just basically coming at this from two different angles.
You are right in the idea that if you can find 7-9 other people who are learning the game and agree to play "as if" they were playing for money - that would be a better way to learn. But that's the key - everyone must play "as if" $$$ was on the line.
And I just don't think that is likely - besides when I can get those people together personally, why not play for real? Even if it is 1-2 or .50/$1?
Michael
Being a beginner myself, I will put a plug in for free online play. Packerfan is right that there are many games that a worthless online, but you do find reasonably good games if you are patient and pick your game wisely. It can be hard to do, but having spent some time at Paradise in the free rooms, I am starting to recognize the characteristics of a good game. In many cases, I end up watching my play money get dragged down by MJ! ;-) But that's why I am learning.
If you want to practice without risking any money, IRC poker is the best I've seen. It's still full of weak players, but it's harder to beat than Turbo (although I haven't yet played against the latest version of turbo).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hit the play money tables at Paradise Poker. Order your hand histories (you can do this vai email at the click of a button) for the hands that trouble you and analyze them, perhaps even posting some of them here.
I haven't played IRC, but beware that poker without money is likely to be far looser than anything you'll see in a casino. So you might want to tweak your Turbo lineup a bit (turn off the switches that have the players adjust to one another).
One caveat about practicing, however. If you practice and practice against the same kinds of players in the same kinds of games, over time you'll probably develop a good set of strategies for beating or at least holding your own. If you don't understand why these strategies work against these particular players, however, you won't know how to correctly adjust for different types of players and different types of games. So you have to combine practice with a lot of thinking about the game, which obviously is harder than just playing a lot until you get it right.
I haven't played IRC, but beware that poker without money is likely to be far looser than anything you'll see in a casino.
While this is true in general, and can be true on IRC, the 20/40 game there is usually a very close approximation of real poker at the 5/10 level. It is *more* aggressive than real life, but the players are usually playing legitimatly.
People *have* trained on IRC till they are good enough to beat the 20/40, and *then* started their poker careers as winners instead of losers.
Click here for more info.
- Andrew
www.netpoker.com
the stuff us pretty primitive, but its alright
I let multi way action cause a real bad play, I think. 15-30; good aggressive on my left with 3-4 calling stations beyond.
I am in middle position with QQ and raise. Player on my left reraises, three callers, I three bet and re-raiser caps, three callers stay.
Flop is J-8-5 rainbow. I bet, get raised, three callers stay.
Now, my brain freezes and all I think about is getting rid of the 3 callers, so I don't get out drawn. So I re-raise, and pot gets capped again. Now 2 callers drop.
Same scenario on the turn (after rag hits) and I get pot heads up. Now I call it down to the showdown and lose to AA.
If instead I concentrated on what the re-raiser had, I should have thought, AA KK QQ JJ, all of which beat me.
A lot of betting for a beaten hand.
Are there any redeeming aspects to this play? Or was it as bonehead a move as it felt at the time.
You're plan was to cut down the field was a sound one but what hand did you put your opponent on? I know of very few players who will follow through like that with big slick.
5-10 Paradise poker. I'm in the BB with JTh. UTG raises, everyone after folds. Small blind calls, I call. Flop is A K Q rainbow. Small blinds bets, I call, UTG calls (which surprised me). Another queen on the turn. SB bets, I raise, UTG mucks, SB calls. The river is a jack. SB checks. I check. My straight beats his aces up. This is the area of my game that I feel is the weakest: knowing when to bet the river when I have strong non-nut hands. Was I incorrect in checking?
I don't think you were incorrect to check.
First off, there's a paired board, which can be real problems.
That's not the main reason to check, though--if you bet, he's either going to fold if he has has an ace only (and knows what he's doing) or he's going to raise you (if he has a full house, or doesn't, but is tricky and knows that you might throw away a straight in this spot--I don't know if you are.)
Or, he also has a ten, and you're going to chop the pot anyway.
So, to sum it up--you're either going to get raised by a better hand, or you're not going to get called at all--either way, you're not missing a bet.
Max
Checking to a board like that might also induce a bluff. Unlikely, considering his previous aggression, but conceivable.
Max, Genius/GZA has already been checked to here.
To Niels, I believe the SB will call with the AAQQK hoping to get half the pot. He's put a lot of money in and has the 2nd best 2 pair holding. The raises after the flop looked a lot like protecting the single aces.
x
I disagree. In my experience at the 5-10 level, very few people will fold an Ace on the river here. So, I think that there is a very good chance that he will get called by a lesser hand. Certainly I think that he will get called by a lesser hand much more often than he will get called or check-raised by a full.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Genius/GZA,
I'll assume the small blind is at least a fair player in the absence of other information (maniacs or extremely loose players are rare at the 5/10 level at least on Planet Poker).
When the SB just called the turn after your raise he is very unlikely to have a full house at that point or else you would be looking at three bets. He should also be aware that you probably would have raised on the flop with any hand that would make a full with the queen (in particular AQ and KQ) on the turn.
Next, the river jack is unlikely to fill him up. Back things up a little. Would he have led into a blind and an UTG raiser on the flop with a QJ and this board? Few players would in my experience.
I say bet your straight for value on the river.
Regards,
Rick
You're right, he did bet the flop. Q,10 or QJ are not likely.
However, maybe he's actually Louie L. and is betting and raising just to see where he's at! 8-)
Pretty much repeating what Rick says you definitely bet the river for value, while its true that he might not call with only an ace from the way he played the hand you almost definitely have him beat.
Shawn Keller
I think once SB just calls on the turn you can consider betting again on the river. You now have the best position and SB showed weakness twice. (His call and now his check).
Note that if he checkraises then you at best are splitting, probably with Q,10, but may have lost to QJ.
Instead of "Should I bet" approach it this way: "Will he call ME with his stiff Ace?"
Now, you tell ME if you should bet.
- Louie
Full Table but heading toward dawn. Games been going for about 12 hours. I'm in late position with A5 of hearts. UTG limps as do 3 other players, I raise (usually don't in this spot but whatever, I raised) everyone behind me folds, SB and BB call and orig. limpers, no reraises.
Flop comes Ac - Jh - 9h. Sb checks, BB bets, UTG calls, two limpers drop, I raise, sb drops, BB reraises, UTG calls, I call.
Turn is 5d. BB bets out, UTG calls, I raise, BB 3bets, UTG calls, I cap.
River is 6c. BB checks, UTG checks, I bet, BB checkraises, UTG mucks, I call. BB shows J9 suited, clubs.
How many of you would slow down on the turn?
How many would have reraised the river checkraise?
How many, if any, would have folded to the checkraise on the river?
Would anyone have checked the river?
Besides the preflop raise and the river play I think this hand pretty much plays itself. The only thing I can think the BB puts me on is AK but I wouldn't give that much action with a single pair. I only called the flop 3bet b/c I wanted to be bet into again if a heart falls (I sometimes cap it with a four flush on the flop but mostly if it's a family pot 6+ players, but sometimes translates into always with kinda paying attention players)
I have trouble on the river quite often with people checkraising or betting into me when I have the best hand but not the nuts and I don't get that extra bet or two. I think it comes from the way I play throughout the hand, esp. on the turn where I'm more aggressive than most. Any suggestions on how to thrwart this? Or any insights on why it's happening?
chris
There was nothing wrong with the way you played this hand although you could make arguments for capping on the flop and not capping on the turn, as well as not raising before the flop. But as far as the river was concerned, either folding or raising his checkraise would be wrong. Don't forget that the play of merely calling on the end is usually right as long as your chances of being the best hand falls into the wide range of about 10%, to about 60%.
I may have played the hand just like you did except for the pre flop raise and cap on the turn.
I would not have reraised the river. Your A5 is far from the nuts here and the J9 is really over playing his hand is he a maniac or what?
It sounds like the J9 guy just locked in on a read of AK or whatever and refused to submit. I would have assumed I was trailing on the turn and I would have been really depressed on the river, but you can't fold or re-raise the river. Call me a wuss but I would have backed off on the turn.
The other night I had As5s vs. Jh9h (and others) and flop was Ah9s2s. Then came... runner runner hearts. I like his result better.
chris,
I'll throw in my two cents before reading Rounder and Mr. Sklansky's advice. I also wish you didn't post the result as it can't help but twist our opinions a bit. (On the other hand, we are still waiting for GD to complete his post below ;-) ).
You didn't ask but I like the cap on the flop here since it costs you only one more bet and may slow down a better hand on the turn when you don't make your flush.
You asked: "How many of you would slow down on the turn?"
After his three bet I would. My main worries would be AJ, A9, 99, and maybe JJ. The player would have to be very aggressive to make it three bets with J9. Pairing the five's would be great against the AJ or A9 but not against the sets. So you may be in a case where you need to make your flush draw to win. The UTG player could also be on a flush draw reducing your outs relative to a set or AJ even further.
"How many would have reraised the river checkraise?"
Only against an absolute maniac and maybe not even then. Why slow him down for the future?
"How many, if any, would have folded to the checkraise on the river?"
I don't think I could. Even if I decide the chances I am beat are greater than my pot odds, the cost of the call can't be that great considering the size of the pot. And this would be the type of laydown to encourage future shots taken at you.
"Would anyone have checked the river"
Against most opponents yes. Given your cap of the turn they would often put you on trip aces and may be in a check and call mode on the river with a better hand.
Once again, I am trying to answer this without the benefit of hindsight. Now I'll check on Rounder and DS.
Regards,
Rick
"Any suggestions on how to thrwart this?". This sort of question is sadly so uncommon here ...
(1) "The only thing I can think the BB puts me on is AK but I wouldn't give that much action with a single pair." <---- if that's what you think HE thinks then he can beat AK when he raises, and unless he has specifically J9 he can beat A5 as well. ---> put what you believe into action.
(2) I don't see how you can justify raising the river. But I would like to say that your over-aggressiveness on the turn appears interpreted as "tricky" by the opponents triggering them to be "tricky" with you on the turn and river ("my Dad is taller than your Dad"). This will, naturally, cause you to make some hind-sight mistakes; which is OK so long as they make many more. ----> Once you manipulate the opponents into making mistakes, don't be surprised when they oblige.
- Louie
In one of the Hold'em books I've read, I came across a statement about playing "fast" versus what the book was advocating. It was said that playing "fast" was only a little better than the the kind of play described in the book. My question: what does it mean to play "fast?"
Bet and raise a lot. It could also mean calling a lot also.
On page 1 of HPFAP-21 we have a footnote that describes what we mean when we say "playing fast." Here is the note:
"Some experts deliberately play a few extra hands, and then use their superior playing skills to catch up. They still lose money on these additional hands, but these hands allow them to make a little more on their legitimate hands due to the additional deception that they create."
"Some experts deliberately play a few extra hands, and then use their superior playing skills to catch up. They still lose money on these additional hands, but these hands allow them to make a little more on their legitimate hands due to the additional deception that they create."
I wouldn't have thought this was the definition.
I'm still under the impression it implies aggressive play not just slightly looser play.
I'll be interested to find out what most of the readers feel.
You can play them aggressively. This is one thing that superior playing skills allow you to do. They help you to recognize those situations where you can push marginal hands.
I've always been under the impression that when you are playing a hand fast you are betting it at every opportunity. For example, you are sitting with QTo in the big blind and there are 5 limpers. The flop is Qd Td 6s. You've flopped top two pair, a very strong hand. Lee Jones in his book Winning Low Limt Hold em suggests you bet out on the flop and reraise if raised. This is playing it fast. Slowplaying the hand, would be checking the flop in the hope of either checkraising or waiting for the bigger bet at the turn to bet and raise.
Over the years, "fast" play has typically meant betting and raising with a larger number of hands than usual. In Super/System, the definition under "pace" says that "fast" play means "most or all of the players are doing a lot of ... betting and raising." My own spin on that is that a "fast player" is one who is in there on a lot more hands than those with solid values. Due to books like HPFAP and 7SFAP, over the long haul, a fast player in a limit ring game eventually gets chewed up, although in the 1980s, the fast players got most of the money.
Still, fast play is a good tactic in certain stages of tourneys, or when used to set an image in a ring game. Further, in "fast action" tourneys, in satellites, or in super-satellites, a normal or slow player is very unlikely to get the money, and players who have superior "fast play" skills are distinct favorites.
"a fast player in a limit ring game eventually gets chewed up, although in the 1980s, the fast players got most of the money."
This is an interesting comment and I believe that it is very true. Many years ago $10-$20 hold 'em was played with one $5 blind and the first bet before the flop was to either call for $5 or raise to $10. This created a small pool of very tight players who virtually never bluffed and who made a little bit of money. In the early 80s when the structure was changed, those players who fired away (also known as playing fast) cleaned up because they stole so many pots. Today, these semi-maniacs don't play well enough to compete with the best players. But they did have their day.
Can't a fast player be a good player? Just b/c you play fast doesn't mean you're a maniac. What of the "pump it or dump it" school of thought? In general, the hands you're involved in, if you're tight and aggressive you'll be driving the action or folding.
I don't believe that y'all are advocating a calling station approach. I like it when I sit down at a table and the retirees and poor grad students realize that their going to have to play. In the words of one of those retirees, "Get you're raising ass off my left, Chris".
To be fair, any game 10-20 or higher that I've played in, I've not been as aggressive as I have been at the 5-10-20 or 8-16 or 4-8 or 3-6-12 but I think that has more to do with me becoming ultracomfortable with the stakes. Of course, in general, the higher the stakes the better the competition, so there will be less occasion to play fast b/c it wont be so clear cut that your hand is best nor will it be likely that you can get several bets out of second best hands by simply betting and raising(like at low low limit).
At the higher games, an extra bet earned in the course of a hand is harder to get and different strategies are required to get that extra bet or two, such as check-raising or simply calling b/c you have good reason to believe a player behind you will raise the bet but fold if you raise. These considerations are a waste of energy at lower limits.
All that being said, I think "fast" play is the obvious choice when you have a distinct advantage over the opposition: if you're sober and they're drunk, you're wide awake and rested and they're falling asleep, you've a deep understanding of the game and they've been playing less than a year, or the stakes are fairly low to comparison to your bankroll and fairly high in comparison to their bankroll.
chris
Post deleted at author's request.
Please show me the error of my ways; this type of play seems to be costing me a lot of money. For example, the game is generally loose, with about one bet and raise per round. Two player will come with absolutely anything.
In late position, I get AQs. Two limpers, I raise, the button calls, the two blinds call, and the limpers call. Flop comes J 8 3 rainbow. Check, check, bet, call. I'm now getting 14-1, and figure I can win with a pair. I call, button calls, blinds fold and others call. There is now the equivalent of 8 big bets. The turn is a 7. Bet, fold, call, I call and button folds. A rag comes on the river, I call the bet and a medium pair drags the pot.
My question is how should I be playing these overcards? I know that with 6 outs, I'm 7-1 to hit on the turn and again on the river, and the pot is laying the right odds, but I seem to keep bleeding. Please help. Thanks.
Up until the end you are chasing. Do you believe good poker players are chasers?
It is possble that an A or Q will put you ahead. It is also very possible one of the betters/callers has AJ, A8 or A3.
On the flop, if there is one spade and there is no raising you can chase for one bet. Don't forget that a call here cries out "I haven't got an overpair, I'm hoping to hit the turn card!"
On the turn, you must fold.
On the river you have made an overcall with nothing. (You can just feel the players on this forum drooling!)
Your raise preflop wasn't bad but was not necessary either. I like the fact the cards are suited. If your plan is to follow through and try to make a play at the pot (if possible) then the raise is justified.
Ask yourself "Why did I raise?".
I thought it was an overcall on the river.
I suppose if you got this far you may as well raise or fold. You should not have made it this far. With 2 betters on the turn you are behind almost for sure
I really like expanded odds for a draw like this. For example 8-1 pot odds on a 7-1 shot is not nearly good eneough for me to draw. I like to have near double the odds of my draw. True on the flop it is not usually there so I fold and wait for a better situation.
Problem with playing pot odd is they may NEVER catch up there is no guarantee so I have high standards for drawing situations.
Sometimes poker is unfair. It happens. Here's a perfect example: you had a great hand pre-flop and it didn't hit anything. Oh well. that's going to happen a very good portion of the time. You have two options available. Keep raising with such aggression that even people with AJ fold to your "obvious" overpair. or fold yourself. And sometimes you do both. But what you can't do is check and call your raising hand all the way to and THROUGH the river.
What are you hoping for? That someone will get too tired or forget to bet on the river? That someone called your raise and has bet at you for three rounds on a bluff? The river call was suicide. Let it go. If you thought he was actually bluffing, raise him. If you want to bluff him, raise. If you think he's not bluffing and he'll call your raise, fold. But you can't drag down any pots just because you have two high hole cards. Because, as I said, poker isn't fair.
And a word of advice on my advice. Don't go hyper aggressive on certain types of players. I've been quite guilty of picking the wrong targets. These people won't lay down bottom pair and manage to scoop up the pot no matter how many bets you throw at them. But on others, you can keep betting your overcards until you hit or they fold.
Dan
On the flop, the conventional play in this situation is to raise. In this situation, my default option is to raise the flop and bet the turn unless a scare card (scary to me, that is) comes. This usually gets them to check to me on the river, at which point I'll check it down or bet depending on what I think works best. If I check on the river, notice that I've spent one small bet less than you did to get to the same place while increasing my chances of winning the pot either by knocking out a better hand or winning uninmproved. There are other advantages of raising, such as making it easier to evaluate an opponent's bet on the turn and encouraging them to check to you on the flop. Just calling should be "plan B."
The way you played it is perfectly acceptable when heads up. However, when 6-way to the flop, you must be cautious playing overcards. Usually you can call for one bet on the flop if your overcards figured to be highest/nondominated preflop. In your case the call is probably unwise, because there are three players left to act, including the blinds who could have been plotting a check-raise, so you might be calling more than one bet. The backdoor flush draw helps a lot if you have it, and yet it still should be mucked due to the threat of the players left to act.
It's very important to look at the texture of the flop. Did it hit the limpers, e.g. did it come J8x or T9x or similar? Do you really want to make your draw? Is this a case of the dominator becoming the dominated? In your case, when you pair your queen on a board of J83-Q, one limper with QJ then makes two pair and another limper with T9s makes a straight! And when you pair your ace, there's always the risk that it gave somebody a weird two pair.
If the top card on the flop is one notch lower than your lowest card, then "red alert!"
-Abdul
Abdul,
This is a terrific reply. Short and very much to the point with great advice. I hope you and Lone Star keep posting.
Regards,
Rick
Abdul: I also think your reply was excellent. However I have one question I'm a little puzzled about. If TOMC Came out raising at all opportunities with the flop being what it was, wouldn't the remaining players figure him for a big pair and opt to fold??? they must figure they are holding the 2nd best hand and would be reaching by going all the way to the river???
I advocate that kind of aggressive approach much of the time, "Pound-Pound-Pound." Here my intuition is that a fold on the flop is best. Raising is worth considering, but there are a lot of players, and this particular flop is bad news for AQs. If you do raise and get it heads up on the flop, then you can bet the turn and check the river, assuming your opponent goes into passive check-call mode.
-Abdul
Raise the flop. If you want your one pair to hold up, should you be lucky enough to hit it, you're going to want a heads-up pot. Combined with your preflop aggression, a flop raise may even get a pair of jacks to fold. A late position raise may also get you a free card on the turn.
If you're bet into on the turn, calling is just a matter of pot odds. And you have no business calling (overcalling?) on the river with ace high.
If your in call/overcall mode at the turn your most likely in a bad spot and should just fold the overcards. Save these bets for when you have the lead and can Drive the hand.
Best of it !!
MJ
In a multiway loose game, I would muck this hand with that flop, not only because I need to hit to win, but also a raise may not knock out those hands that give my hand trouble if I hit. However, if the pot is extreamly large due to multiple preflop raises, I usually try to call on this flop.
In a tight game, I think the decision has a lot to do with your opponents' positions to your raise before the flop. More players in before your raise, more trouble you have with this flop. I tend to raise with this hand if no one between me and the bettor and the bettor is a weaktight, or likes to bet a lot of draws, or likes to bluff, or capable to lay down a hand if I push it hard, espeically if I have a backdoor flush or a remote backdoor straight draws. This hand can be very costly if you play it in a pre-determined manner, since it is very situational dependent.
regards,
jikun
Flop is Ac 10s Qs ...I hold KJd BB, 4 players saw the flop. I bet, 3 callers, last player (don't know him at all) raises I reraise, he caps it. Now, I put him on a flash draw, my question is:
a) should I bet suspecting that he may raise and should I re-raise and make the most money from all players with the nut hand or..
b) should I call until the river and then come out betting?
Is the money that I make maximizing the profit in the flop and turn more than compensates for the few times that I lose to the flush ( or a full house if the same player was overbetting his trips).
I lost to the flush.It was capped in the turn as well.
Thanks in advance
Sme
I would come out betting on the turn if the flush card didn't come and the board didn't pair (you didn't mention what the turn card was). You want to make the drawing hands pay to get their draws. I'm talking about the other callers as well as the raiser. They may be on a flush draw and the raiser on a set or another straight. If the last player was indeed on a flush draw, he'd probably check on the turn if checked to him and just call if bet into him.
However, if raised, and the in-between hands have been calling, then re-raising should be okay. If they didn't call and you were re-raised, then you have to put the last player on a straight with a possible free-roll for the flush. I would probably just call the re-raise two-handed. Also notice that if he's on a free-roll for the flush, then he doesn't have the straight.
I think the other player was wrong to cap it on the turn if he just had a nut flush draw, even with three other callers. He's only got at most 9 outs with one card to come. He's getting at most 4:1 on a 4:1 shot to make the flush.
Sorry, I meant to say that if he's on a free-roll for the flush, then he's not on the nut flush draw, not that he doesn't have the straight--of course he has the straight, or it wouldn't be a free-roll! ;-)
This same type of hand happened to me recently....10-20 game at Trop, I'm on the button with KJ of spades, the flop comes AcQh10h. 4 callers and someone comes out betting....there is another raise before it gets to me, I make it 3 to go and the original player caps it. The turn was a blank, original bettor bets, next calls, I raise, original reraises, and I cap it again.
The river is the Ad. The original bettor bets, a fold, and I have a crying call. OB had AsKh. I took down a big pot. I know I got lucky when the board paired and still had the best hand. I also know OB severely overplayed his hand. That's why I think when you're hand is the nuts but vulnerable, you have to pound away for all you're worth and hope they don't catch....
Mike
Im relatively new to hold'em, just passed the 50 hour mark of 3-6 casino play. So far Im breaking even, but I know Im missing some bets and could use the advice of the sages here.
Im to the left of under the gun with about 5-6 seeing most flops. UTG raises. Ive played with him a couple of times and peg him as a solid player, I dont think he would raise in this position without a very premium hand. I hold KQo and fold(argg). Its folded to the button and he limps and I believe the BB called. Flop comes K Q Q! OUCH. BB checks and UTG bets, button calls, BB folds. Turn K! Double OUCH. UTG checks, button checks, River blank, UTG checks, button checks. Button shows Q something for the weaker full and beats UTG with .... AA.
I reveal that I folded the KQ and jaws drop, the guy on the button mutters way too tight or something like that. Others are shaking their heads. I say, ya maybe. I know that I pegged UTG correctly and that I was a big dog to him. Later I check my LLHE book - I know I have to buy HPFAP21 - and confirmed that Jones, for one, says fold here, but I still have this nagging thought that I should at least see the Flop with KQo.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
M
You don't HAVE to do any thing, much less call when you are a big dog. If you pegged him as a solid, but not tricky player, as you did, you probably count on him raising with a big pair or A-K. You are a dog to these hands, and only JJ doesn't have you drawing really slim. Put it this way: would you feel a bad if you had mucked 9-2o and the flop came 9-2-2?
matt
If you have to call a solid UTG raiser you're better off doing it with 89s than KQo. Of course, you don't want to call an UTG raiser, you either want to reraise him (with AA, KK or AKs, maybe QQ or JJ) or you fold. KQo is the absolute worse hand to play against an UTG raiser, which hand do you want KQo to play against AA or KK or AQs or AKo or AKs or QQ.
If the flop comes 9 9 2, do you regret having thrown away the Montana Banana?
BTW, you shouldn't let your table know what you threw away. KQo is a routine fold against an early position (UTG no less!) raiser. Don't even think twice about it. Of course, for those with no understanding of Dominating and Dominated hands they'll call raises all day long with KQo and AJo. Don't clue them in on this concept. Sure, they'll scoff at first but if they ever think about it they'll begin to realize how bad KQo has it to either AQ or AK and I know I don't want to see any more thinking players at the tables.
chris
...I got to see the "Montana Banana" in print.
Regards,
Rick
and to think, he bought the Montana Banana at the Afganastan Bananastand.
"Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana."
.
Michael,
This reply is posted without looking at the other answers which I'm sure will be similar. Folding KQ off to a solid UTG raiser is correct no matter what type of players are yet to act. These offsuit hands get dominated by the better high cards AK and AQ in all games when the raiser is solid. King queen loses like any other hand to the draws and oddball hands without having much of a draw of its own in the looser games.
Hindsight is 20-20. In the long run you save big by dumping this sort of hand in this situation.
I almost forgot. Don't show these laydowns. Let your image develop naturally but show some gamble when it is not a gigantic -EV. The tight image Mason talks about works more in 10/20 and above.
Regards,
Rick
Unless you have a very strong opposite read on your opponent (i.e. that he will raise UTG with a variety of lesser hands), that's a good laydown. Forget what actually happened and think about how much money you would have lost had the flop come king-rag-rag. Or worse -- what if the final board was: K-Q-5-7-7? You will see players complaining about what a lucky catch the A-A got here instead of asking themselves whether they should have gotten involved in the first place. It's amazing how often I have been punished for a marginal preflop call in my lifetime (this is not to say your hand was marginal -- it's a pretty clear fold). I have learned the hard way to plug that leak -- don't let the mutterers at your table convince you to develop it. Say "yeah, you're right," and keep playing the same way (or better, don't tell them what you had).
I hold KQo and fold
In this position they look much better than they really are. K§ Q¨
I reveal that I folded the KQ and jaws drop
Try no to give any extra 'free' info to any other players. This hurt you in the long run.
Best of it !!
MJ
KQ is an obvious laydown against a legitimate raise so you did the right thing. However telling what you folded was a huge mistake. In the low limit games the bad players really think folding KQ is too tight: So in essence you told them please attack my blinds, please play tricky against me and try to bluff me out of a pot etc. With your limited experience your going to be forced into difficult decisions because of that comment. Good luck.
[Hero has KQo] UTG raises. Ive played with him a couple of times and peg him as a solid player, I dont think he would raise in this position without a very premium hand.
Even against a loose player/maniac/idiot/whatever raising, I'd fold KQo here. You're in bad position (1 after UTG). You can't really reraise because even if you could isolate, maniacs love to raise preflop with any ace, and KQo doesn't play well against an ace. If you just call the raise, KQo doesn't play well in multiway pots, and there's a risk that the pot will end up 3-bet or capped.
I'm not a big fan of playing KQo UTG or 1 after UTG when the pot is unraised, let alone when there's already a raise. I don't think a novice could do much wrong by folding KQo in early position in most games.
3 additional quick comments:
1) A player who would only raise UTG with a "very premium hand" isn't "solid," he/she is predictable, readable, and probably weak-tight. In a 3-6 game, it doesn't matter much because the idiots still love to call raises with their trash regardless of who's raising, but don't pick up those habits.
2) Don't listen to table advice, particularly at 3-6. If they knew what they were talking about, they probably wouldn't be playing 3-6, and wouldn't be sharing their knowledge with others at the table.
3) As others have noted, don't give the fish any ideas about folding KQo to a raise.
-Sean
Who cares what the flop was. I've tossed 7-2 every time I've seen them and I don't agonize over the J 2 2 flops I missed out on. Your read on the UTG raiser was right on the money. KQ is a pretty nice hand, for sure. But when matched against AA, it is total trash.
I agree that my only mistake there was revealing the hand I had folded, which was unusual for me. Thanks for the feedback. By the way UTG with AA didnt think it was a bad fold.
I guess it just takes a bit of getting used to swimming upstream against the irrational rantings of the fish.
M
I've read all the posts saying to dump KQ offsuit. What if the hand is KQ suited? Do you call to see if you pick up the flush or flush draw or is this also an automatic muck?
//Jay
4-8 game. Full Table. Game conditions: normal, loosey goosey with one solid, sometimes too tight player on my left. He is a friend and something of a mentor. Anyway he called my play on this hand "dumb" during a break a couple of hours afterwards.
I'm one off button in this hand. 4 limpers to me, I have AKo and raise. My friend on the button thinks for half a second and smoothcalls. When he does this I have to think a pair or another AKo or (maybe) a big drawing hand like QJs or TJs(something like that). The button is very solid and the only one who can get people out of a pot. His image is very solid. If he had a big pair (AA, KK,QQ) he'd probably want to thin the field, which he could do with a 3bet. I know he doesn't have AJ or KQ or anything like that. Not sure what it is he has other than it's not a big pair or unsuited big cards. So it's probably a pair TT or below or suited connectors QJ or below.
I raise, button smoothcalls, BB calls and orig. limpers call. Flop comes kinda ugly. 3c 7h 4d. Checked to me, I'm not betting the button's hand, if I bet, and he can beat AK he'll raise, otherwise he'll pass, or if he's feeling particularly frisky he might raise with a 9T knowing he can run me off if an A or K doesn't fall. Anyway I check, button bets, everyone calls but no one checkraises, I call and close the action. Ordinarily, would not call here but I'm in perfect position, the bettor on my left, so there's no chance I'll get whipsawed for two or three bets.
Turn is bad too. 8c Checked to me, button bets, everyone calls but no one raises. I don't know what anyone has but I'll tell you this an A or a K makes me good. With $110 or so in the pot and again closing the action I call the eight.
BIG BAD RIVER. A pretty red ace on the river. Checked to me, button will not bet if I check, I bet, he gives me an ugly look, calculates the pot, and calls. Everyone else folds! He doesn't show his hand.
A couple hours later I'm taking a break and he comments on my dumb play. I don't know how dumb it was but, given the size of the pot, texture of the flop and order of action, seems justified. It's unusual that this hand played out as it did (letting me draw cheaply, no pressure from anywhere) because usually drawing to overcards with no secondary draw(usually flush draw)is a losing play but I think this hand was played properly. Anyway he said he had 99.
Any thoughts?
chris
one thing that comes to mind: how many of you would have bet the flop? If you bet the flop, button raises for sure when he has you beat and sometimes when he doesn't. Then you're out of position against a respectable opponent. but checking and calling you keep more people in which keeps button more in line.
Flop
I would have bet the turn if I was going to call all the way anyway. A bet w/a button raise may chase out bottom pair/Ace kicker which, gives you a couple of other outs. also, he may have those suited connectors that you speculated on. In this case, he cannot draw out on you if he folds.
-matt
Your play here is bad but not horrific. Odds of hitting your hand after for flop isn't that great plus the fact that you might be drawing slim or dead. Check on the flop is good, the call is okay. If you're gonna call the turn you might as well bet it. This will definately chase out the people whom you want out. You won't be raised by anyone unless they have a big hand which you can easily fold. Very good bet on the river.
Your overall play of this hand isn't great but I would definately rate it higher than your friend's. Pre-flop he should have 3 bet to thin the field or fold if he thinks you have a good hand. Calling a raise 99 is just asking for trouble. If you don't hit your set then there are usually overcards. Although he is on the button his position for this hand is not very good when he just called the raise. Flop and turn bets are pretty basic but his call on the river is really bad. The only thing he has beat here is a pure bluff from you. The most important lession in poker that I've learned so far is that I do not have to see. Just my 2 pennies.
Truc
Let's go to the Club, and see how much can we Fold! - Let's go to the Club and Fold some cards! Is this the right way to approach the game? 1. If you have a Pocket Pair that doesn't make a Set with the board and is an Overcard there that is bringing Action you have to Fold. ( i.e. QQ - 7,K,9)
2. If is a Pair on the board and is Action on that pair but you don't have a card that can make the Set with that Pair you have to Fold.(i.e. AK - 8,8,T)
3. No Pair in your hand and also No Pair on the board, but if the board has a Overcard that is bigger then any one of your cards and is Action, you have to Fold.(i.e. KJ - 7,Q,3)
4. If you have a AXs or KXs and if the Flop doesn't not put you on a Flash (but only on a Flash Draw, with one card to come ) you have to Fold if you are in Early & Middle Pos ( because no pot odds yet there ) else, if you are in Late Pos and a lot of players are in the pot but no Raise to you, then you can Call one bet to see the Turn Card (if correct pot odds are there). If the Turn Card is not making the Flash, you will Call for the River if is no Raise and the pot odds are right. Else Fold!
5. If you have Two Connectors, and if the Flop doesn't not put you on a Straight (but only on a Straight Draw, with one card to come ) you have to Fold if you are in Early & Middle Pos ( the pot odds are not there yet), else if you are in Late Pos and a lot of players are in the pot and is no Raise to you, then you can Call one bet to see the Turn Card (the pot odds are there). If the Turn Card is not making the Straight yet, you will Call for the River in Late Pos with a lot of players in (the pot odds are there). I will appreciate any comments from you. Regards, Go Get'm all
It is good to see that you are not wandering too far from the concept of 'fold'. But, hey, I have just begun to look at you post, my first impression is: If you are building a boat, but do not have enough fasteners, should you hope for the best and put to sea anyway?
If you have a AXs or KXs and if the Flop doesn't put you on a Flash (but only on a Flash Draw, with one card to come ) you have to Check in Early or Middle Pos to see if there are enough players and Action to build the Pot to the correct odds for you to Check-Raise to see the Turn Card, if you are in Late Pos and a lot of players are in the Pot, then you have to Raise before the Turn Card ( if correct pot odds are there). If the Turn Card is not making the Flash yet, you will Raise again for the River ( the pot odds are right ). If you didn’t make the Flash at the River, but the Pot odds are right you have to Raise again, ( i.e. Bluffing for pot odds )
If you have Two Connectors, and if the Flop doesn't put you on a Straight (but only on a Straight Draw, with one card to come ) you have to Check in Early or Middle Pos to see if there are enough players and Action to build the Pot to the correct odds for Check-Raise to see the Turn Card, if you are in Late Pos and a lot of players are in the pot, then you have to Raise before the Turn Card (if correct pot odds are there). If the Turn Card is not making the Straight yet, you will Raise again for the River ( the pot odds are right ). If you didn’t make the Straight at the River, but the Pot odds are right you have to Raise again ( i.e. Bluffing for pot odds)
Las Vegas
A sentiment from a close friend and outstanding poker player:
Texas Holdem: Hours and hours of boredom interspersed with a few moments of sheer terror.
Regards/LoneStar
lol
That's Doyle Brunson's quote, but he was talking about No Limit. . .not limit. BIG difference.
shooter
1. If you have a Pocket Pair that doesn't make a Set with the board and is an Overcard there that is bringing Action you have to Fold. ( i.e. QQ - 7,K,9)
Not necessairly in this case but it is a fold probably 40 - 50 % of the time.
2. If is a Pair on the board and is Action on that pair but you don't have a card that can make the Set with that Pair you have to Fold.(i.e. AK - 8,8,T)
Yes probably.
3. No Pair in your hand and also No Pair on the board, but if the board has a Overcard that is bigger then any one of your cards and is Action, you have to Fold.(i.e. KJ - 7,Q,3)
Yes
4. If you have a AXs or KXs and if the Flop doesn't not put you on a Flash (but only on a Flash Draw, with one card to come ) you have to Fold if you are in Early & Middle Pos ( because no pot odds yet there ) else, if you are in Late Pos and a lot of players are in the pot but no Raise to you, then you can Call one bet to see the Turn Card (if correct pot odds are there). If the Turn Card is not making the Flash, you will Call for the River if is no Raise and the pot odds are right. Else Fold!
Your chances are about 1 in 3 for a flush with 2 cards to come. Pot could easily support this with amy action at all - for me I only play Axs so I'm drawing to the nut.
5. If you have Two Connectors, and if the Flop doesn't not put you on a Straight (but only on a Straight Draw, with one card to come ) you have to Fold if you are in Early & Middle Pos ( the pot odds are not there yet), else if you are in Late Pos and a lot of players are in the pot and is no Raise to you, then you can Call one bet to see the Turn Card (the pot odds are there). If the Turn Card is not making the Straight yet, you will Call for the River in Late Pos with a lot of players in (the pot odds are there).
Not my play but necessairly but the typical thinking.
A FLUSH is when you have 5 cards of the same suit.
A FLASH, on the other hand, is when you:
1. Show someone else your cards before the hand is over, or
2. Get up, open your coat, and show the rest of the table that you're naked underneath.
Dear Grammar Police,
I'm sure many of us are bothered by typos and inappropriate grammar, syntax, and usage. I'm not sure, however, if it's really necessary to point out these mistakes. Obviously, other responders had little trouble figuring out that "flash" meant "flush." Go Get'm All! does not have the benefit, I beleive, of English for a first language, and he (or she) may be reluctant to post further if criticized for poor writing skills.
I mean no disrespect, but I know how deeply many people can be hurt when their writing receives unsolicited criticism. I'm also sure you meant no harm, but when you do point out errors, it might be a good idea to soften the blow first.
I would also like to add that I pointed out David Sklansky substituted "inciteful" for "insightful" in one post. That comment, though, was followed by a :-) because I thought the substitution made for a good pun given the "history," or so it seems, between David and Abdul.
Regards,
John
1/2/3. You might want to raise in all three cases
if you believe you can win the pot. Else, fold.
4. In the case described, you would NEVER fold. You
should try for the flush. In early position, I
usually trail (check-call) then check-raise if I
hit. In late position, raise to get free card later.
The strategy given by Las Vegas will work in bigger
games, but in small games, bluffing with pot odds is
almost impossible to make work.
5. Similar to item 4, NEVER fold a draw to the nuts
on the flop. Many times you can raise for value
with a good draw. I'll assume you mean an open-end
straight draw. The odds are about 2.3-1 on the
flop of hitting your hand. Your immediate pot odds
are based on the amount you have to call versus
the TOTAL amount in the pot, NOT any individual
betting round.
20-40 thru 30-60 Playing AA-KK out of the small or big blind.
1. Your in a tough game early player raises late player makes it 3 bets what’s your play? Do just call or raise?
2. A good player raises in early position everybody folds. Your in the big blind. What’s your play?
3. Your in a very loose aggressive game 5 callers button raises. What’s your play?
1. re-raise
2. raise is good, setting a trap is good too
3. re-raise
1. Raise most of the time, especially with Kings. You may be able to knock out early position raiser with A-J os or A-Q os. Occasionally you should just call, but mostly for deceptive purposes. It may be best to get rid of people on the flop if they don't hit, rather than trap them for a lot of bets.
2.Here you may want to slow play a bit more than in question one, but I think raising is still the best play most of the time. The advantage in slowplaying comes when the flop is 9 or ten high and the player has jacks or queens, or when the flop comes queen, jack, or king high and he has A-Q, A-J, or A-K. you can win three of four bets on the flop and get him to keep coming all the way to the river. Still, raising can never be terribly wrong with the best hand.
3.I think here you really must raise. The pot is big enough for you to want to win it asap. If you can drop a couple of the limpers, you've improved your odds of winning with one bet on the flop considerably. If everyone calls, several of them have made a mistake, which is not bad, and despite the fact that they will, on the flop, be getting correct odds to chase with almost anything, your hand is still a favorite to take down a big pot.
Finally, the answers to these questions also depend, in part, on whether this is a California style game with a bet and three raises or vegas style with a bet and four. In # 1, in California, people routinely cap, and , your cap might be seen as often as not as an attempt to steal momentum/disguise the strength of your hand, so your cap will mean less to the early position 1st raiser. In addition, he will be more likely to call your cap, as he knows exactly how much the flop will cost him. In vegas, he would be more likely to and more correct to fold, fearing a bigger hand, and a possible extra bet from the man after him. In #2, the geographic factor doesn't count as much, except that sometimes, you can get a good but agressive player to cap with Jacks, queens, even tens or AK when you have the best hand. In #3, the reraise in CA probably means someone, (one of the limpers even) is going to cap it off and build a big pot, but in Vegas, you are more likely to lose players pre-flop with your reraise.
Dreamer is wondering about KK out of the blinds: Abdul's research shows that it's only profitable to reraise an UTG raiser with AA, KK and AK, so flat calling is best to avoid leaking information (as you will be flat calling with some other hands here). However, with a third party in the pot, trying to suck out on both of you, there's no point in hiding information. You should punish the optimist for calling raises cold, and the UTG raiser should cap it with his QQ (you could as well have AQ/AK/TT) to make the guy really suffer, even if he has reason to suspect he is beat, as the cold caller has a very small chance to win the pot and his money is essentially dead. You two power guys shall split that money (in EV terms, of course). A better chunk goes to you here, as you are the good guy...
So reraise it is.
But flat calling is goot too... mucho surprise for the pals when you check-raise both their asses on the flop. My kid sister who just destroyed me headsup this week for the first time ("Izzy, you play good, but I flop better!") prefers reraising at every opportunity though and she *is* a tough playing babe (she made me write this as I lost the headsup match).
Flat call to disguise your hand. Recoup the missing bet with a check-raise on the flop with no ace on the board. If an ace flops, check-calling could be best. You are stuck to the river headsup regardless of the ace.
You *could* reraise preflop here, but this has the downside of smart opponents folding their AJs/KQs on you when they don't hit. Note that with KK headsup you *do* want them to call you down.
Of course, you should *not* be afraid of AA headsup (except for certain oh-so-tight-I-can-hear-their-ass-squeak opponents). If so, hold'em poker is not for you,...
This looks like a trick question. Hmmmm... What should a guy do with the most probable best hand against a field of loose suckers?... I'd like to use the lifeline, call my uncle... his name is David Sklansky,...
---
Please note my comments apply to KK mostly. The general principles apply to AA also, of course, but with an added luxury - you can't go much wrong with AA...
---
Dreamer wrote: >1. Your in a tough game early player raises late >player makes it 3 bets what’s your play? Do just call >or raise?
Are there any hands that you would just call with here but not consider worth a raise? I can't think of any. QQ comes the closest.
Since calling will not disguise your hand, you should go ahead and reraise with what is probably the best hand. The only exception might be if you are new to the game, and no one knows you. Now, when you call, they don't know if that means you're slowplaying AA or just calling because you have any old playable hand. If you're sure that your hand will be disguised, then just calling is OK.
>2. A good player raises in early position everybody >folds. Your in the big blind. What’s your play?
Just call. If you reraise, he will have a very good idea what you have, and should play better against you postflop. Since there are numerous hands you can just call with here, he cannot know that you're holding a monster until he's maybe invested a few too many bets postflop.
>3. Your in a very loose aggressive game 5 callers >button raises. What’s your play?
Reraise and try to get it headsup. If the game is so loose that these folks will call anyway, then still reraise, so as to punish them more. If the game is this loose, you'll need to make the best hand to win, and you will end up with the best hand much more often than 1 in 7.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A timely coincedence, regarding situation number one. (Boy, do I envy you guys that play in rational games). Last night, in 10-20, nine-handed (one guy was walking), I look down to find the black Aces in the big blind. The betting goes something like this: Call, fold, raise, cold-call of 20, cold-call of 20, re-raise, cold call of 30, SB folds, so here it is, three-bet to me. As you probably have figured out from the betting, previous higlights of the evening have included people showing down 9-3 sooted, K-8 off, A-x off to take down pots. I figure a cap here is only going to add to my misery, when one of these jokers hits his trash, so I just call. A raise will not drop anybody, they came to gamble. We see the flop 7-handed, 4d, 7d, Jc. I check, the first raiser bets, I check raise when it comes to me, and manage to drop a couple. Now, I know what I'm looking at here, at least a couple of crappy flush draws, maybe one legitimate flush draw, somebody with a Jx, maybe a big pair from the first raiser. When the turn comes 6s, I bet out. I could have 5-8 in the big blind, the way they think, they would never consider folding a quality hand like that for two bets when they already have $10 in (you think I'm joking, but I'm not). Still, I get three callers. The river a 2c, I bet, get one caller, and when I show my aces, he mucks his hand. I'm still in shock that they held up. All you ever hear about is Aces getting cracked, according to these guys. If you think I could or should have played this hand any different, please let me know. (I think this speaks to the different strategies used in tough-tight games, as in the original poster's example, vs. loose-wild games). Frank Brabec NUT-Z
How often do u see pocket aces? It seems to me you shoulw have capped pre-flop..Let those loose players pay the penalty of staying..it will catch up to them eventually. Otherthan that it looks as if you got as much out of it as you could. Regarding crappy flush draw, as far as your concerned a crappy flush draw is as bad as a good flush draw as far as your hand is concerned.. I would be interested in comments as I am a fairly new player myself.. .
I figure a cap here is only going to add to my misery, when one of these jokers hits his trash, so I just call...If you think I could or should have played this hand any different, please let me know.
Your thought process matters more than how you played this particular hand. If you didn't cap specifically because you wanted to keep the pot small to "lessen the misery" if you lost, you probably shouldn't be playing in high-variance (i.e. loose-aggressive) games at this limit. But if you didn't cap because you figured you'd have a better chance of check-raising the flop and thinning the field if you didn't cap it yourself, then that's an acceptable reason not to cap.
-Sean
FRank- I would have played it the same way. You had absolutely nothing to gain pre-flop by capping the bet. THe little extra money in pot wouldn't have been worth the extra pain had you lost.
Diane
1. 4 bet is a must in limit hold em.(both AA, KK)
The early position raiser probably has at least
AQ. If you have KK and an ace flops, look out.
2. A big pair here heads up is a boon, so smooth calling makes sense. If the flop is ragged, your
opponent is in trouble.
3. 3-bet, and hope someone caps. Get the most money in the pot you can. The raiser probably has an
inferior hand. He is likely making a "taunt" raise
with a small pair, connector or suited ace.
I was in a very live 10-20 game yesterday. First player limps in. I'm next with 88 and would raise if there was any reason to think this would thin the field. I know a raise won't do that so I limp in. Next player limps, next raises, next 3-bets, big blind cold calls, first in now calls two more and it's in my lap.
There is little doubt that the pot odds to flop a set are reasonable even after the almost certain capping raise. There will be five opponents vs the three more bets I have to contribute. This makes the immediate odds ~21 to 3 while flopping a set is 8.5 to 1. Add in the very modest straight-making equity and the microscopic value of an unimproved 88 and these two odds are close.
My thought at the time was that even though it's close and there are a many bets to harvest when I connect there are a lot (> 1/3?) of times when a flopped set will lose and that number is highest in six way capped pots. When the set loses it can cost an additional 3 to 5 big bets, no small loss. This is where the problem gets probabilistically complex, at least for me. To get a clear picture of the correctness of the pre-flop decision many post-flop decision branches need to be assesed and quantified.
I'd be interested in anyone that could take a shot at this problem using some concrete (w/ reasonable assumtions) math. My guess is that the gut feeling we have of winning a massive pot and all those additional bets may be a bit optomistic.
[Live 10-20, 1 limper, hero limps.] Next player limps, next raises, next 3-bets, big blind cold calls, first in now calls two more and it's in my lap.
I think it's pretty close here between folding and calling. Calling is higher variance; I would definitely fold if I was on a short bankroll or wanted lower variance for whatever reason.
You describe the game as live--I think it's important to note whether or not this game was very aggressive post-flop as well. Many "live" games feature frequent capped pots preflop, but are reasonably tame post-flop. I would be more likely to call if these opponents play poorly and aggressively post flop, i.e. I could expect a huge payoff for flopping a set.
-Sean
When you say a "live" game, do you mean that the 3rd and 4th bets are often thrown in on A-K or worse? In that case, I'd call b/c the chances of flopping set over set (with you being dominated) are lower than you originally thought.
-matt
"Many "live" games feature frequent capped pots preflop, but are reasonably tame post-flop. "
This game was reasonably tame post-flop. In the specific hand the flop came 8 6 3 rainbow and it checked around.
People have a hard time letting go of big hands, so I think your implied odds are better than you think. And even in a capped 6 way pot, I think your set will hold up 75% of the time. I think this would be a good call, but you should of course play cautiously post flop, even if by some miracle you flop an over pair. Even if you aren't beat your odds of making it through the turn and river are slim.
Ron -- Assuming the remaining players call, you're getting about 16-2 or 8-1 on your call of two more small bets. You'd like to think you'll get maybe 9-1 or 10-1 in the end in order to make up for the times you flop a set and lose. Here you have substantial implied odds, even with the not-too-aggressive postflop lineup. They could easily constitute another 12 or more small bets (enough to make it worth it even if you know the remaining players will cap it preflop). It's an easy call.
John - It's easy to suggest this is an automatic call by relying on conventional wisdom. I already know that. I'm interested in finding out how close to break-even or negative this situation can become with different assumptions made about the uncertain remaining play of the hand. What percentage of the time will a set of 8s stand up under these conditions? I don't know but it's clearly a vital piece of the expectation puzzle. How much does the set stand to lose when cracked? How much does the set stand to win? No concrete numbers are really possible but someone with a little more mathematical horsepower than myself might provide a clue. Any takers?
Hmm, I tried to address those questions by suggesting the number of extra bets you'd like to expect to make, and throwing out a ballpark estimate of what you might make on this hand given the conditions you describe. Part of my point was that even assuming conservative postflop action it's worth a call.
This stuff was figured out long ago. I'm no longer in touch with the precise figures; I just remember my conclusions. But you can find it all here in the archives. Some of the figures are implicit in the reference to wanting to get 9 or 10 to one. See particularly an exchange between Mason M. and Eric Reuter and a follow up exchange the following month (?) somewhere in the first year of the Forum's existence.
However, as I recall, estimates for a set holding up generally range from about 70% to 80% of the time.
In the scenario you describe, if you were certain it would be capped after you called the two bets, and that someone would drop out preflop, and that the postflop action would be very limited, then it probably would make it incorrect to call. But that's an extreme. It's clearly worth the call of two bets under almost all more typical conditions.
If you just always called, you'd be giving up only some microscopic amount of EV as a result of the rare occasions when conditions were at their worst for the call.
I agree it's an easy call for 2 bets, but the best move to begin with was probably to fold.
If by a "very live" game Ron means nearly all pots being raised, and 4- or 5-way action for 3 bets or more about half the time, I can't see eights being playable early. A lot of these pots are going to win a set of eights less than 25 small bets strange, and when they get cracked they can cost him 10-15 bets. Unless these numbers are very wrong, calling with eights early is a mistake.
Lets assume (1) it'll be capped and everybody will call; so you risk 3 to win 21 (2) your set holds up 2/3 of the time (3) Lets not even CONSIDER losing less than 5bb with a set vrs aggressive players who like their hands; call it 12sb (4) when you win 3 opponents are going to the river all of them putting in 8bb (24bb total) (5) its 7.5:1 or 1/(*8.5) or 12% of time you'll flop a set (6) chances of winning without flopping a set is TBD.
So 88% you lose 3; 8% you win 21+24; 4% you lose 3+12 ===== -3(.88) + 45(.08) - 12(.04) = -2.64 +3.6 -.48 = .48; or you earn half a small bet if you call; not counting the chances of winning without flopping a set.
And I believe the assumptions are a bit pessimistic.
- Louie
Thank you Louie. Just the stuff I was hoping for. The result is not a huge winner but at least modest winner. The magnitude is extremely sensitive to the winning percentage of the set. At 60% set success it becomes break even, all other assumptions the same. At 80% it's a 1 1/3 small bet winner. Again, thanks.
If we start at the beginning of the hand and consider the EV of calling 4-bets preflop against 4 opponents, with the same assumptions we come up with a negative EV of about 1/2sb. And while Louie notes that his assumptions are pessimistic (I think they are also with regard to the number of bets the set can lose and the chances of it holding up), note that the pot he's postulating -- $560 -- is pretty big for $10-20, even when it's capped 5-way preflop.
There are a lot of hands were it's capped preflop but the action slows afterward, such as when AK misses the flop, JJ fears a set, and other hands pick up draws. Once the set of eights 3-bets the flop, the others often will slow down and one or two will drop.
I therefore don't think the expectation of 4 opponents paying 8 bets each from the flop onward can be considered a realistic average. I note that when I drop the potential win down from the mid-40's (numbers of small bets) to the mid 30's, the EV for calling 3 cold on the flop goes negative.
When you consider the prospects of calling 4 cold against 4 opponents, the EV is just bad, about -1.5 small bets.
So when the pots are commonly raised and reraised by 4 or fewer opponents, but there are no real speedsters or maniacs at the table, it seems to me that medium pairs (88 and below) should be mucked early. But I wonder if anyone except a weak weenie ever does this.
See title. Gotta reread better.
I'd appreciate some reactions to my play of this hand.
5-10, fairly tight table; preflop raises have been taking down the blinds, and many hands have been chopped for two hours.
I raise to 10 w/ QQ utg; player directly to my left calls; middle position (MP) loose/weak calls (he's aggressive pre-flop but tame after the flop); BB raises to 15. We all call. Flop comes 4h5h6s.
BB opens, and I raise to ten. Player to my left folds. MP gets ready to reraise but BB says 15 and throws his bet in. Bet is taken back and MP raises to 15. BB calls; I fold.
I read MP for a set and BB for AA or KK. Last two cards don't help either, and BB calls down MP's set of sixes with KK.
Note that the two players left in the hand were the weakest at the table (unless that honor belongs to me), and the BB had been leaking pretty badly for the last two hours. Still, I was fairly certain of my read when I folded.
Thanks for your help,
John
John , what state are you in ? I have a 1st cousin with your name. He originates in Texas but lives in NC.
Oh yeh, good read and reaction. If you know what they have, it's like taking candy, just don't brag about your laydowns outside of 2 + 2. With reads like this you can't be the weakest at your table. This hand with this flop is hard to get away from, congrat's again.
Headcase,
Rhode Island, but there's a lot of Coles. Hate to say it though, I did spike the Q on the turn.
John
How many times does this happen though ? If you don't give up that pair when you KNOW you are beat, you are fishing. 20 to 1 on a 23.5 to 1 shot (0 to 1 if BB is on QQ), close call I agree. I also agree that big pairs can go farther than little ones in this situation.
But don't fall into: $120 pot by the turn, might as well take a look at one more. $150 pot on the river, might as well make sure my read is correct and nobody is bluffing. I don't know when and where one draws the line, but the flop is a good place with a good read !
It's the immediate odds (20-1) *plus* what you can expect to make in additional bets if you hit your set (implied odds) that makes it worth a call on the flop. But your urging careful consideration and avoidance of rationalizing calls (as most players do) is certainly valid.
"avoidance of rationalizing calls "
"God! Where does he get these wonderful toys"
Vince.
John -- If I read it correctly, there were about 20 small bets in the pot at the point where you folded. Now, not knowing the players I might have allowed for a wider range of hands for them than you did in your read (e.g., maybe 77 or 7h6h for the mp player?), but since you know them I won't quibble there. But even if you *knew* your read was right, that 20-1 you were getting made it right to take one off for one more bet in the hope of turning a set.
About the only exception I can imagine would be if you were near certain the mp player had 78 for a straight, but you can't realistically be that certain (and of course that wasn't your read).
Another consideration is whether you had the queen of hearts. If not, it does work a bit against calling. But I think it would still be worth it. (It should be in this instance anyway, since you didn't put either of them on flush draws either.)
Of course it did work out well this time, and it looks like you're reading very well -- which is probably the most important thing anyway.
John,
BTW,
I would have called if I held the Qh. I did check.
Thanks,
John
John,
I wish I had time to take a break today and answer your post but I'm still in home improvement hell and am now going backwards with the discovery of a leak in a drain encased in concrete. And you know what a maniac I am when I'm involved in an incomplete project.
This time I've read the other responses and want to add a few thoughts. Even if your read is correct, your call on the flop closes the betting and you are getting 21 to 1 to spike a set (which is only 22.5 to 1 against). Now normally it is important to have the heart but in this case it is not quite as critical. The hands you put your opponents on don't seem to include the possibility of flushes (although when the big blind holds the overpair with an ace or king of hearts he will have redraws if you spike the set on the turn).
The key is that your implied odds are very good. Let's say you make your set on the turn. The play is to check, let MP bet, let the BB call and you check raise. MP may even make it three bets. Anyway, there are a lot of extra bets to be made.
This one would have me tearing my hair out but your lucky you don't have any ;-).
Rick
John make sure youv'e got plenty enough chips to take advantage of your "implied" odds. I would love it if someone would say where the line is 19/1, 18/1, 17 ?
Headcase,
If he spikes the queen I see about five or six additional big bets. He is already getting 21 to 1 immediate odds. So that would give him about 32 to 1 on a 22.5 to 1 shot. Now he might lose to a redraw (two kings or the case six) and also to a flush (if the queen of hearts comes on the turn and the river is a heart that does not pair the board and the overpair held by the big blind includes a heart).
Regards,
Rick
I hope it's OK to fold the turn and no Q + about 12.5 to 1 pot odds ? Implied odds could still be subtantial against someone who might overplay his hand . IMHO
Headcase,
If John's read is correct (and he certainly is probably beat in at lest one spot), then taking one off on the flop and folding on the turn is certainly correct. A lot of these long shot calls are for one bet on cheap street only.
Regards,
Rick
John,
Some people just can't let a good hand go. In THIS situation with your reads on these players your muck was valid and a good move. Anything else is chasing as you know you are behind after the flop.
This is where the gamblers are seperated from the grinders.
I had just sit in a 1-4/8/8 last night when within the first 1/4 hr. I had raised 3 hands. Once with AKo, I had to dump on the turn when A49 made two pair for the SB's A4 suited. Also reraised UTG, with 8,8 in the BB, won on the turn when Q,8,4,3 didn't improve his AK. And finally AKo again in a pot that I also won without showing. I didn't show any of these ! OK, now, I'm UTG and have raised every pot I've played so far. I look down at AA. I'm thinking these are solid players behind me who won't normally call a UTG raise with trouble hands, BUT my image must be that of a "fast or borderline Maniac" player who likes to raise. Before I did it I realized they are going to come in this time and look me up with any reasonable holding. Oh well, I raised anyway. Sure enough I got 4 callers plus the blinds. To make a long story short I lost with a set when the board came 10,Q,8,A,J. The winner had KJ. What I'm asking is "knowing this player would not have called with KJo if I hadn't been "speeding". Is there anyway to control this, besides saying " I DO HAVE A BIG HAND THIS TIME", or showing my AA's and request that everyone fold ? I normally like this situation but I knew I was about to take a beat when I saw those A's but short of throwing them away what can you do ? Just call and see the flop first cheaply ? Call and hope for a raise so you can reraise ? Call the floorman and put these callers under investigation ? Raise and pray for a ragged flop ? Or just get Prozac, so it doesn't matter anymore ?
You've got the best of it preflop whether they call or not. You'd rather the entire table called then they all fold and you just win the blinds. I promise.
Unfortunately, even AA will lose over half the time when taking on that many contenders. However, if you win 40%, and have only put 12-15% of the money into the middle, you're going to come out well ahead on these hands eventually.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the last couple of yrs Prozac sales have remained static even declined a bit. This is due to new and more effective anti-depressents.(could the manaics game be improving?) Prozac anyone?
nt
Bill: Yes you are right.
Rounder: Lithium is primarily to control manic-depressive behavior and has little place at the poker table where emotions run very stea.. ... Mmmmm ... let me rethink this ...
Headcase: Prozac won't stop it from mattering it'll just slow down your overreaction to it.
(1) Consider check-raising your set heads-up vrs a player who is likely to fold if drawing dead and likely to bet any hand worth calling like KQ or even JJ.
(2) If on the turn the board is A964 you have 9 outs vrs A4 (3 each K96). Still think its a good fold?
(3) Time for an attitude shift. Good raise for the right reasons, so long as you change "anyway" to "eagerly".
The reason good players don't call solid UTG raises with trouble hands is because it is so unprofitable to do so. The chances of KJ outdrawing you when nobody else does is pretty remote. Besides of course players with a stiff A or with completely uncoordinated hands (94), these unsuited trouble hands are just what the doctor ordered when you have AA.
- Louie
But to answer your question (although I disagree), the solution is to NEVER raise without a premium pair. Then only the brain-dead types will give you action.
I hope you didn't pay this guy off at the river. One card straight with a preflop raiser and (what'd you say, 4 callers plus the blinds?) I guess it'd be a different story with a board of A3459 but T Q A x J. That's as close to a no brainer as it gets in this game. How many people called the river on this one?
chris
BTW, boo hoo. You never got AA cracked or what? You could've called, hoped someone else raised, and reraise but there's no way you get KJ out, you just get him to put in more money preflop.
Thanks all, for your candid opinions ! I'll try not to overreact. I am upset that youons think of meee as a whiner! But I won't need medication.
My question is still "when your image dictates that you are going to get multiple calls in this situation is it now the time to crawl in, reraise preflop if you get a chance, or see the flop cheap and play from there, all from UTG ? " I have read if they are going to call your AA raise, let them call, but in this case I felt like I would be gang called and I was.
Louie:
1) Heads-up. I wish I had been heads up. Good advise though.
2) A4, oh yeh this WAS heads up without pot odds. I folded on the flop to her reraise. I didn't see the A4 until she wanted me to, as she mucked. I did know my AK was beat because she told me with her bets, then showed me. I can only take advantage of her honesty if I respect it, at times. Still think it's a bad fold ?
3) No comment.
Chris; Try not to kick people when they are down and away from the table. Pay it ? I couldn't even represent it. Also, no chance of me only raising with big pairs, I try to let the cards set my image, too bad I can't do that here. Thanks again.
Hey, easy. I wasn't trying to kick you, down or not. You had won 3 or 4 pots and then your AA got cracked. I'd love to be on a rush and get AA and raise and get multiple callers. That's a great situation to be in.
Of course, it would have been better if you had an aggressive nonbeliever on your left with TT that reraised you preflop and then you both flopped sets. But hey whatya gonna do?
Anytime I have AA I want to figure out how to get as much money in the pot preflop as I can. Cutting down the number of opponents doesn't really come into the equation until the flop b/c weak players decide whether or not they're playing preflop based on their own cards more than on the action preflop.
I like it when I look at my cards and find AA, I wish they were there more often, and I like putting in as much money as possible preflop with AA against 2 players or 10. Whether I'm UTG, on the button, or in middle position, (a few short handed situations excepted) I'm raising, reraising or calling with the intention of reraising b/c i think someone else will raise or reraise (but I'll do the same thing with KK, AKs(with 5< callers), AKo(with 4> callers) and TT-QQ (less than 3 callers or more than 7 callers). Basically I'd rather play 4(or less) handed pots or family pots (7+). Five and six handed pots are the worst b/c the bad draws still draw but you don't get all that money in there when you have the best hand and you don't get as good a price to draw.
Your post sounded like you were pessimistic preflop with your AA and I don't understand that.
chris
Cool, thanks for something to chew on. I guess I had mixed emotions because I "felt" I was going to be tracked down this time. I was hoping for some aggression late but it didn't come preflop. I started having difficulties after the flop when KJ raised for a free card but my reraise didn't clear anyone. When my set came I knew I was dead unless the board paired. I would have felt better on the button but I probably couldn't have saved a bet there either. Anyway enough whinning, I suppose there are only so many secrets and you just have to go with most optimum play 99% and take your medicine when it doesn't work out. Sorry, it just seemed as though you were piling on.
NT
Legal ones. At least those that are legal SOMEWHERE such as the Sea of Tranquility.
Actually, you set up the situation that every REAL maniac dreams of: "They'll NEVER credit me with a big hand in this situation." And it's true--wouldn't YOU tend to give short shrift to the hand values of someone who's raised every hand he's been dealt so far? The simple fact is, the card gods decided to have a little chuckle at your expense. Oh, well. I hope you played off the positive angle of this occurence by a)not showing the Aces that got beaten and b) taking advantage of your "wild man" image later on in the game. (After all, they still thought you were a maniac after you lost that pot--didn't they?)
The thing to remember here is that A's will win more money (again, in the long run) in big family pots than they will in heads up or small pots. Of course, they will get cracked more often, but OVERALL they'll win more than their share (about 30% I think). However, since you'd rather have 4 guys paying 2 bets as opposed to eight guys paying 1 bet, which is a)why it's correct to raise, and b) why it is often said that 'A's play better in small pots'. Correctly played. This stuff just happens. In fact, about two weeks ago I ran into a hand like this only I was the guy with (literally) KJo. Some guy who I'd never seen before sat down and raised four of his first five hands. On the fourth raise I three bet him on the button with KJo to get it heads up, and ended up winning the pot with a pair of K's. He flashed AQs, then told me that he'd had pocket T, AKo and AKs in his other three hands. I felt a little dumb (which isn't unusual, but it is another day), but at least I got to stack the chips...
This post is about over intellectualizing poker. I am playing ten-twenty in a Washington State cardroom. The game is loose and passive with most of the hard cases replaced by mistake ridden seekers of luck.
The cardroom owner is in the game, drinking and winning. I raise with pocket tens, he reraises. The tens continue to look good, but when I bet he raises. So I check and call to the river where he shows me 6-4o. There was a six on the board so he had a pair. As I am stacking the chips I am reading his face. It is dawning on him that he is being stupid and drunk. He sees me as a challenge and has tried to run me over. He leaves his chips and the game, for a break.
The owners nephew is the cook in this place. He is barely old enough to be there. He has the poker bug and spends alot of time watching the big boys play ten-twenty. He gets permission to play his uncle's stack, about a grand, the uncle is drunk remember. He does exactly as I expect, over playing his hands, bluffing often with BS. Saying a lot of trick stuff to let us know he is cool. So long to uncle's stack I think and settle down to get what I can.
Later I notice he is winning. I am struggling. It is just a routine case of no matter what I am dealt or what I do with it, nothing is working. Whereas, he is hitting everything.
We both cash out at the same time. I am down $360, it would have been $460 but I got a hundred for high hand. He is cashing out $1800+. He is looking at me with a smirk that says, 'Man, you aren't so tough after all'. Another routine poker experience.
He wouldn't even want to listen to me tell him that what makes the money in poker is so small that it needs to be seen through a microscope. Playing poker is like playing pool on board a boat. When I read threads where the discussion is about whether it was correct to raise on the river with yada, yada, blah, blah, I have to ask myself,'Was the cook in the game?'.
You need to track your wins and losses over a period of time. The better player will cash out ahead in the long run. Do you really think someone could consistantly win in the long run by playing against the odds? If you think this is some crap I am dishing out try playing craps. This site is for players that want to learn how to play correctly, so they can win in the long run. Sorry, about your loss, but it happens to all of us, even the superstars of poker.
I'm not sure what your point is...
If it's that it's often such a close call between making or not making certain plays, that in the long run, it's rarely worth losing sleep over, I agree.
If it's that you should not debate or analyze hands at the table, I also agree.
But like you said, to win money in poker can be a fine line. Discussing such nuances as whether or not a particular play can be profitable in certain situations, IS very important. Hence, the threads that might discuss raising the river, et.al.
We should be thankful that some of the top players in the game are willing to share their insights and that a forum such as this, even exists for them to be able to do so.
Care to share where this game was?
Playing poker is indeed like playing pool on a boat. On each individual shot, the boat could lurch and you make a bad shot which loses you the game. But the more you play, the more the lurches happen to both players and the bottom line is that the best player wins more often and wins more money when he does win, and loses less often and loses less money when he loses. I had a day today where every hand I had my opponent dominated bit me in the ass on the turn or the river. Instead of thinking analysis of what happened is yada, yada, blah, blah, I prefer to think about what happened and if there was anything I should have done better.
So you have a choice. You can think that if the cook is in the game and he gets hot there's nothing you can do about it, because the difference between winning and losing hinges on microscopic things and discussion about whether one should raise the river or not is a waste of time, or you can think about your game and try to play better. I'm not always successful, but I prefer the latter approach. Respectfully, I think that what makes the money in poker is bigger than you think it is.
Good luck.
If the cooks could never win, the cooks (and all the other fish like them) would never play.
How would you like to look around a game and be surrounded by Cooke's (Roy that is)?
Regards/LoneStar
I don't think Daniel meant to whine about his losses. I think the implication is that many of us tend to assume our opponents think and play in the same rational manner as we do, but the decisions that opponents like "the cook" make generally have more to do with whimsy and short-term results than anything else. It's a basic point, but one that many people often miss.
-Sean
In the original,'Is the cook in the game?' post I suggest that I know what make the money in limit hold'em. So let me see if I do.
There I was in a very good game. There are five new faces. Of those five the cook is far and away the best. His expection is negative. The other four do not know me or how I play. They in too many hands and staying in those hands too long. Therefore, the pots are bigger. There is little raising, making it possible to look at the flop cheaply. One of them takes a pot with split 2's on the turn, calling raises from AK all the way to the river. So all I need is to get cards that hold up and I will get paid at a better than average rate. For each pot I win there will be more money that usual. It is the extra amount in each pot that makes this a money maker. My game has been fine tuned, there is no doubt that I am lean and mean.
But I do not get the cards. A storm in random events has come up and I am getting battered about. It is critical to make it now but instead I lose. There is a myth amoung many poker players that an 'expert, world class card shark' could sit in my chair, get the same cards against the same players and make money. That IS huge BS. Generally, these players are immune to having plays put on them. So if the cards are not holding up and he can not run them off, what can the great player do here to change things. Nothing. Washington State slugs grind through folige and and kill each other with a 'tongue' that is a microscopic grater. Each time they run that tongue over a leave or pile of dog manure they get some. Not much, but some. That is, after much work to create your own grater, how you make money at limit hold'em.
Very relevent with "Zen" qualities. 1st rule "better lucky than good", is true for any given moment but not infinity.
Greetings,
I was debating on not posting this but these two hands bothered mainly because I think one needs a very strong hand usually to three bet on the flop and in both cases I totally misjudged where i was at. Indeed one may say "I need to know my opponents better, and this is pbly one of the weakest parts of my game but even solid players have confused me and they were in no way trying to do so.
OK here's the first hand.
Its a new game and I have played about 4 hands. 1 plyer limips and pick up ATs in early position, I call (pbly a mistake but i can't believe a very big one). One player behind raises me 2 cold call as do one of the blinds. 5 see the flop of
T 7 3 rainbow (w/one of my suit)they check to me and I bet (hoping the prefop raiser will raises and thin the field), he does and but one cold calls and another in late position makes it 3 bets. I very hesistantly call as does the preflop raiser 4 see the turn.
Which was on off suit 6. I check preflop rasier bets and other player raises. I fold here, sure that Im beat.
The river is a blank and the preflop raises check s other player bets the max ( Its a 3 6 12 game) and other calls. preflop raiser shows AK, other KT.
Should I write this off as these guys don't know how to play and stay in this game asap? or have i fallen victim to a good play?
Here's another : 1 players limps and a solid but predictable player raises on the button, SB calls I call w/ AJo.
The flop comes Jh 6c 5c. Check , I check (intending to check raise) the preflop raiser bets SB calls I raise other plater folds preflop raiser 3 bets it. SB calls again (SB is a weak player who will go to great lenghts to keep people honest). I somewhat reluctantly call.
The turn is an off suit blank. Cehck Check bet call call. (I thought about folding here).
The river is another blank its gets checked all around and the preflop raiser chekcs down A J o !!!!!!!
I pbly would have folded on the river had he bet (12).
Am I too much in a hurry to throw away the betst hand?? Or does 3 betting the flop not require as much strenght as I think.
All comments appreciated!
In my limited experience, I've found that game "mood" (for lack of a better word) sets the precedent in these situations. In other words, in one game a three bet on the flop means "better than top pair" or two pair or a set, in another game a three bet on the flop means top pair/good kicker or overpair, or (if enough players are in) a four flush or four straight and the sets or bigger hands will wait to raise the turn(which may be right, but not neccessarily).
Also, it may be obvious but needs to be said, the person three betting should be considered.
Also, you should be more aggressive on the turn. If a single raise will back you off a hand then the amount you win will be less those times that your hand is good or, worse, you'll be pushed off pots that should be yours.
chris
The time to fold is before the flop or on the flop. If your hand is good enough to see the turn (and I'm not talking about draws here, only made hands with no significant draw), then it should be good enough to see the showdown the large majority of the time. Once you get to the turn betting, the pot is typically big, and you don't need to win all that often to show a profit by calling a player down. Only when it is clear that you will have to call multiple bets does it become likely that you should fold.
This is a very general statement, and there are many exceptions. However, unless you're VERY confident that someone has you beat, and this confidence is based upon past experience with that player, just grit your teeth and call him down (most of the time).
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A lot of players fail to notice the "new game, 1st few hands part". So I'll try. I too suffer from this inability to estimate (ignore/punish/avoid) strong play in early stages of a game. Fight or Flight. It's only natural to get out of the way rather than find yourself out of position and out of chips after only your 1st or 2nd adventure. Some old timers would often say that they would throw away good hands "early" (even KK, I find this hard to fanthom !) to began a game rather than risk diving into a hole before they can get a line on anyone. SOME PLAYERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS ! I'm sure Doyle was talking high states and games that went on for days, but caution early is a trait that can protect you or put you in the catagory of "weak tight" if you let it. Now you know them, FOUR bet these "clowns" early sometimes with top pair top kicker and if they still won't get in line you can safely fold. If you only do it with your monsters they will continue to roll over you early then check it down on the turn and river if you meekly call and they don't improve, costing you bets ! Run it back at them when you have position, show some heart, live a little at the lower stakes, if your playing 5/10 then move down. "I see the enemy and it is me" Good luck.
will get your monsters (sets,etc) paid when you hit them ! Be a moving target.
Nadder Nadder,
In the second hand with AJo and you flop the top pair it would be a discrace to fold. This seems to be an ouvbious go to the river situation. I don't know why you put so many !!!! next to the initial raisers hand. Is it that unreasonable that he has AJ. What else could he have maybe KJs QJs or AKclubs AQclubs or the overpair. You beating 4/5 of those hands and you've probaby got odds to call if he does have the mystical overpair and he will pay you off if you hit the Ace or another jack. my expert assesment is that his check on the river is an indication that he is afraid he is beat meaning a flush draw that missed or possiable weaker than top pair. What if he has AK of clubs and he bets $12 on the river as a steal now that he missed his draw are you really going to let him take the pot!!! You could be betting $12 and winning the whole pot or carving up the SB for yet another $6 each. Loosen up.
The reason for the subject title is that there is more than one way to look at the play of this hand. It may look like it was played badly, but when looked at another way and with more information, it may have been played correctly. I'd like to hear if there are any good arguments for the way I played it, AND for why I shouldn't have played it the way I did. Without any other details, here is the play of the hand.
In a 30-60 game, I raised 1 limper with AKo. Everyone folded, and we took the flop heads up.
The flop was As,Jc,9d. He checked, I bet, he called.
The turn was 3d. He checked, I bet, he raised, I re-raised, he called.
The river was 9s. He checked, I checked. I found out that I had caught 1 of 9 outs when he showed the Ah,3h. Comments?
Besides preflop, your opponent got the most money in the pot when his hand was strongest - on the turn. Not saying he played correctly preflop, or even on the flop, but you surely overplayed the turn, esp. considering the check-raise.
Did you think that you're opponent could slowplay AJ on the flop or a set of jacks? Do you think he'd check the river with A9? I don't know but there are mistakes on both sides throughout the hand.
Specifically your opponents preflop play, and, by extension, flop play($60 preflop, $30 on flop) was less expensive in this specific hand than your mistakes on the turn ($180) and river ($60) but his mistakes will be, or have been, more expensive than yours in the long run. IMO, not betting the river was a larger mistake than reraising the turn.
You could say that your opponent made a $60 dollar mistake on the turn by not reraising.
chris
The holgographic section of the hand begins when you re-raise the turn.
Argument for the way you played it: -When he raises you re-raise: he knows you've raised before the flop and bet the flop. He checks knowing you're going to bet the turn now that a blank has hit. He could be raising with a worse Ace than yours (Ad-xd?), with Kd-Jd, or Qd-Jd, or bluffing or semi-bluffing (Qd-Td?) hoping you don't have an Ace, so you re-raise. This gives you the opportunity to show your hand down on the river instead of having to make a tough call, by minimizing the possiblity of him continuing his bluff/semi bluff on the river.
-You check to his check when a 9 hits on the turn: he could have A-9s or J-9s and hit the river (or A-J) Snce you re-raised the turn, he going to figure that you're going to figure that he would have bet the 9 if it hit him, so he checks, hoping you'll bet so that he can raise you, which he figures you'll call for the size of the pot. You realize this so you check.
You haven't put him on one hand only. You've considered a range of possiblities and assured that if you have the best hand, you won't be faced with a tough choice on the river.
Argument against the way you played it: -Re-raise on the turn: You've already shown power before the flop, on the flop and on the turn. What could he have to raise you with? You could be looking at a set of 3s, a set of 9s, possibly even a set of Jacks, A-J, A9 or A-3. With a weak ace, why wouldn't he let you keep betting to the end?
-Check on the river: He checked, showing weakness after you administered the Fekali enema when he raised the turn. Now he showed weakness by checking. He realized that his A-J, A-T or A-3s is no good and you need to bet your two pair with top kicker for value.
Preamble: Players who slow play before the flop are rightfully rare; so the chances of the opponent having AA or JJ or even 99 are pretty remote. His 2-bet indicates some kind of steal (KJ, QJd or even AQ) or AJ, A9, A3, or 33.
The main controversies are your (1) 3-bet on the turn and your (4) check on the end.
(1) If the opponent is bluffing he may lay down his slim draw when you 3-bet. Otherwise there is little reason to "slow him down" by 3-betting figuring to check the river when you would have called anyway. The MAIN reason to make this play on the turn is so you can get that extra bet in if you DO outdraw his apparent hand. I believe you need to suspect some kind of steal quite often before 3-betting gains anything.
Bad 3-bet against most opponents, OK vrs players who like to raise the turn.
(2) You have AK with board AJ993 and opponent has AJ(6), A9(4), A3(6), or 33(3) you appear to be a 13:6 underdog. But given the way the hand was played A3 has just GOT to be his most likely holding; certainly more than 3-times normal; if so making you an 18:13 favorite. Given that your 3-bet makes him fear big trips you can expect him never to raise if you bet; so it appears you should bet. But only if he's going to CALL with A3 which looks like a real hopeless call to me (but perhaps not to the guy holding it).
Good check against most players, bad vrs players who play very straight forwardly.
- Louie
PS.
Good 3-bet vrs clowns who like to FOLD big hands on the turn when "obviously" beaten.
I like the way you played the hand, IF I can assume 1 thing about your opponent.
The assumption: That he will not 4-bet the turn with any 2-pair hand, and that the ONLY hands he will 4-bet the turn with are sets. If this is the case, then you can fold to his 4-bet, and know that you haven't lost anything (as compared to calling him down instead of 3-betting).
The reason I like this play is that you lose 3 bets to hands like AJ, A9, A3, or J9 when you don't catch lucky, just as if you'd called him down. You win an extra bet sometimes when you catch a K, bet, and get called on the river. You also don't win or lose any different amount to hands like AQ. In other words, if the opponent is predictable here, you lose the same when you lose, and maybe win more when you win.
The main exception is when the opponent calls your 3-bet on the turn, and then bets into you again when an apparent blank hits the river. You probably have to call for the size of the pot, and now lose an extra bet.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
FossilMan said about what I would have said. You want to be pretty confident you're drawing dead if he reraises. Otherwise, just call.
So some of the missing info that would help includes:
--how aggressive he is in spots like this (i.e., how likely to 4-bet) with two pair or less (including draws)
--how likely he is to follow through with a bet on 5 if he's semi-bluffing (e.g., having picked up a diamond draw) and misses (if unlikely, then you can pick up an extra bet from him with the reraise on 4)
--how often he does that irritating "bet back into you" thing that FossilMan mentioned
--what he puts you on when you 3-bet (and the levels of thinking already described by Andy Fox)
--how he currently sees your play -- which influences all of the above.
One point - when in doubt here, I say just call. You give up very little and insure that you don't cost yourself the pot.
When I was check/raised on the turn, I asked myself some questions...
#1. Is this player capable of check/raising with a draw? My answer was- Maybe.
#2. Am I willing to call this raise and probable bet on the river? My answer was - Yes. Even if I was beat, I didn't want to give the impression I will routinely fold top pair/best kicker on the turn for a check/raise.
#3. What will he re-raise me with? My answer was.. Only a set. Even with 2-pair I felt it unlikely he could re-raise, because he must be conerned about my having a set of J's or A's.
I don't like my answer to question #1. I think it should've been a definite "yes" for my re-raise to have been correct. Otherwise, I am most likely putting more $$$ in with the 2nd best hand. However, this is somewhat compensated by the fact that it's going to cost me the same 2 bets to show the hand down unless he has a set and can re-raise me. In this case I have an easy fold. Even if he had 2-pair, since I don't feel I can be re-raised, I still have anywhere from 3 (if he has AJ)to 9 (if he has A3) outs. Is this thinking flawed?
I agree with Chris that my check on the river may have been a worse mistake than raising the turn. Since it is unlikely that I can be raised, I may as well bet for value. (9's full of A's on the river, is as good to him as A9 2-pair on the turn, if he is worried about a set of aces or jacks. So I probably STILL don't get raised).
I just felt that I took the hand as far as I should go. Also, that since he called my re-raise on the turn, there was too good of a chance that I would be betting with the worst hand. The only hand I could now beat was A3.
Conclusion: If I had to play the hand over, I think I would just call him down. Even if he had a hand like QT or AXd, he can't fold for 3 bets anyway. While the way I played it MAY have been Ok, I don't think it can be too wrong to play it this way. Would everyone who has responded agree with this? Thanks again for all of the fine responses! Tony.
I agree that it wouldn't be far wrong just to call him down. But if he had a hand like Adxd or QT, then that's where the raise would be especially good as it extracts an extra bet from him. But as you said, your weren't really sure he'd make the check-raise with a draw. I don't think you have to be super sure of it though to make the play. As long as you'd call it down anyway, the question of what he'd 4-bet with is more important.
I can't see betting the river both because your opp's actions suggest you could easily be beat to begin with by a hand like AJ (About all you can beat that you can expect a call from is Ax or A3.), and because that 9 pairing does present the reasonable possibility of a check-raise, especially given the strength you'd shown. (He probably *shouldn't* check-raise with most hands containing a nine since you're action suggests a good possibility of AA or JJ, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he did anyway.)
Tough game.
position: 2
Hand: Q,Q
UTG: Raises.
1) UTG style: unknown.
Your play?
2) UTG style: Will raise UTG with following hands only: A,A;K,K;Q,Q;A,K;A,Qs;A,Js;KQs.
Your play?
2a) Your hand; K,Qs.
Your play?
3a) Your hand; A,Ks
Your play?
I read a book from another author other than a 2+2er (Blasphemy, Mea Culpa!) and I believe his recommendation to be incorrect. Since these are theoretical questions I will hold his recommendation until I hear from the maestro's here on the forum. I hope OZ answers to. It's always nice to hear from the Wiz.
Vince.
QQ: I am either a small favorite or a huge dog. Fold with alacrity. KQs: Too much chance of being dominated, and the flush draw isn't worth the cold call by itself. Fold, and flop a royal :) Big Sick: I can stand to play AKs for a raise, cold, only because I will act after the raiser on subsequent rounds. Trouble is, I could flop a K and get fried for about five bets if it's no good. So I'm not overly enthusiastic obout this one either--but I call.
DISCLAIMER TO BADGER, BLOWER, WANKER, DOPEY, SLEEPY, DOC, AND WHOEVER ELSE MAY DISAGREE WITH THE ABOVE: The above represents my OPINION. If you wish to disagree, fine tootin', but please do so in a civil manner because it's simply my OPINION, which is not less valuable than yours, and holding a contrary opinion does not in any case give you license or rationale to question my motivation, ethics, intelligence, hat size, or anything else!!! So put a cork in it AHEAD of time---thank you!!!!
Gee Kevin ever see the acid these guys pour on me when I give an out of the "mold" answer the these questions.
Good thing I thrive on rejection (that's how I got through high school).
I gave up caring whet others think when I realized how many "others" ther where.
:-)
Kevin's second parargraph is right except for the part about his opinion being as valuable as anyone else's. That only applies to those subjects that are stictly matters of opinion. Otherwise more expert opinion is more valuable. Kevin's comment that two Queens is either a small favorite or a big underdog is flawed. It is true that when queens know it is against AA QQ or AK it should fold a big no limit bet, since it is either a 17% shot or a 56% shot. Even here however it is close since AK will be against you more than the other two combined (16-12). However in Vince's question, there are three other hands that could be against you, all of which you are about 70% to beat. Roughly: 12 opposing hands are overpairs and you win two of those times; 16 hands are AK and you win 7; 8 are the suited high cards and you win 6. So hot and cold you win 15 out of 36. This is good enough to play given your pot odds, your position over the raiser, the fact that you often win a big pot if you flop a set, and the fact that you can save money if an overcard comes. Whether you should reraise is another story. Against a player this tight the answer may be no. However if merely the one exta hand of two jacks (let alone AQ offsuit)is added to his raising possibbilities, then a reraise is mandatory.
this sure of them self since Sister mary elephant tried to convince me that eating meat on friday was as bad as killing a fellow human being.
Guess there is no debate here, god has spoken.
:-)
.
David, I respect your opinions and consider you one of the few writers on any subject who considers all angles before he voices an opinion; I loathe "fuzzy thinking" as much as you do. That said, I think an unnecessary tinge of color creeps into your writings (columns/books) and your posts here---that of substantial arrogance. It isn't necessary as a means of driving home your point. Condescension can drive away those who would benefit from advice but may object to its tone or delivery. As someone who is trying to sell himself, I would take a long hard introspective look.
Just one further point on the QQ "debate"---I don't like the hand in the situation described because I feel the pots I WIN will be small--the pots I LOSE will be large. This distorts your a priori 15/36 a bit, skewing it back in favor of a fold IMHUO (in my humble unworthy opinion). Again, the question really gives insufficient information (what kind of game is it, do you expect to be isolated with the raiser more often than not, what is the blind structure, etc. etc.) so the answer tends to be a bit more subjective than otherwise.
This stupid post doesn't even merit a reply ....
Hah! Just kidding. I sympathize with your protests on on the manners thing, but consider: (1) most players don't have a clue (2) those that do have a lot of questions (3) there are few places where one can find good answers and (4) a lot of what people commonly ask about poker, compared to subjects like physics or biology, isn't even known.
Given the circumstances, pounding the table now and again isn't bad, is it? It's nice to have a sense of certainty, even if it looks like arrogance. Look through the archives: wimpy adjectives, passive voice, mealy-mouthed qualifiers. "I think ..." In my opinion..." Yuck. Compare that to: "some people think otherwise but they're wrong." Much better.
And give the man a break. If you had to go around with the nerdy moniker like "world's greatest poker authority" you too might be a little quick on the draw. Besides, the poor guy can't even post his replies in the right place. (But at least you can now read them. When this forum started, I thought about a "no-limit typing" contest, but somebody has evidently gone to night school....) And most of us think the fueding is kind of fun, but if it bothers you, well, just look down on it like feuding. You know, hillbillies and corn cob pipes and so forth. ("It's them Yooners, pa, they're et it agin'!").
P.S. You are so wrong on the queens. Think of all the flops when QQ is an overpair and your opponent has far the worst of it for three rounds but you'll never see them because you wanted to save a bet.
I just can't imagine a scenerio playing out where I'll muck Q's in what appears to be shaping up as a heads up pot.
"Otherwise more expert opinion is more valuable."
Unarguable!
Q,Q is not that difficult a hand to play. Yet it seems that it is a hand that on occaision presents the holder with a dilemma. I guess the same could be said about a lot of hands. The most interesting thing about the dilemma here is that it seems that the more information one has the more perplexing the dillemma becomes. For instance most agree that without any information about the raiser a reraise with Q,Q is in order. However, when we add information about the raiser the correct strategy is not readily discernible or clear. Yet all the experts readily agree that the more you know about your opponent the better decision you are likely to make. I suppose that interprets to: Just because a decision is easy doesn't make it the best or most correct.
Vince.
1. Call
2. FOld - I think KQ is a crap hand
3. Call
qq= reraise
kq=fold
aks=reraise
same on you Vince for having to ask this question. i will excuse you this time because of the hour.
I was not being arrogant in my post. The concept that some opinions are more valuable than others was a general statement that applies to many subjects. Is it not true that you did not take into account card combinations in your original assessment? As to the idea that you would win small pots but lose big pots, I disagree. Think about the various scenarios that could play out and you should see what I mean.
If by "card combinations" you mean a matrix of all the possible hands the raiser could have (and his likelihood of having them), yes, I did take them into account. I doubt, however, that you can get such a perfect read on anyone over time that you can read off the hands he is likely to have like a laundry list.
As to the further development of the pot, let's take a look at some scenarios: 1. An overcard flops. In this case are you going to grimly call to the river? Or are you going to release your hand for any bet? In the first case you commit to chasing with what might very well be a two-outer; in the latter you surrender the pot the half of the time an overcard flops (the raiser should bet any overcard flop regardless of whether it helped him). 2. Trash, J or lower flops, or something like 4-4-7. If you are up against AA or KK you are simply going to lose 2 1/2 large bets here. If, however, oh, happy day, you actually had the best hand...well, it still has to hold up, and AK has a lot more outs against YOU than you had against AA or KK. 3. You flop a Q, with garbage. Hooray, you win...but you can't expect any action, except if you have AA or KK against you. Thus--usually a small pot, garnered about 12% of the time. 4. You flop a Q, with overcard(s). Now, this is the time that you expect to get paid---unless, of course, it's set-over-set, in which case you will die horribly. The Q-plus-overcard flop is a parlay, anyway, and shouldn't be taken into serious consideration in the spectrum of possibilities.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Given Vince's parameters you WOULD fold on the flop if an ace came and I think a king also. Without those parameters you must play longer but you will also have the best hand more often which makes up for it.
I believe that this is one of the most important tools to being a great player, the higher up in limits you play. One must change gears for various reasons. I like to think of changing gears as a way of adjusting to a situation. Sometimes it's correct to play real fast, while other times you might have to hit the brakes. If I'm playing in a low limit game, I usually like to play tight at first, until I get a read on most players. Once I have a few chips in front of me, I start to play a little faster. The drawback to playing too fast, is that if you lack judgement, or start to run bad, it can start to be costly. That's when you must slow down. I usually play 5-10, 10-20, or 15-30, depending on the other players in the lineup. I like a soft line-up and would rather play in a soft 5-10 game, than a 15-30 game with a bunch of tight aggressive players who are constantly raising and reraising me. If I played tight and didn't play my Jh7h or 8d4d, I would never take down the monster pots I have in the past and I would never be able to advertise how wild I am. Imagine how you can cause other players in your game to go on tilt when your Jh7h beats his pocket rockets. I'm not advocating that you go ahead and call UTG raises with complete crap, but sometimes you must give up some edge preflop.
I agree with you, I generally play in a pretty loose 10-20 game where there is always a cold caller of a preflop raise with Ax. I don't mind giving up an edge preflop (so long as I'm not regularly doing it, or give up too much of an edge) because I feel I can outplay them after.
Anyway, if you sit around and wait for AA all the time, there's lots of action you miss and lots of money you miss out on.
Mike
Ever compare your monster pots to all the other dead money you put in with crap. In other words is your strategy profitable?
I'm curious to everyone's opinion as to when being in the blind is advantageous, especially if you get a reputation as a tight player...I'll give you an example of what I mean.
I'm in the BB with AKs....A fairly loose player, but reasonable, raises before the flop, the player to his immediate left makes it 3 bets. I had seen this happen 2 other times during the session, and both times the reraiser had a big ace. It was folded to me and I capped it out of the big blind.
The original raiser mucks his AQo face-up and said "I guess this won't do me any f***ing good" Anyway, the flop comes 3 rags and I bet out, on the turn, another rag, I bet and the original 3 bettor mucks.
I think this is a good play, especially if you consistently see someone making the same play. It's possible we had identical big-slicks, but I also think that it's likely he may have laid down a decent overpair. Everyone at the table (It's a pretty loose 10-20 game) thinks I'm really tight. I am, comparatively, but not super-tight by 2+2's standards. Any insight would be appreciated....
Thanks, Mike
Post deleted at author's request.
Ditto
Believe it or not I love being in the blinds when an early position raises and a couple of folks call. Then I start singing " Caca Good"...basicly saying that since the good cards are used any junk on the flop is mine :) I can bluff at just about any rags by betting or check raising and it works Great!
I like the idea of betting the flop from the blind when your opponents play too tightly on the flop.
But when your opponents are good and you check-raise their big cards after a raggedly flop they won't be inclined to put you on something like a miracle two pair. They might instead treat this as a good opportunity to begin to represent pocket kings. When you hit a big hand they might pay handsomely, but when you miss you might have to spend 7 to 9 bets trying to convince them otherwise, generally not what you want with a hand without a prayer on the showdown.
xx
I actually like being in the blinds. In passive games I get to see the flop for free. In aggressive games I get better odds when a single raise comes my way. And most people don't understand the concept of blind stealing so I know when to abandon ship.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be in blinds any more than necessary...but if I'm the tightest player at the table, the blinds might be the only opportunity I have to play a hand for a long time.
Dan
Mason Malmuth told me once that the blinds tend to stay in the game (in a post on this forum). It made sense so I began to worry less about the effect of the blinds on my game. So, the fact that there are blinds might not be negative.
If I have to be in a blind, I want to be the big blind. The big blind is blessed and cursed. Forced to play but with the best postion. The little blind is just cursed.
Structure is the basic.
I am UTG with TT, and raise the $50 BB to $250, fold, fold, fold, raise to $650 by strong player, next guy cold calls, next guy goes all in for $900. folded around to me, and I muck, figuring I am up against at least two overpairs. Anyway flop is 4, 10, 7, turn is 2, and river J. Well I had TT, first reraiser had AA, next guy had KK, following guy had QQ and another guy on the button had JJ.
Odds question
How big of an underdog were my TT to the AA, KK, and QQ.
How big of an underdog were my TT to the AA, KK, QQ, and JJ (assuming the JJ was in)
Has anyone ever seen these five pairs pre-flop.
Can't say that I have, but your muck of TT was OK. In a tournament. There are those who will do a long math dissertation to let you know you were wrong mucking here. You made the right play at the right time.
His muck of TT, given his description of the game and the play, appears to be perfect for any NL game, tournament or cash. He did not have pot odds to chase, especially since he felt he was against multiple overpairs. However, if the numbers were different, he might have been correct to call. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Do you remember the thread on general theory about three weeks ago? At least 60 responses just trying to figure out the math on TWO pairs showing up at the same time. I speculated on the universe imploding. If I had to read through another thread for FIVE pairs, I would probably swallow a vacuum cleaner and try to implode myself.
Dan
ps I think your fold was correct. I've never had that happen (that I know of). But one time myself and two others split the pot three ways with a pair of jacks. All of us had A-J.
This is a general question inspired by the thread from this Tuesday regarding "Backdoor Draws" which you may want to read first.
In a nutshell, we often have hands that have a chance to make a runner runner flush and a runner runner straight perhaps with some high card potential. Let's assume we are currently beat in a big pot and need to make something to win and are in a position to take on card off on the flop cheaply.
Gary Carson and Andrew Prock converted the various draws to "outs" in order to make the decision easier. Does anyone else do this and what are some guidelines on how to do so correctly?
Here are two examples of hands where this may be useful. In both cases it is a big pot and a bet with many callers to you.
Example A: You have 8h 7h. Flop is 6c Ad Qh. You have the backdoor medium flush and the backdoor straight. The pot is between 12 to 20 bets. How do you know when to call?
Example B: You have Ah 8h. Flop is 6h 7c Kd (this is similar to the example in the Tuesday thread). You have the backdoor flush, backdoor one card straight, and an overcard of some value along with the eight that some may say has value when it pairs. The pot is between 8 to 14 bets. How to you know when to call?
Regards,
Rick
Since you only asked about when to call, the pot should be large because a lot of opponents put in a few bets, instead of a few opponents having put in a lot of bets, unless they have suddenly become very timid.
In fact, you can only consider calling when your expected cost of proceeding is most likely to remain low, a function of the number and type of opponents you face and your relative position. You want to have last or nearly last action against players that will be inclined to act passivley on the next round.
Let's say that in the second example there was a preflop raise and an early position player has bet the flop. A couple of weakish players then call, evidently afraid of the big pair. This would be a good scenario for calling in last or next to last position. A better example would be if the bet came from an aggressive bluffer than no one believed. After getting several calls, he might check the turn and you might get a free card.
Despite the smaller pot, I'd be much more inclined to call in the second example than the first, as there are fewer cards that could both improve my hand and encourage others to jam on the turn. In the first example the Ah might well be an improvement that I would come to regret.
On the other hand, if you're just facing one bet from an aggressive opponent who could have anything, I like these hands, especially the second one, better for raising.
Chris,
You have a lot of good points regarding these sample hands but this is not quite what I am looking for. I'm essentially hoping to find a simplified method of counting outs when taking one card off on the flop against multiple opponents and you have a combination of backdoor draws.
Perhaps including the extra high card clouds the issue a bit. In the example from Tuesday, I attached little value to hitting the ace since a player bet into multiple opponents and there were already two callers. Others (including ray zee and Gary Carson) gave this more value.
Let's say you hold a small pair and miss the flop. Hitting a set on the turn is two outs and 22.5 to 1 against. In most cases when you take one off you don't want hitting your set to make someone a flush or a likely straight. So if you are careful, the implied odds (i.e., extra bets) and the chances you will lose when you hit more than balance out. (Note: In previous threads the consensus seemed to be getting pot odds of 15 to 1 is about right so perhaps a small pair should be thought of as roughly three outs!)
Now a runner runner flush is about 22 to 1. But this hand runs into a bigger flush or full once in a whileand you are charged when you pick up your draw on the turn. So I believe Oz himself has indicated that you really need about 26 to 1 to take one off on this alone. This would be somewhat less than two outs when combining with other draws.
I haven't seen a runner runner straight analyzed and this is complicated when you only have a one card straight.
The samples below are not complete but I would be curious as to about how many "outs" the following long shot and backdoor draws amount to. In addition, is combining these outs a valid technique?
1) Running high straight with rainbow flop?
2) Running nut flush when one of your suit flops?
3) Running nut flush when the board has two hearts and you have the ace of hearts (Note that this is not similar to 2 in that you don't get much river action when the board is a four flush).
4) Running medium flush when one of your suit flops?
Of course one can make up more examples but I need to get back to home improvement hell. I'll check in at lunch.
Regards,
Rick
Your chance of hitting a runner-runner straight is just over 6%. Your chance of hitting any runner-runner flush is 4.16% Although you don't add these up when you have both draws, the chance of either hitting is a coincidental (and convenient) 10%. Or thereabtous.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Rick,
One thing that I learned from Caro, Cooke, Abdul, and others is that when you are making calls to marginal draws it is *very* important to be sure that your will not be raised behind you if you call. Often this is emphasized by saying if you call closes the action, then a marginal call may be waranted.
This isn't a strict requirement. If those behind you also call you are in the same boat (even better actually). But to make these marginal calls with action behind you, you MUST have a good indication that there won't be a raise behind you.
When I'm making my decision about whether to call, I figure out how many effective outs I need, and start adding them up from the highest quality 5-card hands, down to the lowest pairs. If I get more outs than I need right away, I call. If I end up with more than 12 outs overall, I start to think about raising. Depending on the nature of the game, I'll actually give myself from 1 to 4 outs just for raising as well, thereby explicitly incorporating semi-bluff odds into my drawing calculation.
Example A: call with 15 bets in the pot
Example B: call with 9 bets in the pot, consider a raise with 12 bets in the pot if it's heads-up.
The raise is only possible in example B because you've got one card outs which might be good if you miss the river, get a free draw and spike it on the river. You also might get him your opponent to fold now, or on the turn if the flush draw comes and you bet again. Example B doesn't really have any decent one card outs, so a free card semi-bluff doesn't make much sense.
As for details on how to convert draws into outs, I pretty much use Abdul's guide.
- Andrew
The raise is only possible in example B because you've got one card outs which might be good if you miss the river...
should be miss the turn...
Example B doesn't really have any decent one card outs...
should be Example A doesn't...
- Andrew
Andrew,
Thanks for the link. I wrote my reply to Chris above while you were posting and was about to fire off an email to you in case you were not lurking.
I agree that it is essential that your call close the betting or at least come close.
Regards,
Rick
example A: backdooring straight odds = 4 fives and 4 nines = eight, assuming (that there is a double bet on the turn and) you won't go for inside straight except if its a heart three or heart ten so... 8/47*8/46=2.9%+10/47*9/46=4.16% giving you a (2.96%+4.16%)=7.12% chance of making a straight or a flush or a straight flush. Therefore this hand is playable at 15 to one but not at 14 to one, unless you can be sure that your hand will be the nuts when you make it and/or you will get paid off big time if you hit, in which case you can count your implied odds and it might become playable at 12 to one or even lower (its six handed and you figure there will be calls on the turn in addition to yours, and some calls on the river).
example B: Here you have the straight, the flush, pairing the ace, and tripping up the eight as ways to win. four fives, and four nines, 10 hearts, 3 eights, and three aces. 8/47*8*46(2.9%)+the 4.16% from above=7.12% +any ace on the turn or the river =3/47+3/46=12.9%+two running eights =3/47+2/46=.28%=17.34%, so...you only need six to one odds if you know your ace is good. I think eight to one or better is a call in this instance.
Since it needs runner runner to complete the hand which is costly, I prefer to go for the nut flush, and I think the turn and river can change a lot of things that makes it hard to say the true odds on the flop.
I like to go backdoor flush with eithor 2 over or Axs in a big pot, since this hand can occationally be played aggressively on the flop when situation is right.
I think I would fold on A, and call or raise on B.
regards,
jikun
It seems to me that the thing missing from most of these pot odds calculations is the cost of future calls. Let's take Chris' calculation in Example A---he puts the percentage chance of making the runner-runner hand (straight or flush) at about 7%. He goes on to recommend playing the hand at 14 to 1.
While this is technically correct, the danger is in applying this logic is in using the odds on a small (flop) bet. To make things simple, consider example A against one opponent (suppose he bet the flop, everyone else folded, and it's up to you). Suppose you know he has top pair and that all of your runner-runner outs are good, but suppose you know that you'll have to call a bet on the turn if you develop one of your draws. In this case, you're going to call on the turn about 60% of the time, and you'll win about 8.6% of the time. But you can't use 10.5 to one as your criterion without making the adjustment for the additional 1.2 SB that you have to toss in on the turn. Thus, you actually need 23 to 1 implied odds to call one bet on the flop even though you are 10.5 to 1 to win.
George, you're correct that you have to consider the future action. You also have to consider that you might lose with the made hand. It's not a cut and dried problem. But you're calculation is kind of strange.
You're going to turn a draw to a five card hand when 16 of the 47 unseen cards hit. This translates to continuing to the river 34% of the time, not 60% of the time. You'll hit a straight or a flush a total of about 8.32% of the time on the river. So... one might reasonably guesss:
66.00% the turn doesn't hit -1 sb
25.68% you'll see the river and miss -3 sb
8.32% you'll win the pot. +X sb
so if you want +ev you'll need:
.66*(-1) + .2568*(-3) + .0832*X > 0
Or you want X > 17.192 sb.
If we assume the pot was head to head, 2 of those small bets were put in the pot on the turn by your opponents, which means that you want to have the pot right around 15.2 sb when you call on the flop. This assumes that we will win all the time when we make a hand.
To convert this to equivalent outs Y, we use a ratio:
Y/47 = 1/(1+15.2)
This gives us Y = 2.9 which is pretty darn close to 3. This number is NOT a static number, in particular you might be beat, which decreases you're ev, but you might get 2 bets in on the river if you hit which increases your ev. More players increase your odd, but it also increases the chances you'll be beat when the board pairs (or flushes the wrong way). But 3 is a good "ballpark" number from where you can start to make informed decisions.
- Andrew
I'd done mine assuming that we would draw to gutshots and two-pair---hence, the 60%. I worked through your example, and this is what I got...
flush draw: 6/47=13% open straight draw: 6/47=13% open straight/flush draw: 2/47=4% gutshot/flush draw: 2/47=4%
Probabilities of making hands (respectively):
9/46=20% 8/46=17% 15/46=33% 12/46=26%
Multiplying these out and adding up, I only got a 7.2% chance of winning. It wouldn't seem to be a big difference, but it gets leveraged a bit because of the "future bet" calculation. Doing the EV calc laid out in your post yields 20.3 SB for implied odds.
I did make a mistake in my previous calculation in not accounting for the straight draws that came with four of the hearts (as detailed above). Accounting for these lowers the implied odds to 19.5 from 22. Note that, at these levels of the pot, it will be in your interest to draw to gutshot straights and two pair on the turn (assuming these are winning hands), so including them actually lowers your implied odds from 20.3 to 19.5.
George,
Here's the skinny on calculating the straight/flush odds. There are 2162 possilbe turn/river combinations. As you said:
open straight draw: 6*8
flush draw: 6*9
gutshot draw: 6*4
open straight/flush draw: 2*15
gutshot/flush draw: 2*12
That's 180 ways to get a 5 card hand, all of which you should draw to if you hit them - unless there's heavy turn action and you have only a gutshot. 180/2162 = 8.32%.
I didn't count the runner runner two pairs and runner trips as those aren't straights and flushes. That is, I was only trying to get the value of the 5-card backdoor draws. You are right that these other backdoor draws add value. In practice, I tend to ignore them since the two pair is weak (it puts a 3 straight on the board), and the trips are very rare.
- Andrew
George,
I just went over my post, and you I noticed the error you were talking about. I forgot to include the gutshot draws in the turn call which does indeed increase the raw odds required to 20.3. Of course, I also forgot to include the probable river call you'll get which is close to 2 sb in value.
My revised caluculation show that the double backdoor draws are about 2.88 outs. This is still close enough to 3 for my purposes, and I will keep using that number to characterize my "added drawing value" in such situations.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
- Andrew
Ack,
It seems that if I didn't make mathematical errors, I wouldn't do any math all.
My final offer,using my obtuse method of estimating outs, is 2.76 effective outs for double backdoor draws. This value is almost certain to be very situationally dependent. Thus, as the extreme optimist I am, I'll keep using the value 3, cause that's the kind of sucker I am.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
But you have to consider these "up front" in some situations. In this case, it turned out to be only hair-splitting. For example, suppose you expected to rake 20 bets (not including what you're putting in from the flop forward) when you win. In this example, counting just running open-enders and flush draws, you'd need implied odds of 20.3 to 1 to call on the flop, so you'd fold. However, this neglects the five-card two-pair draw that you'd take on the turn: if you include this, you get 19.5 to 1 and would call.
In fact, these percentages are so small that it will always be hair-splitting. Who cares? I don't think we're disagreeing, are we?
This happened in a 5-10 game on Paradise, fairly tight but not at all tough.
As the title of this post suggests, I'm in the BB with QQ (suits don't matter in this story). Early-middle player raises, button cold calls, SB folds, I 3 bet (headsup I might call and see if an A or K comes before getting too frisky).
Flop is J 9 8 rainbow. I bet, both others call. Turn is Q. I think for a moment and decide to bet (I know this is contrary to S&M's advice of checking hands with outs and betting hands that don't, but I thought the only hands these 2 particular players could have with a T in them would be TT, so it seems worth a bet). Raiser calls, cold caller folds.
River is a complete blank, a trey. Here's where I can't decide what to do. I still think my hand is very likely to be the best, but how often will I get called with this board by hands I can beat? And I won't like it at all if I get raised. I think this player is capable of laying down AA or KK if he thinks he is beat (whether he does is for you to decide).
So what would you do?
I would have been very hesitant to bet the turn. That's a pretty scary board. But you're right. It doesn't seem like this guy has a 10. He raised pre-flop and merely called post flop? If he's willing to raise pre-flop with TT, surely he can reraise you with an open ender. If it was AA or KK as well he again would have reraised you.
But you bet and he merely called. Now I've seen some people just call with the nuts because, for some reason, they figure you have it too and the sooner they can split the pot with you, the sooner they can go onto the next hand. Weird. Anywho...
This guy sounds like he decided he was going to raise for the hell of it, just to see what would happen. He probably caught a piece of the flop but sobered up enough to not re-raise. Instead he's going to call you down just so you don't bluff him out of the pot.
While I wouldn't have bet the turn, given his passivity I certainly would bet the river.
Dan
I figured that he would bet most hands he would call with on the river, because for some reason people on PP always get aggressive when I back off on the river. And I really didn't want to get raised.
So I checked, he bet, I called, he showed KK, I took down a nice pot. I guess he was going to raise the turn (mistake IMHO), then got scared when the straight came. OR maybe he was scared because I was playing so tight at that table and had just reraised out of the blind... All I could have is AA right?
DeadBart
The chances of him slow-playing a straight on the turn is pretty remote. This means that are either a BIG favorite when you bet (he calls with lots of hands) or you are a tiny underdog (he calls with few hands).
The up side has so much more potential than the bad side can be bad; this looks like a brain-dead bet for value to me. Unless betting and getting raised is goint to tilt you the rest of the night.
- Louie
What stands out to me about this post is how your opponent played his kings. He didn't cap the betting pre-flop and didn't bet the flop with his overpair. I would have never put him on aces or kings, unless I'd seen him do something like this before. In fact it's damn hard to put him on anything except pocket tens or jacks, imho. I'd bet the turn and if raised, call and hope to fill up on the river and if I do go for the check-raise, otherwise check and fold. With no raise on the turn I'd definitely bet the river, and call if raised.
Then again my game is simpler than alot of posters here. I do pretty well at 5-10 on Paradise, but I've learned to avoid the 10-20 games there.
Hi,
I've recently started playing Hold'em and i'm wondering if it is correct to slowplay three of a kind under any circumstances?
In addition, does anyone has recommendation about a good bankroll for 2-4? Is playing 2-4 a good place to learn the game, or should I move up quickly to have a better chance at beating the $3 button charge (counts as a bet where i play)?
Thanks,
Marc
The reason they say to just blindly flail away when you flop trips is because despite their strength, straights and flushes can and do beat them. That being said, if the flop comes so raggeddy that you obviously have the best hand no matter what comes up.
You limp in mid position with 99, there's no raise and the flop comes A92 rainbow. You think anyone has trip aces against you? Chances of a backdoor flush or straight aren't good versus pot odds. No, you have the best hand right now and people with even AJ are virtually drawing dead to you, but WILL give you action through the river. And guess what? hands like T-T will see no one bet on the flop and give you action as well.
But if the flop comes with two connected cards, two flush cards, you really have no idea where you stand, except that for right now you have the best hand. Feel free to take the broad edge of those trips and start swinging.
In summary, if you not only have the best hand, but you think that no one's even close to beating you, slowplay. But NEVER give free cards to drawing hands.
Dan
The best time to slowplay trips is when you flop top set. It is often unlikely for anyone to have much of a hand, so you should wait. For instance, if you have 99 and the flop comes 9 6 2 rainbow. It is unlikely that anyone has top pair, there aren't many likely straight draws, and it's very easy for an overcard to make someone a good second best hand. Even here slowplaying can be wrong, _especially if the pot is big_.
Your objective with a set is to get the opponents to put in money. Ask yourself "will I get at least 2 calls if I bet?" combined with "are the prospects of getting called on the turn better if I check?".
In the 2/4 there are SO many players that will call one bet on the flop no-matter what that you shouldn't ever slow play. In these games I slow play MORE often on the turn.
Take a shot at the higher games.
- Louie
In low limit games, with 2 suited or wired cards on the board, my suggestion is to bet/raise with your set in late position, or check-raise with them in early postion with several players in the hand.
By betting or raising in the late position you will be giving notice that there will be no "free" cards for the remainder of the hand. Your stronger opposition (meaning those rare low limit players actually capable of folding a hand before the river) may chose to get out of your way at this time.
Check-raising in early position against several players often proves proffitable due to the inability of many low limit players to fold a hand once they decide to commit themselves to the turn card. Granted, you possibly are making those players with drawing hands "more correct" to call you due increasing the size of the pot, however, should the board "pair" and also make your opponents hands, you will get almost unlimited action from these players. Many low limit players fail to recognize the implications of a "paired board".
- Steve C.
My experience is that at very low limits, you normally should not slowplay a set. You want to get the drawing hands to fold or, if that's not possible, to pay dearly to beat you by drawing out on you.
If you are fairly certain that a player to your right will bet out if you check, you can risk a check raise to make life even more miserable for the drawing hands. I would not use a check raise, however, if the probable bettor is on my left, because everybody will just call his/her bet, then call my bet, making the pot even more attractive to the suck-out crowd without scaring anybody out. In those situations, I would bet out, and hope that the bettor to my left will raise, thus doing the dirty work for me.
This applies only to a set. If the pair is on the board, everything changes because of the possibility of full houses or of the case card being in another hand.
As for bankroll, I never sit down at any game with less than 50 times the small bet in my pocket. If the game is expected to be loose-aggressive, I bring extra.
You should only slowplay trips when I'm drawing to a flush or straight.
Seriously, I never slowplay trips or any hand for that matter. This might be a leak in my game but the games I play in are superaggressive and every hand seems to have big action (capped flops, 2 and 3 bet turns, and 2 bet or checkraised rivers, with 7-8 people in for the flop, 3-4 for the turn and river) so there's been very few times I've flopped big, bet and everyone folded. In general, if they don't raise a flop bet then the hands that are out aren't going to all of a sudden turn into monsters and cap the turn.
You get big pots by multiple players playing for multiple bets not by check raising the turn with 3 players in. I think the future action you give up by slowplaying monsters (I think a set is a monster) is costing you more than the action you stand to get from slowplaying a specific hand.
chris
2-4 is a good place to learn and you should move up quickly. Once you notice how bad the 2-4 players play and get annoyed by it, move up.
I slow play trips when there's no two-flush or open-ended straight possibility on the board. This depends on the payers though. The only reason to slow-play is for deception so that you can build the pot. If everyone is going to call your bets and raises all the way to the river, there is no reason to slow-play.
Here's a hand I played recently that I found frustrating. I'm pretty sure I played it correctly, but would like to hear opinions/criticisms.
3/6 HE w/kill, loose aggressive no-foldem style game.
Preflop: I'm 2 seats after BB. I open/call 6 with pocket 9s. 5 more call, SB folds, BB calls. We take the flop 7-handed.
Flop: 3, 4, 5 rainbow. BB bets out. I consider raising to get heads up with my overpair. However, this is one of those oddball extremely loose aggressive games where raises seem to encourage more rather than less callers (I guess the skewed thinking is "It's gonna be a big pot, so I gotta get in there in gamble no matter what I have.") I also consider raising because the BB is very aggressive and loose, and I could very well have the best hand. In the end, the uniformity of the flop along with previously mentioned factors influence me to just call. Everyone else folds, leaving me head up with the BB and a lot of dead money in the pot.
Turn: offsuit 4. BB bets 12. My instincts tell me I'm probably beat. However, as I said BB is extremely aggressive and I feel there's a decent possibility he has x5 for 5s and 4s (two pair). I decide that given the pot size and that I'm head up, I'm stuck calling him down, and I call.
River: offsuit J. No flush possibility. He bets 12 and I call. He shows 5 4 offsuit (fullhouse).
Questions: Was calling him down correct? (Note that I would define BB as an habitual bluffer, or at least close). This kind of play, especially on the surface, seems weak, but in this case I think it may have been correct.
If the BB was a more solid player (tight aggressive) would a fold on the flop or turn be the correct play?
Thanks,
Caddy
I have no problem with occasionally following your instincts, but I would definitely raise with your overpair. Although in this situation you lost, wouldn't the BB bet A5 or 66 or 77 on this board? Even against 2 pair you have 5 outs now and probably 8 on the turn.
Are you REALLY asking whether you should call down an extremely aggressive player heads-up when nobody but that player has shown strength and you have a mid-valued hand?
Or are you asking that you MUST stick to the "raise of fold" philosophy and therefore calling is "weak" and "shameful"?
Calling such players is an excellent option since it ENCOURAGES them to continue to bluff when you intend to call them anyway.
You cannot lay this hand down against someone willing to bet a draw and who bluffs close to correctly since by calling you are announcing a non-strong hand which encourages them to bet it down.
- Louie
The size of the pot makes it worth calling him down if you think he's bluffing. Otherwise, despite the guy's reputation, I don't think you have the tools here to be going up against someone who is betting out in first position with a pair and a straight draw on a board that has done nothing for your hand. Even wild players occasionally get good cards, and this looks like one of those occasions. If you want to play head games with him, you should probably wait for a better hand and a raggier flop, as well as a situation where he's not in the BB and therefore could have anything.
Raise the flop. Wouldn't the BB bet out with 46 (pair and a straight draw) or A5(although he might try to checkraise with A5)? When the board pairs the turn (raise, he can't reraise unless he has at least a made straight or a four), if he has A5 (he mucks, unless he's super weak and check-calls river). If you raise the flop and there are over calls behind you, and he bets into you on the turn, you're beat, so what's the problem?
You didn't lose this hand because you misplayed it, you lost b/c this guy had a better hand. If you play it more aggressively you're not even there for the river card. Ironically, I think the spot to just call and induce bluffs is when you have a much stronger hand such as a big pair in the hold (and you didn't raise,for whatever reason, preflop) or you flopped a straight, slowplayed the flop, and now, because the board is paired, decide to just call.
Why were you playing 66 up front? Why didn't you raise the flop? You said b/c people with worse hands will over call behind you but that seems to be an argument in favor of raising. In general, I think the more people in a hand the more aggressive you should be when it's favorable (compared to the pot odds) that your hand is best.
And, finally, sometimes it's better to fold the best hand when you're out of position, the board is scary, the pot odds are unfavourable, and an aggressive player is betting into you. Once you just call the flop, why get in there and slug it out (raising) or take a punch (calling). Just fold and wait for a better opportunity and a hand in which you have a better line on your opponents play. Obviously, if the perfect card (2 or 7) comes on the turn you bet or raise, if a 6 comes off you probaby do better by just calling (unless you have 4 or more people in then you might call and raise if there is a late position raiser and you figure everyone will come in and you get your price for drawing to the full house, high variance but fun when you hit and you waste no more money by calling the river if you don't hit b/c a straight will probably reraise your checkraise and if he doesn't might check behind you when you check hte river after you don't improve.)
These kinds of hands are the kind I'll either pump or dump. That doesn't mean it's the right approach but it's been working for me. High variance for sure but much better than the slow bleed of simply calling.
chris
I was recently playing in a tight 5-10 game. Player UTG calls. He plays very tight and plays even tighter than S&M starting hands UTG. I sit to his immediate left and raise with my Q-Q. I get two loose cold-callers and UTG calls. Flop is Qc-Jc-Js! UTG checks, I bet out hoping someome has a jack (and the two loose cold-callers will always call a bet on the flop with any backdoor draw). One caller in middle position calls and UTG calls. Turn is a 2s. I bet out again, middle position player folds, UTG calls. We are now heads up. River is a 4d. UTG bets into me! At this point I don't know what to put him on but I "sense" that he has quads. He wouldn't play A-J ander the gun and probably not Q-J (maybe if it was suited). Despite my initial assessment of his hand, the tunnel vision sets in and I raise. Of course he reraises and I make a crying call. He turns over J-J and the table oohs and aahs. Another strong player at the table told me that I got off as cheap as I could, but did I? Based on my correct impression of this player could he have had any other hand? Is it likely that he would have played Q-J in this way? Should I have raised him on the river, even though almost anybody would. And when he reraised, should I have even called the last bet? He would have shown his hand to me whether I called or not at the end, so a "what the hell just happenend here" call is not needed.
Ant comments on this hand would be helpful.
The issue isn't whether your assesment is correct. The issue is your failing to act on it.
The questions about his holdings are inconsistent with your original assesment that he plays tighter than 2+2 recomends. If you are right, then he is NOT playing any hand with a J except JJ. And you know it. If he WILL play AJs then its ONLY 2:1 in favor of AJs over JJ.
I suspect your ability to assess will improve (if it needs to at all) AFTER you start trusting it in action. This also applies to your "intuition": the hair on the back of your neck will react truthfully when you liscen to it.
- Louie
Here's a hand I played, that I've always wondered if I played correctly.
I have AA and I'm in small blind. 3 callers to me and I'm viewed as rather tight in this 3/6 game. I raise and BB folds and 3 callers call my raise.
Flop: AJ8 rainbow. I bet out and get one caller.
Turn: 8. I bet out and get raised by the oringinal caller. I instantly make her for trip 8's and I reraise, only to get capped by the raiser. At this point a guy at the table, who I assume is the girls boy friend says, "What are you doing? He's a good player." She responds, "Don't worry." I'm 99% sure she has 88 and just made quads.
River: blank. And I CHECK the nut tight to the raiser and she bets and I call.
She turns over 88 and the whole table is amazed that I checked the nut tight to her on the river. Of course most of the table isn't very good but I've always doubted whether I should have capped the river or not.
In this type of game, she could have possibly had A8 or J8 (even in early position), but because of the short conversation I make her for 88. Was my check/call correct? Should I have bet and capped it? Or should I have folded the 2nd best hand possible with the board?
There is no way to fold that hand on every street, unless you see his cards. I would lose more money than you on this hand, but I still think this hand at least worth a bet on the river.
regards,
jikun
Do not fold top full house. I you are 99% sure she had quads then ignore that last sentence.
Your assesment is VERY REASONABLE especially since she would have suddenly worried in the face of the advise (which advised her you had Aces full) had she had Jacks-full. I'd have thought and done exactly the same. In fact, I HAVE done (virtually) the same thing. There is no shame in check-calling with the 2nd nuts. Perhaps you think it "odd" or "bad" that a good player can see things differently than a whole table of bad players? Perhaps "truth" is determined by vote? Hey, if conventional wisdom was right EVERYBODY would be a poker pro.
- Louie
..
I think it would be awfully hard to lay down this hand. Yeah, if your assessment of him is correct, he PROBABLY has JJ, but if he's a good player with some bluffing tendencies, he might play QJ or JT the same way and try to persuade you that he has JJ. However, when he bets out on the river, I think you should just call. He's obviously done screwing around with the pot-building check-calling and is telling you he has the hand won. Fortunately for him, you didn't listen, and he's $20 richer as a result.
It's probably worth filing away for future reference that supertight low-limit players rarely have the nerve to NOT bet out their nut hands, and this chap was exhibiting unusual bravery for that breed by doing it twice.
BTW. Few yanks understand "tight". Call it a "boat" or a "house".
Okay, Tighter than S&M UTG, in a tight game... that implies Group 1 hands only (AA, KK, JJ, AKs). You raise his hand, which (depending on your image) he will infer as YOU having Group1 pair...
Would this person NOT reraise you with AA/KK? If not, it is either AKs or JJ... and supertight ain't calling with no AKs...
Does that logic work with your knowledge, your established image and the table environment? If so, fold to the river reraise. Should probably have just called river bet.
If ANY chance a bluff or second-best hand is in UTG's hand, call reraise w/o worrying too much.
You guys told me pretty much what I expected to hear. I knew better at the time to raise the river, but I am still fairly new to the game and I shut off my brain temporarily. Louie is right, if I learn to trust my intuition I will avoid situations like this in the future. During all of the hours folding and watching, we pick up information on the other players, and if we fail to put that information to good use, we should expect to get cracked now and then.
Thanks for the feedback everyone.
I play in a regular game where the guy who runs it is a very solid player. However, he does loosen up and play more when he's had a couple of hands beaten on the end. What are the thoughts on knowingly taking the worst of it in order to suck out on someone, just to make the go on tilt?
Patrick
its called implicit collusion at low limits.....at high limits one may have better protection against this due to the fact that if you try this too much..you go broke faster..and are basically on tilt yourself.
Chances are that he will get a couple of bad beats in the course of a normal session anyway, so why put your own chips on the line?
This particular "strategy" is a whole lot more common than you think.
YOU may want to do it if (o) You MUST know you're target will tilt (o) You need to have reason to believe he's staying if he tilts (o) He'll MORE likely tilt if YOU, the solid player, makes a bad call and sucks out vrs some other regular sucker (o) You want to find plays that are "obviously" wrong but that doesn't cost so much, like capping the turn with a straight draw vrs 3 opponents. (o) Raising and sucking out has a bigger impact on this sort of player. (o) Sucking out with an "ugly" hand has a bigger impact (but playing ugly hands has a big impact on your stack); so be more inclined to do it from the blind when you flop a pair with 93 or a gut-draw with 85.
- Louie
Generally not wise. One problem with it is that when you lose even more than usual because you intentionally took the worst of it, giving this guy a bigger pot than he would normally get, you may just move him *further* from tilt. Another is that the payoff, even with only marginally incorrect plays, will often be minimal overall because you have to succeed at a parlay whereby you win the pot (through a fundamentally -EV play) AND this person then goes off, AND you then get some of the money he throws off. You may have to throw away a fair amount of money before you see rewards of the long term +EV kind here.
As one poster suggested, there are usually enough other players willing to take the worst of it, potentially putting him on tilt, without you having to be the one to do it.
I think that this concept is pretty stupid. The easiest way to put a player on tilt is to outplay him, esp. when he thinks he's the best player at the table or, at least, a better player than you. It takes long enough to get the chips playing solid, why would you want to increase your own fluctuations in hope that it will "tilt" and loosen up your opponent? If you play solid, hard hitting, aggressive poker, situations will come up when you can outplay him and that will get his money and maybe *tilt* him, but which do you think is more important?
chris
"knowingly take the worst of it" - that should answer your question right there.
Someone once coined the term Implied Tilt Odds. This describes the situation you are addressing. As long as you are not taking far the worse of it and you are reasonably certain you call / raise can tilt a player it may be worth it. Don't go overboard with this concept, however; or you will be the one on tilt.
Always remember that poker is a game played by people. I've seen supposed solid players go off for far too many bets in games because they were not in the correct state of mind. Nudging a solid player in this direction may be worth it if you are sure that he will go this way (and stay this way for a while). It does no good to tilt a guy if he only goes off for 5 or 10 minutes.
Good Luck, Tom B.
Loose, not too agressive, 15-30.
one limper, second limper (SL) a player who has won enough and doesn't want to lose back and capable of making various laydowns, Button limps. SB call.
I check with K4 offsuit in BB.
FLOP: K 9 9 ( 5 players )
SB checks and I decide to check to see the action.
we check round to the button who bets, SB folds. I was considering a check raise but call. SL also calls.
TURN: offsuit 6 ( 3 players )
I check, SL checks, Button bets. I call. SL calls. I am now almost sure that SL has me beat with a better K as he would have raised if he had a 9 and likely folded most other hands. Also the the button could not be bluffing.
RIVER A
I bet out. SL folds. Button calls.
Comments? ( result later )
What hand are you trying to represent here? Do your players think you'd call all that way with AQ (or AJ,AT,Ax)? Would you ever play a 9 this way?
The only call you get is from an A or another K or if the button actually has a nine, which I'd be surprised as he didn't raise your river bet? You split the pot with any K and lose to an A. If SL is that gullible to lay down a K then this is a good play but I think it's unneccessary to expose yourself to a raise from a possible nine and an ace might raise you (I would but then I would've raised with as little as KT earlier in the hand).
chris
Let's assume that your reads are correct. The SL has a king, and the button has either a nine (2/3 of the time) or a king (1/3 of the time)---since he can't be bluffing. Let's also assume that the SL is sure to fold if you lead at the pot on the river, but that the button will not fold a king. Now let's look at your decision.
There's $195 in the pot---1/3 of the time, you will be splitting the pot with someone. If you split with two people, you get $65, with one, you get $97.50. Thus, the value of forcing the SL out is about $10. The key question is how much it costs you. If we assume that the button will always raise with a nine (and bluffs enough with a king that you will always call)---it costs you an extra $20 (2/3 times $30) over the alternative of checking and calling. If he raises only 60% of the time with his nines, it costs you $12. This play is a money loser.
You can quibble with the assumptions, but also keep in mind that I assumed that your play on the river was 100% likely to force the SL to drop. I think the bottom line is that the value of getting the SL to drop is not sufficient to warrant betting out on the river, unless the button is a predictable player and you are disciplined---that is, you fold when he raises on the river because you KNOW that he has a nine. That said, if he's that predictable, you might want to check and fold if he can bet the river.
First, I think it is extremely unlikley this button ( and many players ) will raise even with the 9 on the river. Many tend to fear you have slowplayed some kind of monster. Better players will raise though.
Secondly I felt the button may be betting some pocket pair. Lots of players make this kind of bluff, the books even suggest it.
RESULT was on the lucky side for me, SL folded a King (I am pretty sure he didn't lie ) and button did have a smaller pair.
I hadn't thought of the pocket pair possibility---when you said he wasn't "bluffing," I assumed that you meant he had a king or a nine.
Another point: From an ex ante perspective, I think that the fact that he bet it on the turn against two opponents makes the pocket pair less likely.
Your conclusion of SL is reasonable since in addition to your assesment he is also "sandwhiched" and even if he SUSPECTS what you are doing he may not be able to call anyway, fearing the button.
George makes a good point if we presume "can't be bluffing" must mean a K or 9. But the button could reasonably bet betting 77 vrs two players who don't like their hand and 77 can reasonably be the "best" hand AND lesser hands like gut shots (with 10 outs!) are likely to fold. Good turn bet with 77 even though he doesn't like it when called.
This is a MUCH better play if you feel reasonably likely you have the button beat.
George also makes a good point about you could not reasonably have an Ace. But then THEY could not reasonably have an Ace either (unless you were already beat) and not that many people are going to both notice AND act on the "fact" that you can't have one.
Check-Raising the turn is a better play since the button may lay down HIS king as well and it costs the same as the way you play it.
The best part of this play is you acting on your convictions. I stongly suspect there are LOTs of players who "know" a play will work but just CAN'T do it. "Practicing" this even on potentially small -EV situations like this one pays big dividends when your confidence is high enough to snag some huge pot with 2nd pair.
- Louie
Thanks for the analysis.
On the turn if I check raise, it costs me 2 big bets, if SL is slow playing a 9, which was a strong possiblilty. I can lay down if he check raised my call. That was my thinking, plus button might pay off one more bet if we was bluffing this way.
However making SL lay down possible king might make the check raise better not completely sure.
D.
Last night I am in a fairly loose 3-6 game.A pretty solid player to my left raises,he's in a middle position,I look down and see pocket 8's,so I call and two others call,including the BB.
Flop comes 8,10,K rainbow.
The guy who raised pre-flop bets,and I raise,it's mucked back to him and he 3 bets it.I call.
the turn is a K
He bets and I call
the river is a blank I don't remember what.He bets and I call.
He rolls over pocket 10's to beat me.Comments on the way I played this.This is the third time in the last couple of sessions this has happened to me.And it's frustrating as hell.any way thanks in advance for any comments.
First, I assume you mean he was to your right. If he was to your left, that would mean that either you're the SB or you called with 88 in early position.
But if you were in mid-late position, I don't know if I would cold call a raise with 88 against a player whose raises I respected.
That being said, just be thankful that you didn't lose more money on this hand. It's a bad beat and it happens.
But imagine if this guy had AKs. You might have gotten on here, posted the hand, and said "OK, so I won this hand. But I really don't feel like I played it right. How could I have won more money?" The answer is the same here as it is there: raise. Raise and raise and raise. Both situations you don't have the nuts. Slow down eventually. Or let him slow down. Eventually hands like AA, AK, KQ will get the hint that they're beat and slow down for you.
Set over set is very frustrating. Full house over full house even more so. But when it happens you'll lose lots of money. Nothing to be done about it except develop x-ray vision and fold all your losers.
Dan
Ertai,
Are you really unsure of how you played the hand, or do you just want to tell us you latest bad beat?
Last night I am in a fairly loose 3-6 game.A pretty solid player to my left raises,he's in a middle position,I look down and see pocket 8's,so I call and two others call,including the BB.
I'm confused. A player to your left raises and it's back to you? Either you limped in and then the player to your left raised, or a player to your right raised and you were faced with calling two cold. If the latter is the case you can muck 88 to two cold especially in a game where you expect it to be 3-5 way. 77-10,10 really play better either head's up or 7 or 8 way. Once you called before the flop, the rest of the hand was played fine. You just got unlucky.
**it happens.
Regards/LoneStar
I don't think the hand was played right at all. If the raise was from the right you muck preflop. If you were in the BB you call. If you called early with 88 and it's a single raise back you call, if it's 3 or 4 bets to see the flop and less than a family pot(7 or less) you fold. You cap the flop. When the second king comes off on the turn, you raise (and probably cap it), if, after all that aggression, he still bets into you on the river you call, if you act first, it'd be tough between betting and check-calling.
With this preflop action and flop, you make a lot of money from AK, AA (before the turn), and you lose to a higher set a small, small percentage of the time.
You should've lost more money on this hand. You hit your hand perfectly yet slowed down on one flop raise. You said the game was loose-aggressive, if that's the case you have to get a lot of money in the middle when you have a strong hand, to the point where people here will say you overplayed your hand. Believe me, your opponents, whether by circumstance or intention, will get the most out of their hands. You have to do the same (get maximum value out of your hands) if you hope to beat this type of game.
chris
I'm trying to apply the advice given on page 118 of HPFAP, that says you need better than normal pot odds to continue with your straight draw in the face of a two suited board on the flop. I realize that the flop will come two suited 55% of the time. I've also read some advice that says to release these straight draws in face of a flush draw. So if I want to draw to a straight in this situation what kind of pot odds am I exactly looking for? I enjoy reading the different posters and would appreciate hearing the standards each of you require for this draw.
Thanks,
Don
Let's say you have the JT of spades, and flop Q93 with no spade and 2 hearts. You have 8 outs to your straight and are slightly less than a 5:1 dog to catch either a K or an 8 on the next card. However, 2 of these cards (Kh,8h) can give you your straight while making someone else a flush. If you think this is a possibility, (the more players, the more likely this is so) you'll want to adjust your odds and outs. Safely, you can say that 6 cards (3 K's, 3 9's) will now give you the nuts meaning your are almost a 7:1 dog to catch on the turn.
Of course, none of this addresses implied odds and/or reverse implied odds. You may make your straight and collect more bets on later streets. You can also make the nuts on the turn and still have someone hit a heart on the end to beat you. Personaly, I like to err on the side of caution in these situations.
As Hatter said not only do you have two less outs for the nuts but also someone can make the flush with some other card when you make the safe straight. Without calculating, it appears you'll have the nuts only 60% as often when there is a 2-flush compared to when there is not.
Never-the-less, straight draws are pretty strong hands since you aren't going to PLAY cards that make straight draws unless there are several opponents and therefore the pot is relatively big. Its still only about 5:1 against and since it'll generally cost 3sb to draw the flop and the turn, you need only 15sb from the opponents (actually less since the straight will win often even when the 3-suit hits).
One of the last articles I bothered reading of a particular author was when he analyzed a hand where hero called a raise with JTo on the button vrs 8 players, the flop was Q93 2-flush, there was a bet and 4 calls to hero, and the author suggested that anybody who wants to call shouldn't be playing for keeps. That author is an idiot. I went on to prove that even if he's up against a set AND a flush draw, his hand is almost worth a RAISE against this many players.
Rarely fold non-paired board straight draws.
- Louie
I don't think I've seen this concept in print or on screen.
Much has been written about the downgrading in value of a open ender or even a gut shot when the flop is two suited. this is obvious.
However, under the right conditions, the flush draw may not be as negative as most would think in showdown conditions. Under certain rare circumstances It may even be positive!!!! that is the flush draw helps your playing EV.
Scenario: You are up against a tight UTG predictable raiser and one tight predictable cold caller preflop. You ar bb with 78c. The flop comes something like K96 two suited red.
You have an open ender but there is the flush draw out. UTG bets, call, and you call.
The turn is a red deuce completing the flush draw. all check.
What has happened with weak tight opponents is sometimes the flush buys you a free card on the river.
The two likely big pairs check fearing the flush is out. you get a free look at the river.
Now I am not saying that you should call all the time with a two flush if your simple straight pot odds are there. I am just saying that under certain conditions, you may not need as big pot odds as people have been quoting.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
The most important factor boils down to position and what your opponents need to play on the flop. When you're out of position with players behind you, let it go unless the pot is huge. You might make an exception if your opponents are extremely passive calling stations that always pay you off.
For example, let's say you're in the big blind with 7s6s, a flop of Kd8h9h, and the small blind bets out and you have several players behind you. This is a clear fold. If you're in late position and everyone checks to a bettor just in front of you, you're in better shape unless there's a fair amount of checkraising on the flop, but unless the pot is big you're still gambling that at least one opponent will call and none will raise. When you're in last position against several callers that would fold without a hand or a draw, you should also fold.
The times you want to call is when you're in last position against a bet and one or two callers or several callers that could be in there with anything. In the first case the quality of your draw is better and in the second case the size of the pot better justifies the risk.
If you're looking for a particular pot size that you can use to make a mechanical decision, there isn't one.
$3-$6 game on Paradise. No idea what kind of game, I just got in. Call in late position with 55 with 5 callers. Flop comes 9 9 7. Checks around to me so I bet to see where everyone is at. 2 fold, 3 call, no raise. Turn comes 2 or 3. Checks around to me so I bet again. One folds, 2 call now I definately don't put someone on trip 9s. River comes 4. Checks all around and I check and lose to someone with 7Qo.
My question is how far do you take your low pocket pair when the board pairs but you don't put anyone on trips?
against multiple people- most times the flop is the stopping point.
7's on down need improvement on the flop. Stop on the flop as Ray Zee said is a good approach. The smaller the pair the more they need to improve. Also, the smaller the pair the later your position needs to be to invest in them. Do not call a raise, generally, pre-flop. Do not get sucked in by pot odds, 'The pot got so big, I had to stay.', is thinking that forgets that small pairs lose to bigger pairs. With many players in the pot, odds are someone has at least a bigger pair. The texture of the flop is always important. Improvement on the flop generally means a set or a straight and or flush draw, the smaller the pair the better the improvement must be to continue. I want improvement on the turn as well.
The exception worth mentioning is against someone you know to raise with a hand like AJ and you think you will end up heads up or maybe with one other player before the flop. I would want a flop that did not appear to help the big cards and the other player must fold. This exception requires experience. Often a player will go to the river with a hand like AJ, basically because they do not want to fold and are hoping for high card. This is also an exception to the thinking that,generally, you do not want to just call.
I will sometimes raise UTG with a small pair, 5's up, but only in a 'sane' game and only against players who know me. Hey, you did get dealt a pocket pair, be carefull and try to get something with them.
This is a very common leak in many otherwise good player's games. They think that they HAVE to bet a small pair in late position when the flop comes up with a pair on it and it's checked to them. In my experience, in a loose game you simply are NOT going to win the pot with a bet in late position against a large field of loose players. You'll get calls from straight draws, overcards, overpairs, underpairs, and the guy slowplaying the trip 9's. Then they'll all check to you on the turn and put you in the same position.
Many players forget that one of the values of being the button is that you get the option of taking a free card when it's offered to you. This is a perfect candidate for that option. Be thankful you're getting a free shot at a pot.
You should consider betting your pair in this position if the game is tighter and the board pair is higher. A flop of QQ3 is much better to bet at than a flop like 997, because it's much less likely that you'll get called except from someone slowplaying a Queen. So you will either win the pot, or if you're called you can take a free card on the turn if it's offered to you, or fold to a bet.
By betting on each round, you're assuming you're in the lead and charging the other players to try to catch you. However, as it turns out, you were trailing the whole time and should have checked all the way, therefore taking free cards and unlimited odds to catch the leader. You fell victim to the Fundamental Theorum, by playing differently than if you knew what your opponant held. How do you avoid this in this type of situation? In my opinion, you can't play internet poker. Having the player there in front of you makes a huge difference, and you probably could have gotten a fair read on the other players and guesstimated where you stood through body language and 'vibe', as I like to think of it.
Other than that, I agree with the previous posters. . .you took them too far.
shooter
Poker is about people. No people no Poker for me.
I would have checked on the flop and taken my free card. Not counting 9s, there are 9 ranks of cards higher than my fives. I expect my opponents to be holding cards that are mostly higher than mine. Possibly all of the outstanding cards are higher than mine. If any of those cards pairs up on the turn or river, I lose. I can also lose to some straight draws here. I may have already lost to someone with a 7. The only card that really helps me is a five, and that could give someone a straight or a straight draw. I don't feel I'm in a position here to bet out against 5 players. Against 1 or 2, I might try something if I thought betting would win the hand for me right now, but against five players that's just unrealistic, especially at such low limits.
Real poker is played with real people. I would rather read or think about the game if cards are not in my hands.
Yes. Like tonight, there is a very good player in the game, stuck, who raises whenever he enters the pot. He is taking some shots, gambling in other words, he is getting his money back.
In the small blind, I have AJ. He is first to act and raises. I call. The flop looks good for what I think is happening. I check and call. The turn, too, looks good and I now believe I am right about what he holds.
I check and call. The river is perfect. I check and he shows me nothing. I have an AJ.
That win for me could not have happened if he was not there for me to see.
Anyone who thinks I played this wrong should look back to where I say, 'he was gambling and getting his money back'.
All the way to the river, if possible.
Usually, I will fold after the flop if I do not get a set. I would not even stay with low pocket pairs if the pot is raised early or if I am pretty sure there will only be 2 people in the hand. I like high cards in holdem.
Be much more inclined to give it up here when your pair is lower than the 3rd board card. In this case, your pair is lower than 7s, so you should take the free card, and fold to a bet later if you don't improve.
If your pair were higher than the 7, and everyone checks to you, there is more incentive to bet and get unpaired overcards to fold, so they don't catch you later. However, if someone calls your flop bet, be very careful, as you will often run into slowplayed trips. However, I don't think that the 1 bet on the flop, when your pair is higher than the 3rd card, is always a mistake. It is sometimes very correct.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am rather new at poker. I have played for a couple of months and read Ken Warren's book. I play a lot on IRC and I do pretty good, I also play TTH and I do ok on that too. My preflop starting requirements are good (I think, I use the book and stuff I've read online), and I'm disciplined in following them (I think).
I play 3/6 in my local casino's and I'm losing. I've put in 28 hours at the casino and currently I am -$320. But, based up the many hours (over 100, probably around 200) I've put in on IRC and TTH I truly believe I'm getting cold cards.
Here's an example. Today I put in 9 hours in my local casino and I won 7 hands. 7 hands! Anyways, I lost $78 and my friend told me that was pretty good for not getting any cards. I made a few mistakes that cost me more that they should have, but overall I played pretty good (I beleive).
Anyways, this was my longest day of bad luck (?) and it was very frustrating. I KNOW I have to work on my postflop play, but I want to know if I'm really bad or if it is possible to be in a drought as big as mine seems to be?
To recap: 28 Hours of casino play, I'm -$320, for -$11.43/hr in 3/6.
I am looking for comments and feedback, anything is appreciated.
There are two lines of thought on how to learn to play poker.
When you first begin playing, play by the book and tighter than tight(esp. preflop, esp.esp. to preflop raises, particularly from early and middle position). That's line one.
When you first begin playing, get in there and slug it out (this is supposed to expose you to tricky situations and, through that exposure, lead you to the higher road of poker understanding, which will benefit you later). That's line two.
I think that line one is both the easier road(both on your bankroll and peace of mind) and the better road. It's also the road less travelled.
Poker can be the most boring thing in the world. No matter how tight you think you're playing, you're probably not playing tight enough. If you won 7 hands in nine hours, I'd guess you were in at least 20 pots, maybe more like 30 or more. When the cards are running "normal", I'd say playing one hand a round (outside the blinds) would be about right for an absolute beginner. That would have you playing 35 - 40 hands in nine hours. If the cards are running cold you could play a lot less hands.
I've sat in hold'em games for over an hour without playing any hand other than the big blind. I'd say just about every session there's some 3 or 4 round stretch when I can't catch a starter. On the bad days, it stays like that throughout the session. But if you're going to play with the intention of winning you can't charge into the pot on inadequate values, esp. when you're just beginning to learn the game.
Finally, if you have the opportunity to play whenever you want, leave when things aren't going your way. Buy a $6 dollar movie ticket (one bb), relax and get in a different game later that day or night or the next day.
For the first 800 or 900 hours I played I couldn't leave a game. I'd play until I ran out of money or I won every chip at the table or the game broke up. A few times I did win every chip at the table but I ran out of money more often. Then I progressed to never running out of money, I'd play loose until I lost 30 or 40 bb's, then tighten up and get back to even or close to it or ahead, but then I'd stay until the game broke up. That's was my stupidity then. I knew how to win but didn't have the patience (or perhaps my desire wasn't yet strong enough) to use that knowledge. Don't go down that road unless you have the heart? balls? hardheadedness? to go through some tough times.
S and M's theories and books remind me of being a child. When you're young, you're parents tell you everything you need to know to live life right, but when you're young you think you know everything. As you get older you discover that everything your parents told you is true and that you've wasted a lot of time learning from scratch instead of building on those basic truths that you were aware of years ago but never accepted.
chris
I want to touch on the idea of poker as boring. It's true and false. John Feeney has pointed out that when you're not catching cards, you shouldn't be bored because there's so much to see. On the other hand, studying anything becomes boring after a while. I think the truth is that you have no right to be bored in most games until you've mastered them.
There are a couple of basic things you should know when you begin to play. Poker has been called the "ultimate patience game" (somebody posted that, and I've never forgotten it). It demands more patience than most players are willing to give. In low limit hold 'em, if you excell in the area of just having patience, you'll have an edge. You need to play the "waiting game" and prevent it from bothering you to the point where it affects, much less interferes with, your ability to play your best. Not surprisingly, the book "Zen and the Art of Poker" is good on this.
On the other hand patience is no big deal. It amazes me (at least now it amazes me) how a little patience, the cheapest thing in the world, can give some players a false sense of superiority. You see this in players that bitch about cracked hands and loose play. These guys are pikers. The good player accepts the need for patience, meaning hours and even days without betting much, as something as ordinary and fundamental to poker as water is to swimming, and about as remarkable. You don't even think about it, much less pat yourself on the back or think yourself worthy of reward. It's more of a byproduct or phenomenon of being a good player, not something that makes you one. It's just there.
And first rate players never just look at their cards and fold, look at their cards and fold, merely trying to outwait their opponents. If you find yourself doing this you're not playing well. (With a couple of qualifications -- some games like O8 are mostly about waiting for cards, and in wild games this is almost all you can do. But in the typical hold 'em game it's a sign of weakness).
So while I applaud the honesty and empathize with heartfelt frustration of the original poster, my advice is to get as quickly as you can to the point where you look back on it a little sheepishly. Complaining about not hitting cards or not winning pots makes as much sense as complaining about the rank of the hands or the color of the cards. It's more of an indication of having the wrong perspective than anything else. But do please keep posting. A lot of people on this forum, including me, started in the same boat, and all feedback is worthwhile.
Don't look at it as "luck" play solid poker don't chase cards and select your tables and situations with care and you can be a winnin player.
Being down less than 2 big bets per hr. over 28 hours, is well within a normal standard deviation.
Like Rounder said, stay with your game. Variance is often high in 3-6 games, due to the number of players trying to run you down. Hang in there.
If the only book you have is Ken Warren's then it seems you have not followed much of the advice that is regularly given here. That book is quite poor. The IRC and TTH are good.
You need to read all the 2+2, Lee Jones, Bob Ciffone, Roy Cooke.
You could post some hands for specific advice.
28 hours is about the same as zero,however the amount of study you have done also seems pretty low so far. I would guess you are not playing too well. It will not take too long to learn to beat the low limit though if you work at it.
D.
Newbie,
Hi.
I have played for many many years at many different casinos. I know how frustrating the waiting game can be. I played every night last week while on vacation (I was skiing during the day). My second best evening, I won 10 bb's per hour, I won 5 hands in 4 hours. 3 of them were very large. The other two were steals, with cards like AKo and AJo, when nothing came. I played very very few hands in which I was not the nuts early on, or a large favorite. At 3-6, I think you must not chase, ever.
Also, pick tables carefully. One night they were so bad that their sucking out on me with 83o etc on the river (beating my nut flush or straight with a boat) 2 or 3 times didn't even matter in the long run.
You won seven hands in 7 hours. If you played few others, and these were good hands, you should be a big winner.
Mark
-$11 an hour is not that bad. If there's a $3 rake per pot, 40 hands per hour, and 10 players, that comes out to about -$12 per hour per player, so you're probably playing about "average". Another way to look at it is that you are going to be on the blinds 4 times per hour in a reasonably fast game, for a total cost of $16. You are winning one set of blinds out of four you play, which is not bad either. If you're reasonably certain that you are playing tight enough pre-flop, then you probably need to start working on other aspects of your game, most especially knowing when to raise or fold on the flop. Beginners and bad players at hold'em tend to call too much on the flop and not raise or fold enough, and this is where they can usually make the biggest improvement in their game.
..
Newbie,
Your results are really not unexpected and you've played too few hours to attain statistical confidence. Assuming your ev is around $3/hr (tough to attain better than that as a new player in a high rake game), one standard deviation is about $300 and will occur approximately 16% of the time. Two standard deviations is about $500 and will occur approximately 2% of the time over the 28 hours that you've played.
As stated by Mad Hatter, your results are well within normal standard deviation for a winning player.
Hang in there, keep reading and studying the game, and reassess your win rate after about 100 hours of play.
Regards/LoneStar
First of all, 7 hands in 9 hours is really not all that cold--a bit, yes perhaps, but as you play more you will run both hotter and colder. You need a lot more hours to get any reasonable idea of how you are doing overall. In terms of a streak, that is a very SHORT cold streak, and it really ISN'T all that cold--I think "cool" might be a better description. You are fighting a high rake, so when your results improve and you feel ready, move up and pick your spots. If you play a lot over the years, you will look back at this streak as almost meaningless.
I know it SEEMS like an unbelievable streak to someone relatively new at poker, but the sooner you realize that it isn't, the better prepared you will be when you REALLY hit a streak. Top pro players have gone on 6-month droughts and more that make your streak look like you were getting hit with the deck almost. Just play your best and don't worry about it too much, because you will also get some lucky streaks. If you play your best through both worlds, you will probably do o.k. Also, while it sounds like you probably play a decent game, your game should improve with time and so should your results. The rake you are fighting is a MUCH bigger factor than most players realize.
Thanks for all the great replies. They are appreciated. I think about my game a lot while I'm not playing and I make too many mistakes that cost me more than they should. I think I also have a psychological problem about playing my hands correctly in a casino.
What I mean is that when I am on IRC or TTH I play my hands the way I think they should be played and I don't think about the money much (I try to simulate RL play though). In RL, I think I play differently (and not as good) because it is real money I am putting in the pot.
You have all given me a lot to think about and I enjoy reading the posts on this board. Thanks again.
A very strong player raised from middle position. I held AKo in the BB. I didn't feel I could shut anyone out, so I just called.
The flop came 533r. I bet out, figuring I was better off heads up, even if he held something like QQ or JJ. I also wanted to find out if someone had a 3, as well as drive out a 76. Sure enough, he raised and it was folded to me. I re-raised, he called.
The turn was a 5. I thought this was an absolutely perfect card, because I HAVE to win right here! He can't call now, no matter what he has... To my surprise, I got raised! I wasn't exactly sure how, but there was no question I was beat. I threw away my AK. When he showed me a 5, all I could think of was, "Thank God, I didn't have pocket aces or a 3!" It wouldn't have been until he makes it 4 bets on the turn, that I could put him on a 5!
In hindsight, I can't find anything wrong with simply checking and folding my AK right on the flop, instead of trying to outplay a better player. It shouldn't have mattered to me what he had (AK,AQ,etc.). Since he is very good, I wasn't going to win much anyway, and the possibility existed for me to lose a lot. Does anyone agree with this?
Sure - not the better player part - but the not hitting your AK on the flop is a good fold under most circumstances you are drawing with a small pot not a formulia for success.
Hello Mad Hatter,
You said:
The flop came 533r. I bet out, figuring I was better off heads up, even if he held something like QQ or JJ. I also wanted to find out if someone had a 3, as well as drive out a 76. Sure enough, he raised and it was folded to me. I re-raised, he called....
Good bet...but then..fold after his raise. He can beat you in so many ways, you might even be drawing dead. He is only better because you chased him with terrible odds. He might have A5, A3, 55, 33, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99 (I guess he had the first of these). When another 5 comes out, you are really screwed. Get out early. Small pot, give it up.
Mark
The better player was out of line, and on a steal, pre-flop. Some do this for various reasons, deception mostly. The key is , once you call his raise it is more difficult for you to represent a 3 or 5. HE had to figure you for an overpair or big cards, which he tried to blow you off by continuing to represnt a big pair flop wise. When the second 5 hit he's in hog heaven. Basically he got out of line then he got lucky. He is a candidate for bulldog calling when you match the flop. Push you big hands unless raised on the turn which should mean more from this player. Fit or fold against his position, try to stay on his left. If you must bump heads with him do it with cards that match (flop) or big pairs and look into check raising him out of position. Make him respect you by only getting involed when you are strong. Once you get him trained you can pick your spots to bluff him heads up.
Headcase beat me to the punch. (1) He raises and you call in the BB with A3s. Flop is 533r. Bet and then ReRaise? Would he expect you to? Probably not which means your play with AK was out of line since this good player knows you are most likely stealing.
I have no difficulty with you attempting to engage a player heads-up with AK when that players will raise with so many hands that one has a 5 in it. AK is clearly the favorite even after the flop against this player (but not necissarily the other players). I would check and if he bet and didn't get called (or had only one call) I would raise and get to the river one way or another.
As far as I know there aren't any lagitimate Middle position raising hands containing a 5. Perhaps he's very assertive and not necissarily very strong.
By outplaying this player you can get all the money in the pot which is quite a bit. But while you should be more reluctant to engage good players than bad this should NOT be the prime consideration.
- Louie
If there's a stray caller on the flop I think you're better off just calling the flop and lead betting the turn (or check-raising the turn). By check raising a three way pot, you're enticing the pre-flop raiser to three bet in an attempt to knock out the other caller. However, if the other caller CALLS the two bets cold, you really don't know what to do. Further, the pre-flop raiser could just be playing his hand; something like 9's or J's or whatever. By lead betting the turn, you find out real fast if your hand is any good, AND you get to mimic a slowplayed 3.
>>A very strong player raised from middle position. I held AKo in the BB. I didn't feel I could shut anyone out, so I just called
I think you should re-raise pre flop. The point about not shutting anyone out completely misses the point. You raise in this position because you are currently getting more than your faire share pre flop chips. You want to make it as expensive as possible for any fish with A5o or other crap to see the flop. If you were heads up, you might just call, and go for a check raise on the flop. However you imply that there are other callers, hence getting more money in the pot is much more important that hiding the strength of your hand.
>>The flop came 533r
Hmmm, missed. Knowing who is still in the pot would be useful. Checking with the intention of usualy folding is probably best, however if everyone seems weak betting out seems ok too. When it is re-raised back, I put him on a pocket overpair which he is unlikely to give up. I probably have the odds to see the turn, then check fold when no A or K appears (maybe try a bluff if a Q appears). The fact that you do not mention how many people saw the flop suggest that you do not think pot odds calculations are important. If there were five or more people seeing the flop, the pot is just about big enough for you to stick around to the river.
>>Since he is very good, I wasn't going to win much anyway, and the possibility existed for me to lose a lot.
Sounds like the guy had you beat before the hand was dealt.
Thanks to all who responded. All sound advice.
I certainly was going to give it up on the turn when he called my re-raise on the flop. I just thought the 5 was too good a card for me. Obviously, it's hard to represent a hand someone else holds :) Thanks again.
I think some of you have trouble at being able to tell who is "a very strong player" in a game. A strong player does not raise with any hand containing a 5 from middle position. Sometimes I think people mix up overly aggressive players with strong players.
Nobody changes gears ? Tight/aggressive = strong, loose/agressive = maniac , loose/passive = weak, tight/passive = rock. If the first player changes his style to either of the other for a few rounds, he no longer wears's the crown ! Come on. I think you determine a strong player by his ability after the flop not by his deception before.
I have to agree with Headcase. Solid, does not necessarily equal strong. Real strong players know when to mix it up. Trust me. This player is REAL good. You won't be getting his chips easily.
A strong player does not raise with any hand containing a 5 from middle position.
I disagree with your statement because you can't make such a static comment independent of game conditions and a multitude of other factors. If all of the players on your immediate left are excessively tight and easy to steal against, of course the number of hands you can open with increases. If the game is extremely loose, you can raise with weaker hands because your hand will win often enough to profit at the expense of people playing hopeless trash like Q5o. If the topic is open-raising, HPFAP defines "middle position" as being 2-4 seats off the button, and you'll have trouble convincing me that it's -EV to open-raise with 55 and A5s 2 off the button in many of the games I play in. (And sometimes 3 and 4 off the button.) I do agree with your statement that aggressive doesn't necessarily mean strong, but I don't think this example necessarily illustrates that point.
-Sean
Maybe my comment was a bit out of line but I still think most players have alot of trouble with either overrating or underrating their competition. Some people almost seem to be in awe of certain players, while other players think they can play any hand against what they think is a bad player and think they should win every confrontation simply because they have superior skills.
Maybe this particular hand was a bad example of that though.
So you have JT(spades); Flop is Q93 with 2 hearts on board. In HPFAP (p 118) we are correctly advised to consider our odds. 6 outs on this open-ended straight draw (8 outs minus the Kh & 8h). Page 310 instructs us to calculate odds with the formula of 100-24.1 = 75.9 divided by 24.1 = 3.1. 3-to-1 odds that you're going to complete this hand. Why, then do I see a 5-to-1 figure on a recent thread concerning this situation? Have I miscalculated somehow?
You know, only Dan Hanson got it. And then only after I confessed. So, Dan Hanson got it after I confessed!
It makes a difference. 5 to 1, or 2.1 to 1. But playing that situation to make money still requires higher standards.
Now. For your final question. Yes.
Post deleted at author's request.
Ok, so what's the utility of knowing that, for example, it's 2-1 odds that you'll complete a FLUSH draw in the next TWO cards AS COMPARED to 4-1 odds that you'll make it on the NEXT card? Shouldn't we just always calculate to the next card, using these results to ascertain pot-odds?
The difference is that if you have a flush draw on a four player flop and someone bets, you should raise if there are two callers between you and the initial bettor.
You are getting 3-1 on the money going in, which is an underlay when you think of the next card, but which is an overlay when you think of the next two cards to come. Since you will *always* draw to the flush on the turn, you want to use the 2:1 odds when deciding how to play the flop.
There are times when you have to take both numbers into consideration. This occurs often when you are dealing with gutshots. Even though you are 5:1 to make the gutshot by the river, you might not want to raise a bettor and 5 callers because there is now a much higher chance that you'll be beaten on the river. So you have to weigh the situation and come up with the correct action, call and fold the turn if you miss, or raise and call the turn if you miss. Both are valid ways to play a family pot gutshot.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
Let's do a calculation here. You have six outs, as a heart can probably do you no good. There are 47 unseen cards, six of them you'd like to see on the turn and 41 you'll greet with a spit to the dealer's face.
Your odds to get happy on the turn are therefore 41 to 1 or 6.8 to 1 (41/6 to 1).
However, to get the happy meal by the river, odds are much better than that, about 3.2 to 1. Calculating this is a bit more complicated, but it's no sweat either. You multiply the chance of NOT hitting on the turn by the chance of NOT hitting on the river and subtract the number from 1. If this hint is too obscure for you, just lemme know, we'll do it from scratch in the next post.
The 5 to 1 figure you mention is for hitting an 8 outer on the turn, a straight draw on a rainbow flop.
---
I took the 9 out line for this example from that chart. 9 | 19.1 | 4.22 | 19.6 | 4.11 | 35.0 | 1.86 Drawing 1 card (Turn) 9 outs Percent chance to make your hand: 19.1 % is 9(outs)/47 * 100 = 19.14%
4.22:1 is 100 - 19.14 / 19.14 = 4.23:1 If you miss the turn and are drawing 1 card (river): Percent Chance to make your hand. 19.6 is 9(outs)/46 * 100 = 19.56% (19.6 rounded) Odds against making the hand(Dog) 4.11:1 100 - 19.56 / 19.56 = 4.11:1 Chance of making a flush with two cards to come 35.0% Chance *against* making a flush with two to come is 38/47 = .808 37/46 = .804 .808 * .804 = .6496 , or .65(percent) Chances of making the flush with two to come is .35 100% - 65% = 35% Odds:1 against making a flush with two cards to come 1.86 = 100-35 /35 = 1.857 (1.86 Rounded) Best of it !! MJ
I understand how to calculate the probability of making a hand by the river, but I'm unsure of how to calculate the odds of making the hand.
For example, lets take a flush draw to river.
9 outs on flop gives (47-9)/9:1 {4.2:1} odds of making the flush on the turn. This equates to a probability of 9/47 = 19.1% chance of making it on turn.
To make it by river, the probability is 1 - (probability of not making it). Which is 1-(36/47)*(36/46) = 40.05%. But I don't know how to find the ODDS of making it by the river. (I'm told it's 2:1, but I don't know how to calculate this.)
Page down it's there
MJ
Your calculations are flawed. The correct calculation to make the flush by the river is as follows:
1-(38/47)*(37/46)=0.35 = 35%
Now, converting to odds is not that big a problem. Odds represent a notation of a bad thing happening against the good thing happening. In the above case, you will miss your flush 65% of the time and make it 35% of the time. One way of putting it in terms of odds would therefore be 65 to 35. Divide both sides by 35 to get about 1.9 to 1.
---
65 / 35 = 1.857 or 1.86(rounded)
65 / 35 = 1.857 or 1.86(rounded)
1.86 = 1.9(rounded)...NO?
This is correct
MJ
I see, thanks. Simple little mistake :).
Moving to Vancouver, Canada soon from Asia and I know that there are about a dozen places offering Hold'em and Stud games. Can anyone tell me about Vancouver:
1) limits 2) rakes 3) game conditions 4) players 5) other
Thanks
I plan to spend two weeks in Vegas next month. I’ll play 15-30 thru 30-60. I play in the Los Angeles card rooms.
1. What adjustments should I make playing in a 10 handed game?
2. What effect will the 4-raise max have on the game?
3. Overall do the players play as loose as Cal players?
I play very tight and aggressive.
1. tighter
2. tighter
3. tighter
-Abdul
L.A. hold 'em games are a lot like Vegas hold 'em games in the following respects:
(1) Players in both places start with two cards, face down.
(2) The highest five-card hand wins the pot in both places.
I've played at The Mirage, and I've played at Commerce Casino and Hollywood Park.
The play and action, as Scott mentioned, are dead opposite. Los Angeles players are loose and probably legally insane.
If you are the button and you hold A9o and there are two limpers what should you do ?
I'm gonna say fold, Regis. And that's my final answer.
I think, if the stars are all aligned correctly (limper wouldn't need a good hand to limp in that position, you can out play the limper, you have a decent chance of running off the blinds, etc) then you should raise to get heads up with the suspect limper. Especialy if the limper was in late position, wouldn't he have popped it if he held a better hand than A-9o? I say fold if the stars are not in your favor(above mentioned factors not all there), but be aggressive if you think you have the best of it. I know this answer's a little vague, but a lot of it comes down to the game that you find yourself in and how much control you think you have on that table.
-matt
Who are these limpers anyway and what do they want ? Are they aggressive or tight players that have changed gears to get action in a tight/slow game with what maybe a big hand? Do they have any clue that they could raise and steal with as little as QJ,JT,99,TT,KJ from late middle. Are the trying to drum up some odds for their 88-22 in a passive game. I would fold A9o until I had some idea who these limpers are ! You can no longer steal, the blinds may have a better hand, the limpers may have better hands, youll have to fold to any bet. The best you can hope for is 2-pair or trip 9's, that's a lot of hoping.
I call "time!", because I am confused about how many limpers there are, and I don't even know who they are!
-Abdul
Abdul,
This question begs for an Abdulian response. Since I'm begging, I'll define the limper three ways (assume mid limit games).
First, it is an early limper who is average in ability and would tend to raise with his good aces but limp with his QJ suited type hands and medium pairs).
Second, it is an early limper who is very tricky and somewhat aggressive post flop.
Last, it is a late limper who is weak tight.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Sorry I didn't run into you at HP on Friday but Thursday's and Friday's I'm off. Hope you enjoyed the action.
The case where you want to play A9 is versus 1-3 loose limpers, preferably ones that would have raised with big aces. Then you raise to get rid of the blinds and to charge them to draw out on your likely best hand and to have the option of taking a free card on the flop and to make them fold their pair draws by the flop or turn if you keep betting. You should not go much looser than A9 here, by the way.
For your examples, you're against tight players, and that usually means you should fold the A9. Against an early player whose limp implies a quality hand but not a big ace, it's tempting, but there's still too much chance of a biggish suited ace or other hand that does or will beat you. Against a tricky player who might be limping with big hands or big aces, definitely muck. Against a weak-tight player whom you can make fold a pair after the flop, you can raise and proceed with caution.
-Abdul
Thanks for the feedback. And sorry for messing up the posting. I meant to write one limper, not two.
Sorry, my previous post was with one limper in mind. with two in I think it is a definite fold.
I don't much like A9o and usually play it only in the blinds. On the button, I would consider raising if everyone had folded to me and if I feel I have a good chance of stealing the blinds or at least going heads-up with one of them. But if someone limps in in front of me, I'm folding.
lest you all think of me as a call/raise anything fish (enough of my opponents have already reached that conclusion) let me reiterate that my raise play was only presented as an alternative to folding, and that it would only be in specific instances when all the stars are aligned correctly. Usually a quick flick of the wrist will get those rags into the muck in the most efficient manner.
Lin,
I've pretty much played it your way (fold) for many years but I do think when conditions are perfect (e.g., the limper is weak and predictable, the blinds tight, and all are afraid of you) raising is probably worth considering.
Regards,
Rick
Looking for advice/comments on how to play flush draws, especially the nut flush draw. Say you're holding AhJh in late position. Do you raise or call?
The flop comes 2h 7h 10s. Nut flush draw. Do you raise to get the most in the pot, not fearing a full house at this point, or just call?
Say the flop comes 3h Kd Qh with a raise pre-flop. Someone may have KK, QQ, or KQ and could catch thier full house card on the turn or river. How do you approach this nut flush draw differently than the previous?
Any input appreciated.
CB
On the flop, usually you're thinking about getting in the most money you can (from all the opponents) with the nut flush draw. On the flop, you're making money against 3+ opponents on each additional dollar going into the pot. Jamming against 2 opponents would be just shy of breaking even, except that you have other outs or may already have the best hand. Heads up you would be losing money on each additional dollar, except that the equity of stealing the pot or having the best hand already more than makes up for that, so you should still jam it up until you know you're beat by a hand that will not fold.
Getting the most money into the pot does not necessarily mean betting/raising. Sometimes you get more money by checking/calling. Then you might raise if it comes bet/raised back to you, or you might not. You do not want to knock players out when you have a flush draw, as you will likely beat everyone if you make your hand. The geography of the likely bettor/raiser relative to you and the other players is your key consideration here.
I would not worry about a KQ3 flop unless an opponent 3-bet preflop or raised preflop and 3-bet on the flop. If you know you're up against a set, then that takes away about 25% of your outs, which still leaves you with a fairly strong draw that can jam for profit with about 4 opponents. This would certainly be one of those spots to 4-bet on the flop and then take a free card on the turn.
On the turn, if you have not yet made your flush you have to be considerably more passive. You need 5 opponents calling along to make a profit by jamming here, and that's almost never the case above $3-$6. However, you almost always have odds to at call on the turn with the nut flush draw and no pair on board.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I don't understand when you say
On the turn, if you have not yet made your flush you have to be considerably more passive. You need 5 opponents calling along to make a profit by jamming here, and that's almost never the case above $3-$6.
If you have a 4-flush on the flop, you have a 35% chance of making the flush. Not a 35% chance on the turn and a 17% chance on the river. It's 35% total. So, from the flop to the river, your concern should be to be to contribute 1/3 or less to the pot. Why do you say you need 5 opponents for the river if you haven't made your flush on the turn? And if you say that, then how many opponents do you need on the turn?
Once you get the information of the turn card, then either you have the flush and you're winning almost 100% of the additional money going in or you don't have the flush and suddenly your hand has a much lower chance of winning the pot that what you estimated back on the flop. If you have not yet made the flush by the turn, then you have a 9/46 or about 1/5 chance of making it on your last card. So, 4 opponents is enough to break even on jamming, i.e., 4(4/5)-1(1/5)=0 (except that's an oversimplification since you could still lose if you make your flush), and to make a profit by jamming you need 5 opponents calling along (and to account for the chance of driving players out you might need more.) When jamming back on the flop with your (nut) flush draw, 2 opponents is almost breakeven and 3 gives you a profit.
Your way of looking at it with the flop and turn action combined is probably useful for some situations, but it just seems to add confusion here. I mean, you don't want to ignore the turn card once it comes, do you?
-Abdul
You're in a moderately loose fixed limit game with an average of 4-6 players seeing the flop. On the button you have AJs.
A player opens the betting UTG with a raise. You know this player as fairly tight and are confident that the worst hand he can hold more than 90% of the time is AQs/JJ. If you call at least one of the blinds will call most of the time and both of them about 1/4 of the time with worse hands than yours. You don't expect either blind to raise without a big pair. Your image is tight but a little tricky.
Can you ever consider calling, and if so how many other callers do you need, if any? Assume that you're the best player at the table (but for your need to ask questions like this ...).
If I'm calling a tight player's UTG raise with AJ, I guarantee you I cannot assume I'm the best player at the table.
Fine, but let's say that everyone comes in (assume a slightly looser game) and the blinds are now sure to call. At 8 or 9 to one, is this still an obvious fold?
If there are no callers between utg and you, and you are sure utg wouldnt raise with a worse hand than AJs, a fold is obvious. However, I don't know too many players that I could be that sure about.
If you are getting 8-1, it is not only a call, you might consider reraising. Of course, I've never considered myself the best player at the table. You've obviously never seen me play.
Brett
Reraise? Maybe half the time he'll 4-bet and put you deeper in the hole. Folding is much better.
If you would fold this hand with 8-1 or 9-1, what would you call with?
Brett
22, 76s
Chris,
It's funny you ask this question, because I ran into a very similar situation this weekend.
I have A-10 spades on button. UTG raises, 4 callers by the time it gets to me, I call (mainly because its a family style pot). Big blind then 3-bets, original raiser caps.
Sure enough I flop two spades. Sure enough UTG bets out and I raise. Sure enough I buy myself a free card, but 3rd spade never appears. Would have won big momma pot, oh well.
I can't say I was thrilled when it got capped pre-flop, but once the flop came I was pleased. So anyway, what I'm trying to say is I think you want lots of callers - I'd like at least three plus raiser, preferably more - to make taking a shot at the flush worthwhile. If you flop just a pair, obviously you'll have to proceed with great caution.
Caddy
I would consider AJs to be a very borderline call here. Having a LOT of callers makes me nervous, because they also heard UTG raise, and at least a couple are likely to have very good hands. These callers could well be holding the high cards I need to make something out of my AJs, and high cards that do hit the board could help them just as much as they help me. It's not just UTG I have to beat but all the other hands as well, and I don't much like my chances. But being on the button somewhat compensates. So if it's a weak field with a few players who will call an UTG raise on almost anything, I would be inclined to call just to see the flop, knowing that I can fold the next time without having to bet, but if the players are relatively good, I'd probably fold and conserve my two bets for a situation where I can put them to more effective use. It's costing me nothing to fold here, after all.
"It's costing me nothing to fold here, after all."
eh? IF your EV for calling is positive then you are loseing money by folding. I believe its HIGHLY unlikely the EV of this situation is exactly 0 and the decision is meaningless.
I have to disagree. You cannot possibly lose by folding a hand on which you have placed no bets. Your net loss is exactly $0. It's the same as sitting out a hand. Using your logic, I'd have to play 24 hours a day to ensure I don't miss any +EV opportunities. The situation is different if you have placed a bet. Now if you fold when you have positive EV, you do lose in the long run. But if you have not yet placed a bet, all you have lost is an opportunity, and there will plenty more of those to make up for it. It's just one infinitely long game.
"I have to disagree. You cannot possibly lose by folding a hand on which you have placed no bets. Your net loss is exactly $0. It's the same as sitting out a hand."
This is your original assertion.
"Using your logic, I'd have to play 24 hours a day to ensure I don't miss any +EV opportunities."
In a way yes[1], but nope. When you have +EV opportunities if you pass them up you "lose" money. I admit its a very special kind of loss, but its no different the the loss you take when you make a -EV call and manage to suck out. Relative to your theoretical maximum win you've chosen to win less (or lose more).
[1] You are always "playing". Its just not always poker.
Another way to think of this. If you fold everything but your free rides in the blinds you won't lose anything by your logic. Thats gonna be a really suboptimal way to play.
"The situation is different if you have placed a bet."
Absolutely not. The bets you've already made are gone. In the pot. Not yours. They fact you placed them should have (almost) nothing to do with your next decision.
"Now if you fold when you have positive EV, you do lose in the long run. But if you have not yet placed a bet, all you have lost is an opportunity, and there will plenty more of those to make up for it. It's just one infinitely long game."
Somehow I can't rationalize your first sentence with the rest of your post. YOu have to make up for the various costs of playing poker (namely rake and forced bets). If you give up the chances for covering those losses then those losses are a bigger part of your overall total. Another way to think of this is that your theoretical maximum win is the average EV you could get times the amount of money you can run across it (edge tims vol in Cooke lingo). If you choose to reduce your average EV or your volume you reduce your overall win.
If there are several callers, your only shot at winning the pot will be to hit your flush or a straight without the board pairing.
I would not call this player's raise potentially heads up with AJs. Why should you be the action?
I would call if 2 other players came in between me and the UTG raiser. A call from the blinds would be better also. You have a drawing hand only. You would still be giving up some action but the price is much better.
Chris,
It is funny you pick AJs....I think that any AJ is about the trickiest hand to play; and I have undoubtedly lost more money with this hand than any other, especially when I began to play. It took me a long time to realize how much this hand looks like AK, but how much worse it is, and also how quickly you must get rid of it.
With all of that said, I think that with a few callers, and with the willingness to get rid of it quickly, you can win some good $$ in the circumstance you describe.
Mark
If more than 1 person folds forget about it. You need at least 8 opponents, maybe 9, to have any kind of positive EV.
This isn't based on any sophisticated analysis. In a cold simulation AJs doesn't win a disproportionate amount of the time against the raiser and random junk until you have at least 6 opponents (5 + the raiser), maybe 7. Then come the negatives, namely that your hand is hard to play right (compared to something like 33 or 56s) and that you'll drop a disproportionately large amount when you lose. Also, you can still be raised and reraised before the flop.
So I'm not sure that you can even play in an 8-way pot. I probably would if my opponents sucked, considering it a rare exception to a general rule of "always fold." The one thing I'm positive about is that I'll only give up much value if my read on the initial raiser is off.
Chris,
My rule of thumb is getting five opponents (the raiser, three cold callers, and one blind) would put you in the plus EV column. I'm surprised that you think you need so many more.
Anyway, I dropped down to DOS and fired up Caro's Poker Probe. I gave an Ah Kd to one player and an As Js to another player. I found that the AJ suited won more than its fair share with four opponents and only started to drop off its fair share with three opponents. Given the actual dynamics of play, I still like my rule of thumb (which I would apply to any Ax suited).
How did you do your simulations and do you have any additional thoughts?
Regards,
Rick
Poker probe seems to run fine under dosemu on my Linux machine. No reason to sink to running rebooting my machine into DOG ;)
Michael,
I used the wrong term. There was no need to reboot. Probe runs fine in the background in virtual DOS (or whatever using DOS inside a window is called) with perhaps a 30% speed penalty. I only ran 100,000 hands each so I hardly had time to note the results between trials but in the past I have been able to multi-task using Probe.
Regards,
Rick
Rick:
Sorry to be so late, but I've looked at this in more detail and you might be right. You're basically looking at the power of a nut flush draw with some big card muscle that can increase it's win rate while costing it money. My initial thought is that 76s would be more playable in this situation, maybe not.
The problems I have with playing when it's just a little better than break-even with a Monte Carlo sim are (1) you'll never see some of the cards that will make you a winner; (2) you'll be betting on some losing hands for the next 2 or 3 rounds (the negative implied odds thing), and (3) opponents don't play random cards. Clearly, winning 21% of the time with 4 opponents taking the flop probably isn't going to cut it.
That said, I ran a bunch of cold sims against all the hands. Here's the collective Monte Carlo win rates for AJs against a player holding either AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKo and AQs plus random hands. These are a tad high, as I didn't use overlapping flush cards (no big deal; one and only one of your flush cards will be out less than a third of the time). For convenience, I've added the break-even point (remember this reflects total number of players, not opponents):
Break even point/Monte Carlo Win Rate
4 players: 25/23
5 players: 20/21
6 players: 16.7/19
7 players: 14.3/18
8 players: 12.5/15
The EV for 6 players (5 opponents) might be okay (though I doubt it), but 6 opponents looks much safer. The interesting thing is that the spread might diminish with even more players -- you might be as well off with 6 players as 8 (both are 20% better than break even), but with 8 players your margin seems to start diminishing. But these calculations were calculated in a hurry and I'm not that confident of them. Of course, none of this proves that you can make money with the hand under any circumstances.
I think you can do with as few as 3 (and maybe less) besides you and the tight raiser. I wrote out the expression for playing a hand as long as you flopped a nut flush or nut straight draw assuming that as soon as you make it everybody folds. The cross over was at 3 1/3 opponents. Now in reality you won't have the same number of oppoentson every street, somebody will probably call you down, its possible you'll get beat by a full house, the straight could be tied, etc. (that is, the model is far from perfect). But that together with some runs I did on poker probe (like Niebolo I saw cross overs at 4 or 5 opponents) seems to suggest that AJs is playable in a raised pot if you can play well and you can get some players in.
As I said when this discussion started over in the Beginners side there are also some simulation results over on posev.com that show AJs as playable in raised pots.
One general comment: you keep focusing in on the fact that AJ is dominated. Who cares! You are not expecting to win this pot with a single pair. Even 72o vs AA is no worse then a 6:! dog. In your 8:1 case people are giveing you an overlay far better then that. The matchup isn't much better hot'n'cold but the way the hand plays out you'll be able to make clearer decision about when to fold and when you can extract money from your opponents.
please let me know what you all think of this hand.
9-18 game(w/ a 26000 jackpot if it matters) I was in the BB w/7-4 suited. UTG raised and 6 people called. since no one could raise behind me and I was getting huge odds I threw in my three chips and saw the flop. Flop: 3-6-J, rainbow with one of my suit. SB and I checked, UTG raiser bet, three called and so did I. Again, there was no chance of a raise behind me.
Turn: 4 (still rainbow) UTG raiser bet again and one other person called. Now I have the gut shot and a pair. The caller was pretty tight ( I had played with him before) and I didn't see him calling with any hand with a five in it. I figured I had at least 6 outs (the two remaining fours and the four fives) and maybe up to 9 if my two pair would be good.
River: 4 I bet out, the raiser called with an over pair and the other player mucked.
I got a lot of lip from some people for that hand, but with the price I was getting on all streets, I really don't think I played it badly. I put the raiser on a big pair, but that didn't seem to matter given the wins that I had in the deck. Unless I was against a set, all of my outs would be good, and even if I were facing a set (which, given the betting and past experience with the other players, I didn't), I still had my four gut-shot outs
So please tell me: did I truly play badly, or was the griping just sour grapes?
-matt
IMHO, the griping was sour grapes. You were getting more than the correct odds to draw on both the flop and turn. Also, given all the callers and that you were the BB, your pre-flop call seems reasonable. Well-played.
Caddy
I think you did just fine.
The world is full of poker players who feel that you are under some obligation to play YOUR hand in a way that gives THEM a better chance of winning. Sounds like you ran into a table full of them.
My vote is sour grapes. I can't fault your play at all.
Despite pot odds, I really don't like your call pre-flop.
After that, you're getting way more than enough odds for any draw, gutshot, runner-runner flush (which probably won't be good), you name it. I see no problems with how the rest was handled.
That you got lucky doesn't change the fact that you were justified in staying in. Most people bitch because they didn't win the pot. That's the only reason. They have no problems whining about awful cards others play and then scooping up the pot with even worse cards the next hand.
Dan
For 15-1 I think any two suited cards are just fine. The rest of the hand was a no-brainer (maybe a semibluff on the turn? probably not). The gutshot draw alone was good enough to see the river. Player complaints like that should make you want to take your name off the other lists.
Post flop you played it right. But I would have folded pre flop
I'm pretty sure that's wrong (though I can be convinced otherwise). I wouldn't say you're giving up too much value but you're definitely giving up value by folding 74s there. I can't see throwing away any suited hand here, even 32.
on the river?
An overpair will probably bet the river here, because how can he be afraid of running 4s? Then, if it works, you get 2 bets from the lead better, maybe a bet from the other caller, and all at the risk of losing only to a flopped set.
Whether I would have made this play depends a lot upon the players, but against many of my regular opponents this play would be well worth considering.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was afraid this would come up because I thought about it, but didn't do it. I guess I was afraid of losing the one bet on the river if the lead bettor didn't fire. I kicked myself over that one for a while afterwards. Thanks to all who responded. By the way, when asked what I was thinking, I responded with my standard "I felt lucky." Shucks, I'm just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm!!
...the implied tilt odds of hitting a runner-runner trips and then check-raising the river. Nothing will put the bitter old rocks on tilt faster.
of course you played correctly.....many people are bad losers
I am inexperienced, but if I was under the same circumstances preflop I would fold without any thought. From what a lot of you have said, this would be wrong... but, I'd look at 74s and muck without even thinking, it's just not a hand I'd want to invest money in.
I'm looking for an explanation as to why I am wrong and why you can (and should?) play a hand like this.
Let's change the situation. Say I am button with 74s and UTG just called. 6 more people called (including SB and BB) so if I call there are 8 people in the pot. Should I invest money in 74s in this situation? If so, why? If not, what is different between this and the above situation?
>>if I call there are 8 people in the pot. Should I >>invest money in 74s in this situation?
No.
Note the difference between getting 7:1 odds (your example), and getting 14:1 odds which was the poster's situation, since he was in the big blind.
With the possible exception of check/raising the end (I agree with Greg), the poster played the hand well. He determined his probable outs, vs. his pot odds at all times throughout the hand. This is the way you beat a game full of weak enough players, that 6 people would cold call an UTG raise!!!
Little bit of minutia here:
BB was actually getting anywhere from 15:1 to 15.7:1 odds depending on whether the SB was in on the hand and, if not, what the SB amount was.
I agree with newbie in that I probably would have mucked it, but you do have great odds to at least see the flop. I certainly can't fault anyone for doing it and I'm willing to concede that it might, indeed, be the correct play.
Dan
I feel many hands with which you are going to call in the SB should in fact be raised or rereised to drive out the BB. I am in the SB holding KQs. There is a early position limper. The button raises. I make it 3bets from the SB primarily to drive out the BB if I lose the limper so much the better. I have poor position throughout the hand but I have taken the lead hopefully. Do you agree with me?
I'm not sure if I'm playing correctly, but Itend to raise a lot less out of the SB. Given certain spots, such as against a probable steal raise, I would re-pop it, but generally, I feel that the combination of my poor position and the fact that most people will call anything if they already have a partial bet in leads me to believe that smooth calling most raises (or folding) is the way to go. If I do flop something, like top two to my KQ, it will usually take a number of bets before A-K realizes he's beat. also, the smaller pot makes it a lot easier to fold overcards when I don't hit.
I think it's problematic to raise if your only intention is to drive out the BB. It makes more sense if you have a reputation as a frequent check-raiser - i.e, if checking on the flop might get you a free card. KQs is dominated by most raising hands.
What will you do if you flop a K?
I generally don't like raise out of the little blind w/ a hand like KQs, especially w/ the button raising. Perhaps I'm crazee, but giving away the value of your hand while in lousy position makes it too easy to get muscled around on the turn. I much rather limp in, and prepare for a check raise on the flop (if a K or Q hits w/ no A), hoping that the button will bet (after the bb and UTG check) and the UTG and bb both fold when I raise.
I think you have to maximize the "advantage" the lb has, that is, folks don't usually give you credit for a hand of value (high suited connectors). Plus, if you don't hit the flop, easier (cheaper) to muck 'em.
I'm not saying re-raising is wrong, but...
There is at least one legitimate hand (early limper), and the button knows this. Therefore, he's not on a pure steal. You have terrible position. If these 2 players are good, I would fold KQ here, suited or not.
Don't forget that the BB could have a big hand, and the button can also re-raise. Now KQ first to act, can have LOTS of problems, with LOTS of flops...
I've read all the posts thus far and the consensus is that it's better to call than to re-raise, especially since there's already a limper in addition to the raiser.
I also prefer a call in this situation, but one thought: it might be better to raise with the limper than if there were no limper. Limper probably has a drawing hand like A-xs or a hand that could make a straight if you hit top two, so making it 3 bets might well knock both him and the BB out. You want as few opponents as possible if the dreaded Ace comes on the flop with a King or Queen.
S & M recommend you raise from the sb against a late position possible steal raise. As the others pointed out, with the limper already in, this is not a steal raise, so I would imagine they would recommend call here. I think option #3, folding, is giving up too much. There are a lot of hands the raiser could have that do not dominate you.
Andy,
I partially agree with Mad Hatter above. Against tough opponents folding KQ offsuit cannot be that bad (especially in structures where the small blind is 1/2 or less the size of the big blind). But the suited KQ is just too strong against three likely opponents.
Regards,
Rick
Andy-
Do you really think folding is giving up too much ALL the time?
I just think that too often this hand gets played merely because it looks to good to throw away, rather than that someone actually considered the situation.
There's no doubt that with the right flop and the right cards in your opponent's hands, you can make money. But with other flops, and other cards in your opponent's hands, you can lose money too. Possibly a lot of money. This is one reason why I said against GOOD players. Because of their positional advantage, they should win slightly more on average (when your notched), CRUSH you when your flop makes them a monster, and lose less when you prove best.
I also feel that with the less players you have, the less the suitedness of the hand should matter.
Once again, I'm not saying the hand was unplayable. It just struck me that not one poster seemed willing to EVEN consider the 3rd option of folding. And I think whenever you don't at LEAST consider all options, you aren't thinking the game correctly.
Mad Hatter,
I agreed that folding was the best option with KQ offsuit. I also generally agree with your statement that "the less players you have, the less the suitedness of the hand should matter."
However, I think suitedness does help enough to make it a call with three opponents. In battle where you may or may not be dominated or out kicked, this extra edge often gives you the back door outs to continue on and win.
Regards,
Rick
If you factor in poor position and the 1.5 bets required to call plus the chance of a slowplay checkraise then a fold is not a poor decision here (IMO).
No don't agree.
I'm playing in a local 5-10 PL game. The initial bring in is based on the assumption that the small blind will call (a patch due to local regulations not allowing 3 blinds).
Please understand that I was *exceedingly* nervous. I was prepared to try, and was willing to lose.
My hand selection was a fair bit tighter, I was shying away from hands which make an "easy second best", and I folded hands like 87s, Q9o on button, KJo in mid with a caller in early position, and so forth.
Hands of note.
HAND #1:
First hand has straddle of $20. I'm 3 away from straddle. 1 caller in the middle.. I have KK. There are two notorious "action" players behind me. Should I call or simply raise pot on the spot to win the $75?
I call, to try and trap, intent on reraising pot if there is a pot raise. No raise, I take the pot 7 ways - $140.
Flop comes KT2 rainbow. Should I check or bet?
I bet $40, get 1 caller. Flop comes 2. I bet $50, get caller. River is J, I bet $50 and get no callers.
HAND #2:
I have ATs two from the BB. I call $10, button calls, SB calls. Flop comes KK2, I have 3 flush. Turn comes 6, giving me 4 flush. I bet pot, with pot.
After a few more assorted steals, I come across hand #3:
I have A7o 3 from BB. Noticing that I have been getting no callers at any time, I raise pot. All fold except mid/late caller.
Flop comes T98 with 2 hearts. I bet pot, get raised for additional $100 from guy who is all in.
Guy rolls over 99, I make straight on end :)
If I had the 99, should I have re-raised pre-flop?
Any critique would be greatly appreciated as well as some general advice.
M.
It is always important to consider the size of your stack relative to the pot and the other players when making decisions in pot limit. The analysis for these hands would change dramatically, depending on this factor.
That being said, I would NEVER call with KK before the flop in the situation you described. Big pairs are made to get a lot of money in before the flop against a small number of opponets. These holdings must be played very carefully if you don't improve in a multiway pot and it is difficult to extract maximum value unless you are against the most obvious opponents. In your case, you could have made a pot raise and might have gotten played back at by the action players or called by the straddler who is looking to gamble. By simply calling, you will be trapped in the middle of a big multiway pot and have no idead of who has what. Say the flop comes J85. It is checked to you, you bet, and one of the action guys comes over the top. What are you going to do? Inexperienced players should avoid making plays that will put them in difficult spots like this.
That being said, you flopped top set in a multiway pot. With two cards to a broadway and lots of action players, I would not outhink yourself and simply jam on the flop. Someone should have a nice piece of it or a decent draw, in which case you'll get action. Or they will fold if they completely missed.
Before slowplaying, think about what hand you are giving a chance to catch up? Only a smaller pocket pair might hit on the turn and pay you off. Most other holdings will beat you if they catch a miracle card as any face or Ace makes a broadway. If you check or underbet the pot (which you did), someone is going to hit a gutshot and put you all-in on the turn as a big underdog.
I love it when guys make little "taunt" bets when they have obvious monsters like top set or top two. As long as the other guy (and I) have enough remainig chips to warrant, I'll peel off one card to a gutshot because the implied odds are so great in pot limit.
He'll go home cursing me for my belly-busting ways, but he only has himself to blame.
You probably also cost yourself money on the turn as many action players will call a pot-sized bet with a straight or flush draw, even if the board is paired, If the guy called $50, he probably would have called $250.
This is a decent semi-steal that will show a profit against average players. Tough players will slap you for getting out of line.
If Ray Zee were in your game, he would go for a check-raise resteal here since it would be pretty apparent to him that you picked up a draw. And you don't seem like the type of player that would call with a flush draw to a paired board.
Hand 1: With KK, you have the option of calling to
trap or just come out and raise. You mention
there were "action players" behind you. In
the case you described, I would have raised
the pot with KK.
You should bet your set. The reason is in pot
limit, if you get a caller, now you can bet
even more on the turn. I would have bet $140.
If no one calls, I win $120.
Your bet of $40 on the flop did attract some
play however.
Hand 2: Raise pre-flop with A-10 suited to win the
blinds and or get last position.
Good bet on the turn, but if someone raises
back, you must drop.
Hand 3: You caught a break. 9-9 is not a good hand
to reraise with in pot limit. You can raise
if you are first in, but if someone re-raises
the most you can do is call.
I was recently playing in a wild 3-6 game. There were several shooters and maniacs at the table. I am first to act under a straddle and just call with JJ because a raise, even to 3sb will never thin the field. It is capped to 5sb by several maniacs before it gets back to me and I call along with 6 other people.
The flop is Jh-Th-9c! Scary. Straddler bets out, I raise, two cold-callers and capped by two maniacs by the button. I call. Turn is 8c. Straddler bets out, I call, one folder, the two maniacs on the button cap it again. Five of us see the river. River is an 8h, and my prayers are answered.
Straddler bets out again, now I have a predicament. There are three players to act behind me. If I raise, I may not get reraised by any straights or flushes (even these maniancs know the implications of a paired board -- I think). If I call I have the opportunity to trap everbody for 3bb if there is a raise from one of the chip dispensers by the button. I know that anyone who puts in 2bb will call one more raise for such a big pot. I am concerned that I may miss the opportunity to cap the betting if a smaller fullhouse reraises my raise.
I am almost certainly going to win the pot, but I want to squeeze out every last bet, since these prime situations don't come up very often.
Well anyway, after a moment of pause, I call the straddler. Unfortunately, noone raises, but two of the later players called. The straddler had the nut flush, one caller had trip 8s(fish!) and the third caller had the nut straight.
I wonder if I made the right play on the river. One experienced player sitting next to me told me that I should just play my hand and forget the fancy plays. Another solid player who watched the hand said that I made the right play and that I probably made more money by just calling here.
I would appreciate any feedback on this hand because I have never read about call-raising on the river before.
I think that your call was worth the gamble of catching a raise behind you. If you raised, you might only get called by the bettor -gaining 1 bb. Your call provided 2 more bb's with the potential for the motherlode if someone else has filled up and raises behind you.
This is always a tough decision but a nice dlemma to be in.
With a table full of maniacs, I don't think you can go wrong with a raise. The player who says you made the most money with just a call is wrong - the straddler calls your raise, the straight guy probably calls (especially w/huge pot in game like this), and the fish who hung around to catch trip 8s definitely calls two bets.
All that said, just calling and hoping for someone else to raise can work out well in games like this, but overall I think raising yourself has a higher EV. Hopefully, one of the maniacs makes it 3 bets. And then you pray he doesn't have pocket 8s or a straight flush (Q-9H).
Caddy
If I had called in this situation I would have been very surprised when it was called around without a raise.
But I probably would have raised in this situation. Not only is it unlikely that, given the board, people are going to fold to 2 raises if they've caught a good piece of it, but there's just as a good chance you'll be raised back by someone else as there was that they'll raise the straddler on the end. Even more so, because the straddler now has a chance to 3 bet it.
By the way, maniacs or not, the nut straight had you beat until the river and the nut flush had correct odds to continue. In other words, while you had a great hand and great pot odds yourself, you were still an underdog for most of the hand.
Dan
I appreciate the feedback. BTW, on the turn I accept that I am drawing and am prepared to muck my set if the board doesn't pair up.
Probably a stupid question, but it's been bothering me for three days. . .
Normal game w/ slightly below average players (no maniacs, but call too often, but still raise with legit hands when position dictates). pre-flop, sitting in middle position (four to right of button), no one in yet, dealt 5-5. do you call the bb, raise? fold?
(if it matters, at the time I had pretty good rep at table (as reasonably tight + aggressive) and was on a decent run of cards, I raised 5-5, button and little blind called, floped j-4-5, and lost to a straight on the river).
Thanks!!!
All three options are excruciatingly close, but if you don't think you know how to get the most out of your hand when you do not flop a set, you should probably fold.
all in,
About twelve years ago there was a debate/difference of opinion in the poker books and publications over the play of small pairs before the flop. Mike Caro for one advocated throwing them away up front in typical mid limit games. Most other writers disagreed including S&M. Simply put they reasoned that in a not too tough game you can usually count on enough additional callers up front to justify limping and can even stand a raise if you get three or four opponents (think of the action you will get when you flop a set!).
However, the dilemma of a mid position small pair when no one else entered remained. Now you would probably not get enough callers behind you to justify the odds on flopping your set, and you are not quite in position to steal either. Worse case is you call, get raised behind, and a blind calls. You are getting 2 to 1 immediate odds, will only flop a set about 11% of the time (7.5 to 1 against), and will usually be facing two or three overcards and two likely to be aggressive opponents post flop.
Anyway, during a lunch break, I wrote a multi-part question regarding the play of small pairs pre flop and sent them off to various writers with a stamped self addressed envelop (this was pre email). A couple writers replied and David was kind enough to answer it in about the sixth issues of Card Player. Later it worked its way into "Poker Gaming and Life" and even more recently into the Vol. 3/No. 6 issue of Poker Digest (BTW David, any chance at a piece of the royalties?)
One of my questions was virtually the same as yours and David's answer was about the same. If you have access to Poker Digest or "Poker Gaming and Life" you may get a kick out of it.
I almost forgot. A few years ago Mason wrote of this paradox (it may be in a book of essays but I remember it was at least in a column or article). Normally a later position is better for marginal hands before the flop. But this is not true of small pairs since they are very dependent on getting several additional callers or perhaps getting heads up with one weak player. When the early position players have folded yet there are still two or three players left, these hands are tricky to play and sometimes should be folded. Yet they would be a clear call if you were under the gun (in a fairly soft game).
Sh_t, now I brown-nosed David and Mason both. Maybe I really need those royalties ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Oh, so that was you Rick who wrote up that multi question essay. Now I know. Whatever that means. Anyway great question/s. I think that about sums it up as far as play of small pairs preflop goes.
I'd chicken out and call. I want to see how many callers and raisers I have behind me before I have to make any commitments with this hand. 55 plays best in a multiway pot, and I don't know yet if I'm going to get one.
I think "no one in yet" is the key in this particular case. It's not a profitable hand if you don't have several opponents and your positional disadvantage will make it very difficult to play the hand if you do not flop your set.
As always, it depends. If all of the passive calling station players are behind you, a limp would still be the best play.
Looking for a website that has tables on odds and probabilites for hold em hands. Thanks,
CB
Is a bad bet. Unless, it has some outs. A four card draw on the flop is: two cards in the hole and two of the three cards on the flop forming four cards to a straight or flush.
I found out what a bad bet when a friend asked me to take a drive through the desert. He told me the car was not in good shape. He thought we had a fifty-fifty chance of getting to our destination. "Fifty/fifty! What!" I do not think so. Then he rubbed his chin and said, "Well, maybe two to one against us getting there.". Now I knew I wasn't going.
But then he said, "There is a luxury bus goes by every fifteen minutes." Now, I had an out.
Weak analogy. In your friend's example getting stranded is a disaster whereas in poker betting a hand that eventually loses is not. In your friends example getting there is a safe way precludes the need to attempt some other way, whereas in Poker winning with one hand has little affect on decisions you make on others. He seems to be suggesting that you only can make so many wagers a night (like 6 bullets in a gun) and so should reserve them for the "best" situations (when you cannot miss one of the 6 bandits).
Lets say the opponents will never bet and will always call and the ONLY decision you can make is whether to bet the flop or not; you will check the rest of the time. You cannot win without making the draw and cannot lose if you make it. The 4-draws are about 2:1 underdog's to make it. If you bet and get 2 calls you are breaking even. If one call you are losing money. If 3 or more calls you are clearly MAKING money and its a "good bet".
In its purest sense, bet these draws if you expect more than 2 callers. There are MORE "impure" criteria favoring betting (you improve your chances to win, can get a "free card") than "impure" criteria for checking (drawing dead, getting raised).
- Louie
If you can drive across the desert, so can others. Maybe, they'll have pity and pick you up. And what about the bus every fifteen minutes? Can't everyone get that bus too.
Sorry, I still don't see a meaningful correlation between betting a hand and crossing the desert. Perhaps if you changed "across" to "race around" it may make more sense (to me).
Louie thinks that if the odds of winning are better than the odds of losing, it's a good bet. You see Louie was looking for 'outs' on that bet, as well.
Finally found a game in town. It's 3-3-6-12, but I'll take what I can get.
Super loose passive game, 11 handed. UTG calls, two limp, I call with pocket 7s. Entire table calls, BB raises. BB is a strong player and could be raising with a low pocket pair or suited connectors. Everyone calls.
Flop comes K 3 4, rainbow. BB checks, UTG checks. Next player (habitual bluffer) bets, super fishy fish calls and it's to me. I called. Should I have raised?
About 4 more players call, including BB and UTG. Turn comes K, UTG bets, and I'm gone. But I don't think he has a king, or he would have bet the flop, and as I fold I can't help thinking that I could have set up a steal if I had raised the flop.
Comments?
I'm not sure stealing is a good idea 11 handed ! Cost more as you go so people play possium. Good Luck !
Not much folding going on here. Watch out if you try to steal , bluff or semi-bluff for that matter.
Looks like this group will call anything with anything. ò¿ó
Best of it !!
MJ
Post deleted at author's request.
Niels,
This is great advice from Gary.
By the way, I think you have found a great game. See the flop with decent hands for cheap. Get out right away if you do not flop nuts or a potential monster. This is the kind of game where you simply cannot lose if you play smart: Win few large hands. Lose fewer. If you get good cards you can kill this game....if you get poor cards you will lose only a little (I played in a game like this one one night last week. My cards were very poor. After 3 hours of small loses, I got AA and then AK in two successive hands, and they both held up against pure garbage. I made a large win.)
Mark
Thanks, Gary. I was looking at the odds to hit a 7, but I never even considered the possible straight.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary is absolutely right. In fact, with the entire table taking the flop, it would be correct to fold pocket queens, imho.
With the entire table taking the flop, it would be wrong to muck pocket 2's, let alone the ladies. Sounds like you need some coaching.
If there is a bet and most of the table calls, you should probably take one off anyway and try to spike a set on the turn.
Post deleted at author's request.
Preflop tight isn't so smart though.
Agreed, but it should be stressed that you should still be playing tighter (preflop) than most, if not all, of your opponents. Play suited aces, kings, and even queens, suited connectors, and pairs liberally. Avoid offsuit trash like the plague, and be very wary of playing big offsuit cards when one of these very passive players raises. Too many novices take the "loosen up in a loose passive game" advice way too far and start playing cheese like A5o instead of the cheese they're supposed to be playing, like Q5s.
-Sean
For me, a converted stud player, the hardest part of learning holdem is figuring out how to play overcards on the flop. I am looking for some good guidelines.
Here are some examples which I'm unsure about:
1. You raise in early position with AK. Let's assume 2, 3, or more callers (3 different scenarios). With what type of flops would you bet on the flop in each case? Would you bet with a gutshot straight draw even though the flop most likely hit at least 1 of your opponents? I know Abdul recommends being fairly aggressive here (even with multiple opponents), but it just never seems to work correctly for me when facing many opponents. If I do hit, the A or K that I hit often makes an opponent 2 pair. If I check the flop, the bet will likely come from middle to late position leaving several callers after me which means that I don't like calling in this spot. Please comment, I need a lot of help!!!
2. Assume a similar situation but now you are in late position with AK. You have several callers in front, you raise, and the flop comes at least 3 way. Now what do you do when it is checked to you? What types of flops would you bet? What types of flops would you check?
Thanks guys. This is really stumping me.
Puggy
Flops that provide multiple draws arn't going to shake them all. Don't bet it unless you have a good one. Flops with middle cards hit a lot of people. Use extra caution with only a gut shot. Rainbow ragged flops that don't hit or have low straight draws are good for a go. Kind of depends on the callers as well. What will they call your UTG raise with? What did they limp in with? He's not likely to give up that middle pair, ragged. Remember they expect you to bet it late, you might want to disappoint them sometimes. IMHO, since nobody else is awake.
When you make these bets you have to think about what the chances of everyone folding are. Let's say you raise with AK and get three callers. There are now 8 bets in the pot. The flop comes and it is checked to you. First if everyone will fold more than one time in nine you should bet every time. It's true that you will sometimes be raised, but you will also sometimes snag an ace or a king and win the pot. Obviously the more uniform the flop is the less likely that every one will fold. I would certainly bet a flop like Q 8 4 (even with a two flus on board) or something like 9 3 3. If the board comes 10 9 7 I would check.
Being automatically aggressive is wrong, but not doing a fair amount of betting is also wrong. It will mostly be a function of the flop, your particualr opponents, and how they perceive you. (This is where that good old tight image comes in handy. If you can get someone to fold bottom pair or a gutshot draw -- which has 10 outs against your hand -- you are coming out way ahead.)
As you can see from my rambling, a lot can be written on this subject. As Ray Zee use to tell me all the time, this is one of those spots where you have to play poker well. But playing well doesn't mean betting every time. But it does mean you should be betting a fair amount.
Mason,
Thanks for the response. I'm particularly interested in the question in my previous post about catching 2 to a broadway on the flop giving you a gutshot straight draw to go along with your overcards against several opponents (a flop which most likely hit several opponents as well).
i.e. You raise with AK. Flop comes JT6. In my experience, it is extremely rare to win the pot with a bet here on the flop. Therefore, your value is in your 4 - 10 outs (or winning by betting the turn - not real likely considering the texture of the flop). What's your play?
Thanks, Puggy
Puggy,
Your play on the JTx flop with AK in late position depends completely, in my humble opinion, on who is in front of you, and on how many.
With many people it is dangerous to bet. With few good players it is dangerous. You get checkraised and you fold (right?): Well, it has cost you 1 extra bet. It has also cost you a chance for the free Q and the nuts. What is worse is a really good player with KQ, Q9, 98, or JJ, TT or JT....(although not likely JJ or TT, since the player didn't raise pre-flop)....who smooth calls the flop, makes their hand (or already has), and then check raises you on the turn and wins 5 extra small bets, or (chuckle) 7 extra small bets when you call the river. And what do you do when a blank hits the turn and you get checkraised. That player has put you in a horrible position...
With one average to weak player I would bet. With two weak players it would be a close call.
Mark
Exactly.
---
Puggy writes:
I know Abdul recommends being fairly aggressive here (even with multiple opponents), but it just never seems to work correctly for me when facing many opponents.
Preflop, regardless of the number of opponents I suggest aggressive raising with big cards that are likely best. Postflop, I suggest increasingly passive play with overcards as the number of opponents increases. With 3 or fewer opponents, you can try to run the pocket aces gambit, pounding away like you have aces because you have odds to at least call and you would like your opponents to fold their baby pairs. With 4 or more opponents, you might try checking and seeing what happens after you. If the bet comes late, you can try a check-raise to isolate. Otherwise, you would be looking to often take a card off on the flop and then muck on the turn unless you improve, but when the board spells trouble you should muck on the flop.
When you're up against a large field, you're trying to make two pair, not just one. With AK no pair, you are drawing to catch an ace or king on the turn and then another or a low board pair on the river. Against an extremely large field, like 8+, there's a large enough chance that every card on the board is "covered" to make this too thin a draw normally.
Mason Malmuth writes:
I would certainly bet a flop like Q 8 4 (even with a two flus on board)
This is interesting, because it directly contradicts my advice from the "PLAYING OVERCARDS" thread: If the top card on the flop is one notch lower than your lowest card, then "red alert!" If you open-raise early with AK and get several not-quite-tight-enough cold callers and the flop comes with a queen, you're toast, due to the high chance of KQ or AQ being out there and now dominating you and also the near zero chance now that your hand is best. If you bet this flop, then it should be because actually you just want to fold and want someone to tell you via a raise that you're beat.
Mark the K writes:
Your play on the JTx flop with AK in late position depends completely, in my humble opinion, on who is in front of you, and on how many. With many people it is dangerous to bet. With few good players it is dangerous. You get checkraised and you fold (right?)
Eh? Fold for one more bet on the flop when you have a gutshot straight draw to the nuts, not to mention two overcards?! Not if you are the last to act, as you have odds to draw!
-Abdul
With a flop of Q 8 4 and only (two or) three callers there doesn't have to be a queen out there. Since the pot is offering you 8-to-1 it is foolish not to make this bet.
Abdul,
Sorry, I am confused now. You don't like Mason's answer, which is to bet the Q84, and you don't like mine, which is to check the Jtx against many players or a few strong players -- and then to fold against checkraise. (I like Mason's answer IF the number of players is small; and I would rather bet the Q84 than JTx.) So it sounds like you would check the Q84 and bet the JTx...I usually see what you are saying very clearly, but JTx seems like a fine hand to check from late position with AKo...and I would feel that the gutshot is just about my only chance if I were checkraised...most people I have seen lately will checkraise a JTx with trips or 2 pairs. And too early, but that's another story. (Maybe they are too weak, so my analysis isn't good enough for a strong game, but I have done very well, with low variance, by gambling less.)
Mark
Mark
You don't like Mason's answer, which is to bet the Q84, and you don't like mine, which is to check the Jtx against many players or a few strong players -- and then to fold against checkraise.
You argued against betting on the flop, because if you bet and get check-raised then you would have to fold (you say.) I said if you bet and get check-raised and no one else is left to act, then you should call, because now you've got odds for your 4-outer. You need only about 11 to 1 odds to call, and the current pot is already about that big, plus you have several more bets expected by the river.
(I like Mason's answer IF the number of players is small; and I would rather bet the Q84 than JTx.)
Against 3 semi-tight cold callers on the flop of Q84, there is just no chance your hand is best and a large chance you're dominated. They would be cold calling with roughly 88-JJ, JTs-KQs, ATs-AKs, KQ, AQ, and AK. You think all three of them have ATs/AJs/JTs?! Not likely, not even 8:1 likely. Tougher/tighter players would be folding the KQ, AQ, and other hands, which would change things but still it's a bad situation. If your attitude is to bet because you want to fold, then I don't have a big problem with the bet.
So it sounds like you would check the Q84 and bet the JTx...I usually see what you are saying very clearly, but JTx seems like a fine hand to check from late position with AKo...and I would feel that the gutshot is just about my only chance if I were checkraised..
I did not say whether to bet the JTx flop in late position. Either way has its merits. Betting has the advantage that you may win the pot right away or you may get a free card on the turn. Checking has the advantage that you get your free card now on a flop that no doubt has hit one or more limpers.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I am done with this thread, since I think we more or less agree (especially about how close the bet vs. check part, which was the original question), but you seem to enjoy telling me I am wrong no matter what I say. I talked about numbers and types of bettors and callers. But you take my comments out of context to make it look like you know more. Remind me of some lawyers I know. Too bad, since I have learned from your writings, and I know you are pretty smart.
And I did the fold to a check raise without counting down the 11-1 exactly (it is better than 11-1 in fact), but I just did it more carefully, and I still think it is right (folding to a check raise with few good players having called):
3 players, 6 small bets pre flop 2 players, one of them me (check raised), 4 bets post flop
At this point I am getting about 4-1 for my call of the check-raise, or with 4 players pre-flop I am getting 5-1. This assumes that no one else has called the check raise.
If I call the check raiser, my odds get worse...although I think an A or K may help me, so the odds are better than 11-1, I still think this is likely to cost money in the long run.
Mark
Mark, contemplating a three-way raised pot, facing a check raise on the flop:
You got some seriously flawed logic here. Can you see it?
Anyway, you should not take offense when a top-notch player offers his insight on the game. I don't think Abdul crossed the line here, his answers were well thought out, to the point and correct. OTOH, your comment of him "taking the comments out of context to make it look like he knows more" is indeed out of line.
No offense, buddy. I'd call that chaeck raise if I were in your shoes. Save your good laydowns for the turn. Allah spake to me a while back in a vision I had: "Izmet, this is life, they will be robbing you blind whenever they can! You'll have to chop off a thief's finger on the flop sometimes."
---
Ok Izmet,
I do see my logic error as I explained offline....the odds are not 4-1 but much higher (11-1 or 9-1, depending on how many calls), I erred.
I guess I did not like Abdul's tone, sorry Abdul, you got me hot under the collar...
But Izmet: The gutshot plus A or K, what odds do you give these of winning against the 11-1 or 9-1? How close is this play? How do two opponents lower the value of the A or K which shows up on the turn?
HELP!
Mark
Basically you should seldom fold a gutshot for one bet on the flop, except if you fear a raise behind. The implied odds almost warrant a call, as the pot will be much bigger by the river when you hit perfect on the turn.
If only four outs are good for you, you are about 11 to 1 dog to hit one on the next card. Now in your three-way example you had 6 small bets in the pot preflop. You bet (correctly) and get check-raised. At this point there are 9 small bets in the pot. You need two more to break even on a 11 to 1 shot, right?
But unless your opponents can see your holecards, you can be sure to collect those missing bets on the turn and river if you hit perfect. So your call is correct by merits of the gusthot alone. This is a basic example of implied odds.
Now you have two strongest overcards here in addition to the gutshot, true, an A or K might not be good, but nevertheless, they improve your chances of having the best hand on the turn considerably.
If you don't hit on the turn, you fold and wait for another chance. If you call there unimproved, you basically screwed up the whole implied odds play.
But then again, you might be sitting there with the best hand all this time...
---
"Basically you should seldom fold a gutshot for one bet on the flop, except if you fear a raise behind. The implied odds almost warrant a call, as the pot will be much bigger by the river when you hit perfect on the turn."
Izmet:
There is a situation that I think you are missing. It is when it is clear that if you hit your gut shot someone else will hit it with you. For example, if the flop is 10 9 8 and you have a queen in your hand (but no king) you may only be playing for half the pot. Furthermore, if there is a two flush out there you may only have three outs instead of four. In these situations you need higher odds from the pot.
But of course, you have a point, there are exceptions to every rule.
But Mark here is drawing to the absolute nuts with two best overcards that might be good if hit. Can you even consider folding to one bet on the flop?
---
No. In this spot you take a card off, and probably go to the river.
Mark the K writes:
Your play on the JTx flop with AK in late position depends completely, in my humble opinion, on who is in front of you, and on how many. With many people it is dangerous to bet. With few good players it is dangerous. You get checkraised and you fold (right?)
I replied:
Eh? Fold for one more bet on the flop when you have a gutshot straight draw to the nuts, not to mention two overcards?! Not if you are the last to act, as you have odds to draw!
Mark the K replied:
I guess I did not like Abdul's tone, sorry Abdul, you got me hot under the collar...
Sorry, that was at my maximum politeness setting. You should not take it personally. I was picking on your misstatement, not on you.
If the pot was raised preflop 3-way and a player check-raises you on the the flop, then there are 9.5 small bets in the flop at that point. It's hard to imagine winning an average of less than 3 additional big bets or 6 small bets if you hit your hand, so that's 15.5 small bets for the effective pot size, and you're getting 15.5:1 effective pot odds on a draw that's about 11:1 against. Even if we assume your straight holds up only 90% of the time when you turn it (it would hold about that often against JT) and you get reamed for 4 big bets when your nut straight gets cracked, the calculation still comes out to a 0.16 small bet profit. Now that's very marginal, but add on to that the outs for catching an ace or king, as well as the gutshot redraw on the turn if you do catch an ace or king, and it's very profitable. You're throwing away a considerable portion of your potential hourly rate if you make the mistake of mucking here.
I think you mentioned something about maybe some of the queens being out in the hands of other players. True, there's a fraction of a queen out, but I think that's a pretty small effect here. If the check-raiser has QJ then you're sitting pretty, since an ace or king is an out, as well as the 3 remaining queens (though they give him a redraw.)
-Abdul
Abdul,
Thanks for the longer answer, I appreciate it.
I do understand (my forcing myself to examine your answer has made a few other situations clearer to me also: Thanks), and think that my game has long been predicated on 'low variance': Never never never lose a lot when drawing (if bad cards come), and settle for consistent (but not maximum) wins.
This type of situation has always bothered me a lot... and thanks Izmet and Mason too.
Mark
That's been right for me too. I've usually been on a short bankroll and have considered that if a play might lose me x big bets here, even though i'll end up in the long run with x+1 big bets for each time I do it, its not worth it until I have a big enough stack to make that matter.
Also, I've been following Lee Jones' low-limit advice on the topic: "experts can make some money with overcards, but you're not giving up all that much if you fold them."
Puggy,
This may be from HPFAP. Sometimes it is better to have overcards such as KQ (rather than AQ or AK) if you bet and get called when the flop is small and ragged. If you hit your hand you are much less likely to be beat by two pair since you are less likely to see opponents playing queen anything or king anything than ace anything.
Regards,
Rick
This hand occurred soon after I joined what seemed like a typical (for LA) loose-aggressive 4-8 game. I raised three limpers with QQ; the BB and the limpers called. The flop came 8TJ rainbow. All checked to me, I bet, and three of my opponents called. The turn card was a seven. Again, all checked to me. Should I have bet here? Would it matter if the turn card were a nine?
I would check the turn and take a free look at the river. The problem is you could be against two pair even IF there is no 9. All you've got is a pair and a gut shot. Believe me, nobody's folding. If a 9 came then you bet and raise as it is unlikly that KQ is out against you, since you have a queen. You may see the action break out on the river when a blank hits, then you will feel good about this check as you save a bet or two. People often expect the new guy to step in it right away. Hold your fire. IMHO
Bet, a free card is too dangerous here, an A or a K on the river will likely beat you.
D.
You have to bet. Since they all checked, you can be sure that they are all on a straight draw or one of them has a pair and they are hoping to get a second pair or a set on the river. Since they all checked you can be pretty sure that you are ahead. If you get check raised, you should then fold because someone probably hit their straight.
Student,
Bet rather than giving a free card. If you are check-raised, then fold. Prepare to check down the river.
If the turn card was a 9 instead of a 7, you would bet. The pot is big enough that you would like to win it right now, and your hand is not strong enough to slow play because you do not want to give a free card that may pair the board. If someone calls your turn bet they may have two pair or a queen. Holding two queens makes it unlikely that your opponent has a higher straight.
Thanks, -Kevin
I have already looked at the other responses.
I side with the checks. There are enough players that a check-raise is a definite possiblity. Against fewer players I would be inclined to bet. The problem with bet/folding to a checkraise is that you still have a chance to win this pot, should a nine come on the river.
The seven shouldn't make 2 pair for anyone but yu must judge if someone would be playing 78 and hoping to hit the ignorant end of the straight draw. J-7 suited might be a possiblity.
You will be called by the player making 2 pair. They will also call you down on the river. Correct?
The seven shouldn't make 2 pair for anyone but yu must judge if someone would be playing 78 and hoping to hit the ignorant end of the straight draw. J-7 suited might be a possiblity.
In a loose game, don't forget J7o, T7o, and 87o, plus any flopped two pair that was planning to check-call the flop and check-raise the turn against the raiser who "obviously" has an overpair. It's important to realize that by betting here you could get raised by an idiot with two pair who you still have 8 outs against.
-Sean
As a new player I have a question regarding two of the answers that both suggested a raise on the turn and if check raised to fold. It seems to me that both answers were to fold automatically. Isn't there a possibility that the check raiser is bluffing?? Do you fold if you have the best hand showing?? Once again I'm fairly new at hold em and would like to know the correct play....Thank you
Fred, I still think the best play is to check. I don't know the guys in the hand but my gut tells me "sure I lose to a river A or K if AQ,KQ is out. I get a pretty good str8 with a 9 . Any other card can set or trip up a lower pair. Any card that pairs the board can give someone a full house or me an even break. A Queen only improves AK or K9(not home ?), or me if I need it, neither of my str8s are the nut. MY odds are barely better than anyone else in the hand, why overplay it ? Why not see the river for that same 1BB that you would now sacrifice for on a c/r. Trying to get too much from the hand is a mistake. If AK,KQ,AJ and AQ are still hanging around after the flop bet, then they won't fold now. Most likely there is a 9. There might even be sets that are afraid to bet here. You can't bet this anymore than you can AA in a low limit game, which I think "student" is playing in ! Having said all of that. The answer does primarily depend the type players in the hand and their abilities. But. If you check, then it's multiple bets back to you on the river, you would have saved 2 bets. Don't listen to them, saving is just as important as earning.
To answer your question. True , the check raiser MAY be bluffing, but, you are definitly bluffing if you bet the the turn and allow him to rebluff because he knows YOU have no 9 !! IMHO"
I think in a loose-aggressive game I have played in players bet even check-raise on the flop a lot if they have a lonely nine. However they would call with any low pair or even on over card here. I would tend to bet here both for value and to thin out the field like players holding overcards or possibly low pairs, also trying to buy the show-down. If got chech-raised, I would see mainly where (the position) the raise comes from and decide the credit I can give. Most of the time, the hand is not good here (if not on the flop)if get check-raised, if it still stays multiways on the turn and river with than board. Since the hand still has chance to improve, I would likely to call the raise and see the river card. For the given size of the pot and the nature of the game, I think it worth to risk one bet if not two (suppose you check the turn and are bet into on the river, and call a single bet in certain situation). I think paying attention to the aggressiveness (bet, raise, check-raise) of these players can be well worth it even in such kind of game, since they have some reasons in their mind and they repeat it again and again, especially if they are regulars.
regards,
jikun
I'm glad this hand provoked some disagreement. I decided to check for fear of being check-raised for value or as a bluff. My image was tight (When I sat down, one player who knew me jokingly asked whether I would play any hands today), so I felt it was possible someone might try to push me off an overpair by raising; it did not occur to me at the time that I would be getting adequate odds to call a raise in hope of making my gutshot. The river was a 4, and I paid off someone holding pocket fours. [DOH!]
The 4,4 shouldn't have been there after the flop bet, what's to say he wouldn't call the turn ! This is what makes the game so interesting. Consider the bluff checkraise might have caused everyone else to fold giving you the pot, but could you you call him ? Again on the river ? Then again you might have won for that turn bet. Watch the game, do they always take a look then fold for the BB ? Good luck !
Well the guy you payed off made more than one mistake that hand, the biggest being calling the flop with an underpair.
I dont understand why you would bet the turn. With 3 opponents someone with a 9 may be inclined to check-raise. Three people call, one of them must be drawing to something. You already raised pre flop and bet once, that should take care of overcard people.
Whats the difference between betting there and folding if your raised or calling someone elses bet on the river? The difference is you get to showdown, but you give a free card. But the odds are very high your not giving a free card, rather betting into a better hand. If noone has a nine they will most likely check the river as well, and you get a free showdown. You dont lose more if someone has two pair, and if someone bets a straight and you call (you may even just fold depending on the river and player betting at you) you lose the same as if you bet the turn, are raised by a checker, and fold.
If you had hit a straight on the turn (or do on the river) go ahead and raise then (someone could have a lower one and may call). The exception is if you river a straight, first position bets, and everyone else folds. Then you may as well just call, noone without a queen would call a raise, but KQ would reraise. Your in a tie-lose situation there.
Im curious what actually did end up happening?
I would have bet despite the possibility of a straight. A check-call-check sequence should not scare you. If you a raised, call the raise. If you don't improve and there is a lot of action, you can drop.
One question I have about playing AK comes preflop when there are many callers. Recently in a no fold 'em game, I picked up AK on the button, with everyone at the table except the SB having called to me. I raised, and everyone called. The flop didn't hit my hand, and I had to fold when there were 6 calling the flop by the time it got to me.
I think this illustrates two points about hands like AK and maybe more drastically AQ:
1) The reasons to raise with these hands are obliterated when there are many callers, and thus in late position it probably is better to just call.
2) It may be better to pick up these hands in the blinds in a loose passive game, since by betting out on the flop after you've raised preflop, you have a chance to drive out weaker hands.
Abdul makes the comment that you should always raise with hands like AK (not including the high pairs) regardless of the number of callers, since you are likely to be the best. I disagree with this statement, because although you may be a favorite over any one of the hands BY ITSELF, against everyone, you're a dog.
Any other thoughts on this?
Also, raising in late position with AK with many already in simply serves to make the pot huge. This keeps anyone with a semblance of a hand on the flop around for at least the turn. Seems to me that this play at best just increases your variance.
I think what you're talking about brings up the difference in reasons why one might raise. I think the only reasons to raise pre-flop are (please someone complete this list): 1) thin the field So, if you're in a no-fold'em hold'em game, a raise will almost always have no other effect but to build the pot. I frequently only call with QQ or less. But, on occasion I'll raise with 67o. This approach seems to work well in my limited experience - about 250 hours of mostly 3-6. I'm up $100 total. This is with the CA collection method - I believe I'd be up over $1000 if it was a rake.
You'll win more if you never ever again raise with 67o.
Raising with this hand is a big negative. You can only make it positive by fooling your opponents so much that they make mistakes with some frequency. So raising amounts to sacrificing bets in exchange for deception, and the problem is finding ways of minimizing your sacrifice and increasing the probability of mistake-causing deception.
The perfect way is right under your nose: wait until they're suited. Suited hands win so much more often that you minimize your sacrifice as surely as if you didn't have to pay a full bet but your opponents had to call one. If you wait longer and make these raises less frequently, more opponents will be fooled so much more often it's like a power to cloud their minds. Of course, this is all relative to 67o and you have to consider timing, opponents, and other things, but compared to its unsuited counterpart 67s is like a dream.
There are times, of course (more often in no limit), when an immediate raise would be almost mandatory and 67o is better than any two But your powers of observation and ability to play the hand in advance have to be acute. In reality, 99% of the time people raise with 67o it's because a little traitor in their head told them to. If you're raising because your image, position and opponents generally make it right, consider it a virtually random act that can wait for the suited cards.
So never raise with 67o. Unless you're really good, don't even call with it.
I think AK is so powerful that it's always worth a raise in late position regardless of the number of limpers.
With AQ and a bunch of limpers I ask how long my opponents will stay with their hands and how aggressively they'll play for the big pot (more precisely, how likely are they to knock me off a good draw or the best hand if I make it worth their while?). Also, I'll consider whether some of my opponents are extremely passive tight players or limp raisers. In general, the longer they'll stay and the harder they'll make it on me after the flop, the more inclined I'll be to just call instead of adding fuel to the fire. On the other hand, if my opponents are dominated by those that tend to scatter if they don't hit, I raise.
I think the HPFAP21 advice on playing AQ late in very loose games is persuasive, but the fact is I'm not sure what you should do.
It isn't reasonable to raise with a particular hand just because it wins more than it's "fair share" of the time; by itself that doesn't count. The only reason to raise is that raising wins more than calling. I've never seen the case for invariably raising with either hand explained well.
I like Michael's post which I'll rephrase a little: (1) Build a pot when you expect to win more often than the number of callers, (2) when the raise will increase your chances of winning, and (3) confuses the opponents to your advantage later.
(1) Unless you are up against AA or KK or heads-up against a small pair, AK is *always* going to win more often than the number of callers.
(2) Raising in late position MAY increase your chances if it makes players "check to the raiser" giving you frequent "free" cards, or giving you the odds to chase better hands; but overall probably reduces your chances A LITTLE since it gives others the odds to chase AND often prevents you the opportunity to narrow the field with a flop raise.
(3) Can easily be used to trap yourself into far too frequent raising.
(1) is the most important but CAN at times be overshadowed by (2). (3) should be done occasionally
- Louie
PS *always*: OK, I'm sure someone can contrive a situation to prove me wrong. So its "the vast majority of the time".
"(3) Can easily be used to trap yourself into far too frequent raising."
Could you explain this statement?
I agree with both one and two, but I question the degree to which AK wins over all the other nonrandom hands your opponents are holding (see my response to Greg Raymer below).
Bill
I meant that you can easily abuse the reason to "confuse the opponents" to justify a raise which will cause you to raise far too often.
Bill G. wrote: >although you may be a favorite over any one of the >hands BY ITSELF [when you're holding AK], against >everyone, you're a dog.
What do you mean by dog? I hear this a lot, and in many instances, I think people don't necessarily apply it correctly.
If you mean that you're less than 50% likely to win, you're right. But that's not really the point. If you put AK up against 3 random hands, it will win much more than 25% of the time. If you put it against 9 random hands, it will win much more than 10% of the time. Even if you're seletive about which hands it plays against, it wins more than it's share (by selective, I don't mean some assortment that is hand-picked, but let's say a random sample of hands from S&M groups 1-5 or the like).
So, just because you're not 50% likely to win doesn't mean that you shouldn't pump up the pot with raises. While preflop equity is nowhere near the be-all and end-all of when to raise preflop, it is a significant factor. With a hand like AK, not only does it have significant preflop equity, it often plays better than many other hands that might also have decent preflop equity.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can you really say that you will win much more than 10% of the time? Conceptually I see this. If you've got a great hand like AK and you are 1 of 10 players, then you'd expect to win more often than not if they have random hands. But even in no fold 'em, people have some sort of standards. If that means any ace, any two suited or straight cards, or pairs, then it doesn't seem clear cut that you'd win MUCH more than 10% of the time. You cover this idea in your post, but are there any numbers or estimates to back this up? If you win 12% of the time, I'm not sure it makes it worth it. Psychology can play a role here too.
I guess the question is how much variance are you willing to accept? By raising in late position with many players, everyone who has anything will chase on the flop, and guaranteed there'll be someone to bet before you, so you'll be pouring the money in. You may be getting some preflop equity, but I think the mistake of just calling, if it is one, at least would not be a big one.
Bill
Bill G. wrote: >But even in no fold 'em, people have some sort of >standards. If that means any ace, any two suited or >straight cards, or pairs, then it doesn't seem clear >cut that you'd win MUCH more than 10% of the time. You >cover this idea in your post, but are there any >numbers or estimates to back this up?
No. I have no hard numbers for you. Maybe someone else on the group has the proper software to model this for us. If someone wants to do this, please take AhKs and match it up against 2, 4, 6, and 8 opponents, each of whom plays a random hand from S&M groups 1-5. If it's easy to do, give us a wider assortment, such as 3 hands from S&M groups 1-3, and 2 random hands, or the like.
My guess is that in any of these tests, AK will win at least 30% more often than expected, and 50% more often won't surprise me one bit. If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to eat the humble pie.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Post deleted at author's request.
If its a $10 bet and the other 9 opponenets are going to call and you win 12% of the time and do it 100 times; 88 times you lose $10 (-$880) and 12 times you win 90 (+$1080) for a $200 profit or $2/hand.
For me that's a lot and well worth raising. If this slim raise-or-no-raise decision is comes up only 3 times/hour you are giving up a half a small-bet/hour in your over-all expectation. For me, that's well worth the increased deviation.
- Louie
A higher winning percentage than the field in a cold sim doesn't equate to an overlay that justifies a raise. If it did you should raise with AT and A9 against 9 opponents (13.3 and 11.3% against the field respectively).
With AA and KK the overlay is so great that not raising gives up a lot of value. Otherwise you have to consider that (1) real opponents play real hands (especially big cards), (2) you won't stay for a lot of the cards that make you a winner in a sim, and (3) when you lose you often lose more than the combined losses of all of those that fold on the flop, such as when your raise makes them correctly stick around to outdraw you.
With AQ against a big field in a loose game you should raise when your opponents play very badly and wait to raise when they play a bit better. You're giving up too much value by waiting in the former case but making them draw correctly against you in the latter. (This is right out of HPFAP21).
This distinction is harder to make with AK because in addition to winning a bit more often than AQ, it is much stronger against second best hands and has no overcard threat on the flop. It's an easier hand with which to extract bets from your opponents.
With QQ, JJ and TT, you always raise with 5 or more opponents because you're approaching the odds against flopping a set, which will win the whole pot more than 2/3's the time. With one or two opponents you raise for value. With 3 or 4 opponents I think the analysis is similar to that for AQ (raise the really bad opponents, call otherwise), except that your specific concern is overcards on the flop instead of being outdrawn. (This is more or less taken right from one of Sklansky's essays).
IMO, if the aggressive players are in the blinds the more likely you should raise, as they might 3bet preflop or at least if they flop something they could lead on the flop and those in the middle with little or nothing fold when caught between an early position lead bettor and a preflop raiser.
If the more aggressive players are on your right and there has been multiple callers, you should probably call and see the flop. If you get a flop you like (K T 7 - two flush) or a flop you really like (AAK)you can raise the flop or turn when they bet into you. If it's been raised before it gets to you and you don't think you're up against AA or KK, then you 3bet.
The major exception to the above is when you have one of those guys(on your immediate right) that will bet into the preflop raiser when everyone has checked to them and the flop doesn't have an A or K. In this case I think it's best to raise preflop and either raise the flop or the turn if he's the only one too interested in the pot. Of course, if the flop has an A or K, or the turn has one of these cards then the play is ruined but at least you have some kind of hand to play in those cases.
chris
The other day I returned briefly to my old haunt of Hollywood Park's 40-80 game. It was the same old cast of characters, including the two chain smokers who drove me out of the state, only now they cannot smoke at the table.
Hand #1
There are 4 limpers plus the small blind and I check with 65s in the big blind.
The flop comes 642 rainbow with one of my suit. Small blind checks, I bet, under-the-gun raises, fold, fold, fold, and now the small blind (check-)reraises. I'm not going anywhere with top pair + gutshot + backdoor flush draw, but I have to decide whether I'm ahead or drawing, so that I know whether to try to get rid of the player behind me. A check-reraise is a pretty darn strong play, so I have to fear the small blind has 42, 53, 77, or other hand that presently beats me. Even if he just has a 6, my kicker is no good. I back off and just call, as does the other player.
The turn is an ace of my suit. Small blind bets, I consider raising but just call, and the under-the-gun player calls.
The river is a 9 of my suit, completing my flush. Small blind checks, I bet, under-the-gun folds, and small blind folds! Does that make sense? Maybe he had 55 or KQ? I hate it when players play like this, as it makes me fear I have a tell, but I doubt that's what happened.
Hand #2
In another pot, there is an early but loose limper, and it folds around to me on the button with QJ. As usual when I can't decide between raising and folding, I make the worst play of calling. Blinds call. Four way to the flop.
Flop comes Q84 two suited (or something like that.) Small blind checks, big blind bets, limper calls, I raise, small blind folds, and remaining two players both call.
The turn is a 3 of the flush suit, bringing in the flush draw if it was out there. Big blind bets out again, limper raises, and now I'm next to act. I'm not a happy camper. I've got the queen of the suit, and that's what makes me decide to 3-bet instead of folding. Big blind mucks, and other player calls.
The river is a 9. Big blind checks, I check. He says he has nothing, no pair. I turn over my QJ and take the pot. Big blind looks very pissed.
Hand #3
In a similar hand but only two suited on the turn, that same player check-raised on the turn after there had been a bet and a call. We both called him there and I called him on the river and he had nothing. That seemed especially suicidal... 3 big bets with almost zero chance of stealing the pot does not seem wise.
Basically every hand played out something like that.
And David Sklansky tells us that we should muck top pair to a raise on the river from one of these maniacal LA 40-80 players after we basically attempted to induce a bluff-raise and our image is that of someone who can be pushed off top pair? Nrrr, but thanks for playing "Who Wants to be a World Champion Poker Player?"... David, you still go home with $100 and some nice parting gifts for knowing that poker with no jokers is normally played with 52 cards. I'm very experienced in this particular game, though returning to it after being in Vegas for so long was a bit of a shock.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Do you imply that knowing how your opponents play is the most significant factor of all?
And on the same note - My game has become more and more aggressive as I've become more comfortable with decoding the information that is imbedded in peoples bets and raises. I've been able to steal with some confidence that I'd be successful. But I've also noticed that sometimes people will call my bluff when the only hand they can beat is a bluff. And these players do not appear to be strong. Are they just getting lucky or do I have tells that even they can pick up on. This is a bit discouraging. Any advice would be appreciated.
Many of these people aren't thinking in terms "I can only beat a bluff": they think "Everybody knows that pairs are calling hands". They'll call with T8 whether the board is KQ832 or AAJ98 3-flush (that's "Aces-up, by golly!"). IF I'm in the hunt here then your "error" is presuming too much about what they can and do think about.
- Louie
Michael wrote: >But I've also noticed that sometimes people will call >my bluff when the only hand they can beat is a bluff. >And these players do not appear to be strong.
That's why they're not strong. They call too much. The most common type of weak player in the poker world. You just need to know which players in your game are in this camp and then don't bother to bluff them, especially with a hand that has any showdown value (e.g., A high nothing).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Michael asks:
Do you imply that knowing how your opponents play is the most significant factor of all?
Nope, that's not Abdulian philosophy. Heads up, I like to just play a solid defensive game, whether my opponent is Mason Malmuth or some maniacal LA 40-80 player. I let my opponents defeat themselves rather than trying to exploit their mistakes. Good solid poker includes paying off raises on the river with virtually all your real hands.
In 3+ way pots, then it becomes important to understand how each player plays, how each player thinks each other player plays, and so on. Then I do stick my neck out sometimes. For example, I might know the guy who bet out on the turn frequently bluff bets there, and I might think the tighty behind me would fold versus a raise with a hand like QJ on the board of Q843 with three of one suit, so I might raise there with as little as the king of the suit.
I've also noticed that sometimes people will call my bluff when the only hand they can beat is a bluff.
I would not worry too much about the failed bluff bets. 9 times out of 10, you're going to fail on those bluff bets in 10 big bet pots, but you'll still make a profit. It's often reasonable to call on the river with any pair or AK high, and sometimes reasonable with as little as queen high, so maybe your opponents are not playing so poorly.
If you really are having a problem with your bluffs, then maybe you need to tighten up preflop and on the flop and play your hands harder, whether they are bluffs or real hands. This will improve your bluff-to-real-hand ratio when you bet on the river, and command (over)respect from your opponents. Also, you need to avoid bluffing in situations where it makes no sense for you to bet there, as you opponents will call or bluff-raise if they smell a rat. Finally, you need to aggressively thin value bet your real hands and pay off raises liberally (on the river.) I value bet AK high on occasion (and yes, I get called and win.)
Don't be embarassed about getting caught bluffing on the river after a failed semibluff on the flop/turn. You can just turn it face up without a word (in this manner I recently won a $500ish pot in $30-$60 with six high, after my opponent called and mucked). Or you can negotiate your way out of showing the hand, "I missed - no pair - ace high." If you're lucky, Mr. Headsup will even post saying what an awful player you are. But it's just good poker.
-Abdul
Good solid poker includes paying off raises on the river with virtually all your real hands.
But mega-good, ultra-solid poker includes paying off if the pot odds compare favorably with your estimate of the chance the opp is bluffing. That's quite often, but not "with virtually all your real hands". If you want to shade it a notch more liberally for reasons such as "to protect your bluff bets", that's fine since you might want to err a little on the liberal side anyway.
Say, for instance, you hold KdJc in the BB. There's one late-middle position weak-tight limper with whom you've played about 2,000 hours worth of poker. You know him well. He only bluffs a very little bit, and you can't remember the last time you saw him raise on a pure bluff or semi-bluff other than with a flush draw on the flop. He's very predictable, and you usually know where you're at against him. He's not far from an ideal hold'em opponent. Such players, though part of a small and shrinking group, are around, and most players could name some. Flop comes Jh9d8c. You bet, he calls. You put him on either a Jack with a worse (or the same) kicker, such as QJ, or a straight draw with a hand such as ATs or T8s. Turn is 2s. Same action. River is 9c. You know you won't induce a bluff by checking, and you know he'll call with many more hands than he'll bet if you check (i.e., any Jack or 8). So you bet. He thinks a moment and raises. Looks like a good time to fold. Such situations are not extremely rare.
Of course, if your image is that of a maniac, a frequent bluffer, or maybe even just a consistent "pound-pound-pounder", you may have to pay off more, as players will often suspect you have nothing and take shots at you when they miss their draws.
PS - Though no one would disagree with the point that when there's a strong chance they're bluffing you have to call a lot, whether or not to call on the end wasn't the issue in the hand I posted. Rather, it was how to play going into the river. (Also, given my presumed image in the game I described -- which was nothing like the game you describe here -- the way I played the hand would likely have done more to stop a bluff than to induce one. But that's beside the point.)
This lesson is learned the hard way. You decode what they have, which is essentially nothing, and you play to drive them off the hand. The one incident that sticks out in my mind is a woman who called me down with bottom pair (2's) when I fired on the flop, the turn, and the river with overcards, knowing she had nothing. Next time you fire away at someone, be sure to look at them and see if they seem like they're paying attention. Don't continue to try to bluff these people out if they're a calling station. Most of the time, they're just thinking "Hey, a pair is a pretty good hand." Also, take solace in the fact that these are the people who pay off your set when all they can beat is a bluff.
Bill
(1) 4 limpers and I call in the SB with 86o and the BB checks. Flop is 642r; I check sinse SOMEONE is sure to take a stab at this one. The solid professional I fear in the BB (who used to leave mad when I blew smoke in his face, I loved it when that happened) bets, loose UTG raises and I decide to "find out where I'm at" by 3-betting. The BB WANTs to raise but he doesn't and they both call but I'm confident neither is slow playing. Turn is an A and I bet and the BB likes it better now and WANTS to raise but he again just calls (I hate it when that happens) and UTG calls. Ignats. The river is an 8!! ... sadly no, its a 9 (making the back-door flush), I check, my buddy bets and UTG folds...
What can he have that I can beat? 65o? K4? 43o?
(2) Do not fold QJ. Looks like a preflop raise unless the limper is particularly conservative in his raising requirements AND conservative in his calling requirements.
Nothing quite like questionable raises on the turn to knock players out, eh? Cha-Ching$$$ Notice the error of the BB was presuming his bet on the turn ("obviously" representing the flush) would slow the two semi-maniacs behind him down. DOH! He'll make that mistake again since he didn't recognize it.
(3) NEWSFLASH!!! There are lots of unwise opponents easily contolled by their emotions (whose emotions are easily manipulated....).
- Louie :)
PS: I'm with your about rarely folding pairs (unless right away) in these hyper aggressive games.
Louie, I didn't know you had it in ya. Good Post from both you guys !
David, good no post !
"Louie, I didn't know you had it in ya" Really? I thought this was one of my typical rambling posts.
Kinda reminds me of the time ....
- Louie
I was playing 4-8 hold em the other day and got KJ in early position. A late middle position player raises and I call. I almost immediately put him on AK. Flop comes KQ5. By the way my image was pretty tight in the game and had pretty good control over other players. I check and he bets and then I raise. All other players folded and he calls. Turn card makes a four flush possible. I check raise him again since he is pretty aggresive and I figured he would bet. Now he folds after I have represented. What do you guys think of this play? Have you ever used it and how often would you try it?
very dangerous play preflop and flop play. you should fold KJ in early postion. how do you feel when someone raises in late position? he may have AA KK QQ AK AQ or even KQ AJ in which you are in pretty bad shape against.
what fell on the turn? i ddon't understand what happened...
This is not a semi-bluff. You flopped top pair with a decent kicker. A semi-bluff would be more along the lines of you having TJ and check-raising that hand twice. At that point you would have nothing but you have a pretty good draw that can save you.
I am fairly new to poker and played in my first no limit tourney today. It was a fifty dollar buy in with a ten dollar entry fee. Each player started with 1000 dollars and blinds were 10 & 20 with doubling every 15 minutes. I had been playing very tight. I had won 2 small hands, neither by showdown, had checked raised myself all in once when any queen made a straight and everyone folded, and had once gone all in when the SB posted all in and I was late, and showed down my pocket kings (which lost). So far nobody had any reason to believe I played agressively or was stealing. It came to the point where blinds were 50 & 100 and I found myself two off the button with AK suited. I had seven hundred in chips and everyone folded in front. The chip leader was right behind me, and the button and both blinds were average stacked. The three table tournament was very close to combining to two at this point (top 6 made money). Id appreciate it if anyone would tell me what they think I should have done at this time.
Here is what I did. I made it $250 to go. The chip leader (who had won a lot of hands, so many I thought he must have been a bully, but later decided he was just getting amazing hands) then made it $550. I pushed everything in. He called with pocket tens and won. Im pretty sure everything I did was incorrect. Should I have limped, and folded to the raise? Should I have gone all in right away? Should I have mucked to begin with, or just called the small raise and see the flop? Any thoughts by anyone with tournament experience would be greatly appreciated, as I would like to become a competent tournament player. Thank You
Random,
First up, check out the Tournament Forum if you haven't already, there's lots of good advice in there and you will probably get more responses from tournament players to this kind of post.
As to the hand in question, what's really important in this kind of situation is the ratio of your stack size to how much it is costing you per round. In this case, 700 to 150 gives a ratio of almost five _but_ with blinds doubling every 15 minutes that will soon become closer to 2, when you have to start thinking about making a move. Bearing this in mind, you don't have to move straight away but you're probably going to have to do something in the next 20-25 minutes.
Now, AK is very big when everyone has folded to you. No way you fold. However, Aces (and maybe Kings) is the only hand big enough to want callers when the blinds start going up IMO. Your raise was correct. Normally I like a pot-size raise which would be 400 to go in this spot. However, it is a good rule of thumb that if you put more than half your stack in pre-flop, you are committed to the hand. You can't get away from this. I think the way you played it is fine. Other options are going all-in to discourage a call (probably my choice) or calling the re-raise, but in that case you bet the flop irrespective of how it comes up.
This kind of matchup comes up all the time in big-bet tournaments, and you will always find that the tournament winner will have won 2 or 3 of these 50-50 hands on the way. You need a bit of luck to win, the whole game is trying to reduce the amount of luck you need by playing well.
Hope this helps, better luck next time
Andy.
s
How many chips did you have and how many did the blinds have. If I was short stacked I would have probably moved in immeadiately, because I'm really hoping for someone to call me with an Ace and a weaker kicker. But, against a pair of tens its approximately a fifty-fifty situation. You probably needed more chips to make it to the money.
I play mostly 3-6 or 4-8 hold 'em, which we all know is generally loose/ aggressive and many times no fold 'em hold 'em. I play well but lack the bankroll to move up to a higher limit. I'm getting frustrated raising with QQ and getting beaten by two pair 95 off with a pre flop raise. What are some good reasons to raise in games such as this? Or is it better to limp in and try to out play them after the flop? I've lost a lot of money making the flop 8 or 12 with a good hand only to fold on the turn when nothing comes.
I'm getting frustrated raising with QQ and getting beaten by two pair 95 off with a pre flop raise. What are some good reasons to raise in games such as this?
To make the idiot with 95o pay 2 bets to play his trash instead of just 1. Would you rather he see the flop cheaply? With QQ, you are almost certain to hold the best hand preflop. It won't always win, but so what. Heck, with 7 or 8 people in, you're getting the right odds to flop a set, let alone those times, rare as it seems, QQ wins without flopping a set. So go ahead and raise with your strong hands, and recognize that while QQ might only hold up 50% or 40 or even 33% of the time, against that field of 7 or 8 opponents, you're getting by far the best of it. And that's what's important, not winning any individual pot.
As an aside, when you flop a set with your QQ in these loose-aggressive games you should normally play your set fast on the flop, because the 95o idiots will keep calling to make 2 pair or trips, not even realizing that they're drawing dead. If they improve on the turn, they'll probably play aggressively into you despite your aggressive play on the flop because you "obviously" have AA or KK. (They often won't put you on a set because they themselves would probably slowplay any set until the turn.) And god help them if they have a smaller set and wait until the turn to fire away.
-Sean
In these games, big offsuit cards are not raising hands. You may choose to limp and try to flop big or not play them at all. I don't think you gain much or give up much either way. Well, you might give up some fluctuations, but Idon't think that's a negative.
Big pairs, Ace-face suited, and suited connectors win at low limit. Other hands win also, but I don't think they win enough to even bother with. The great thing about these games is that you still get plenty of action on your big hands. If players didn't pay you off so much when you hit big hands then you might do better by playing a broader mix of hands, but these players do not adjust.
Even playing super premium hands (AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,Ako,AQo,AKs,AQs,AJs,KQs) you're going to have pretty big swings, in relation to the betting limits.
Also, why are you seeing the turn if you flopped nothing? The vast majority of the time you should be betting, raising or folding on the flop. You flop big or you gone. All those calls on the flop add up and can be better used to bet and raise when you have a hand, or (if enough people are in the pot) even raising,checkraising with a strong draw (four flush with two over cards, for example).
There's little outplaying at this limit, as far as getting a better hand to muck. I think "outplaying" has more to do with getting maximum value out of your hands, in other words, getting the most money in the middle when you like it.
chris
Norin: I agree with Chris. Remember the "Fit or Fold" concept for David's and Mason's book? You probably have the best hand pre-flop, so bet it. If someone plays back at you, you have more information about the hand. With 5-7 others in with you, if the flop is 7, 9, 10, (or other cards that might represent a straight,) and you get bet into, or there's a bet and a raise to you, I'd fold. In a low limit game, those guys are sticking around with something. Does the flop fit?
Good luck..
I was recently in a 3-6 game at a local card room. I kept 8-8 in the cut off seat. There were no raisers. 6 people called. The flop was 6-8-8 rainbow. I had the nuts. The BB checks, check, check, then there was a bet and a call. I called. BB goes all in, the UTG folds and the rest limp in. The turn is a 5. Making a back door flush possible on the river. BB is still all in, check, check, the person who raised on the flop bet again. Then the person to my R called. What do I do? Do I reraise him or just call? Any feed back would be helpful. Thank you.
-Q
As someone who plays mainly 3/6 (Im fairly new and a college student on a small bankroll) and wins quite often I think these are the factors to look at:
1. What is mr. raiser holding? Where I play it would be hard to put them on a hand but low limit players are usually loose and passive, if they raise before the flop they usually have a good hand (and will go way too far with it after the flop). If this is one of those players he may have a pocket pair and be praying noone has an eight. Why not force him to bet again on the river and then raise, rather than let everyone know you have at least a set?
2. What do mr. callers have? a 7 maybe? A flush draw? Not much else they could have, other than sheer stupidity. Maybe A6 as well.
Lets examine what happens if you raise the turn. Nobody has an 8 (obviously) and unless one has pocket sixes they are therefore fearing it. And since where I play people with 8 9 are dumb enough to slowplay in that situation, if you have a good image they will assume you have an 8 (they assume you play similar to the way they do). Thus the only ones who will call you will be the ones with draws, which you have to think someone likely has. So if they have draws they will call, if they have A6 or something similar they will fold. Therefore you only get further action from drawing opponents, two bets each. If they miss their draw you get nothing on the river, and if they hit, since they are playing passively, they will likely see the pair on board and check and call anyway, so you get the same three bets as if you called and then raised the river, where they are less likely to fold.
Now suppose you wait for the river. If someones draw comes you get at least two bets from them, plus the one you got on the turn. If no draw hits you will likely get one to bet in to you, and you raise, at which point they may still call.
I think you should call the turn. If someone has pocket 6s, youll get them to reraise you on the river anyway. If they have a higher pocket pair they will most likely bet the river, and you raise. Plus the odds of them hitting their draw, which is good with 3 opponents. I think its best to let everyone get in cheap for their dead draws, and maybe make them pay multiple on the end, rather than maybe getting multiple bets on the turn from less opponents and maybe one or two singles on the end. Someone may have turned a straight and be check raising (which you then just reraise). Someone may be calling on overcards, and hit the river and feel like calling, maybe even betting. I think the odds of someone hitting a pay-off card on the river, plus the odds of someone with an over pair betting, plus the bets you let in on the turn by people who have A6 or something similarly worthless who will call one bet but not two, out weigh the potential payoff on the turn by people on draws that will play them cautiosly even if they hit.
I have had 5 quads in my year long career. The only ones I got paid off on were on the turn and river (both 5s, one when someone else had got quad 3s on the turn against my flopped full house). It is hard to get much when you flop them (though I would have won a bad beat with one when my opponent flopped Aces full if we had one. I wish the guy had had more than 6 bets in front of him).
The "to slowplay or not to slowplay quads" question comes up from time to time, but it's unimportant. You'll get quads so rarely that it doesn't really matter how you play them--spend your mental energy focusing on aspects of your play that will come up more often. As long as you didn't fold, you did the right thing.
BTW, you used some confusing terms in your post. You mention someone who "raised on the flop," but as you describe it in the previous sentence, there was a bet on the flop, not a raise. Many novices, particularly ones used to home games in which "bet" can be used to describe betting, raising, and calling, miss the distinction between a bet and a raise, which can confuse others reading the post.
-Sean
Sean:
The "to slowplay or not to slowplay quads" question comes up from time to time, but it's unimportant. You'll get quads so rarely that it doesn't really matter how you play them
Except that it's not really about quads. The bigger issue is how to play when you know you've won the hand. And that comes up all the time.
Hard to say. In a lot of low-limit games, raising here would be profitable because your opponents won't scare off that easily, but in just as many other low-limit games, they might all drop their cards right there and then. You really have to know what your opponents' tendencies are in late rounds, and also what they think of you as a player.
However, I think as a general rule of thumb, you will come out ahead in the long run if you raise with the nuts in low-limit games, and only make an exception when you are quite certain that your opponents would fold if you were to raise.
8-16 Regular fairly loose game with one or two fairly tough opponents. I'm UTG with QQ. I raise, folded around to middle-late position player, who 3 bets. Folded around to blinds, sb folds, BB calls. It's three way action and I'm not so sure I like my hand because 3bettor is tight(he has either AA,KK or AKo or AKS) and I'd like to see the flop. Usually cap it preflop with QQ (from anywhere) but I don't like my position, particularly with this player in the pot. I call.
Flop comes 5d - 8d - Tc. SB bets (?) I raise, preflop 3bettor reraises (?) SB folds (?), I reraise, 3bettor calls, looking a little concerned.
Turn 9d. I check, 3bettor says I'm not betting, and turns over pocket kings. I don't move or say anything. Dealer says "John, we got another card coming". He scoops up his kings and the dealer burns and turns.
river As. I look at John and kinda shake my head and bet. John looks disgusted and throws away his hand.
Now, lord knows I wouldn't do this to Abdul or Mr. Sklansky but I thought, given the pot odds and his blunder on the turn, that this was a good bet. My question is: Is this bad poker etiquette? Or is all fair in love, war, and playing cards for money?
I've had situations where i've bet on the river and prematurely turned my cards and some Arab bluff-raises me when he wasn't even going to call. I always call these people down. Personally, I understand where they're coming from and don't take offense. I think it's just part of the game. Plus you get a few more checks.
My only problem with the hand is that this was at a game where 90% of the players are regulars. I'm not running for most popular player but I don't want to alienate anyone either. Strangely enough, I wouldn't have any qualms about the play in a casino but then again, I don't think I'd try it unless I knew the player very well, which isn't as likely in a casino game.
chris
There are players who will try to make you check to them on the river by turning over their hands prematurely (on purpose), as most people view it unethical to bet into the revealed hand. However, I'm so sick of these angleshooting bastards that I always try to take an advantage of the situation. If I have a better hand, I bet. If he has a weak but best hand, I try to bluff him.
However, if he has a pretty strong, but vulnerable hand, I check, as these people usually won't fold just in case you were induced to bluff. I'm amazed your guy laid down his kings.
However, in your case, the opponent clearly revealed his hand by mistake. I could go both ways here. But I don't care about money that much to risk hurt feelings and you're-scumbag-angleshooting-albanian-go-home-bastard looks around the table if I were called down on a bluff here. I'd most probably give up the pot.
On the other hand, some may view a bluf here as good poker. Dunno, I guess I'm not as smart as to not get into dillemas sometimes...
Note that if he were in your shoes, Abdul would have asked himself a question here: "Would this guy do that to me if the situation were reversed?" If yes, he'd be counting the sucker's money while riding his camel from Bellagio all the way home. If not, he'd just be happy to get away from his queens cheaply.
Don't even bother to ask Badger what he feels about it...
---
He was taking a shot at you and you did the only right thing.
"Arab?" c'mon.
My question is: Is this bad poker etiquette?
Naw, this is some of the most fun you can have playing poker. Showing cards seems more prevalent among big-bet hold 'em players, and lowballers currently in recovery.
I also shake my head when I make this move==as though to say, "Sorry I sucked out on you."
Well, you're sort of between a rock and a hard place here, because you have so much money in this pot.
If John is your prototypical angle-shooting slimeball or otherwise an obnoxious presence at the table, then he got what he deserved.
If, however, it was an honest mistake, then I might turn up the QQ and offer to chop the pot with him (after I've dragged it) if I felt he wouldn't be further embarassed by it and that he would take it in the right spirit. Another option might be to buy him a drink. Or maybe just do nothing and let him get over it. Or maybe meet him privately later, away from the other players, and tell him you had QQ and apologize. The right thing to do here is really a matter of social etiquette and sensitivity to other people's feelings rather than of poker ethics. And you can't always smooth things over, no matter what you do. Often it is best to just keep your yap shut and go on to the next hand.
By the way, I WOULD do it to Abdul or David because they really ought to know not to show their cards on the turn. Besides, it might be the only pot I win off them all night. :)
Thanks for your response.
I wasn't saying that I wouldn't make the play on David or Abdul for kindness' sake, just that they wouldn't fall for it.
BTW, I didn't say anything to anyone after the hand. Although I did get a look from the only tough player in the game that indicated he at least realized the possibility that I was full of shit.
chris
As soon as you don't show your cards in this case, any good player will be sure of you being full of it. The normal knee-jerk response of an average player in your shoes would be to show the ace to the poor guy, reassuring him of his goot fold, no bad feelings, "hey, you saved a bet here, don't feel bad about your cowboys"... But you couldn't do that, could you, even if they preceived you as a nice guy at the table?
So what's the logical explanation?
---
With very few exceptions (like when I'm forced to show my hole cards) I don't reveal what I'm holding. Any uncalled bet that wins me a pot, the cards get mucked face down, whether I have the goods or not.
The game in question is a really good game. And I think I made a mistake on this hand by betting the river. If he called and I was found out, some players would think me a dirty bastard, others wouldn't think there was anything wrong with the play. But the players that did think me a criminal for trying it, might toughen up and play me more thoughtfully. And that I don't want. So it was a bad move, not for the ethics, but for the general atmosphere of the game.
chris
With very few exceptions (like when I'm forced to show my hole cards) I don't reveal what I'm holding. Any uncalled bet that wins me a pot, the cards get mucked face down, whether I have the goods or not.
The game in question is a really good game. And I think I made a mistake on this hand by betting the river. If he called and I was found out, some players would think me a dirty bastard, others wouldn't think there was anything wrong with the play. But the players that did think me a criminal for trying it, might toughen up and play me more thoughtfully. And that I don't want. So it was a bad move, not for the ethics, but b/c being caught might "toughen" up the game.
chris
9-18 last night. I have AKo in middle position with one limper who is always there. I raised, the button called, as did the SB. BB three bet it and the limper called two bets. I made it four and all called the cap.
Before I go on, let me explain that this game was pretty crazy, and that I know these players pretty well. The BB was kind of on tilt, and was three betting with anything (2-4o, 6-3s, etc). Utilizing some sort of twisted gear changing, the only hands he wasn't raising were his good hands. I also was pretty familiar with the button's play. I actually made a misread in thinking that I could run him off of the hand, but no biggie. I knew that I had a better hand than him because he would have made it three with any pocket pair and any paint. Oh well, he was in.
Flop came Q-8-6 rainbow. It was checked to me and I bet. The button, BB and limper called. The turn was another queen. I was getting ready to fire again when the BB bet out. The limper mucked and I had a problem. I could fold, but I was almost certain that the BB did not have a queen, but instead had an under-pair. He had pulled that same betting sequence a few times before, and had check raised his trips the times he had a real hand. If that was the case I had at least six outs (no flush draw on board) and up to 9 or 12 if pairing the board again would help me. I also knew that he would not fold right there if I raised because he seemed to take pleasure out of running down pre-flop betters. I just called.
The button proceeded to raise it. The BB mucked (the button did not raise pre-flop so his pleasure factor was reduced significantly). At this point, I put the button on a hand that either had me drawing dead (a queen) or on a draw. I thought the draw was more likely because the button did not three bet it before the flop as he was wont to do with some raggedy paint hands. He also did not raise on the flop with top pair which is another of his favorite plays. He was also almost all in and pretty drunk and chasing every out that he had. I put his most likely holding as a straight draw with even a gut-shot as a likely possibility. I called.
the river blanked off, I checked and called the button's bet. he showed a 9-5 suited (gut-shot) and I took down a pretty big pot with nut no pair. I think the BB may have hurt his hand because he hit the table pretty hard when he saw the showdown.
anyway, I was thinking about this hand and wondered if it was a good, logical read or whether I got lucky thatit worked out the way I saw it. I don't think the fourth bet on the flop added that much incentive for everyone else to chase since they were chasing evrything else all night anyway. After all, the sun's got to shine on a dog's butt sometimes.
Nice read. If you had raised the turn do you think both would call ? Only the blind ? The button ? If they both would fold, a better play may have been to raise the turn. This way worked out best, you picked up extra bets by letting the wild man on the button push his draw. Boy,you have really got to hang on in wild games with only a couple opponents ! Good hand
using my prior knowledge of the players in that hand I would have to think that they both would have called. The button was stuck and steaming and, like I said, the BB likes to cut down big hands with trash.
I give your play three "ptooeys" (on a scale of one to five, five being the worst).
When you are in a nutso game with a bunch of loonybirds then you don't want to descend to their level. Just sitting there and playing good cards will get the money. The only real adjustment you should make is to play more drawing hands. AKo is a drawing hand, and there's nothing wrong with pushing it as hard as you can before the flop (although it does heighten your variance). After the flop, though, you should back off the gas once the other player(s) come to life. Even if you were playing with the certifiably insane (and it appears you were) it was unlikely you held the best hand. When the board paired on the turn this was now a certainty, plus the added possibility that someone with a Q had you drawing dead. The BB made a BBB (big boo-boo) by folding; this alone justified your play.
On the other hand, if the players in your game play this horribly all the time, then maybe I would play the way you did. It's difficult to believe three other players continue to pour bets into the pot with absolutely nothing....
In a pot that's contested by relatively few players, AKo is not a drawing hand. By definition, a drawing hand needs to improve to win, and AKo often wins without improvement--more often when there are fewer players in. Thinking of AKo as a drawing hand in short pot is a bad idea, which is why you should usually three-bet preflop with AKo to get heads up, particularly against a bozo. Even against 3 opponents, AKo will win unimproved from time to time, especially when you dominate every opponent, although of course the more opponents you are up against, the closer to a drawing hand AKo becomes (although this also holds true with even a hand like TT.)
My way of outbozoing the bozos is to just push my edges when I think I have the best hand, and this often involves jamming good overcards or a nut flush draw, even heads up, when I think they have nothing or are also drawing. Although I'm normally heads up with a bozo when this happens, you can do it multi-way too if you have enough callers. A recent 20-40 hand online: bozo limps UTG, everyone folds, small blind calls, I raise with ATs in the big blind, bozo calls, small blind drops. Flop 9s2s9x, I bet out, bozo raises, and I'm certain that he doesn't have a 9 because he'd slowplay that. I figure that he's likely bluffing or has a deuce or a small pocket pair, but if I'm behind I have 15 outs and two chances to hit them, so I reraise, and he caps. (Cap on raises heads up online.) Turn and river blanks, I check-call twice, and he turns over J8s. Not only did I clearly have the best of it, but this bozo gives me action whenever I want it because he doesn't realize I pick and choose my spots. He's paid off my turn raises/river bets when I've held the nuts or close to the nuts with as little as bottom pair/no kicker because he presumably remembers the times I've played draws aggressively and thinks I'm trying to muscle him, not realizing that against him, I think in terms of value betting, not bluffing, because he's always going to pay off.
-Sean
You need to understand that reading hands is an art as well as a science. While all your logic seems reasonable, you do need to know the players extremely well to have the type of confidence that you show in the decisions that you made. In fact, even when this is the case, all that reading hands will do for you is to indicate that calling is correct, not that you must have the best hand. I suspect that you will lose this hand the majority of the time that you call, but calling is still correct because of the size of the pot -- a factor that you never mention.
So my opinion is that even though you "read" reasonably well, and made the correct decisions based on your read, you were still somewhat lucky to win the pot.
In fact, even when this is the case, all that reading hands will do for you is to indicate that calling is correct, not that you must have the best hand."
Mason, could you elaborate on this statement. It seems raising the turn would be a better option when the player behind is read to be weak but perhaps stronger than your AK (or on a draw) and the beter as a complete bluff. Considering the player behind may fold to 2bb but not to 1bb.
I think it's pretty obvious that if 2d raises the turn he gets called by the BB if button doesn't 3bet. The only reason he was able to win the pot was on the betting sequence.
It sounds like the BB put you on your hand (AK) but misread button's hand when he raised BB's turn bet. BB calls 2d down if 2d is the turn raiser. OTOH, BB reasons (or maybe he doesn't actually think it out but whatever) that the button "must" have a queen (or, at least, an over pair to his pair) b/c there is a caller between the bettor and the raiser.
Again, if 2d raises the turn, it's doubtful that Button 3bets (and an outside chance that Button folds) and, consequently, the BB calls 2d down b/c he has a conviction about 2d's hand.
chris
I regularly play in a 10-20 Hold-Em game with a 1/4 "kill" (if the pot exceeds $145, the winner of the pot must post $15 on the "kill" button, regardless of position, and the next round is played at the 15-30 level, though the blinds remain the normal $5 and $10). This means the first player to act must bet $15 to call, $30 to raise. This effectivly results in 3 blinds, with the kill often being located in odd positions (under the gun, as one of the blinds, etc). I have seen very little mention of the implications of the kill button in popular poker literature. Perhaps this is a reflection of the West-Coast bias of much of poker literature (I play on the East Coast at Foxwoods, perhaps this "kill" isn't used as often on the West Coast). I would appreciate any insights and strategy adjustments from some players who have actually played in kill games. (If you merely have some ideas about the kill button based on my description, please refrain from posting; I am looking for insights from experienced "kill" game players.) I have a few ideas of my own about the effect of the kill button on the action in a typical game, and I will post these once I see some responses.
I've never actually played in a kill game before, but I can imagine it to be somewhat like a forced straddle. Your strategy should be to isolate the kill by raising him with an above average hand if he's the only one in so far, or fold if you just can't compete.
This may seem obvious, but you're playing against the same people here. If you think you can beat the players regularly, then adding more money into the equation shouldn't change anything. In fact, if it tightens the table up, that can only help you in your steal attempts when the opportunity arrises.
As far as becoming the kill, it might be beneficial to NOT win a hand when winning it forces $15 out of your stack at a bad time(i.e. you're on the button and you can steal the blinds worth $15, netting you 0 if you steal and costing you money if someone calls and you lose). Though I may be wrong strategically on this point. As I said, I've never played a kill game before.
Dan
I generally tighten up my starters, as a loss or win on the kill pot more greatly effects your variance for the session. Steals become more difficult, and you should take care to notice other players habit of either loosening or tightning pre/postflop and play them accordingly. Some only play these games because they like the bigger action but can't afford the kill level all the time. These type players can usually find a reason to enter the killed pot 3 out of 4 times. IMHO
PS: My kill experience is mostly 4/8/8 and 6/12 with 1/2 or full kill. I would be interested in comments for bigger games.
Here's a little story. I think it will help explain why kill games can be quite good. The game was 4-8 HE at the Flamingo Hilton Laughlin. The kill works a bit differently here. Instead of occurring the hand after someone wins a large pot, the kill occurs the hand after a player wins consecutive pots. Anyways, the kill pots play at an 8-16 limit there. This one older gentleman wins his second straight pot so this hand is played with a kill. He is under the gun with KJ off. The flop is K J 4 rainbow. He puts in his $4 bet, forgetting about the kill pot. The dealer informs him that the bet is $8. So what does he do? He takes his bet back and checks the hand down!!! This is an extreme example but a kill game can often turn many of your opponents into the weak/tight players that you can easily run over.
That Laughlin crowd is a real laugh riot, aren't they? I was on a short golf vacation last winter there (comp'd) and was in a 3-6 game at the Edgewater with one $1 blind. Five limpers in for the buck, so just for fun, I raised $1 as the BB with AK, just trying to build a small pot a 1/2 hour before I had to leave for the airport. Three of them folded!!! and they all gave me dirty looks for coming in and trying to run over their game. Nice little town with some decent, reasonably priced golf,but not much for poker action, IMO.
I happen to play in the same game with you. The only thing I will say at this point is that it does add some interesting twists to the game. I think anything that makes the game more complex and less easy to "cookbook" is good for the players who can really play. Yes there are strategic basic differences but there are also more special situations that arise. Since the group of players in this game is so many of the same faces all the time, knowing your players very important. If you can figure out who I am, perhaps we can chat about it sometime, BUT NOT AT THE TABLE. I believe that discussing strategy at the table is generally VERY BAD FOR THE GAME. Especially in this case since it is such an inbred group of players. When you discuss hands or strategy at the table it has the effect of making everyone take their game more seriously. The best thing I can say at this point is that the more you think about it, the more you may see. Certain players, even hard-core regulars, don't like the kill. I think it has its pluses and minuses, but again, anything that adds complexity and special situations is often good for the advanced player.
If you play in the same game with me, then you know that, contrary to many posters' intitial suspicions, the kill does not tighten the game but rather makes it looser, since few loose players are willing to surrender their $15 so easily, and often call a raise, commiting $30 to such worthless hands as J7o, Q3o and much worse. This fact, however, does not prevent would-be stealers from taking a shot at the (3) blinds, especially when the kill is in late position. By the way, if you play in the 10-20 1/4 kill game at Foxwoods then I surely know you, since as you mention in your post, it is a fairly "inbred" group. LOL. Give me a bit more info and i might be able to figure out who you are. I can think of only one "M" that has any skill in that game...let me know if my suspicions of your identity are correct.
The game is MUCH looser when the pot is killed. Your game should not be altered much by the presence of a kill.
Played a little too long today, and remember only the key part of the hand. In a typical 6-12 game, I called from small blind with 7h8h, and all together there was 5 small bets in the unraised pot.
Flop: 5-9-A, rainbow with one heart.
One very aggressive guy bet who know what he is doing, and one lady who is reasonable player called, so did I.
Turn: 10 of the 4th suit
The guy bet and the lady raised. I called time. Here I knew both of them had a good made hand, especially the lady. The guy tended to slow down when played against the lady and me after the flop if he had nothing or on a draw. I knew my hand would be good even I hit the high end of the str8, and I was very likely to get at least 2 bets from them each on the river if I hit. However, I was in danger of being in the middle of a raising war which was the main thing I was worried about at that moment. I mucked the hand. The result is irrelevent. This is the 2nd time I am in such situation lately. Did I do the right thing? Your advice is appreciated.
regards,
jikun
if you had a four straight and a four flush you would want to play on.
If you KNOW that it's going to be capped on the turn, there will be 12 big bets in the pot, and you have to call 4. So you're only getting 3-1, and should fold.
If there is a bet and a raise only, there will be 8 big bets, and you have to call 2. Now it's 4-1, and close. If you knew you were going to get two calls on the river if you make your hand, you should call.
All-in all, even a slight risk of the raising war is enough to fold this hand. Even if it's not raised again the call is marginal.
I respect Ray Zee's analysis.
I believe that you made the right decision. I however would have mucked on the flop. You needed runner, runner to make your hand. And some hands are not worth calling a bet to see another card.
I'll preface this with the statement that I'm assuming your read of the players is correct. I think you should call, even with the chance of the raising war.
There are 14 SB's in the pot when the action gets to you on the turn. Calling odds are 14:4 or 3.5:1, if he folds, which in itself isn't enough. If aggressive guy (AG) calls, then you're getting exactly 4:1, you'll just break even. If he raises, then your odds are 20:6, which is 3.33:1.
Your implied odds, however, allow you to continue with this hand. If you can get 2 bets from each of them on the river, then here are your odds: If AG folds the turn, you're getting 22:4, 5.5:1. If AG calls (most likely), you're getting 24:4, 6:1. If AG reraises the turn, you're getting 28:6, which is 4.67:1. All of these odds tell you to call. I ignored the possibility that she would rereraise, the chance of which is probably negligible.
Call.
Bill
Pretty optimistic of you to think you're going to get 2 bets from each player when playing UTG. Are you suggesting a check-raise on the river? You believe both of them will pay off a checkraise when a straight draw comes in on the river after the opponent calls four bets cold on a rainbow board?
I'd be happy to get 2 extra bets on the river in this situation.
I based my odds on jikun's read of the players. Jikun said it was very likely to get 2 bets each off each player on the river. In this case, a call is correct. However, I would have to be sure that I could checkraise the river, especially since I just called time, and it would seem obvious that I was on a straight draw. Like I said, it all depends on the opponents, and how aware they are.
Bill
I think a good fold on the turn, due to the fact there could be another raise, and you already are not getting good odds (only 4-1) and there's no guarantee of enough bets on the river if you make your hand.
Isn't the call on the flop sort of marginal for a gutshot, and two backdoor draws, neither backdoor to the nuts?
Even if you can only get 1 bet out of each player on the end, then you should call. You're 5:1 if he just calls on the turn and 4:1 if he raises the turn (not likely, since jikun says the guy slows down when the woman is in the pot).
BTW, I agree that the flop call was at best marginal. The backdoor draws just don't justify the call without at least some overcards to play with.
Bill
There is ALREADY a bet and a raise on the turn. As you say, at this point the call is marginal. So any chance of a re-raise makes a fold the best play.
I had 7 to 1 current pot odds to call, and about 10 to 1 to make the str8 which would be the nuts. I think my calling on the flop should be justified with 2 betting round left, and since the hand is not easy to read, it has potential to make profit if I hit it right on the turn. I think the calling has some positive expectation rather than being very marginal. thank you all for your advice.
regards,
jikun
$15/30 at HP. UTG, steady agressive player raises. Loose, agressive (LA) calls. I'm in mid position with pocket Kings. I raise. New Player (NP) cold calls three bets from cutoff position. UTG caps and we all call with LA going all in.
Flop - 3s 4s 10c
UTG bets, I raise, NP makes it three bets, UTG and I call.
Turn - Jd
UTG checks, I check, NP bets, UTG raises.
What's the play? I'll post rest of hand tomorrow.
Looks pretty ugly. It sure seems like they don't want callers (esp. UTG). If UTG had JJ wouldn't he bet out on the turn, "knowing" NP will raise. It seems like UTG has AA. (The check-raise onthe turn screams out that he's trying to protect his hand so maybe QQ or the other KK) NP could have TT or JJ. (he cold called 3 sb's preflop, knowing there'd be a cap (or, at least, a big possibility from UTG or you.)
AK of spades doesn't seem very likely as he's opted to bet the turn instead of taking a free card from two players that have announced big hands. It sure seems like you're beat. In this sequence I'd say fold, but if I was in the hand myself I probably wouldn't have stopped betting or raising until an A fell.
I can't see how you check the turn? I can't surmise what your opponents think you have and you haven't played the hand very aggressively, so it sounds like a guessing game.
chris
It seems to me like you are getting pushed around because you are not playing the hand aggressively enough. On the turn, I would have bet. It does seem pretty likely that someone has pocket aces, but they could just as easily have pocket queens.
Fold. UTG has a set of jacks. This is easier if you have the Ks. My guess is that NP has QQ.
Let's say you don't have the Ks and now suspect the check-raiser might have AsKs because this is a more likely hand for him to cap with preflop and because the turn gave him 3 more outs. This would give him 15 outs against KK or a set and 17 outs against QQ, a bit better than break-even if there's a measurable chance that he can get both of you to drop, especially by knocking you off here and the queens off on the river.
Also, the absence of the Ks in your hand creates an array of two hands you can beat that you didn't have before unless someone was bluffing. So what's the probability of being up against AKs and QQ instead of AA-JJ, AA-TT, JJ-TT (both beat you) or AA-QQ, QQ-JJ, QQ-TT (one beats you)?
I don't know (and don't have time to do it), but being up against two better hands isn't likely because no one capped on the flop and the pot was big. Also, if the initial bettor had a big pair, why wouldn't he have capped the flop? Perhaps he wanted to see if the flush came in, but this doesn't make much sense against only two opponents. Finally, if you assume that the initial bettor is more likely to cap with AA or AKs than QQ, JJ or TT, and that your other opponent would have capped it himself with AA, this large pot is definitely worth staying with even if you risk getting reraised.
What's the play?
I think you should have considered that NP might have Js10S, As10s or AsJs. My guess would be AsJs and he bet for value on the turn when it was checked to him.
I don't think that UTG has a set because he wouldn't have risked a free card on the turn. I think UTG has QQ and just called the flop to see what the turn would bring.
I would call in this spot and pay off on the end unless a spade hit.
I SAY RE RAISE !!!
HI again think about that he can get a Ace Straight so maybe i should fold
Well, you've got a handful of answers, and they advocate different things, mostly because they've read each player for different hands.
Any of them may be right, but I don't know who. It depends upon your read of the players.
When you say NP (new player), I take it you mean that they are new to the table, and you have no read on them yet. As such, if they were the only factor, you should call them down, as they might have a hand like QQ, AsTs, AsJs, KsQs, or even some crap like AT no draw (some players really are that bad, right?).
You describe the other player as stead aggressive. This means you know them. Well, what hands could they possibly hold that they might play in this manner. In addition to the hands that you can beat, clearly they might have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or TT. You need to factor in the chances of their holding each of these hands, as well as any other hands they could hold, and figure out how often you're going to win. Then figure out how much it may cost you to see the river, and how much you'll win at the river if you win. Does it look profitable to call? If so, do so.
An important thing to do, preferably as soon as UTG check-raises, is to look at NP. Does he look like he's going to call or reraise? This may give you a huge clue as to the probably cost of seeing the river here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
NJP,
I'm pretty sure you have UTG beat . . . if he had aces, I think he would have capped the flop. He would have to do everything he could to get people to fold if he has A-A. With QQ, KK, AK suited, or A-K, he could still fold if the turn didn't help (or hurt, with an overcard and bet).
I think UTG has QQ. He could have pocket jacks, but I don't see him capping the flop w/ JJ. Could have pocket tens, but I think he would check-raise the flop, not bet out. (figures either you or NG will bet on flop if UTG checks).
When you show weakness on turn, UTG figures your're on a big spade draw (like As-10s), and tries to get you out when NG bets.
NG is your only big threat. I have to put NG on a pocket pair of tens or jacks. The only other hand he could have (unless he's a maniac) is 10-J suited. If he does have 2 top pair, you still have three 3s, three 4s, and two cowboys in the deck to take the cheese.
I don't think NG has a nut straight or nut flush draw (or worse), since there is no reason for him to bet the turn. (No reason to try to get a free card, and no chance you and UTG will fold with NG's bet on turn).
moral of story? I think sufficient pot odds to justify a call (I wouldn't make it 3 bets). Oh, yeah, pray for a cattle-roper on the river.
It would have been easier if you had capped the flop. However: I don't think NP plays like this without TT or AA ! UTG and you have showed enough preflop and flop aggression to not get three bet on the flop and lead into on the turn unless the stranger has a hand or he's a bold idiot.. BB could have KK,QQ, or JJ. Not AA, he would have capped preflop and popped the flop again. You may now be beat in two places. If you want to go for a ride and can go for single bets OK, but now you have to fold ! Not because of the double bet but because of NP. Or prey for a K if the pot odds, implied odds and stars line up. Your hoping to be against QQ because,,, that's all you can beat.
But?!?! What do I know about 15/30 ? ZIIP !
Seriously, I think the best advise you've gotten is to look at the NP when BB raises to see how he likes it, but it still doesn't tell you AA or TT.
Mason, NOW I see what you mean about your read only allowing you to call ! I also see why/how good players sometimes fold winners.
Here's the rest of the hand. I folded on the turn. My thinking was that UTG capped pre flopped and checked raised on turn when J hit. I put him on either AA or a set of J's. NP called three bets cold pre flop and then reraised on flop. I put him on a set.
River was a Q. UTG showed KK and NP showed J 4 spades!He was on a spade draw and made a pair of Jacks on the turn. I misread both players.
I'm in my typical 3-6 game last night at HG. But this one turns a-typical. There are only a couple familiar faces. One player plays and raises every single hand before the flop. And he orders two beers at a time every 15 minutes. He was in seat 2 and I'm in seat 8. After a little while I requested seat 3 from the dealer when it became available. I figured this was a good opportunity to try and isolate the moron. He had 2 friends at the table with him and they were in seat 9 and 1. Whenever he would draw out on someone he would tell his friends "It takes cajones". Everyone reading this message knows it takes SH*T for brains. I make it to seat 3 and am dealt 8s8h. On his raise I re-raise. Everyone folds -- perfect. The flop comes AKJ all hearts. Well I'm calling to the river. He bets to the river. Turn is blank and river is 3h. He turns over 93o. I take down 60 pot. I keep doing this with any two decent cards, but then seat 6 starts re-raising me. He obviously saw what I was doing and decided to play ball.
I'm not sure what questions I should have, but comments would be appreciated. My strategy was to play considerably looser. But when seat 6 came into the picture I had to tighten back up a bit, because he wasn't 3 betting with any two cards. The game sort of became 2 handed between me and seat 6 with seat 2 putting in extra money all the time and everyone else just sitting there with aggrevated looks on their faces.
-Michael
I think you did quite well. Intelligently adjusting your play as the game changes is one of the differences between fish and fishermen. As long as you were continuing to play profitably, you were on the right track.
I was in a $3-6 game the other night with a player two seats to my right that habitually raised if it was folded around to him when he was on or just off the button.
I had previously folded big blinds to this tactic (Hands like 83off - I'm not going to invest in trash), but decide later on to play back at him next time he makes this "move".
Background: I have been showing down "premimum" hands when in the BB and SB, Just calling with hands like AK, JJ, AQ sooted, etc, Raising with AA, KK, AKs. So He may think he has a "read" on me. ;=}
So, here's the "play":
I'm in the BB with "tt" = Total Trash ;=} I've got nothing not even sooted! It's folded around to Mr. Blind Steal and he raises. SB folds and I smooth call (remember, he has seen me smooth call a raise from the BB with "big" cards).
The Flop: A28 rainbow
He checks and now I gun in a bet! He immediately tosses his hand into the muck...DING, Bring It!
I guess this is what Mike Caro calls "calling more when a habitual bluffer raises" plus a counter steal when the "scare card" Ace hit the flop. I'm sure he put me on AQ or Ace something sooted...heh.
I wonder if I should have shown my "counter steal bluff" to the table to entice bluffing or induce tilt in Mr. Blind Steal...?
Comments?
How could he have checked to you on the flop if you were in the blind?
You are correct, I bet and he folded
How did he check before you did?
Don't even think of showing this bluff, unless you intend to never bluff again that night. You want to be able to make this guy fold in these spots, as you'll have a hand that wants a fold much more often than a hand that wants a call, right? So, continue to let him think you're holding monsters as long as possible. Eventually he'll get suspicious and call you. When he does and you lose, there's your advertising. But, the money you spent on advertising has already been paid for by previous winning bluffs.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
LOL Greg, we posted the same question at the same time.
>Eventually he'll get suspicious and call you. When he >does and you lose, there's your advertising.
Even if you win, if you have to show your hand.
Nice play.
I like to check raise in this spot. You win one extra bet, plus the check raise is much more intimidating than betting out on the flop.
Don't show this bluff unless you want to have been getting to much respect on your raises. Other than that this is a very routine play in poker specially NL.
Rounder,
Does this play work the same way if you raise preflop in the blind? Is the stealer likely to fold there or wait to see the flop?
Thanks.
Jon I. (just dropping in)
Jon it can work better depending on how you read the caller and how he reads you.
It is really a situational play. Like most of poker.
Rounder,
I agree, I was "playing the situation" having shown down big hands for a couple of hours. I felt that the "blind stealer" had figured he "had a read" on me when I smooth called a raise from the blinds (by not raising until the flop I was representing a "big" card hand). I felt he was smart enough to see through a re-raise pre flop and call or raise me if he had good cards. When the ace flopped I bet with every intention of folding if he played back....But,I knew he was capable of folding even a "good" hand (medium pair, etc.) if he didn't hit the flop and thought I had (heh), so my play was correct for the situation. Actually I think against this player this was the better play than the pre-flop "re-steal raise".
Btw...The original post was incorrect on the post flop betting sequence, chalk it up to old age...the first thing to go is your memory, I think? ;=}
Actually the legs are the 1st to go.
:)
My take on the whole "Blind Stealer" thing is this. As like mentioned in Holdem Poker for Advanced players, even if you call 50% of the time heads up, you will show an automatic loss (In the long run) because you will still lose half of the hands. So here is what I do. First of all its important to note what rounder said about reading your players first. Some blind stealers are very stubborn and will come right back over the top of you if you raise them, some will muck immediatley, some will call you all the way.. So.. heres what I do.
If im on the BB, and its just me and the blind stealer, I will re-raise him with anything that has a chance to win. Whether it be A-x through J-x, or two suited cards, or med.-high connectors, any pair,.. pretty much anything that isnt absolute garbage. This lets him know that you arent going to let him pick up dead money everytime he is on the button and will make him think twice before bluffing you. This will also almost always give you a free card on the turn if the flop totally misses you. Let me emphasize what rounder said though. Really pay attention to everyone at the table. Poker is a game of adjustments. However that bit of information should give you a foundation of how to counter the blind stealing plays. Its up to you to adjust from there!
Good Luck!
-Smaegol
My take on the whole "Blind Stealer" thing is this. As like mentioned in Holdem Poker for Advanced players, even if you call 50% of the time heads up, you will show an automatic loss (In the long run) because you will still lose half of the hands.
This statement is a bit ambiguous; I had to reread the section in HPFAP to figure out what you were getting at. If anyone was confused by the above, Smaegol is saying that even if you will show a loss because you've folded the other 50% of your blinds, not because you'll lose half of the hands you call with. In other words, you need to defend your blind liberally against a blind stealer, as much as 70-80% of the time depending on their raising standards.
If im on the BB, and its just me and the blind stealer, I will re-raise him with anything that has a chance to win. Whether it be A-x through J-x, or two suited cards, or med.-high connectors, any pair,.. pretty much anything that isnt absolute garbage.
The lower ranges of Qx-Jx are pretty close to absolute garbage; forget the high-card factor. Your suggestion of frequent reraising isn't bad, but it will usually only work against chronic stealers who go into weak mode when you reraise. A competent opponent will pick up pretty quickly on what you're doing.
This will also almost always give you a free card on the turn if the flop totally misses you.
You always check when the flop misses you? When I 3-bet out of the blinds, I tend to bet out on the flop regardless of what hits because a re-raise then check looks pretty weird, unless you re-raise then check-raise very often? I'd usually rather just call and check-raise, unless my hand is reasonably strong.
I do reraise somewhat liberally out of the big blind against a chronic stealer, with most pairs, big aces, big suited aces and big suited connectors (while the suitedness might seem like a tiny factor heads up because you'll only make a flush 3% of a time, you can play flush draws pretty aggressively because your opponent might fold and you might have pair outs.)
-Sean
Ahh.. Some very good points Sean. I agree with all of them
-Smaegol
I agree with the Qx Jx comments. In this situation I'd prefer to call or raise with a 75 vs the paint small as the chances of it being dominated are less.
Dominated defined as your big card being the other guys small card. IE: KJ vs J3. The J3 is severly dominated.
This hand has haunted me for a few months, mostly because I not only believe I played it wrong, but I also ruined my image, and then my game went completely to hell.
AC 10-20 game, probably sitting at the wrong table, everyone knows each other for decades...strong players, much different than AC was 5 years ago.
I am two left of the blinds, KTs, I call, player next to me then calls, one right of the button raises (strong player), everyone else but me and the original player folds; 3 taking the flop.
Flop AKx offsuit. I check. Then the rest check. Hm? Why didn't he bet???
Turn is a low blank. No flush or straight draws. What am I to do now?
I will fill in the what I did and what happened later.
thanks in advance.
Mark
Playing KT from early position is asking for trouble.
trap hand my friend>
This is the reason I don't play KT - if you do p;lay it out of position you gotta play it strongly. You come out shooting if you get raised muck if not you are in with a chance.
It depends on what you think the pre-flop raiser would have raise with. If he would have raised with pocket 9's, then you may have the best hand. If he only would have raise with a AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, or KQs then it's not so good for you.
If I thought this was a tight-agressive player, who did not think of me as much of a bluffer, then I would bet the turn. He might even lay down KQ. As far as he knows, you were going for a check-raise with an A.
If he is more loose agressive, then its more likely that he will raise you with a weaker hand, which puts you in a difficult place. In this case, I would check and call to the end hoping to induce a bluff. But I would only do this if I thought we was prone to bluff to much.
I suppose I should put in an official vote for what to do rather than be wishy-washy by giving two alternatives. So my vote is to bet, and call to the end if raised. The reason for calling to the end is that the turn card was not scary, so he may suspect you of a bluff, and so he plays back at you.
Steve
As others here have pointed out, calling up front with KT, suited or not, is often asking for trouble, especially in a tough game. From your comments, I suspect that you bet the turn, got cracked, made a crying call, caught your kicker on the river, and lost another bet or two to trips.
Here is how I would read the situation. If the button is a strong player, and he has raised with QQ, for example, I would think he would try to win the pot right now with a bet on the flop, trying to make a weak A or K lay it down. If on the other hand he had AK, AA, or KK, he might have tried to slowplay and lure someone in on the turn. I'm not sure this action would meet all the criteria of HFAP21 for slowplaying, but it's certainly possible. I hate to turn into a calling station, but that's the position in which you often find yourself after playing KT out of position and flopping a K. I would check again on the turn, and call him down to the river, assuming it's only the two of you left, and not expect to win the pot more than 20% of the time. Just my guess, though.
Dunc,
Since you kinda hit the nail on the head, I thought I'd give the answer here:
The guy had QQ, I kept checking, fearing a check raise, so did the guy to my left, who had K9. The river brought a Q, we both called and lost.
This hand was a disaster in every way, only salvation was I lost less than I might have (!?):
1. My cards had been awful for 2 hours, I never should have played the KTs, everyone is right about that one, it was a tough game.
2. I think I should have bet the flop or the turn at least when everyone checked...although the winner told me later, I believe him, that unless the guy to my left raised, he would have called me to the river.
Thanks all,
Mark
You said you think you played this hand wrong. I'm not sure what you're referring to, or how the rest of the hand played out but...
First mistakes can be the most expensive. Here, it is playing KTs early, in a tough game, ahead of strong players. Therefore, everything that happens afterward is unimportant.
I hate KT offsuit. I hate it more in lousy position. In your hand, you had no way to clarify your standing (betting the flop wouldn't really have done it). You have to push this hand hard or drop it. I wouldn't put my head in the blender in the first place.
I wouldn't play this hand in early position, but once you're in the pot, your best play is to probably take a stab at the pot on the flop and slow down if you get called (check and fold on the turn unless you improve)or muck if you get raised on the flop. It will have only cost you 1.5 BB to try and win a small pot. If you check and call, you're putting yourself in an uncomfortable position.
I agree with Steve . . . Bet on flop. If called, check and fold on turn (if he bets). If he doesn't bet on turn, check it down. This hand after the flop, w/ lousy position, can't handle any action from a good player . . .
What seperates winners from losers is the ability to stay out or trouble hands when out of position.
KT is a trouble hand with a capital, T being bb he is out of position worst of both worlds.
In poker, specially tournament poker, you have to exploit your edges ever little edge should be used to the fullest. The latter in the tournament the bigger the edges get.
Mark,
I agree with the others about playing KT preflop, it is a tough hand to play.
Once in, against strong players I will sometimes check call to induce bluffs. In fact as it was your check call on the turn worked beatifully. You protected yourself from a raise from a better hand and got the worse hand to bet anyway. I think you got maximum value on the turn.
There were only five outs against you and you got him to bet the turn.
It was unfortunate that one of the five cards came.
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Hello everyone, I need everyone to help me break down a situation from a tactical point of view. Here is a hand I played today in a local 5-10 game. I think arguments can be made that I played the pre-flop both correct and incorrect. but here goes..
Ok, I was on the button. UTG calls, next seat Raises. Two calls for a total of 3 people in the hand when it gets to me. I have 78d. I call, but here is why. I know the guy in the BB defends his blind no matter what the cost. I know he will call. With me calling there will be a total of 5 players in the hand. Thats why I made the call. (Please let me know if you think that was correct thinking).
The flop comes J-Q-K of Diamonds! Ive made a pat flush. Pre-flop raiser bets, next seat calls, I raise (another questionable call.. I just gave them more pot-odds to draw... but..they probably would anyway.. get the money in while I have an advantage). There were 2 drops. Now its just me and two others. River brings a blank, all check to me. I bet, 1 drops, preflop raiser calls. River brings a 10 of hearts. Perfect, I know he probably made his straight. I bet, he raised, I popped him back. I won a big pot.
There were a few things to consider during this hand,and when it was done with, I felt confident that I made the right decisions. Did I?
I felt my pre-flop call was ok. I knew the BB would call for 5 way action and had the suited connector and position. My other big decision was that raise after the flop. In a 5-10 game, my train of thought was that if any of those guys had a medium-high diamond, they were in to the end anyways.. shovel in the money!
All analysis is encouraged!
Thanks!, Smaegol
Smaegol:
I think calling the raise is wrong here, regardless of how weak your competition is. If you had 4 limpers in a loose passive game then a call would be ok to see the flop. But if you plan on investing 2 (or more, what if one of the blinds reraises?) bets on medium connectors I think it's -EV over the long term without a doubt.
You're right, another diamond or maybe even another K,Q, or J and you're beat and thinking "What was I doing calling 2 bets cold with 78s?".
Results based analysis - it's amazing what can be justified.
But what do I know?
Packerfn1
Be the flop... See the flop... (for one bet) You're not being the flop, Danny.
Being on the button gives you more flexibility with your preflop calls. If you knew you would have at least five customers, I think the call was OK. If the blinds are going to fold or reraise then it's marginal, but that's why you study the players. I'm sure many others may disagree. They might not even call with JTs and only five. The flop was perfect as well as the play afterward. If the flop had been different (like giving you the ignorent end of a str8 draw )your postflop playing decisions would have been much more difficult.
previous thread (forgot who posted it)
Wondering what people thought about the play discussed in Roy Cooke's Jan. 25 Card Player Column ... where he called two raises cold from the small blind with 87s.
He got lucky and won a huge pot, but it seems to me that in the long run this play has got to be bad.
How many of you would have payed to play this hand? I don't think I would. Res:
I am basing my observations on the fact that suited connectors do very well (win more than their fair share) in multiway unraised pots (where they very probably don't compete against an overpair) to the extent that they can (and should) raise the limpers. However, these cute little creatures do much worse when against the dreaded overpair, so much worse that they must rely on implied odds (which translates to many fish in the pool) if they plan to swim against the stream at all. If so, they *need* to get in as cheap as possible. BTW, I believe this is true for ALL implied odds preflop situations, I don't buy raising 44 after limpers to tie suckers to an overloaded pot that some people recommend.
Sim no.1:
To clarify, I ran a sim with 87s on the button calling behind limpers and six or more players seeing the flop. The field was loose and a couple players were very passive and did not raise with a pocket pair other than AA, so there was some chance that 87s would run against an overpair, but not much. Suited connectors did quite good after 100000 hands, 87s won 17.6% of the hands and earned $6.65 per hand. Note that the win rate is greater than 1/6 here, which means that 87s earned money preflop as well as postflop against five opponents.
Sim no.2:
Compare this to the 13.8% win rate and $4.14 per hand earn when I equipped one of the passive limpers with KK. 87s still did good, but only because the flop was cheap (as KK didn't raise) and there were fish keeping company in the pot, paying off when the flop hit good. In this case, 87s clearly lost money *preflop* (did not win it's fair share), but made up for it later on account of the fish paying off.
Sim no.3:
The third sim I did was exactly the same situation, but I put KK into the hands of a more aggressive profile, who dared to raise with it and 87s called all raises, along with five other optimists. The win rate remained about the same at 13.3% but the connectors *lost* money this time, about $0.31 per hand. It's obvious they lost the edge preflop. They could still come out ahead, but they'd need a family pot. Suited connectors need fish for the implied odds, or a good price.
Now the lost edge against KK can be obviously attributed to the inability of the suited connectors to win with one or two pair. Yes, I do think this makes much of a difference, especially if the game is aggressive.
I think it's pretty close one way or the other. If you felt you had a good handle on the game and the players, I would probably get involved, if for no other reason than to occasionally vary your play. If you do hit the flop hard, as in this case, you will give your opponents some cause for concern, especially if your table image is that of a 'rock'. In fact, I recall a hand that I posted here several months ago where I actually raised myself with 87d on the button with 8 callers just to throw in a curve. Ended up catching a runner-runner flush after 'earning' a free card because of my pre-flop raise and took down a big one. If you start calling up front with this type of hand in a ram-and-jam game, though, look out.
You have missed an important detail from the hand. On the flop, BB bet, UTG just called, the pre-flop raiser FOLDED, you raised and faced two calls. Airball on the turn, ten on the river. UTG likely was holding the Ad but we'll never know. I would certainly have called on the button with the 87d to a single raise as there had been very few pre-flop three bets, the play had been unussually tight for a few rounds, and you had position. I would raise the flop, bet the turn, and bet the river as you did. Well played as were most of your other hands. Why did you leave the game? You were just beginning to exert some control. spitball
Preflop, I counted an extra opponent (UTG, raiser, 2 callers, big blind = 5 opponents). You're getting a bit more than 5:1 with minimal risk of a reraise, and if the small blind calls you're getting 6:1. This is not a call I'd typically make, even with position, but against opponents who play very poorly after the flop, I think it's ok to make some loose calls preflop as long as you play well postflop. (This often means folding second or bottom pair on the flop if it doesn't look favorable.) When I say loose calls, I mean suited connectors and the like, not dominated offsuit hands like KJo and even KQo.
In this particular hand, after you've shown strength on the flop (versus a preflop raiser) and bet the turn, you get check-raised on the river and your reraise is paid off by someone who can't even beat a small flush?? Perhaps your opponent didn't think you could have a flush because you raised the flop, and "obviously" if you flopped a flush you would slowplay until the turn, because that's what he would do. If everyone plays like that, I think it's ok to make those loose calls preflop, as long as they're not too expensive.
-Sean
I agree with Dunc here. What would have done had a 4d fallen on the turn?
In isolation your play may have been marginally profitable. The problem I have with it is that you are playing against a pack of numbnuts; you don't NEED to step out like this to beat them. Playing this sort of hand can only be justified by your position (excellent) and your ability to outplay your opponents after the flop (given). The final determinant, I suppose, would be bankroll size. If you are playing with a comfortable BR then you can get away with plays like this. If you aren't then it could be a way to get yourself broke against inferior opposition.
Hi,
I've been playing 2-4 in some pretty loose passive games. It seems that everyone wants to see the flop (not to mention the turn and the river...) Raises serve at least two functions: (1) to get more money in the pot and (2) to get drawing hands to fold.
If a preflop raise serves only to get more money in the pot, how much should I be raising preflop against these players who seem to call any number of preflop bets/raises "just to play"?
I feel fine raising with hands like big pairs, where I am clearly ahead. But with hands like AKs, where I feel I should raise, I frequently seem to miss the flop and get drawn out on by people pairing 38o on the river etc. Maybe I just haven't learned to play overcards properly yet, but it seems these hands are not as good against 5 or more people who will sit there and call my bets.
Are these unpaired big cards worth raising preflop in loose-passive games?
Thanks,
Marc
Probably not. In games like this there are 2 ways to go. Play better hands and raise at every opportunity and out play them after the flop or just call and out play them afrer the flop. Just make sure you are playing better cards then they do.
You definitely must raise with AKs. If someone else raises before it gets to you, go ahead and reraise. However, if the flop is not to your liking, get out of there before the expensive streets (turn and river)because you'll get called and lose 2 BB for no reason. When you do win a hand, it should be a nice sized pot and it will more than compensate for all the flops you do miss or all the times you get outdrawn.
You should be raising constantly with the biggest unsuited cards (AKs, AQs, AJs, KQs) unless you have good reason to believe you don't have the best hand. You don't care if it just builds the pot because your hand is so strong that not raising gives up too much value. Raise liberally with hands just below thse ATs, KJs) whenever there's a reasonable chance your hand is best (most of the time). You can occasionally raise with QJs, JTs and QTs when you've got position on everyone and other factors are favorable, but it's hardly mandatory. Raising in these games does little more than build the pot, so when you're not ahead of everyone else raising is often a mistake. On the other hand, if you've been showing big cards and big pairs after your raises, and a loose raiser makes it two to go and you suspect something like 66 or A8, 3-betting with like QJs would be appropriate (against a real maniac who might keep playing back at you you want something stronger).
In a passive game, be much more inclined to raise with all of these hands than you are to call two bets cold with them. If a player that limped earlier with AQ now raises and you have AQs, generally fold unless you suspect something or many players are in the pot.
Post flop play can be little tricky but telling the good flops from the bad ones is pretty easy. If they typically check to the raiser after the flop, be happy to take a 4-card flop if you miss. Ideally, this will encourage them to bet into you and allow you to raise and isolate with stronger top pair and overpair hands.
If you have only overcards and there's a bet in front of you, whether you see the turn is a function of how many players are behind you and how unfriendly the board looks (paired, suited or coordinated). With 10 or more bets in the pot, however, you virtually never want to fold for one bet unless the board is downright scary, there's a good chance you'll be raised (2 or 3 people have yet to act), or you think that one pair won't win. And consider the obvious: drawing to AQ with 2 opponents and a T62 rainbow flop is a much, much better than drawing to KJ against 3 opponents with a 764 2-suited flop.
thanks!
I raised in early position with AA. A rock (not too tough) re-raised, the BB called and I called.
The flop was AKQ. BB checked, I bet, Rock called, BB folded.
The turn was J. I bet, Rock raised. I KNOW he has a set (KK,QQ) and doesn't have a ten in his hand. I make it 3 bets, he calls.
The river was an A. I bet out trying to get 3 bets. I know he's full. He thinks of raising but just calls.
Obviously, a Q or J would have been a better card than an Ace. My question is, did I get greedy going for 3 bets? If I check, he CAN'T check his full house and I can check raise. But it would also be pathetic if he DID check, and I don't gain at least one bet with quads. What happened is he became concerned about a straight on the turn and AQ,AK,AJ, on the river. How bad (if at all) did I play this? Also, what about check raising the flop? This may have disguised my hand a bit more, in addition to gaining a small bet.
He had KK.
You missed a pre-flop bet.
With one more player, I definitely cap. While it's true I could have gained 2 more small bets pre-flop, this would have surely given away my hand. (The BB knows that I know the other player is a rock and the rock knows this too). I thought it best to try and gain bets on later streets, hoping the BB would flop a hand he would now be tied to such as AK,KQ,JJ, etc. If he flops a draw that goes on to beat me, I couldn't have prevented it anyway. As it turns out, this would have been Ok also, since my draw figures to beat out all others anyway.
While I think you should usually re-raise with AA, in heads up or 3-way pots against solid players, I don't think it's automatic.
Tony A:
I raised in early position with AA. A rock (not too tough) re-raised, the BB called and I called.
You should have reraised before the flop. AA should almost always be reraised anyway, but when there are only 2 opponents left, it is a HUGE hand and you are a big favorite. So press your advantage here and keep raising until it gets called out or capped.
After that, you played just fine. He heard you raise before the flop and will almost certainly check if you check on the river, as he does not have the nuts. He probably wasn't thinking of raising, but of folding.
I would appreciate some comments on my play of a recent hand of $10-$20 online holdem.
I am interested in responses as it only occurred to me after the hand how unconventional my play may be getting - I believe it is quite possible that certain players would have played all four streets differently to me!!
OK, here's the hand. I believe that I can defend each of my decisions, but I will ask for comments before I do so.
I am in the small blind, and am dealt.....Ks Qh.
UTG raises, and late-position new player (posting $10) calls. I have only recently sat down at the table, but UTG ($367 in chips) seems to be very loose-aggressive.
I call for $15.
Flop comes....8s 7s 7d
I check, UTG bets, late position folds, I raise, UTG calls.
Turn comes....9c
I bet, UTG calls
River comes.....Kh
I check, UTG checks
I show my kings, and UTG mucks. I now know what he held, and will include it in any reply, but it is obviously not relevant to the correctness, or otherwise, of my decisions.
OK, what's the verdict? Which decisions were wrong, if any, and how wrong were they?
I am not a real experienced hold em player, but I would have folded wihtout question after the flop. After the flop, you have nothing. You have a draw for a draw to the second nut flush. And you're possibly drawing against quad or trip 7 (unlikely because of the raise) or two pair (again unlikely). More likely, you're up against AA, KK, QQ, JJ. If that's the case, when your K or Q hits for your pair, it's made him a full house. If he's got AA, he's got your beat the whole way.
I would have folded and saved the $$. You got lucky.
In most games I would fold KQo from the small blind when raised. If it was KQs I would be much more inclined to call, or if it was going to be a family pot, I might call playing for the str8.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
At the casino I play at, they just raised the rake to $4 per pot (10% or up to $4), for the 15-30, 20-40, and occassional 25-50 and 30-60. No one is too pleased, as expected. . . .
Does anyone have some insight on how big an effect the rake has in someone's chances to come out ahead in the long run? I'd venture to say that I'm rarely the best player at the table on any given night, but I play better than most (I think) and am ahead for the last year and a half or so.
I have questions such as:
1- is it better to pay so much per hr or 1/2 hr? (such as Bellagio), or to only pay when you win a pot?
2- does the fact that new players consistently sit down when a person quits/goes bust offset the effect of the rake taking so much cash out of the game?
3- does the size of the rake effect how you should play (tighter? more aggressive)?
4- do you have to be the best (or in the top 4 or 5 of a joint with 75-100 regular players) to come out ahead in the long haul with a rake that large?
Any views on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!!!
I had read and posted to Mark the K's thread yesterday about his problems playing KTs up front in a tough game. Last night I got involved with KTs in a very loose, very aggressive game, and I thought I would share the hand to give a different perspective on this hand in different circumstances.
Different casino than I usually go to. 3-6 HE. Totally different game texture than the loose passive games in which I am usually involved. This game is wild. Lots of pre-flop raising, two or three maniacs on the loose, and lots of action. We would go complete rounds of the table where no pot would be under $100. Very high variance game, and I can't get arrested. We are three full hours into the game, and I have won exactly ONE small pot out of my BB. I'm stuck about $250, which I hate to do in low limit, but there is no way I'm leaving this game. I'm trying to just stay patient, and wait for the cards to turn around.
I pick up KTs in the cut-off seat. Only 1 folder when it gets to me, I call. Button calls, SB calls, and maniac in BB raises. All call, button limp re-raises, and BB caps it. Nine of us take the flop capped. Flop comes down Qs-Js-Jd. Checked around to a guy in middle position, he bets, 1 caller to me, I raise, button, SB and BB call cold, original better just calls. Turn card is the As. A Royal Flush in a huge pot. Does life get any better? I'm still pondering how I'm going to bet this when the SB bets! Folded around to me, I smooth-call, giving the button and the SB every opportunity to complete their hands.
River is another Ace. I'm just praying that the SB has an Ace in his hand, because now the gloves are off. Unfortunately, when I raise the river, the Button folds, and SB just calls with his smaller flush??? ( I said this was a good game!)
Now there was nothing particularly educational about this hand. I posted it just to offer an different view of the KT question, with the hand played in position, lots of callers, and I was lucky enough to hit the Big One. From stuck $250, this hand triggered a nice little 3-hour run, and I cashed out up over $200 at the end of the night.
Dunc,
Thanks for your previous answer about KTs against strong players.
This is a nice flop and turn, wish I had it against those strong players...
...funny, I 'river'ed the same AKQJTs royal last week in Tahoe...I started with Q9s on button, got lots of raise chances, as I got the nut flush on the turn, and the royal on the river, and two people kept calling and one was even raised with his trips (there was AKJT of spades and a T on board.) The river could have killed me, like with the last T or an A or K...
This hand also won a small 'jackpot' with the royal, it was very funny when the manager of the room made an announcement -- along with a security guard -- as if I won $165,000 instead of the $165 i did win!
Mark
Yeah? I hate you both. The best I've ever done in HE is flop JT8h with Q9h. Six callers pre-flop. Here's the betting. check check check check, bet (person before me), call (me on the button), fold fold fold fold. Arg!
The funny thing was, the guy who bet had the King of hearts. He was lamenting the fact that another heart didn't come while others tried to explain to him that I had a straight flush.
Dan
Dan,
I have played for a long time, although not nearly as much or as well as I like. I have seen some crazy things....I once lost to a flop of QJT of spades, lady beginner had AKs, I had 97s, she practically fell out of her chair....I folded after some thought (there was no bad beat in that room), and the next card WAS 8s. I would have been crushed.
I have also had a number of str8flshs, not so uncommon, I am sure people like Mason or David or Abdul et al have had a lot of these. And I once saw in a new tourney, crazy pineapple (why I wonder was I playing???), first hand, the dealer put a str8flsh 9-5 of D on board. Very weird. He DID shuffle a lot...
Mark
Same loose, wild 3-6 HE game described below in the 'KTs vs. Weak Players' thread. This hand I believe has a little more merit for strategic discussion.
I pick up Qh-Qc in middle position. Maniac who was earlier 3 seats to my left has now changed seats to change his luck(?), and is now on my immediate right, just where I want him. He has been raising freely all night on a wide variety of hands (that's what maniacs do, isn't it?) but I have observed that post-flop he plays the hands fast, but fairly straightforward up to this point. Couple of early limpers, maniac raises, I re-raise, 2 cold callers!, early limpers and maniac all call. I took specific notice that the maniac did not cap it.
Flop comes down Qd-7c-5c. Checked to me, I bet, get four callers, including the maniac. Turn card is Kc. checked to me again, I bet, all fold back to the maniac, who check-raises. I will give my course of action and my thought processes at this point in the 'Results' below.
Question: What do you do at this point, and why?
River is a blank, an offsuit deuce or something. Maniac bets.
Question: What do you do here, and why?
Results below.
Obviously, I was delighted to see the Queen in the flop. Top set, but a club draw on the board. When the maniac did not cap the flop, my first reaction was to put him on something like a big Ace. I had observed earlier that he had capped flops with big pairs, but he was raising so much that it was hard to get a complete 'read' on his play. I have played with this guy only infrequently, but enough to know that he knows I was not 3-betting pre-flop with a cheese sandwich.
Now when he check-raises on the turn, I have a decision. Obviously I'm not going to fold, but the problem is whether to re-raise or call. I did not put this player on KK, because in my judgment, he would have capped pre-flop. I don't think he's read HFAP about smooth-calling in this situation with AA or KK to manipulate the pot size or for deception. At this point, I felt he was most likely on AK, probably with the Ac. However, there was a chance he could have Axc, but he might have been more prone to bet out on the flop with that holding, or possibly even check-raise the flop. I decided to smooth-call his check-raise. I wanted to see the river first. If a club hit, I would call him down if he bet. If the board paired I would raise if he bet. And if a blank hit, I was going to trust my 'read' and pop him, expecting to get paid off if he had the AK hand.
River brought a blank, he bet, I followed through on my plan, raised, he called and showed me AcKs. Thinking about the hand afterwards, I wondered if I did play the hand to my best advantage. If I re-raise the turn, he would have most likely just called, and check-called to me on the river, or maybe even checked and folded. However, if a club hits on the river, I have cost myself 1 extra bet, assuming I call the river to protect the pot. Lots of little nuances here, I think, based on what might be going through one's head.
By the way, I like his check-raise on the turn. There are some hands I could have that he has beat, or at least tied, and he is drawing to the nut flush. It didn't work out for him in this particular case, but it was IMO a good, aggressive move.
In my experience maniacs tend to cap pre-flop with AK. I'm surprised he did not do this. But as you point out in your "results" post, he knows you're not 3-betting with a cheese sandwich. I like his play too, and lucky for you the river wasn't a c. When he calls the flop but check-raises the turn I think you have to figure the turn helped his hand - meaning he either has a K or made a flush. Since he didn't cap pre-flop I figured a small flush if at all. But I figure a K in his hand is more likely. And the K in his hand means he couldn't have made a flush yet. I don't think maniacs are tricky, they're just maniacs - so the read is with an expectation of no tricks. But each maniac is different and I suppose one has to develop his/her own read on each player.
Post deleted at author's request.
Not on this particular hand, no, Gary. I said that I like his play here. However, anhybody that's raising 3 hands out of 5 for hours on end is not doing it hand in and hand out with quality. You should have seen the crap this guy was coming up with earlier in the session. But like the book says, even the maniacs get good hands on occasion.
Impressive read, but the chances of catching AK in the hands of true maniac are pretty slim. What would he have done differently preflop with AcXc? If the answer is "not raise," he's not much of a maniac. If he'd raise with AcXc, there's three times as many Xc's out there than AcK's. (My maniacs tend to show me Tc3c).
Nice read. He's unlikely to have made a club flush on the turn, as he probably would have been a lot more aggressive on the flop with a four flush draw (in my experience, maniacs love to jam w/draws - often correctly even if they don't know it). His turn checkraise would have made me think about the possibility that he just made a set of kings, but as you said he probably would have capped pre-flop with pocket kings.
I don't think you missed any bets - if you re-raise the turn, he probably doesn't bet into you on the river when a club doesn't fall (althought a full-fledged rabid maniac might). Also, as you suspected he had a fairly big draw.
Caddy
It's a close call, or may be it's not. In these situations I always fear the few times that the maniac is playing good cards. But as you pointed out, the maniac did not cap pre-flop. So, after his check-raise on the turn, I put him on Kxo. So I'd raise back at him. But I wouldn't get into a raising war - if raises back I call only. And I call/check the river no matter what. I may be giving up some bets, but I also may be saving some too.
Now I'll look at your results - I would'nt be surprised to see maniac with a small flush. But I'm betting on Kxo.
I don't know. Maybe I'm giving something up here, but I've seen too many "maniacs" raising with Ax suited to make it three on the turn or two on the river. I'm in favor of check calling the river after calling the check-raise on the turn. I'm not sure what species of maniac you have on your hands here, but I've also seen a lot of maniacs take stabs at the pot when scare cards hit the board. I'm assuming your image is not one of a maniac yourself, but I think your aggression pre-flop and on the flop tells him that you weren't beingpushy on a draw. He could have been aggressive with Axs of another suit, in which case you could scare him off by re-raising on the turn. The hands that I see a maniac playing in that fashion besides a bluff are a set, KQ, AK or a flush. Which do I see a maniac raising before the flop? all of them. I think the choice in your actions lies in your read/experience with that maniac.
Even if the guy has a flush on the turn, you still have 10 outs to fill up or quad. My preference would have been a re-raise on the turn. The old saying about sets, if you don't lose a lot of money you played it wrong. Your opponent made a semi-bluff raise with good pot odds (about a 7-1 dog). You in turn can charge him more by raising. Plus, if a fourth club hits without pairing, you can always dump your hand.
You can't fold on the turn because your draw is too good. You can't reraise because if he's got a flush, a real possibility, he'll 3-bet. (I don't even want to think about the possibility that he's just got a king or two pair compared to a flush because with these guys it's like figuring how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Besides, there's a ton of club combos out there). Also, if he doesn't have a flush he might be bluffing (?) and fold now instead of giving you another bet or two later.
I think the payoff on the river is automatic.
throw it away ,and remember all details for bad beat story
I recently started playing Hold'em, and I've read a couple books on it. But there is one thing I just don't understand. This may be a dumb question, but I got to ask anyway. All the strategies say to basically only play "premium" hands. Let's say you get dealt 24o. You would throw them away right? But if you got dealt say, AKo, you would keep them right? Well don't you have the same chances of getting cards that improve your hand whether you hold 24o or AKo?
Thanks
***gamblerbri***
This is true, but you don't look at it in those terms.
Think about 2s4c going heads-up against AsKc.
Board comes down 8-9-10-3-5, rainbow. No pair. Who wins?
Board comes down K-2-3-7-Q, rainbow. One pair each. Who wins?
Board comes down Q-J-9-5-7, 4 spades. Both have flushes. Who wins?
What you're looking at is how they compare against other players. Going up against 4 other people I would MUCH rather have top pair, top kicker than bottom pair, bottom kicker. Wouldn't you?
WEll now you do son. The only difference is that say you make a pair with your twos or 3's look at all the other pairs that can beat you. And lots of low limit folks play any overcards on a draw. So you making those 3's to another players high card draw puts you in a definite advantage but a vulnerable one. --tj
Card Player interviewed Mr. Cloutier who said that a fly could not flick a wing on the final table without his notice. From that I hatched a plan. Angle toward the final table with Mr. Cloutier. When I get there, walk around the table like I was looking it over.
Meanwhile, I have a piece of gooey candy in my mouth that I take out and leave little sticky patches all over the table. Then when Mr. Cloutier and I are heads up in the Big Hand. I reach down into my sock and take out a bottle of hungry flies. While he's watching all those flies, I raise!
I'll have to remember that when we play at binions this april:)-tj
It is like, 'the rich get richer and poor get poorer'. Or beginning a business under capitalized. The better your starting cards, the less they need to improve. You win more with bigger cards, you lose more with smaller cards.
David Sklansky wrote that if the betting gets to you on the button unraised, you can take almost anything for a look at the flop. The same can be said for calling with marginal hands like J8 suited in a game with little raising. Even if you are not on the button, if you are not going to be raised what is the difference between first to act and last?
But the facts are; the more marginal your hole cards, the stronger they must become on the flop. And the more often you invest even a call on marginal hands the less you win in the long run.
Ah !! You have discovered the secret of winning poker. Those books just tell you to play premimum cards to keep your variance down. To really maximize your winnings, you have to play every hand, because as you say any two cards can win !!!
Where is it that you play ? Are there any other people in the game that believe any two cards can win ? I love those kind of games.
Seriously, the odds are about the same that the hands will improve, but what matters is whether they win the pot. Hands like 2,4o will frequently connect with the flop and still lose to a better hand, while this will happen much less frequently to hands like A,Ko. In a tight game with only one or two callers before the flop, an A,Ko will sometimes win without connecting with the flop, while 2,4o can essentially never win without connecting with the flop.
A friend who doesn't play poker asked me this very question, and I gave his this answer. Let me know if it helps explain why AK is more likely to win than 24:
Let's play a scaled down version of Hold'em. In my version, we both put in an ante, we both get only one card, and they're placed face up on the table. Then we'll put 5 community cards between our individual cards, and the best hand will win. Let's say I get an Ace, and you get a 3. Now, when the 5 community cards are laid down, the four most likely scenarios are the following:
1. An Ace will fall somewhere in there, pairing my Ace, and I win.
2. A 3 will come up somewhere in there, pairing your three, and you win.
3. Both an Ace and a three will fall in the community cards, giving us both a pair, and I win with my Aces beating your threes.
4. Neither of us pairs our cards, and my Ace beats your three.
Notice, in three out of these 4 cases, I win. This is mildly scaled down from actual Hold'em, but the theory is roughly the same.
4-8 HE, mostly loose passive. I am BB with K-2o.
Four callers, SB folds, I decline option.
Flop is QQ8. I check; all check.
Turn is 8. I check, all check.
River is K.
Do you bet? Somebody else's K with a kicker of 9, 10, J, or A beats you. What would somebody call with that you could beat? AJ?
I would tend towards betting, given that you describe the table as loose passive. My interpretation of that is you could safely fold if anyone raises, as there is little to no chance of someone bluff-raising you off the best hand.
Also, passive usually means that there are more hands they will call with than they will bet with. So, it is not likely, if they are truly passive, that by checking you will get someone to bet A-high, 99, bluff, etc., which person would fold to your bet.
So, it appears that you will win more by betting than by checking, and that you will seldom (never?) lose more than 1 bet by betting either.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I don't know, Greg. I have the feeling that your King is boss, but what's to gain by betting? No one that you can beat is likely to call, IMO, so why risk $8 into a small pot in which you have only $4 invested from the BB? I see bets like this all the time where someone bets out at the river, no one calls, they win a small pot with their top pair type of thing. But they would have won the exact same pot showing it down without the risk of getting outkicked, or God forbid, getting raised by a slowplayer downriver. You have no sort of image thing to worry about having to display trash like K2o; you're in the BB in an unraised pot. Check, show down the King, scoop the $16 happily, and get on with the game. Two minutes from now, no one will even remember the hand. Just my thoughts.
Those are exactly the issues.
If you bet, how often will you get called by a worse hand vs. how often you will get called or raised by a better hand (or bluff-raised by a worse hand, though this should be rare).
If you check, how often will you induce a bluff, or at least induce a bet by a worse hand (he may not think he's bluffing, so maybe it shouldn't be called a bluff)?
Factor these all together, and you will have your answer. Unfortunately, these can only be factored in based upon your knowledge of the particular opponents you are facing.
In my typical games, betting with the bad K is the right play a majority of the time. Your typical game may be different.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would bet here. Unless someone has something obscene, like quads (not bloody likely given the lack of pre-flop raise) I think you've got a good shot to have the best hand here. And, if someone does have a king with a better kicker, he would have to be blind and/or brain dead to raise you with the board paired twice.
If you bet, i don't think anyone with a worst hand is gonna call. On the other hand, if you check, you might induce someone to try to pick up the pot with ace high. So you stand to make more, and may be lose less, by checking.
check and call . . .
If the table is truly passive, it's an easy check and fold in my opinion.
Average 6-12 game. Pretty loose, but not too aggressive. UTG calls, 3 callers and I raise with black AA, one position in front of button. Button makes it 3, Sb folds, BB calls, as do 3 callers. I just call. Button 3better is aggressive until you take him out of the lead and I want the option of checkraising the flop.
Flop is 2d 4c 6h. Everyone checks, I check (mostly b/c I'm not sure what card I want to see on the turn and I want to see if anyone checkraises the button, who I'm 99% sure will bet). Button bets, all call but no one checkraises. I just call.
Turn card 4s. Everyone checks, I check, Button bets, everyone calls(no check-raise?), I raise, button calls.
River is 2s. Everyone checks, I bet (a bad bet), button calls, bb folds, utg calls, inbetweeners fold. I show AA, Button mucks TT face up and UTG shows A2 of hearts.
Obviously I didn't maximize my expectation of winning the pot, I could have capped preflop and lead on the flop. Button bettor might have raised on the flop if I lead but he might not have. If it was 2bets to the UTG player, I doubt he'd have folded bottom pair/ace kicker with backdoor flush draw. But then again he might've. Who knows?
My question is: Do any of y'all have suggestions on how I could've gotten more money into the pot? Preflop play? Flop play? Turn? River?
Any opinions on increasing my chances of winning the pot?
As always, any critique or insights into the play of the hand is appreciated.
chris
I think when the pot is big, espeically true when it is a multiway pot, betting or raising to gave players a chance to fold is more important than trying to keep them in to pay the price with the hand like you had. I think with a aggressive player on your left, betting on the flop and the turn have more chance to knock players out. Also, I think the consistance of the action before and after the flop sometimes can be tramatic, so it can be very frustrating if the button checked behind unless you know the player very well. I would cap the pot before the flop with these many players in. Better luck next time.
regards,
jikun
Also, if it is you capping the pot and doing the betting, this would have impact on other players decision which could be different from letting the loose aggressive player give the same action.
regards,
jikun
I'm wondering what your reasoning was for not capping it pre-flop? I don't think you should be going for deception with this many players in. You should be going for value. (The one exception is when there has been no raise and you're in one of the blinds. Now you have a chance to isolate someone on your right after the flop).
I would lead the flop hoping the button would raise. Even if he does raise, many draws would still be getting correct odds, but that's the chance you take. If he does raise the flop, I MIGHT just call and then lead into him again on the turn (if he's aggressive). I'd be hoping that he's got a big pair also, and would raise again. Now the draws would have to pay a double big bet to get there.
I doubt bottom pair would call 2 big bets cold on the turn, but if he does, you gotta love him putting in all that money with 2 outs. If he catches... God bless him. You'll just have to wait a little longer to get his chips.
"Average 6-12 game. Pretty loose, but not too aggressive. UTG calls, 3 callers and I raise with black AA, one position in front of button. Button makes it 3, Sb folds, BB calls, as do 3 callers. I just call. Button 3better is aggressive until you take him out of the lead and I want the option of checkraising the flop."
You also want the option, depending on the flop, of betting into your opponent and letting him raise the flop to knock other players out.
"Flop is 2d 4c 6h. Everyone checks, I check (mostly b/c I'm not sure what card I want to see on the turn and I want to see if anyone checkraises the button, who I'm 99% sure will bet). Button bets, all call but no one checkraises. I just call."
There's a good chance that flop didn't hit anyone, or perhaps only gave someone a gut shot. This might be a spot where if you bet the button will raise, every one else folds, and you can reraise. (By the way, if someone calls for two bets with just overcards that's fine too.)
"Turn card 4s. Everyone checks, I check, Button bets, everyone calls(no check-raise?), I raise, button calls."
This sounds fine.
"River is 2s. Everyone checks, I bet (a bad bet), button calls, bb folds, utg calls, inbetweeners fold. I show AA, Button mucks TT face up and UTG shows A2 of hearts. Obviously I didn't maximize my expectation of winning the pot, I could have capped preflop and lead on the flop. Button bettor might have raised on the flop if I lead but he might not have. If it was 2bets to the UTG player, I doubt he'd have folded bottom pair/ace kicker with backdoor flush draw. But then again he might've. Who knows?"
You got a little unlucky. You must remember that as pots become big it is more important to win them (unless you hold a super hand). However, your opponent, who thinks he has five outs only has two outs. So he was not getting the correct odds to continue given your hand.
The key to these type of hands is to recognize that there are many different ways to play them, and the best way is dependent on who you are against, your position, the previous action, and of course the cards on board.
I was playing in a pretty loose 5-10 game tonight. I was stuck about $100, after losing back to back pots to full houses, but I still wasn't steaming. Game is 9 handed, player #2 raises (he's stuck and playing pretty loose and aggressive), everyone folds to me. I'm holding AhQh one to the right of button, so I reraise, hoping to get it heads up, or to simply get more money in the pot with a premium hand in late position. To my surprise, the button calls, as do the big blind and original raiser. Flop comes Tc 6h 4h. Checked to me, I bet and get raised by button. Everyone folds to me and I reraise. I put this player on a flush draw, or top pair. I thought he might slowplay trips to try to trap the other 2 players. He just calls. Next card is Ac. I bet, he calls. Now I definitely don't put him on a set. River is 8h. I bet and get raised. Raising war until he's all in. Luckily he only had $40 left at the beginning of the last round. I felt pretty lucky that I didn't lose more money. I never saw it coming and told him nice hand as his str8 flush beat my ace high flush. I never thought it possible this player would call a preflop reraise with 5h 7h. My question is "How much should I push this hand on the river, assuming he had another $100 in chips in front of him?" I was willing to go all in with this hand myself. I'm just glad I wasn't playing NL Hold'em with this hand.
How far to go with the second nut is dependent on the player.
I hate your bet on the flop. In this spot you can either take a free card (what's wrong with that?) or you can checkraise once the button bets (depending on how many players call button's bet. Once you checkraise the flop, then, if the ace hits someone, you get to raise the turn if they bet into you (which is good b/c the best hand they can conceivably have is two pair, given the flop action)
Of course, more players might be in if you trapped them for two bets on the flop, instead of forcing them to fold to a bet and a raise. As far as your oppenents raise of your flop bet I think that's a bad play also. He's shutting players out. I'd think it's a much better play if he held 9T of hearts or even 46 of clubs.
In no limit it wouldn't matter b/c this guy would be busted before the situation came up. But once he raises your reraise, I'd slow down. People go too far during a hand but rarely on the river as their hand is the best it's going to get.
chris
Without the absolute nuts you can't go more than 3 bets on the river.
Rounder,
I've had Los Angeles players put in three or more raises against me with the second or third nut flush on at least a dozen occasions, especially if I have played the hand deceptively. OTOH, I've only had my ace high flush cracked by a straight flush once or twice.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I realize that when the straight flush is possible and reasonable, you have to fear it a lot more. But I would put in a little more action.
Rick remember where you are and where I am.
:-)
steve,
Yes, players shouldn't be calling three bets cold with small suited one gappers against only two opponents. But they do all the time. That is what makes the games beatable over time..
After you bet the river and got raised, I would reraise twice more and call the last raise of my opponent. Losing seven bets on the river seems about right. Fortunately nut ace high flush versus straight flush only happens once in a blue moon so it really doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
Regards,
Rick
I think that's too much. If it were me, I would bet, and re-raise the raise. If he raises again, I'm just calling. People are scared of flushes. If someone is willing to put four bets into a pot with you when you have an Ace-high flush, you have to figure there's a better than 50% chance that he has a straight flush, and you should not put in any more money.
You don't need a 50% chance that he has a straight flush to stop raising. If you're right and he doesn't have a straight flush, you win one more bet. If you're wrong, you lose two more bets. So if there's more than a 33% chance that he has a straight flush, you should stop raising.
Dan,
I agree with your logic and I would apply it to thinking opponents in the real world. But here in California you get players who just "go off on you" quite often. Against one of them (and after living here one gets a good feeling for who they are), I would be willing to put in about the action I described. But like I said, it is so rare, what does it matter.
Anyway, here is a quick story. Several years ago I'm sitting in a 15/30 holdem game next to Ron Stanley of WSOP final table fame. He flops top set and fills up when a running baby pair comes on the turn and river. He gets in about seven! raises against a woman who showed an ace high flush only. He was the one who finally stopped raising. This woman used to routinely blow off about ten grand at the beginning of every month. I guess her trust fund finally ran short out since last time I saw she was playing 3/6 holdem.
Regards,
Rick
The following is apparently a true story that's been told by dealers in Blackhawk Co. for the past few years. In the version of the story that I heard two total maniacs were at the table, beating up on each other. One raises, the other reraises, and they cap it pre-flop. Flop 9Q2 rainbow. Again they cap it. Turn; another Q, and again it's capped. River's a 3 and they cap it again (or one of them goes all in, or something). Maniac 1 turns to Maniac 2 and shrugs. "I've got a deuce", he says, to which Maniac 2 chuckles. "What's your kicker?" He replies.
Just finished a 9 hour session, and it was really something else. There are too many insane hands to tell you about, so I'll just give you a sampling of what happened from my seat:
Hand 1: I'm in the blind with 72o. Someone raises and I fold.
Hand 2: I'm in the small blind with 69o. I fold.
Hand 3: I'm on the button with T5o. I fold.
Hand 4: I'm one off the button with 92o. I fold.
Hand 5: I'm two off the button with J3o. I fold.
Hand 6: I'm three off the button with 47o. I fold.
Hand 7: I'm three off the BB with 26o. I fold.
Hand 8: I'm two off the BB with 38o. I fold.
Hand 9: I'm UTG with J4o. I fold.
Repeat this for 9 hours, add in a time drop every half hour, and remind me why I love this game so much.
PS- The most telling hand of the night was this one toward the end of the 9 hour session: I'm in the BB with KK. Finally! What happens? UTG folds. Fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, small blind turns to me--"chop?". grrrrrrrr. . . .
Hey it coulda been capped preflop and come A high, three flush, neither suit.
chris
Sometimes when playing you just don't pick up many playable hands. On those nights you won't do very well, and if you are playing well you won't play many hands. Winning poker is sometimes fairly boring, and doesn't produce a win every time you play.
Funny, I was thinking about something you wrote while this session was happening. I don't remember where you wrote it, but it was something to the effect of "solid professional poker playing would strike the non-player as incredibly boring". While the rest of the players were ramming and jamming, playing all kinds of crap, I just waited for my opportunity to sneak in and take a pot or two of that action. It never came, I got blinded out of the game, and I'll just wait for the next opportunity. It's all in the long haul.
I'm actually averaging over 2 big bets/hour in my last 7 sessions, so I can't look at a session like this as a big deal.
thanks again,
shooter
Shooter, I know how you feel. Just finished playing a 6 hour session of 10-20. Had similar cards to you. When I finally raised, I got beat by a 3 outer. I raise a limper with Ad Qd, and get 1 cold caller on button, along with original limper. Flop comes Qh 8h 3h. I get bet into the whole way by the limper(button folds on the flop) and decide to just call. Turn and river are 10c and Ks. He flips over a Kd Qs and sends me on tilt. I then proceed to start playing stupidly and throw away $400. I could have lost $150 or $200 had I not lost my cool. I actually lost two or three hands with the goods before I started to steam. But the point I'm trying to make is that a good player becomes a great player, when he plays his top game regardless of whether he's winning or losing. Of course, we've all steamed on occasion, but someone who plays 20 hours per week and steams when he's losing, can probably easily throw away 5 to 8 BB, on crying calls or desperate buffs. That can take away up to 8/20 or 0.4 BB per hour. This amounts to lots of money over the course of a year. I'm just making an approximation, since poor play made me lose $200 over 6 hours (10 BB in 6 hrs = 1.67 BB per hour). Assuming I steam one session out of five (1.67 x 0.2 = 0.33 BB per hour). When we both realize that we can't always get good cards and accept that we'll sometimes have a losing session, we'll be much better players and increase our win rate. I'm assuming that you start to steam after a 4 hour run of bad cards and a couple of consecutive bad beats. Good luck.
Actually, I pride myself on not going on tilt very easily. Here's the last hand I was a real factor in at this session:
I had JT in the small blind, about 7 callers. I defend the blind, and the flop comes JT3. One bettor, one caller, I raise and isolate the bettor. Turn comes J. I'm J full of T. Check to me, I bet, he calls. River comes A. Of course he had AJ, and I got rivered out. He hit his 3 outer, and I just kept cool. In fact, I just milked my short stack for another 3 hours until I got blinded out. It takes a lot for me to tilt.
Since we're on the subject, here's the last hand that got me steaming. This was about a month ago: I'm in late position with 33. Flop comes KK2. Checked all the way around, so I look to steal the pot. Doesn't work, there's one caller. Turn comes 3. Now I'm 3 full of K. Checked to me, I bet, he calls. River comes 5. Checked to me, I bet, get raised. Turns out he slowplayed quad K's perfectly. That got me a little tilted, but not much.
You were lucky .... lucky that the other 3 didn't come on the river!
Hey Guys, I just got back from Calf. on a little weekend getaway. Settled into the Bay 101 and played a some 6/12 last night. Flop bets were always called. Perfect, perfect was the order of the day. Early raises meant nothing, 2 or 3 bets cold called with any two suited ! Looks like the 3/6 players have moved up ! Time payments suck. Guess I tilted pretty badly myself. Hardly ever happens any more. The only players I could read had 5 card hands. Value bet your top pair best kicker when a baby comes,, right !! Playing tight just makes you easier to read. It must be the time that makes them play this way. Just 1 question. Don't the sell 2 + 2 material over there ?
PS. Vacations are not for poker if you want to keep the stress down.
After a long session last night I decided to check how my totals are for the year. The club that I play at recently started spreading a 9-18 with a double Jackpot (approx. 25K) in order to stimulate action in that game. It is played with 1 and 3 (chip) blind, and a live 1 chip drop on the button. Lots of action and lots of weak hands being played. Anyway, I wanted to see how I was doing in that game specifically.
Much to my surprise I am winning between 2-2.5 big bets per hour over a hundred hours in that game. I realize that my number of hours is too few to accurately calculate win rate, but I was wondering how accurate you can calculate win rate given those many hours. How many more hours would I have to play to get a reasonable expectation? The thing is, I know that I did not play well for all 100 or so hours. there were times that I made flat out stupid plays. some helped, but most hurt. I probably could have won more. Just wondering. Thanks in advance for the input. -2d P.S. WFM, I wasn't sure if thisor the general theory forum was correct for this post, so I flipped a coin. I apologize in advance if the coin screwed up.
I was wondering how accurate you can calculate win rate given those many hours.
y=s*SD/sqrt(h)
where y is the +- accuracy, s is the standard deviation, SD is the number of standard deviations you wish to allow, and h is the number of hours. I suggest y=10 (big bets per hour) for a tight player's standard deviation in a fairly loose game, SD=2 for 2 standard deviations or 95%ish (2-tailed) confidence, and you say h=100 hours. So y=10*2/sqrt(100)=2 big bets per hour accuracy.
It already looks like you're playing with an edge, but beware because your stopping time is biased. That is, you wouldn't be asking for this analysis if you had more mediocre results, and this violates one of the assumptions of the analysis.
How many more hours would I have to play to get a reasonable expectation?
h=(s*SD/y)^2
If you desire y=0.25 big bet per hour accuracy, then h=(10*2/0.25)^2 = 6400 hours. Come back in three years and let us know how you did.
I wasn't sure if thisor the general theory forum was correct for this post, so I flipped a coin.
Wrong forum.
-Abdul
Here are two hands which I misplayed and was quite annoyed with both. Any comments or improvements are greatly appreciately.
A player in early postion raises I reraise w/KK in middle position all fold and this player calls.
THis player knows me quite well and looks unhappy as I made it 3 bets.
The flop comes A 9 3 rainbow. He looks at me and i think i look unahppy and he can tell. He bets , i call (i should raise, no?).
A Q falls on the turn he bets I think and figure he was a weak ace and I fold. He tells me later he had TT, and he knew i had kings...
Here's another: one limps I raise in middle position w/ KK button cold calls as does the blinds.
The flop comes AA 3 w/ no flush. Now the blind bets into me. again I thought he is beting into the raiser and thus he must have an A. (And he's betting into the field..) Is it correct to call? fold? ( I folded) one person calls. The turn in another A...
I understand I didn't play these hands that well, any advice would be appreciated. Thanks alot!
4 things:
1)It sounds like you're playing weak/tight but even more than that it sounds like the table is targeting you.
2) Whether the flop gives you a set or 3 overcards to your pocket pair, you shouldn't look pleased, pissed or disappointed. Like Damone says "No matter what happens, you're toes are still tappin'".
3) In general, Two aces on the flop is better than one ace on the flop when you have KK (or any pair higher than the third card).
4) when head's up preflop things have to get awfully ugly to fold a hand as strong as KK. That doesn't mean you should raise a bet automatically nor does it mean you should never fold but in this case, when your opponent knows you're unhappy and he knows you know that he knows this and he's capable of this move, it's pretty much an automatic crying call. If you knew your opponent well enough you might even smooth call the flop and raise the turn for value, esp. if the turn puts a flush draw and your opponent thinks you semibluff too often.
chris
"He tells me later he had TT, and he knew i had kings..."
Unless he shows you his cards I'd ignore his comments. Still, I believe you should have Raised or Folded on the Flop depending on the person you are up against.
CV
I take your second hand to mean a third ace came on the turn and no-one had aces? In a limit hold-em game, you would have a hard time getting me to fold if no one else raised pre-flop and two aces came. I think a raise is the better play.
If there was a play like someone smooth called the flop and then raised the turn, I would be much more likely to fold the Kings.
How does he know you so well? Would you have only called with pocket aces?
If he looks unhappy, then he may have had pocket Aces! If he isn't Hollywooding then he might actually be unhappy that you killed his action.
Don't listen to what he tells you (ie. pocket tens) and don't say anything about your hand. He can't know you had pocket kings unless you showed him.
With a preflop raise and an ace on board he may well have had A-Q. Unless he's fairly weak he should not have had Ax.
Try not looking at the flop when it comes. You need to practice looking neutral. To really do this requires that you truly not care what happens during this hand. That is very difficult to accomplish. Play your best and have a large enough bankroll (or expendable cash) that the results of this one session will not bother you.
You can, however, do your best to make your betting actions and facial expressions "the same" all the time.
You will need to get some control over this player. That may mean some un-orthadox bets against him. You may lose some bets to him but will gain that back when he can't manhandle you in every situation.
Good Luck
I've been playing medium limit 10-20, 20-40 TH for many years and I would say that in the first case where your oponent held TT you were throughly outplayed. This is a player of expert caliaber and was aware of that fact that your 3-bet pre flop combined with your reaction to the board must mean that you have Kings! He also realized that this is one of the rare situations where he can use the fact that he is out of position to stage a successfull play. Probably you should raise on the flop to represent that you 3-bet with AK. Now if this player comes over the top KK has but 2 outs and belongs in the muck. Even if this players just calls the flop you still have problems as AQ makes two pair on the turn and AJ or A10 are still better than your hand. Solid play still brings home the bacon and most of your EV comes from weak players, sure you folded KK and got played but its highly doubtful that you have to worry about an average player making a move of this complexity on you. Good luck
Mark
In the first situation, I'd believe that a raise would be in order. With the flop of an A, he bets into you and you raise either 1) gets him to fold(Most likey QQ or worse or Ax) or 2) possibly buys you free cards till the river. He will most likely check the turn at which point you can check to try and catch a set or bet to get the pot. I think it's a good play to put in an additional small bet for the loads of information it provides. A call on his part indicates a weak A which you can probably bet out. A raise and you muck. But it does depend on the player( rock type I'd muck to his bet, anyone else I'd raise).
Patrick
Played in a very loose, passive 2-4 HE nine player game last night. Played about 5 hours and cashed out about $120. It was like playing with Aunt Tilly and the kids on the kitchen table. Everyone at the table was having fun telling jokes and throwing money in the pot. My thoughts are that I could have done much better than this if I hadn't been so tight.
Question: What should your minimum holding be on the button against 6,7,or 8 preflop callers?
What should your minimum holding be to raise in this position, expecting only one or two folds?
Thanks for your input.
In the situation you mentioned, play any pair, connector, or suited ace or king. Make sure you hit the flop or else drop.
I would raise with any pair above 5's and a suited ace in the spot.
Does anybody know when people started playing Texas Holdem? This question was brought up in a recent session I was playing in. One person guessed the game originated in the early 50s but no one knew for sure.
Thanks,
Jay
In Jon Bradshaw's book "Fast Company" Johnny Moss states that he played it in Dallas in the 20's. I've heard this date from other people also.
Johnny Moss told some of us at the poker table a few years ago, "1923."
Jesus, Mason. . .I couldn't imagine sitting across the table from Johnny Moss. That's like shooting 18 with Ben Hogan or playing duets with Heifitz. Let me ask you, besides yourself obviously, who's the best player you've ever played hold'em with?
During the last years of his life, Johnny gave his money away. My guess is that he averaged losing $500 per day the last few years at the Horseshoe when he limited his play to $20-$40. When he stepped up and played in larger games, he lost more.
As for who's the best player, it's very hard to say because certain players excel in different situations. But it's probably fair to say that the second best player I have ever played with regardless of the situation is Ray Zee. (Mark Weitzman is close.)
I'm surprised to hear he gave it away. Why? Out of frustration, boredom, pressure of his stature in the poker world or did he just stop caring?
Was Johnny Moss just losing it due to age and the normal deterioration of mental capabilities, or was it more a matter of not adjusting to changing game conditions (limit vs no-limit, changing blind structures, etc) Just wondering.
I think it was a combination of getting old, having very little understanding of how to play poker well, especially limit poker, and having a giant ego that wouldn't allow him to believe that he was almost always the wrorse player at the table.
It is not my policy to knock people, especially when they are dead, but based on his behavior at the table, Johnny Moss was not what any of us would consider to be a first class person. For example, he hated dealers and made life miserable for a bunch of them, especially if he lost a big pot.
I have a friend who actually worked for Johnny when he ran cardrooms years ago and played in the games. This friend of mine is a knowledgeable player and claims that Moss was actually a very good no-limit player in his prime. So there's the other side. But from my personal experience of playing with him, I just can't believe it.
I have another friend, who is also an extremely knowledgeable player, who has admitted to me that he got his start playing poker everyday with Johnny Moss almost 30 years ago. The game was $3-$6 stud and Moss supposedly kept a lot of players in action.
I actually remember the first time I played with him. It was in a $15-$30 game at The Bicycle Club in 1987 shortly after hold 'em became legal. He called three bets cold with A5 offsuit and won a big pot when two fives flopped. I remember thinking that perhaps this was a very small game for him and he just didn't care about the money. But after playing with him on many, many occasions (mostly at the Horseshoe where he was a host for their $20-$40 game) I quicky realized that what I had watched was a typical play for him.
"Johnny Moss was not what any of us would consider to be a first class person. "
Hey Mason,
I have heard the same thing about John Bonetti. I have played only once in a live game against Bonetti. I check raised him and he got a little upset. That's all I can remeber. Maybe it has something to do with the name John. I've heard some of my LADY friends complain about some of the Johns they go out with. Must be the answer.
Vince.
I don't know Bonetti at all. I have never spoken to him and I have never played poker with him, so I can't comment.
2d,
About ten years ago during a trip to sin city I played the Binion's 20/40 holdem game with Moss sitting royally in seat one. I could tell the game wasn't that good but I wanted to say I played with one of the legends so I was happy to take seat two.
The game was very tight. I pick up an AQ offsuit on the button. Moss, sitting in the cutoff seat, is the only limper and I raise and get head up with him. The flop comes a Q 5 3 rainbow. He bets and calls my raise. The turn was a middle card. He checks and calls my bet. The river was a deuce. He may have bet out or he could have check raised me but when the showdown came he took the pot with a 64 offsuit! Had he entered the pot with a raise I could have believed it. At the time I figured it was his age but since then I've heard stories similar to those that Mason describes above from lots of people. Then again, I'm only 45 years old and I am already losing my mind ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
What you and Mason fail to recognize is that the older you get the more hands you play. That's because of the time factor. You want to get as many hands in as possible before the man says it's your Time.
vince.
Vince,
I can see your point but why on Earth didn't he raise before the flop? The blinds were tight and it should have been obvious that I was no loose goose on the button.
Actually, since I probably have your attention, the point of this reply is to say I enjoy your stories on the Exchange and do hope you run into my friend John Cole (also a big fan of yours) at Foxwoods or the Mohegan Sun and post a report.
Then again, John and I always enjoyed hanging around wacky/weird types.
Regards,
Rick
Speaking of wacky, did anyone ever run across the book written by someone calling himself "John Moss"? I forget the date or the subtitle, but it was released in the 1970s, supposedly written by some "poker master", but it was clearly not a book by Johnny Moss nor even by someone with any skill. The only book ever written by (or with) the real Johnny Moss was his more or less biographical, "Johnny Moss, Champion of Champions."
First, a hand analysis question so the WFM doesn't get after me.
3-6-12 HE, fairly loose pre-flop, surprisingly strong play post-flop. A fair number of the players usually sit at the 10-20 table, but there isn't one going. I'm in the BB with KTd.
Preflop, there are about six callers. I don't raise. Flop comes Ad 8d 7d. What should I do?
I elect to go for a checkraise, but the round checks through. Turn comes 7s. What's my play now?
I bet out and get two callers. River comes 7c. Now what?
Anyway, after the smoke cleared, I found myself down $225 for a 5 hour session of 3-6-12 HE and I need some encouragement. Is this a reasonable loss to blame on bad cards? How often do you generally winning players have a sizeable losing session?
Well, the short answer is yes, I fella can easily drop that much in 5 hours. Is this the first time you've suffered a loss this size? If so, be ready; the worst is yet to come. Whenever I flop the nuts I usually bet out, unless there's some compelling reason to slow play or check raise. My reasoning is that nobody can put you on a hand that size when you lead bet, which means you can often get a ton more action than you would if you got tricky on the turn. This is especially true with flopped small straights, since overcards will play against you and usually raise if they hit the turn. With a flopped nut flush (and the A on the board) it's a little less clear, since nobody can have a diamond bigger than a Q (and obviously nobody can have any overcards), but I'd probably still bet it out. If I got a few callers I may try to check raise the turn.
$225 in a 5 hour period is not a huge loss. You generally lose about 35% of the time against 8 or 9 random players. Of course, some people lose much more than that. You lose because your opponents are better or they simply "get lucky". In limit hold em, the majority of the players play the moment.
The general rule is you will win 1 big bet per hour in the "long run". How have you done over say the last 100 hours? 100 hours is not a large sample, but it can give you some insights maybe your game needs improvement.
As for your flush hand, I would lead with it on the flop and check raise on the turn. The river, all you can do is check-call.
i dont know what the correct thing to do is on the flop but i see so many people check automatically whenever they make a big hand. with that flop dont you think some people would have calling hands that wouldnt want to bet. if i planned on checkraising on the flop i might want some info that a person close to my left may bet.
Just looking back my records for this year, I play 6-12 limit on daily basis. My biggest loss is -532 in one session. I have 24.4% of loss sessions out of all sessions I have played. The everage loss amount is -191.58 per loss session out of all loss sessions. I believe 225 is a resonable amount in a typical game, if 3-6-12 is the same like 6-12.
regards,
jikun
With all of those callers, you can take a chance on a check. Ray Zee is correct, maybe some of them do not want to bet. But, the odds are good that with so many in the pot at least one is gambling. When that player bets, they will call.
Slowplay a very good hand? It's almost boring? Most of poker is boring. When I get one, a hand, that I have little to worry about, I want some fun. I want to blow beer bubbles out of my nose later, laughing and thinking about the hand. I want to wander off to bed with a snicker all over my face.
Another reason why betting is often a better idea than check-raising when you have a big hand is that if you bet you've got a good chance of making it 3 bets on the flop.
Post deleted at author's request.
Maybe in more aggressive mid-limit games you probably have the best hand in an unraised 6-hander, but in the loose, sometimes VERY passive Low-limit games in which I am often involved, Gary, you can almost be assured that KTs is not the best hand going in. These calling stations think nothing of not raising with AA, KK, QQ, AKs, etc. for the usual litany of reasons: 'my Aces never win', 'I was trying to disguise my hand', 'I was slowplaying', etc,etc,etc. I might raise KTs out of the BB once every 5 or 6 times with the right mix of opponents, but not as a routine play just because no one else raised first.
You don't necessarily have to have the best hand to make money off a preflop raise with many callers.
Quite true, Bart-Man, but when I'm in a game with weak passive players who are falling all over themselves to give you their money, I am not sure that raising it up with marginal hands out of position is the best way to get their money. Play solid hands in position, throw in the odd curve to mix it up on occasion, but for the most part, I have found I will get the money by playing better hands going in, playing them in position, and betting better after the flop than the opposition.
Don't ask me. I can't remember the start of this current losing session. That's not straight losses, of course, just a long period of losing.
I've come to the conclusion that I was lucky for 4 years and now have been unlucky for 9 months.
Maybe I just don't want to face the truth. 8-)
8-( Why was I smiling?
Sometimes a bet on the flop with the nuts will make your opponents believe that you are on a draw. They EXPECT you to slowplay the nut flush.
You did however get into a position where you had 2 callers who most likely had the worst of it. The extra 7 was just unlucky. Even 1 caller from the flop forward would probably have beaten you.
I do not believe that it's a missed bet pre-flop. It may come back re-raised and only four handed.
The odds you have now (free play) will never be better.
You'll get some deception. Most will expect you to have QQ - AA.
If I were on the button with 10-Js then I could raise. I have great position, enough callers, deception and a better chance to make a straight as well as a flush. Also, I do not like my kicker in the case of a K flopping (although I do like it if a 10 flops).
Welcome to the world of losing! - sometimes you just get screwed over - just reevaluate your plays and make sure you weren't going on tilt at all...
I've been trying to keep some records of my poker play and the standard deviation I get is something like 10-12 BB/hr. - so your losing session isn't too far outside of that...I don't think this should be a normal distribution anyways...
Anyhow, not much to say about this hand - you just got screwed over - saved a bet by not getting that checkraise in...
Keep at it - you're still way ahead of me ;-)
~DjTj
Post deleted at author's request.
It appears to me that Badger played the player on this hand. It would be much harder to play the way he did without people in the game, such as on-line. The more my game improves, the more playing the people becomes important. Caro's Book Of Tells is like a Dick and Jane book in elementary school.
Badger has a marginal hand that he senses is good. So, he just calls, 'just calling' is considered a bad move generally, but often it is so correct. Being aggressive is considered the best way, in a fight, with fists I mean, often it is better to use your opponent's weight and energy against them. Saving your own and letting them beat themselves.
Dick and Jane and Spot have hurt learning more than helped it. They have encouraged reading by "sounding" the words which limits ones ability to excel. Such as it is with Book of Tells if one relys on it before relying on sound technique. If you rely on tells your doomed when you don't get one. BoT is very useful if you use it to adjust your technique.
You must have seen Mohamad Ali.
- Louie
Due to all the 'three strikes, your out' laws and a few years in the pen on a violence rap, I now take my aggression down to the poker room. It's one of the only venues I know where you can actually beat up an old lady. Or where an old lady can beat up on you. Beating up on people is really the heart of why I play poker. Who needs Ali?
Relying on anyone aspect of a game that changes like the weather is certainly a mistake. Lots of exercise for the mind.
Over intellectualizing poker is stupid. I do not do it. If losing, gone. If winning, you'll hate my face. Two quick gones and one good hate, I make money. Figure the odds on that...two quick gones, he was losing and left. One good hate, he stuck around because he was winning.
Not needing to pay my bills playing poker, I play poker how I please.
Well thought and played. In this case *it depends* on your understanding of the opponents pre-flop playing standards. But if you *know* he must have a straight draw your actions are pretty deterministic: call him down or else raise the turn for value *depending* on whether he's going to bluff the river.
But I think the forum would be better off if you would PLEASE go ahead and analyze a hand giving whatever dependancies you like such as ones that result in drastic differences in your actions. This is superior to just *it depends*.
- Louie
Post deleted at author's request.
Peoples preconceived notions about you must have something to do with it. 4 hands in 6 hours? Or may be I should ask a question that will crystalize the picture:
About how many hands did you drag the pot in that 6 hours?
Thanks,
-Michael
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger:
Very impressive and thanks for sharing it. A couple of questions:
1. When you say that he wouldn't have 4-bet the flop with a hand "like K3," do you also mean hands such as Qx, Tx and underpairs (maybe he would have raised or folded with the last of these before the flop?)?
2. Why do you say that a raise would have virtually put you all in? What would have been the point of a raise?
I think you should have liked your hand better when he bet the river. Maybe you did. I'm pleased that he didn't show you J4s.
Post deleted at author's request.
I played in my first no limit live game ever last weekend. The setting was the luxurious El Dorado in Reno. The players seemed like regulars and were licking their chops to take the newbie's stack. They played with a $5 BB, a $3 SB and a $2 post on the button. You could bring it in for $10 or more. Buy-ins varied from about $200 to about $800. I bought in for $300. The game was tight and more passive than I expected.
I played solid and aggressive for two hours and was up a few hundred, mostly on steals or semi-steals. I needed to go meet some people for dinner, so I decided to play my last free hand. I am UTG and pick up KK. I make it $30 to go. This had been about my average raise preflop on big hands as well as steals, and I woul say that this size raise was getting no callers 60% of the time or more. A passive, elderly player (Old Guy) calls, as does a louder, younger guy on the button (Loud Guy) who had only been at the table for 30 minutes, so no real read but he seems tight/solid. Blinds fold.
Flop comes 8-9-10. I bet $60 and they both call.
Turn is a Q. I check, Old Guy checks, Loud Guy bets, I fold, OG calls. River is a rag. Check to LG who goes all-in, OG calls and shows Q-10o, which loses to LG's JJ.
Please comment on my play of the hand. Also, if the flop is less uniform (e.g. 3-8-9), what would you bet on the flop?
SW
You caught a bad flop here. I might have checked here due to fact 2 people cold called your legitimate raise pre-flop (probably with a connector or intermediate pair).Too many draws or even the potential of a "made" hand here to bet and win the pot.
I like you play on fourth, good fold here. OG got sucked in on both the turn and river because he played too passive.
With a semi- ragged flop and an overpair like KK, I would have bet the pot ($100) and see what happens. There is a good chance JJ would have raised, then you could have torn him apart either right then or later on the turn.
I'm UTG with QQ in 3-6HE. I raise and there's six callers including the BB. The flop comes Q36 rainbow. BB Checks, I Check, there's one more check and then a bet. One player drops out. BB check-raises. I call time ... look around at the competition and smooth call. 6 see the turn of J and now there's a 2-flush. BB bets ... here's where I think I should have raised, but I only called. 3 players drop out and there's three of us left to see the river which is a 4 off-suit. Now the BB checks, I bet and it's called around. BB had KK - I show QQQ - other player mucks.
Was the slow-play correct? Did I miss bets? JFYI - This was my last hand before I was to leave. I had played 4 hours and had 11 pocket pairs. Only 2 of them paid off. I was -97 for the session.
Thanks,
-Michael
Post deleted at author's request.
I think getting in as many chips in as possible as quick as possible would have resulted in heads up after the flop - which would have limited the size of the pot. But at the same time I don't think I maximized the size either. I guess had I known that 3 people were going to drop out on the turn anyway, I would have raised the turn.
I'm also not sure what my table image was. I mean with 11 pocket pairs in 4 hours I was doing my share of calling. So I guess may be I'm viewed as loose/aggressive. If that's the case, may be I Should have raised and re-raised. However, there were good players at the table ... it was a moderately tough table.
Thanks for the comments :)
Post deleted at author's request.
i agree with almost never slowplaying. i only slowplay if 2 or more people can be expected to bet for me or i have good reason to think everyone will fold. this last one almost never happens.
but i think the way this hand went, he lost a little but not much by slowplying. but in the long run he would lose much.
scott
Michael:
Just my thoughts:
Pre-flop: I don't like raising with QQ when 5 or 6 people are usually coming along anyway with any Ace/King. I just call and see the flop for 1 bet - If I like it (nothing higher than a J) or love it (flop the set, like you did) then it makes the raise/check-raise on the flop more effective.
Post-flop: IMHO the biggest mistake you made here is calling time. It's obviously a very loose low-limit game with people throwing money in. Don't let them know that you think about your play at the table. Raise, call, whatever but don't call time. (Besides, what was there to think about, you had the nuts at that point in time)
That being said if you do just call the 2 bets on the flop (Im assuming you were planning on checkraising) I would think that the goal would be for the BB to bet out again so that you can raise the turn and hope for a 3bet from either the BB or flop bettor.
I agree with Gary - slowplaying (especially in LL) is overrated. If you're going to do it, this flop was almost ideal for it, but I just Bet and raise - you'll still get plenty of action.
Packerfan1
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Plus slowplaying looks suspicious and more people are likely to fold if you wait till the turn to raise. When you bet the flop other payers will put you on hands like AQ or even AK but not QQ. If this happens your likley to get unlimited action from the guy with KK. Betting out actually disguises the strength of your hand. Either way waiting to the river to raise is clearly wrong in a LL game b/c the players will call raises to the end with almost nothing. Like everyone said above slowplaying is almost never correct in LL HE even when the board is as nonthreatneing as this one is, people will stay no matter what.
Michael,
I like your call -- but do not hesitate -- packerfan is right -- on the flop. Let *them* slam and jam. But then I think that a raise on the turn is almost automatic... make em pay for the big bets. And they will not have any idea of your hand after you meekly called on the flop, hehe. Do not slowplay, make em pay.
Mark
There is a difference between top set and top full. You need to be a little more concerned about protecting your hand, and less about maxing out on the money. When the twoflush came on the turn a raise was in order. Flushes and straights beat trips.
Thanks Bob,
That makes sense. The possibility of a flush at that point certainly had me concerned. Not to mention there were now 2 levels of straight draws now. This is 3-6 afterall. The board was 36JQ (2 spades) with five or six people in. You're right - in retrospect a raise was mandatory at that juncture. I should have wanted to take it down right then and there. Luckily I did end up with it.
Ciaffone's comments are absolutely correct for big bet games where you are likely to pay off a big bet on the end. In small bet games there are times that the extra money you get from those drawing dead (or slim) outweigh the advantage you get by making someone correctly fold a draw for two big bets who would correctly call for one. If this is the situation their original call cannot be worth more than one bet on average, (if it was they'd be correct to call two) so raising vis-a-vis this hands is worth at MOST one bet. (yes, but there may be more than one of these hands...) And if they ARE correct to call two you are better off risking one bet getting two calls (one drawing good, one drawing dead) than risking two bets for just one call.
So you need to gage the likelyhood of opponents willing to draw dead (or too slim) for one BB but not two. I believe for loose limit games this is the primary consideration.
But back to the flop slow play: It will looks REAL suspicious when you raise pre-flop and then check-and-call-a-double bet. Anybody who is willing to notice and willing put two neurons together should be thinking "set of queens". What else would you play that way? Notice also with the raiser on your right a slow play will force the field to call two big bets cold when you raise which they are much less likely to do than call two small bets cold.
I STRONGLY suggest you routinely flail away unless you have a specific good reason to slow play THIS hand. If you slow play sets most of the time you are slow playing far too often.
- Louie
Thanks Louie,
That makes sense too. This is a diffiult game! ... so many angles can be argued and appear correct. I think I slow played just because I saw an opportunity to do so. For a new player like me, I haven't seen many slow play opportunities. When I hit the flop hard and the flop was NOT threatening in any way, I figured "perfect slow play opportunity". You're right though, the player on my right slow played her KK pre-flop - but she was BB. But I could of had AK or AJ and missed the flop and made a loose call on BB's raise. This is 3-6 and players are known to be loose if anyone even noticed that I was the raiser and now I'm pretending to have a tough time calling a double bet. I think Bob is right that I should have raised the turn since there's a high straight draw and a flush draw at that time.
Thanks for the enlightening comments.
-Michael
For a new player like me, I haven't seen many slow play opportunities.
In $3-6, there will be very few slow playing opportunities. As a novice, you surely want to add new tricks and techniques to your arsenal, but slow playing your strong hands is mostly a waste of money against a bunch of loose players. They'll call you down anyway, and call several bets on the flop with their crappy overcard or small pocket pair, so you might as well charge them while they're willing to pay. I like to play sets fast on the flop because after people call a bet with their crappy overcard/small pocket pair, they'll usually pay as many bets as it takes to see the turn card.
I played a bit of $5-10 online not long ago. In 1 hand, a very loose player limped, I raised w/TT, a loose player cold called, and the limper called. The flop came T62 rainbow. This would be a classic slowplaying opportunity against a small field with such a raggy board, except that I knew both players were calling stations and would probably call with any overcards, and any crappy draw, so there was no need to slowplay. Limper check-called to the river (turn 9, river blank), and the hand history revealed he/she held J9o. If they're going to call with 3-straights and god knows what else, you might as well just bet, and that's multiplied ten-fold against a large field.
-Sean
I would have led with my set on the flop. A smooth call on the flop is OK too. I DEFINITELY would have raised on the turn for two reasons. First, anyone with a draw has to pay two bets. Second, KK may have 3 bet thinking you had AQ, then you could have 4 bet. The river bet is a no brainer.
OK...here's what happened last night. 3-6 HE, very very loose game. I'm stuck about 200 bucks when I start to go on a run. There's one guy at the table who is a complete fish. He check raised me three times with ace high while I was on two pair in a matter of 45 minutes. About 15 minutes after this happened I hold Ah Jh, with a flop of Jx 10x 7h. Turn is 4h. He bets, I raise, he calls. River is 2h. He bets and turns his cards over. I say 'I'm not done betting' and fire my chips halfway across the table. He tosses in more chips and turns his cards (Qx 10x) back over and mucks them. Then for the next hour, whenever we get to the river and he's in he says 'You done betting?' Four times I say 'Nope' and four times I raise, he calls and loses. The last hand of the night it happens again when I flop trip 5's. He checks the river and says 'You done bettin?' I check and lay down my pocket fives and say 'Yeah, I'm done betting cuz you only have 10 bucks left,' and get up and walk to the cashier. I ended up +180...with the majority of that 380 swing being his money. The point is, this guy was a regular at this casino and expected me to call him out of courtesy?? This is a ridiculous practice that I see happening more and more in games that I play. I play poker to make money, not to kill time. What do you guys think about this? I felt like I set this guy up perfectly and he had no choice but to sit there and try to act cool while I rolled him for 2 hours...I'd love to know what he said after I left the room...even though I already know what the other players and dealers where thinking. They were ready to get their piece...I hope he had some more cash for them to win.
I agree with you. I'm there to learn how to play good solid poker. And to do that I need to practice to the best of my ability. This excludes being nice with my betting. Mind you though - I like the social aspect and enjoy much the banter that goes on. It's all part of poker in my minds eye.
So - in conclusion - when I play against you, if you think you have a better hand or think you can bluff me out ... by all means BET! But when I talk to you and joke around, by all means - be nice. :)
Schmucks are just that, schmucks - and on occastion you may be better off to humor them and play their game (in certain instances only).
Sounds like you've found a great game. The last thing in the world you want to do is kill the goose that's laying those golden eggs. Always be congenial and friendly towards this regular. Make him feel wanted and welcome in your game. And always be conciously aware that anything you say, either in jest or seriously, may be construed by this fish the wrong way and you may permanently drive him from your game.
You did nothing wrong. People assume that just because you're at a 3-6 or 2-4 or whatever low limit game your supposed to be super friendly. I used to be very social when I was starting out at the smaller games. Now that I'm playing 10-20 and higher I have a different attitude. I look at my opponents with utter hatred. I don't really have anything against them but I think it makes me much sharper and less likely to lose focus. I've made friends at the poker table but when they're at the table with me I have to look at them like jackals who are after my mortgage payments.
Whether a regular or not, this guy is unquestionably a jerk and a moron. He could not possibly have been expecting you to call him out of "courtesy", since he clearly does not understand the meaning of that term.
I agree that more and more people seem to be showing their hands before the betting is over. Why they do this is hard to fathom, since it's almost never in their favor.
I didn't see anything that you did that was unethical.
Did he have a better hand than trip 5's on this last hand?
You seem to have let your ego get in the way here. He was feeding you and you should have loved him for it. After you left you should hope he goes on a winning streak and wins all his money back. Easier to win from him than from the others, correct?
What piece could the dealers get?
He had about 10 bucks left when I flopped trip 5's so I just checked it the whole way to make a point, as I knew I was going to leave after that hand either way, and no he didn't have a better hand.
The dealer was getting quite a kick out of the whole thing as he must have known that this guy was a fish and that he was messing around with the wrong person.
I tried not to let my ego get in the way but we all know the feeling when you send someone on tilt...whether it be in 3-6 or 10-20...and this guy was on serious tilt.
I have made many friends playing poker but have never had a guy act that rude and continue to do so when he is getting beat. He insisted on mocking me saying 'you done betting yet' when the whole table knew he was playing junk hands...if he would have been smart he could have said that once or twice when he actually had something and caught me in a trap...but smart he was not, broke is more like it...and yes, I'll be going back there on Friday night looking for his table...
Its not unethical to raise with the nuts; but in this case its POSSIBLE he thought he was calling. If you knew he thought he was calling then I suppose it MAY be unethical to raise.
I'm of the opinion that its unethical to attempt to piss someone off with anything other than checks-calls-bets-raises-and-show-downs. So if you were goading him then yes; otherwise no.
- Louie
PS. You are a fool if you WANT the live fish to LOSE to anybody except you. If he regularly wins when you aren't there he'll be there lots more often when you are. You're attitude in this regard suggests to me you WERE goading him some. If so, repent by watching two episodes of "As the Stomach Turns" before you play next.
I recently played my first HE game with a kill. The mechanics of this one were when one player won 2 straight hands, the 4-8 game became 8-16. The killer had to post an $8 blind, regardless of his position. (i.e., if he was the big blind, he still only had to post $8 -- his $4 BB plus 4 more; if he was small blind, his $2 BB + 6 more). The killer got no positional advantage and just took his turn where it would have fallen with the extra blind. Thus, if he was UTG, it was almost like a straddle.
Any particular strategies for this kind of a game?
You want to avoid killing it youself: ** play more selectively after winning a pot ** play more selectively when UTG (you win more BB hands which is next than any other) ** Play more conservatively (chase players out less) in these situations. If you have won the pot subtract $7 from all pot odds calculations.
There are some ways you can encouage the previous winner to win the next pot but since this is real tricky and you gain only 1/10th the benefit, I strongly suggest we avoid trying. Discouraging the winner when its your BB next also seems unworthwhile.
Kill pots are much less likely to be stolen (wrongfully since the killer rarely release and rightfully since the pot is relatively a little bigger).
Getting frequent killers on your right will generally improve your position for the kill pots since even these guys are a little selective and are therefore more likely to be killing it when they are in late position.
After winning one pot expect Dick Testosterone to raise aggressively and/or be real tenacious next hand since he LIKES to kill it. After winning one pot expect Bob Balding to eagerly abandon a hand giving you an opportunity or two a night for a brain-dead steal (such as when he's killing it himself). Clearly identify those who want to kill it, those that don't know or care, and those that want to avoid it (like you).
Seat position vis-a-vis other players (tight on the left, loose on the right) matters more in this game since player tendancies are exagerated.
You should appear to want to kill it so make a little bally-hoo when you do. Any more than a "little" will make it really obvious. Wordlessly banging down the chips with a smile should do it.
- Louie
Also, if it's at all possible to get dealt AA during a kill hand, you might want to try doing that.
Seriously though, do treat it somewhat like a straddle. In fact, a rather reluctant straddle because some players will be forced to put money into the pot when they really would like to avoid it.
Now, some hyper aggressives not only like to kill but will raise themselves when it gets to them. If they're fairly early and you've got a good hand, three bet it to try to get heads up with superior position, a most likely superior hand, and double the reward when you win.
Dan
All right whose the wise guy? Whose using T.J. Cloutier's name here on the forum? Is this another pseudonym Abdul? Is it you? Maybe Sklansky? Could be. Sklansky would only use the name of someone that is a better poker player than he is. T.J certainly fits that bill. Well that might not be true. I've played with the real T.J. The son of a gun knocked me out of the Orleans 500 NL Holdem tourney. Boy I bet there are a lot of us that can say that. T.J knocked me out that is. Of course since I never played with Oz, my idol, Sklansky I wouldn't know who was better. He or T.J. Probably wasn't sklansky. Besides someone told me that Sklansy's psuedoynm was Abdul. I think it was lonestar that told me that. I wonder if Lonestar is her real name or a pseudonym. Do you think Lonestar is really Lady Gambler or maybe Lonestar is really Mason. No, Mason has lousy legs. Nice eyes though. That's what Sklansky, or is it Abdul, nnno maybe T.J. anyway somone with a name told me they liked Mason. Couldn't have been Badger. That's his real name. He doesn't like Mason. Sometimes. That reminds me of an REM song "Every body hurts....Sometimes, Sometimes". That's how I felt when the real T.J. (I hope you don't mind me calling you T.J., if you are the real Mr. Cloutier, that is,Mister Cloutier.)
Hey, wait a minute. I bet that this supposed T.J. is really Mike Caro. Yeah, Yeah that's the ticket. Mike Caro. I bet it is. I know for a fact that Mike, excuse me, Mister Caro lurks here on 2+2 every once in a while. I know this for a fact but I'm not telling how I know (he told me so himself, in so many words). BTW - Mike is supposed to be coming out with a wWindows Version of the Probe. Sure would like a copy T.J. Whay am I asking T.J? Because he might be Mike. That reminds me of "I want to be like Mike" Another gamblin guy, I think. Hey that's it. T.J Cloutier that posted here is really Michael Jordan. Man, I knew it all the time!
Vince
Need some coffee??
What got to you lately?
Sme
Sorry everyone. I thought Iwas on the other forum!
Vince
k
No matter who it was, I still think he thinks about flies too much. I still think he'll go for it.
Knowledge is power, my friends. Study your opponent well.
:-)
In Sudhir Padmanabban's Poker Digest article (Donning your Opponent's thinking cap), he discusses a hand that I'm sure I don't fully comprehend. I should say that I play mostly 10-20, and I'm sure the thinking doesn't reach the level they do in Sudhir's (and many of your) games.
Sudhir had Ad,Jd. The flop was 7d,5c,2c and it was checked around. The turn was the Jc. Sudhir bet, an opponent raised, Sudhir re-raised, his opponent made it 4 bets and Sudhir folded.
I understand that his opponent may have thought Sudhir was on a steal. I somewhat understand that Sudhir understood this and since other legitimate hands for his opponent didn't make a lot of sense, folding was not automatic. It's his re-raise and reason for re-raising that I'm trying to understand...
He states that he wanted his opponent to fold a hand like Kc,Jx. But if his opponent did indeed have the Kc, surely this draw (or re-draw) must have accounted at least in some part, for his initial raise. Is it now reasonable to expect him to fold for 3-bets?
The reasoning of this hand goes on to say that since his opponent had the Ac,Qd, he knew that Sudhir did NOT have the nuts and must therefore fold ALL non-nut hands (including a K-high flush). Again, I'm not understanding how this reasoning makes sense. While either player probably bets their flush draw on the flop, if Sudhir does have a K-high flush and bets the turn and his opponent now raises, Can't Sudhir still surmise that his opponent may think he's on a steal and therefore make it 3-bets with a K-high flush? So my 3 questions are this....
1). If Sudhir DID have the 2nd nuts, how wrong would he be (and why) to make it 3 bets?
2). If his opponent DID have the 2nd nut draw, how wrong would he be (and why) to call a re-raise?
3). Is the sole reason for Sudhir's re-raise to make his opponent fold a junk club if he was on a bluff steal raise?
Thanks.
- 1). If Sudhir DID have the 2nd nuts, how wrong would he be (and why) to make it 3 bets?
And call if it's raised?
JJ,
I've been very busy the last few weeks and haven't been able to post much but I was surprised skp's fine article did not get more attention on the forum (where is Jim Brier?).
This may not answer your specific question(s) but I'm not sure this is an easy laydown for skp against most opponents. First, the "very good" opponent limped from early position which would tend to mean that he holds at least upper middle cards (probably suited), a decent ace, a pair, or an AX suited (with eight callers this game sounded pretty soft).
I agree with skp's comment that his opponent would be unlikely to check a set from this position on the flop. He may often bet medium clubs (e.g. a hand like Jc Tc) in order to give him additional outs if he pairs up against a thinned field. We would also bet Ac Xc on the flop in most cases. The hands he would not bet with this flop would often include high offsuit hands.
I like skp's three bet on the turn since he is leading against many of the hands he thought his opponent could have. At the same time, I believe there is enough doubt for skp to call the other player down on the turn and with most river cards. There is just too much dead money in there.
I do think this example demonstrates the power of having the suited ace when you want to be aggressive on the turn when the board shows a three flush. Unfortunately for skp, his opponent held this card.
Anyway, hindsight is 20-20. Sorry I didn't really answer your question.
Regards,
Rick
I'm sure I don't quite follow what's being said here or in the article, but I have the following observations:
Getting the opponent to fold his low pair/kicker and small club is profitable since he's correct to chase with his 12 card out.
EVER folding the 2nd nuts heads-up is a mistake unless the opponent is Mother Theresa AND never mis-reads her hand, or you can see the opponent's hand, or ... well you get the idea. The statement "must fold all non-nut hands" is horsedodo since, of course, at least the opponent may be raising with the A-draw.
The opponent would have bet any hand that can IMPROVE to a raising hand with the Jc (such as the 4-flush or JJ or J7s), and so the only real lagitimate raising hands are the AcJ or a set. The opponent is an idiot if he likes his small flush enough to 4-bet the turn but not enough to bet for "value" the draw on the flop. Only the most passive of opponents fail to bet nut 4-flushes after everybody checks.
3-betting makes more sense if the opponent isn't going to 4-bet unless you are drawing dead.
- Louie
I've been reading HEPFAP21 (ever wonder why abbriviation is such a long word). I've got a strategic question:
S/M say that you can occasionally raise with AXs near or more likely on the button when you have something like 6 or more callers. I'm not sure if I completely understand why you would want to do this.
All you're doing is adding more money into the pot to give everyone else the correct odds to chase. Let's say the flop comes down Q-9-5 rainbow and you have the A-5. You think you can semi-bluff here when people are now getting the correct odds to chase a gutshot 8-7 or 10-8?
You hit an ace and you can't guarantee you have the best hand. With A-5s, even people playing any ace, suited or not, are nearly twice as likely to outkick you.
The only thing you've done is manipulate the pot into deluding yourself that the runner-runner flush is now worth chasing. Which pot odds might very well get to that point...but if you hadn't raised in the first place, you would have correctly folded on the flop and saved yourself a lot of money.
Basically, every time this situation comes up, you're adding an extra bet for the 3% chance that you hit your flush. With A-6 through 9, you aren't even getting a gutshot straight out of the deal.
The only times I want to raise with this hand are heads up or to change my image. But doing it even on a semi-regular basis? Unless I'm missing something, I can't see the point. Someone want to enlighten me?
Thanks
Dan
ps Was there a typo on page 97? Was the A-4 in that example supposed to be suited?
You will lose more money with this hand when you don't hit the flop real big. Hitting it big is 55x A5x 2 or 3 of the suit. Even a 234 flop is dangerous.
AXs is NOT a raising hand in my book. Only thing good about it is it is easy to muck when you don't hammer the flop.
I had a feeling you would respond this way, Rounder. Thing is, I agree with you. S & M state that this increases your implied odds. This is true...during the (relatively) infrequent times you flop a 4 flush. The rest of the time you're the one chasing. And while you might be right to chase, given the pot odds, you're the one who brought it upon yourself by raising in the first place! You manipulate the pot, and that ends up manipulating you. That can't possibly be profitable.
Dan
That's why I play the players, the cards and let the pot take care of it self.
Rounder said: That's why I play the players, the cards and let the pot take care of it self.
This may be a stupid question Rounder, but I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean by this statement. I understand what you mean by playing the players, but just a quick explanation of the statement would be beneficial to me.
Thanks, in advance.
Ok - when I make a bet or raise the last thing I am worried about is making the pot the "correct" size for someone to call me. I am doing it for strategic reasons - pot building, intimidation or to isolate somone who is playing fast and loose.
In other words I don't let the pot size dictate my actions - unless it is so small it isn't worth my while. I don't chase long shots cuz the "pot is big" and will get away from a losing hand whatever the size of the pot.
Now no rediculous examples PLEASE.
But you do play pot odds correct? (I'm just making sure that I didn't read this wrong)
Like, you flop the nut 4 flush and pot is paying 10 to one (or something greater than odds against making hand), do you chase then?
This is the way that I've always been told to play poker and I'd have a tough time beleiving it's wrong, so I'm just checking to make sure I am not misinterpreting anything.
Thanks.
Newbie,
don't go there!
This has been re-hashed many times.
In general, Rounder does not continue if he does not have the best hand, a possible bluff, or a great draw.
If the the pot is laying 30-1 and he has a 5-1 draw then of course he will play. If it is 17-1 and he has a 13-1 draw then he will not chase. It's his low-variance style and he swears by it.
Apologies Rounder, for any inaccuracies.
You got me begged right. I need a really good draw the nuts or more outs than just the 9 a flush affords.
This is specially true in tournaments and in NL I do not draw except when I am playing bad.
But what if there was $1,000,000 in the pot?
Hey! OW! Leggo my arm, that hurts!
RD
x
I am new here.
Hence the name.
I think Rounder has more converts than we might suspect.
One thing: not only are you giving everybody else the right odds to chase (when you snag an Ace and nobody else has one) but you are also giving YOURSELF the right odds to chase when you snag a 5, or an low Ace and a 3-flush. You WANT them to "chase" whenever you hit better than a stiff Ace.
I think this hand is going to beat 6 loose callers more often than one time in 7 especially if they are aggressive but don't raise this time (increasing the chance you have the only Ace).
And even if this is a "bad" raise its not by very much and raising "occationally" gives you significant equity when you raise with real hands in other situations.
- Louie
I agree with Louie. However, the key word is "occasionally". I see lots of people religously raising with this hand, and it gets alot of them in trouble. When they hit an Ace it's almost impossible for them to throw their hand away in the face of pressure, they just can't do it. They are frequently outkicked or beat by a better two pair. Or they're chasing back door flush draws in the face of raises. It's for this reason that I believe it is usually wrong to raise with this hand. Even if you will win "more than your fair share" of pots against 6 random hands, you have potential for serious bankroll leakage. It seems to me that the right thing to do with this hand is to call more in earlier position, if you can be sure of enough multiway action because you don't mind a raise behind you so much. Get in as cheap as you can, and then go in swinging or get out.
There are other ways to win besides the flush. No-one figures you for a 5 if the flop is 55x.
Some players will have correct odds to chase and some will chase with very little chance. You'll make money (and so will the gutshot draws) off of these players.
When you do flop a draw (and I include straight draws) you'll have excellent odds to continue playing. The idea is that you get your fair share of the pots by playing well postflop (you do have an ace after all) combined with good position.
When you do flop a big hand or make it on the turn or river you get extra "drawing dead" money due to the size of the pot.
Also, you may get checked to on the flop allowing you to see another card or bet for value.
There are likely other reasons as well.
I personally would raise in such a position maybe 1/4 times. Normally I would like to play for the 1 bet and get away cheaply if needed.
The idea is that when you have a hand that is drawing to the nuts, you WANT people to chase. They're really chasing the guy with the best hand, since if you hit yours you'll probably win regardless of the number of people in the pot.
The magic number of 6 or more players brings you into the territory where you are getting an overlay to call just for the nut flush draw, which is why this raise may be profitable.
On the other hand, raising with this hand may induce you into playing it poorly if you hit anything other than the nut flush draw. It's pretty easy to talk yourself into going all the way to the river with your Axx flop because the pot is so big. And in fact, you may create a pot big enough to give you the odds to draw just to hit your kicker. This means your variance goes way up.
Personally, this isn't a raise I often make, unless I believe there is a good chance that I have the best Ace on the table. If my 'x' in Axs is an 8, and there are no raises in front of me, I may well have the only Ace, or an Ace with the best kicker. In that case, I'll raise more often. But it's still not an automatic play.
But...unless you flop a 4 flush, you're not getting anyone to chase, you're the one doing the chasing.
You'll flop it a little less than 11% of the time, or a little over 1:8 odds. What this means is that if you're on the button and raise with A7s after 6 callers, you need both the BB and the SB to stay in, and even then you'll be losing a very slight amount of money.
We still haven't factored in times when someone tricky limped in early and 3 bets your raise. Now if people start folding you certainly don't have the right odds on a hand you shouldn't have been raising with in the first place.
Now some would agrue that what you lose on the pre-flop, you make up for in implied odds on the post-flop. After all, when you flop a 4 flush you only need 2-3 of those 8 to stick around to make it profitable. But if the game is loose enough to have 8 regular limpers you'll probably end up having at least 3 post flop raise or no raise. And you end up saving money on those times when you really don't have the best of it.
Lest we forget those people who not only have redraws to your nut flush, but now have extremely good odds to draw them.
The majority of the time the flop isn't going to hit you...but it might tap you. It might lull you in with an A or an X. But you can't semi-bluff with a pot that big and if you try going for the 22 to 1 runner runners you'll end up costing yourself a lot of money.
But the main problem is the pot manipulation. The only thing it seems to do is manipulate you. Purposely raising so that you now have an excuse to try for those runner-runners is about as sophisticated as saying "well, I've already put this much money in...might as well see the turn."
We all know it's wrong, so why do it? Being influenced by the pot size in that situation is like being conned by your own propaganda.
Dan
When you hold Axs and face six opponents preflop, you are almost always getting an overlay on your action.
- Andrew
It's not necessarily wrong. The main reason for the raise is so that if you hit your big draw the other players will be pot-stuck and play along. With 6 people in the pot before the flop you're maybe losing a fraction of a small bet with the raise, but you gain that back if you induce one or two people to go much farther than they otherwise would if you hit your hand.
As you implied, to get away with this play you have to play very well after the flop and know exactly when you do and do not have real outs to continue profitably. If you can't do that, avoid this play. If you can, throw it into your playbook and use it occasionally.
Another example of playing the moment. Why so much optimism? Axs is trash unless you flop a flush, two pair, or trip x. My BIG problem with this Ax raise is the blind could 3-bet and maybe a limper decides to raise too. Now you are stuck. What now? The raise may have some logic in limit hold em, because the price is small for a loss, but I feel it is a awful play in pot or no limit unless you are first one in the pot.
Similiar logic to a small pair or connector applies here. I see this play a lot, when I'm in a blind I 3 bet anything from 8-8 on up or fold my hand to these Axs and small pair/connector raisers.
You want to see the flop cheap and THEN hammer it if the flop comes good for your hand. Else, fold and you only lose one bet versus two or more.
I am not going to ridicule anyone who does not make this play. However, I believe there are certain benefits to making this, as well as other higher variance plays on occasion.
Let's agree on this. Whether you've raised or just called with AXs in a large field, you are NOT necessarily looking to flop an ace! And that principle is a key to playing ALL hands that do well in large multi-way pots. That is, if you're going to play these hands and gain the most in the long run, you need to play very well after the flop. This is why pros can play a few more hands than the rest of us. If they know up front they will be losing less while we lose more, and gaining more when we gain less, then they certainly can raise the stakes and play for a bigger pot!
I think David Sklansky's response to "Playing Trash in the BB" is very relevant to this post. If you cannot discern from the number of people in the hand, when to continue and when to release, but merely play on asumming you have pot odds, (I hit an ace, now I have odds to snag a 5 or visa versa) then you should listen to everyone who opposes this play. Because you'll have now done it to yourself. You'll have manipulated the pot to where you will be losing more money than you otherwise would. There are other benefits to raising with these types of hands, not the least of which, is table image..
I think raising with Axs or 78s or a small pair in late position with 6 or more callers is all right if done occassionally. Sklansky and Malmuth do not suggest raising with these hands every time or even every other or every third or fourth time. There are not many things you should do in a poker game every time.
Raising with these kinds of hands increases your implied odds. In other words when the flop comes raggedy and you've flopped middle set you'll get more action than you would had you just called. On occassion you'll get to take a free card when everyone checks to you. You don't have to chase just b/c you've got a three flush on the flop. OTOH, if you've got a three flush and bottom pair/ace kicker or you've got a three flush, middle pair with a gutshot then you've got plenty to call and raising is probably better unless you think you'll be three bet. If all you've got is a three flush then you probably shouldn't call a bet and most certainly would muck to a bet and a raise.
Your preflop raise is supposed to tie your opponents into chasing when you flop a good hand not to tie you into chasing when you flop a mediocre or bad hand. Letting go of a mediocre/piece of shit hand, even though the pot is bigger, is implied in the suggestion that one should occassionally raise preflop with these types of hands in this position with this many/these types of callers.
It doesn't make sense, intuitively or logically, that a play designed to cause your opponents to make mistakes (calling with overcards when you flop a set or two pair, which is basically the most profitable thing about the play) would cause you to make the same mistakes. The thing about Axs or 67s or 55 is that you either like the flop or you don't? Most of the time you wont. So most of the time you're going to fold on the flop. You give up that extra 4 bucks or 10 bucks preflop to gain multiple sb's and bb's when the flop hits you right where you want it to.
This would be very clear if you reread the section in HFAP that addresses the subject.
chris
At what point does it become reasonable or profitable to call a raise out of the BB with any 2 random cards? Last night I had my BB raised out of middle position, and when it got back to me there were a total of 8 other players in the pot. If I (correctly) decided that the chance of a limp re-raise from one of the early limpers was negligible, would it be mathematically correct to put in the other $3 with trash like T3o? I'm getting 17:1 on the additonal bet; is that enough to justify trying to hit the flop hard enough to take down what promises to bet a sizable pot? What happened during the hand is unimportant; I'm just looking for some help from the group as to the wisdom? of my decision. Thanks.
My normal pratice is to call a raise from the BB if there are 4 or more players in the hand when the action gets to me. This is regardless of what cards I hold. This is also in games no greater than 4-8 and it helps if the initial raise was early (not many left to act after me). But I think this is a function of how well your opponents play. Undoubtedly, if the flop hits you hard, you'll drag the pot. But how keen are your opponents? Will they recognize that you always call a raise from the BB. And when you start betting are they likely to fold. If not, go for it! If they are alert and conscientious ... forget it. They're gonna be ready when you flop the giant.
Just my opinion ... I'd like to hear others.
I think I would prefer to call in this situation in bigger games rather than smaller, although both situations are with extreme caution. In the bigger games you are less likely to be out kicked because people would tend to muck the bad hands more than in the smaller games. Not that calling automatically with 7-2o is correct, but I think unsuited connectors may become playable if you know that you are the only one in with trash (better chance of the flop hitting you combinded with less chance of being out kicked).
You're probably not supposed to, but I remember a Bellagio 30-60 game last fall when I was in the bb, utg raised, 6 cold callers, I called with 5-9o, and the flop came 5-9-5. With that many folks in, I just couldn't help myself . . . .
That's juicy. Reminds me of a hand I had a few weeks ago. . .defended my BB against a raise with K4o. I thought I was making a bad play, then the flop came 44K. And the turn was the case 4!
Personally, I wouldn't go that far. In situations like that, I'll call with any two suited and marginally connected cards (i.e. 84s), or two unsuited connectors or gappers (68o, etc).
The problem with these situations is that you rarely hit a flop hard with the garbage cards, and when you hit it weakly the pot is often so big that you can't let it go. So it's a high-variance, low-ev play.
A few months ago there was a major debate about whether there existed players who were beating up on small games but elected to stay at that level rather than moving up, in spite of allmost certain success at bigger games. I and others were skeptical. Gary Carson and Badger were not. Eventually Dunc Mills was mentioned as the perfect example and I accepted it. Now however I am not so sure. For by this question Mr. Mills exhibits a serious leak in poker thinking involving high odds and multiway pots. There are many situations in poker where extra callers hurt you more than the increased pot odds help. It is critical to recognize these situations. For instance if you call a raise on the button with 87s after five others call, a flop of A73 will allow you to call a bettor or maybe a bettor and a caller but certainly not a bettor and three callers. Similarly hands like J2 offsuit do not gain by having lots of preflop limpers. All top players know this. If Badger and Gary will be honest that will have to admit that Dunc not knowing this is strong evidence of a problem that could keep him from significant success in bigger games. The reason it hasn't in smaller games is twofold: For one he undoubtedly plays most situations well. Secondly the error in question is only a small one against terrible players. It gets much worse in bigger games. Thus I would suggest to Dunc and anyone else who thinks high odds with lousy hands might be worth taking in multi way pots to do a little more thinking. It may be the only thing you need to fix before you can start making good money at the higher stakes.
x
?
He means the "Plus EV?" thread posted by Tom Haley on April 7, 1998 and responses thereto. (Q5o in BB, 6-handed).
It's a subtle Mason slam, Rick, you know Abdul, he likes teasing him...
---
?
Maybe this can shed some light on the matter, bring up sentimental memories, moist some eyes over the times long gone...
---
Izmet,
Thanks for the link to a classic thread. I've always been in the throw it away camp for offsuit unconnected garbage out of the blinds for either a half bet (when in the small blind) or against a raise (when in the big blind) in a multi-way pot. I was very surprised to see who thought it was close or even +EV.
Good luck with all your ventures in Slovenia/Albania/wherever ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick, my attempt to stir up some controversy here about "implied odds" has been ignored. Perhaps rightfully so. I normally dump the trash as well, but it does become trying to be in a very loose LL game, players winning with garbage, while you are being blinded and timed away. Even more so when your garbage would have taken that big pot from the blind. When your winning it's trivial, but when your losing desperate people tend to do desperate things.
Headcase,
Let's say you call in the blind with offsuit garbage such as T3 with the intention of playing on only if you flop two pair, trips, a full house, quads and a one card open-ended straight.
Well you certainly have implied odds on quads and a full house but the chance of flopping these hands is minuscule. Now if you flop the one card straight you will usually be splitting the pot with someone else (especially if you use the ten) and sometimes will lose to someone using two legitimate cards (e.g., board is 7 8 9 J 2 - you lose to QT). In addition, you don't get much action on the turn and river with one card starlight's.
When you flop trips and get any action (once again - especially with the ten), how do you like your hand? And if you flop two pair you are simply not that strong; in fact your hand is a "scared hand" post flop and would love to maybe put in one "narrow the field" raise on the flop and then go all in.
What I'm saying is that against a large field where you usually need to show the best hand to win these hands don't win often enough and when they hit the flop they often come in an expensive second best. But give me a 6 4 offsuit and I will flop enough open ended or double gutshot straight draws (in addition to my freak fulls and quads and well played trips or two pair) to justify my investment.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Do check out that Q5 offsuit thread that Chris Alger and Izmet pointed out above.
For instance if you call a raise on the button with 87s after five others call, a flop of A73 will allow you to call a bettor or maybe a bettor and a caller but certainly not a bettor and three callers.
I just wanted to look at this a little more. You are getting at least 18-1 odds. Don't you think ate least a & would probably put you into the lead, and probably an 8 too? I realize you could be outkicked, someone could have pocket 8s, or a set already, but this seems like a good place to take one off.
I don't see how you can suggest betting with T9 and a flop of A76 in a similar situation, yet not call here.
Mr. Sklansky, I'm confused (as usual)
1st. How often will you see 8 players in a bigger game (10/20,20/40) take the flop with 1 raise and no reraise ? Seems not enough to be a significant. But at lower levels it happens all the time in certain games.
2nd. Some have advised in the past to see past the turn with a 4 outer and 8 or 9 to 1 pot odds because of "implied odds" from 1-3 players only. I'm not in disagreement with the principle nor am I trying to justify the call. Only that it seems that the implied odds theory can be selectively applied when you want to justify a marginal call and ignored when otherwise unappealing.
Doe's this player NOT have significant "implied odds" to continue here and then only if he hits trips 3's, a full boat or some other miricle flop after starting at 18/1 in THIS type game ?
Wow! I post this question hurriedly this morning on my way to a meeting out of town, drop by the office after work to pick up some papers and check the Forum, and there are over 20 posts and some lively debate from the likes of Abdul, Rick, Dan, and DS himself.
David, I really appreciate your comments and insight. I'll tell you exactly what went through my mind at the table when this hand came up. Normally, nobody in these loose, LL games defends his blinds less than me. I normally figure that I am getting the best of the table in situations in which I feel I have the best of it. Why jeopardize my chips in bad situations. I find myself looking down at this piece of crap, and normally would chuck it without a second thought. But something made me stop and think a bit: if it would EVER be correct to defend my BB with such a bad hand, this would have to be the spot. After the hand, I thought there might be some strategic value in posting the scenario for discussion, and it seems like it has generated some interest.
You are probably right; repeated behavior such as this would no doubt be a big leak in my game, especially at a higher limit against better players. But as someone else pointed out, when do you ever see a 9-handed unraised pot at 15/30? I don't think this is a huge leak in my game; I cannot honestly remember ever defending my BB with such a bad hand before. However, what I like about this forum is that I can put this stuff out there, get the views of players far more experienced than myself and build on it. Believe me, there are not too many of the other LL players in town availing themselves of this opportunity, and hopefully I can further widen the gap between myself and the rest of them in ability and knowledge through these types of discussion. But until the local casinos start spreading even modestly higher games such as 6-12 regularly, or the 10-20 games don't start before 10 p.m., I will have to content myself with plugging along in 3-6 and 4-8 and doing OK. But again, thanks for taking the time to respond.
Dunc:
I haven't read your entire response or all the other responses, but I think this is the answer. If you received odds of 15-1 to 19-1 and there were no betting after the flop, you should call with any hands that have a positive EV. But in a real game the action to come makes your hand effectively impossible to play many times when you'd win in a cold simlation. You'll fold too often when you'd end up winning and will lose too much when you end up losing. The few extra small bets you'll get before the flop don't begin to add up.
You have terrible position. You can't bluff but your many opponents all know how easy it will be to blow your pairs off the pot. The odds against flopping an open set or two pair are more than 20-1 you'll lose more of these because you'll be outkicked and counterfeited so often. (Also, think about how much action you're really going to get -- and welcome if you get it -- with an open set in an 8-way flop).
If you limited these plays to any two suited cards above 23s you'd do much better. But your profits or losses won't be a function of how often this hand "wins" and how many bets you get before the flop, but in how well you play it on and after the flop. You might want to look at the "Positive EV" thread Tom Haley started in the April 1998 archive.
P.S. These hands are actually so rare that it doesn't make any long-term difference.
Chris,
Excellent post and analysis. Izmet pointed me to the April 1998 thread (which was before I got online) and it is fine reading.
I have one quibble. You wrote: "P.S. These hands are actually so rare that it doesn't make any long-term difference."
What hands? Do you mean specifically Q5 offsuit or T3 offsuit? These two may be rare but the question of whether one should call with offsuit unconnected garbage for a half bet in an unraised multi-way pot or a full bet in a raised multi-way pot comes up all the time.
In fact, you will be playing more hands out of the blinds than any other position and the whole issue of calling standards is tremendously important since so many hands will be in the "marginal" category.
Regards,
Rick
I'm probably wrong. I'd should have said that seeing 8+ bets when you're in the BB is rare in most of the middle and higher games, but I forgot that in a lot of loose games you're in this situation nearly 1/10th of the time.
My point, however, is that you don't need to figure out what the precise "break even" hand is when the pot is big and your BB is raised in order to play well. And I don't mean that you're only losing a small edge by refusing to play anything worse than, say, 97o. I mean that it virtually makes no difference because whatever edge you have by virtue of your choice of calling hands is overwhelmed by other factors, namely how well you read players, the kind of game you're in, how well you play after the flop and so on.
For example, in a slightly different vein, there was a lively debate on r.g.p. about whether one should call in the BB with 62s if the pot were big. I don't think there's any dispute that one should call with 65s. So the debate is really about 65s vs. 64s, 63s and 62s; maybe by implication 53s and 42s also. Imagine a handful of capable or expert players that all had different tendencies here. Does anyone think for a second that it would ever be reflected in their comparative win rates? I'm not trashing the debate over this, at one level it's helpful, it's just that there isn't going to be a fixed answer for all situations. Everyone should just pick a logically defensible minimum hand --or range of hands -- and move on to money-making issues.
Chris,
I just realized that you also referred to the April 1999 Tom Haley thread. Izmet just made it easy for a tired, lazy guy like me to get there :-).
Regards,
Rick
.
The more serious problem I was alluding to was not fully understanding the general principle that extra callers often hurt your chances more than the pot odds help your EV. This occurs more often on the flop than before the flop,
I think a similar situation occurs before the flop in which many players overvalue their medium pairs (88, 99, TT). If the pot is raised early and another player cold calls the raise, I will be folding these hands pretty regularly despite the increased "odds" I would be getting from the pot. The cold caller hurts the hand much more than his extra chips help in my opinion.
This example may be more true as the action gets closer to the button because in a tight game it is probably correct to fold the hands just to the UTG raiser.
Additionally, from reading the posts in this thread, I noticed a disturbing confusion among many people about the concept of blind defense. I see people use the term "defend my big blind" in situations where it does not apply. I think of defending my blinds as a specific situation that arises when a player takes aggressive action against the blinds in a way in which it is likely he/she wants the blinds to fold. In bigger games (bigger than 30-60), the concept broadens somewhat and becomes, in my opinion, a very big part of the game. You will be calling with hands (against one player) that make you sick, but are necessary for survival because the game is centered around the blind steal. The interplay between the small and big blind in defending from the button can become complex (at least to me).
An eight handed pot is not a blind defense. It is simply a decision on whether or not your hand has value in that spot. An eight handed pot provides some serious odds. But it also means you need two cards that can win in a showdown sometimes. You will not be bluffing/semi bluffing people out of the pot.
People also use the term "blind defense" when asking whether or not to call the UTG raiser and play heads up. This is vastly different than the button raise and in all but the most subtle cases should be treated as such. I know almost everyone on the forum knows this, but those that don't will improve their game quite a bit by understanding this simple fact. I know there are people who ignore the difference.
Extra callers on the flop hurt your chances in the same way that loose players in LL hurt your chances? A variation of implicit collusion?
I think that in LL you are not playing much more loose than your opposition in the instances when you do hold trash in the BB. So, I believe a call is correct in the situation Dunc describes. I don't think you are that far behind what the average LL player plays. And it's likely your table image (for those who are paying attention or trying to) is tight aggressive - this can only help you when you deciding what to do on the flop.
Isn't this also called protecting your blinds? This is something I consider my bigest weakness, both with big and unraised small blinds. The times I don't call, of course I flop a monster and kick myself for being so cheap. Number of players in is sometimes a good thing to consider, but it seems like there are alway 4 or more in which seems to make protecting BOTH blinds a good play.
You protect your blind (screw the small blind) when a late position raises first in.
And everyone else at the table calls?
I consider it protecting when everyone else has already folded and a late position player raises.
If there have already been callers then you must make a decision (not whether to protect your blind) whether or not your cards are worth playing.
You protect against a steal, you do not protect against a bunch of players all with playable hands. Against a lot of other players you "get in half-price".
Maybe you could start a thread on this in general theory. I'm not positive that anyone agrees with my definition.
Dunc,
I can't believe the answers I'm reading. Only Dan Hanson makes sense so far.
Even though the pot gets large, so does the number of opponents. Some hands just don't hit the flop that hard often enough.
Per Dan's advice, I would limit my calls to no worse than any two suited, offsuit connectors or single gappers (to me two gaps go way down in value). I may play some of the better two gap hands such as J8 and T7.
I also think playing Ax is a mistake unless you play well post flop and have a good read on the field. This is especially true if the raise was from early position. But here I am not quite as sure of myself.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Rick here, the people who say that they'd call with just about anything for 7:1 or 11:1 odds are playing way too loose.
I came up with some rules of thumb a long time ago, which while debatable and possible a bit too conservative, are what I still use today.
unsuited 0-gappers: call with 13-1 odds
unsuited 1-gappers: call with 15-1 odds
unsuited 2-gappers: call with 20-1 odds
unsuited 3-gappers: call with 60-1 odds
The basic upshot is that I don't play small 2 or 3 gappers ever if they aren't suited. When it comes to suited cards, I tend to be much more loose. Given 11-1 odds, I'll play *any* two suited.
- Andrew
Andrew,
You wrote: "unsuited 3-gappers: call with 60-1 odds"
That sounds like fun - a thirty handed holdem table where everbody calls a raise!
In all seriousness, I assume you mean that in a ten handed 15/30 holdem game where the small blind is 2/3 the big blind, you would not throw in one $5 chip with a 95 offsuit even if everybody limped (you should be getting 29 to 1 per my calculations). I think this is a little tight but not by much as I will definitely throw away anything less (e.g., 94 offsuit). Even the combined chances of flopping trips or two pair does not make up for the fact that it is not that strong a flop against a large field anyway. But I've never done the calculations. If I'm wrong, I believe it is just by a little.
BTW, against one to three weak opponents whom I have a read on, I would easily throw in that chip with garbage. I figure I can often outplay and/or steal against a small field after the flop justifying my play.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
In that my guidelines are probably more conservitive than optimal, you are probably right. I also reserve the right to go on tilt at any moment and play any hand from any position for any amount of money.
That said, I *don't* think you should play 95o for 29:1 odds. The basic reason why is that even when you do hit your hand, you are going to lose far too much to make any kind of grand profit. The ground that you have to make up is HUGE. Sure you're going to get there sometimes, but why bother with such a longshot?
There's also the danger that the BB is going to raise behind you cause "it's a family pot". So you're really getting somewhere between 29:1 and 15:1.
Now if you had high card value (like Q5o) it's another story. High card value is pretty darn important in hold'em, even in family pots. Of course, I did assume that you'd never win with a pair of 9s when you play 95o, which is pessimistic, but that's why my numbers are conservative.
- Andrew
I'm in the BB; eight limpers. Call with 7-2o. Flop comes A-A-K.... Those we forget.
John
x
And those aren't the ones that really hurt you. More like, you call with 72o. The flop is J73. By the time it comes to you, there are 20 small bets in the pot. Now you call and peel another card off. Yay! A 7. Now it goes bet, call, raise, and you gulp and call because you can't lay your trips down when getting 14-1 odds. So you call, hoping to hit a 2 or for the board to pair. Bet, call, you call reluctantly, and get shown JJ from the pre-flop raiser and A7 from the other guy, and realize you were drawing completely dead and just spent 8 small bets to protect your blind.
Not trying to contradite you but this happens with playable hands as well, in certain games. Although I agree it should happen less, anybody can be drawing dead or to 1 card even with a set ! Do you feel any better because you started with a group 1 hand and the flop looks good but in reality has few outs, or your outs are in someones hand. For instance you call or reraise in BB with AK against numbskulls with AA and 33 and flop AK3, in a wild low limit game, where you gonna go ?
Noone was trying to steal. If the button raised as first one in the pot, now you call that action a steal attempt(or maybe the raise was legit). Even if I was convinced a steal was occuring, I would still fold for two reasons. First, my hand is crap. Second, the button may try again later and if my hand is valid I can re-raise or even slow-play to extract more value (eg AA in the blind).
T-3 is not worth a nickel despite the alleged "pot-odds". You can't play for the moment. Sure, there is a chance you could flop T 3 2 or something like that. But, what usually happens is a donation to the raisers stack.
Hi,
I'm a new player and I'm wondering about what people think about checking with the intention of calling on the river versus betting with the intention of folding if raised.
I'm mostly wondering about the questionable hands that I'm not sure about. Last night it was top pair, little kicker, we all called and checked our way to the river ended up with no potential flushes or straights.
Thanks,
Marc
Abdulian philosophy in tight games is to thin value bet and call if raised, to protect your bluffs. In high odds situations, if you try to make a good laydown you may make a huge mistake, while if you try to make your opponent make a bad laydown, you may get a huge windfall. So, you try to exploit your opponent by frequently betting out, but to avoid being exploited by your opponent you need to pay off a raise with virtually all your legitimate hands.
That being said, since you're a new player and presumably playing in loose low limit games, you're almost never going to be bluffing. You should be doing a lot of checking and calling on the end with top pair (especially with little kicker) against multiple opponents, since you never know when one of them made two pair.
-Abdul
Thanks,
I am playing in low-limit games... The reason not to bluff very much is that people will generally just call you? It seems like this is dictated by the structure of the game as well... It often seems "worth it" to me to call on the river with a pair against a non-scary board (when I know I can call for only one bet) since the pot is often pretty big relative to the $4 bet.
This structure is also annoying because it seems really hard to get people to fold in the early rounds for just one bet. When should I think about check raising? On the flop, or wait 'til the turn for the bigger bets? Is check-raising the flop with top pair, top kicker correct, what about 2 pair or trips?
Will anyone check raise bluff in low-limit games?
Any advice is appreciated!
Thanks,
Marc
Checkraising top pair top kicker can be good if you have reason to think someone on your right will bet. This way you can clear the field hopefully. Be careful if your game is very passive though, if it checks around you'll be sorry.
You will very rarely see a check raise bluff in low limit, although there will be some semibluff checkraises by people with middle pair if you bet in late position and they think you might be stealing.
** Will anyone check raise bluff in low-limit games? **
Not usually but I have been CRB'd in 4-8. I called and won. I have seen it with players who didn't know exactly what they were doing as well.
Abdul writes: "You should be doing a lot of checking and calling on the end with top pair (especially with little kicker) against multiple opponents, since you never know when one of them made two pair."
I won't say I disagree because "a lot" is open to a range of interpretations. However, with top pair, I think you should mostly be betting on the river in loose, low limit games, even with multiple opponents. The higher the kicker the more you should be betting it. I used to check this hand on the river quite a bit, but after keeping loose track of the number times I've been beat vs. the number of calls I've received, I'm fairly certain the bet has positive E.V.
The biggest mistake the players in these games make is calling to much, and they will generally call you on the river with anything from Queen high (just in case you're bluffing) to top pair worse kicker than you. Many of them will also fail to raise you when they hit their miracle two pair on the river so when you are beat it often doesn't cost as much as it should.
The exception to this is a very coordinated board, or when an obvious flush or str8t card hits. Also, you should adjust for certain players. However, having tracked quite a few low limit players, when in doubt, my "typical" composite low limit player is one who calls to much on the river, and doesn't raise enough. You would be surprised at how thin your value bets can be in this game against certain opponents.
Against a favorite opponent of mine, I will almost always bet middle pair w/poor kicker for value on the river, and it has been very profitable.
PRC
In most loose passive games there are a large amount of times where a relatively unthreatening board will see the river with you and a weak player heads up. Since people in these games like to play sherrif, and if you have an aggressive image would be afraid to raise with two pair anyway, you can bet top pair with a kicker for value somewhat frequently. A lot of opponents will call any pair to the river, and showdown even without improvement, especially if theyve seen you bluff before (I like to show when I buy pots in these games for that reason). Spot them and cash in.
Mark -- See the chapter, "Head-up On the End" in Sklansky's _The Theory of Poker_. When facing these decisions it's basically a matter of the expectation (or EV) of one way of playing it versus the other. That depends on what the opponent will bet with if you check, what he'll call with if you bet, and so on. If you have a mediocre hand and think there's a reasonable chance you'll be raised, be more inclined to check. When you bet and get raised, you often have to pay it off if you think there's any real chance the opponent is bluffing. But in low limit games there should be a significant percentage of players against whom you can easily fold in the right spots since they are virtually incapable of bluff-raising on the end. While you should probably shade your decisions a little toward calling for reasons including the one Abdul mentions, against these opponents you will sometimes find yourself getting, say, 9-1 from the pot, with the odds against their bluffing being more like 90-1. So don't just pay off on auto-pilot.
You may be able to do what I think you're suggesting - betting with the intention of folding to a raise because you know the opp will call with almost any pair, but will not raise with anything that doesn't beat you. But you have to know the player. Also, as PRC mentioned, check more with very coordinated boards simply because there is now a greater chance that you're beaten and will only be raised.
Hi,
I'm wondering if I played this hand correctly. I'm playing a loose passive 2-4 game. I get ATs in the big blind. People all call around (as usual) and the button (one of the relatively better players) raises, SB calls, I call, everyone calls around.
The flop comes 2, 5, T rainbow, so I bet out here and get 4-5 callers, button calls. Turn brings an 8 (not my suit), so I bet top pair again. Get one caller, button calls. River is a 6 (no flush), I check, caller checks, button bets, I call, caller folds. Button turns over KK.
How many mistakes did I make? What could I have done better? I'm still learning the basics...
Thanks,
Marc
Marc:
Just my thoughts..
On the flop: I would go for the check-raise here almost every time. In LowLimit games, most people will naturally check to a pre-flop raiser. So, it's checked to the button and you can make everyone pay 2 bets to stay. It also should give you a better definition of the buttons hand. If he just calls you might suspect overcards rather than AA or KK where he (should) re-raise.
?What did you think he had? - THAT should dictate your play.
The turn and river I would have done the same as you, except if he 3bets the flop, then I just call him down.
I think the button actually made the mistakes here by not raising the flop and turn, giving you the chance to catch your Ace.
All in all though - You played it fine.
Packerfan1
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I don't think there's anything you could have done. If you had re-raised pre-flop, this player would have only called. He never raised -- so there's nothing for you to base an opinion of "he has me beat" on. The only thing you might have done in preparation for this event is to focus on your opponents. Think about what they think of you. What did this guy think when you raised from the BB. What did you think when he called your raise? There's not much there you can conclude with certainty. I think MR. KK made the mistakes if any were made - pre-flop he's the very last one to call your raise -- he should have re-raised! Had he done so, most would have called. I hate consommate slow players! I think they cost me more money than they save me. And I know they cost themselves money.
Thanks guys,
I had put him on a pocket pair or overcards. I didn't really have a good feeling either way. I see the benefit of check-raising the flop though! If he three bets, I put him on KK or AA (would people three bet JJ or QQ ?). If I feel it's likely that he has a large pocket pair, should I still call single bets through the river? I see how he missed a bet by not raising the turn, should I have checked here to avoid the raise?
What if I had hit an A on the river? Bet out and call a raise? I only lose to AA here.
I've been having a hard time getting a read on what people will raise preflop with... I've seen the standard big pocket pairs all the way down to 66, as well as AKs through ATu. Most of the time, I respect the raises (put them on AA, KK or AKs/u).
Marc:
Your "problem" with putting people on hands in a 2-4 game is not really "yours".
I fell its almost impossible to have a real strong idea what people are holding or raising with at LowLimit games because.. well.. they could be holding anything! I've seen the BB call 3 more bets cold pre-flop with 53o and then take down a $360 pot in a 5-10 game when he flopped the straight. (I, of course had AA)
That being said - if you're not in the hand always watch and make mental note of what pre-flop raisers show down... it can at least give you some idea.
Keep at it!
Packerfan1
Be the flop.. See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
With A-10 suited, you have a hand worth a 3 bet before the flop. If your opponent caps with KK, you know where you are. With 6-7 opponents, your implied odds are very good with A-10 suited.
I like your lead bet on the flop. However, a check-raise would have been good too assuming the button bet. Had you done this to me on the flop, I would have smooth called and raised on fourth.
I would have bet the turn here too assuming you had no flush draw. In limit, you can't chance giving free cards to lesser hands.
The river, a check call is OK.
I would likely lead the flop just as you did. Check raising is not as good an idea as people think if your button opponent is rational. He raised the pot on the button after many callers. This is likely a real hand like an overpair or AK. The problem with check raising is that he will only bet the overpairs if it is checked to him. He will check AK and AQ taking the free card rather than trying to move 7 people off the hand. Betting puts pressure on the people in between also because they fear the button will raise again.
I think you should have bet the river also. You will find it difficult to win money on the river by checking when acting first even as a small underdog to have the best hand. Imagine the button had AK instead and was calling all the way to hit one of his overcards. He would likely not have called. But another player in the pot would have called with a smaller pair, but would not have bet it had you checked it to him.
If I had bet and the button raises, do I call or muck ?
Loose 6 - 12 game. I have pocket queens and despite my middle position preflop raise there are 7 callers to see the flop. Flop comes 9c 8h Jh. By the time it gets to me there has been a bet, a call and a raise. I toss my cards in and they accidentally show themselves. Everyone looks at me like I am crazy and a couple of players make comments about me folding the nuts. With a four flush and a board that shouts possible straight I felt that a fold was obvious. What do you guys think ?
Good fold.
Really good chance a pair of Q's won't win this I thought I was the only person who folds in this position.
Rounder-Judging from your previous posts I would say you play a little bit tighter than I do. Regardless, I agree with you 100%. With several players left to act in the round, I would muck without hesitation.
gfmvtjihfgg adera4n... Ouch..
Wait, sorry that's rude. :)
I'm just kidding - I fold too.
Even on the off chance that you have the best hand now - collectively I think you're a big underdog to win this pot.
Packerfan1
PS- I still the head on keyboard thing is funny.
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
The problem with this flop is there aren't many ways you can feel comfortable with improving, and many other cards are sure to improve someone else. A ten can give someone a better straight, a Queen can give a hand like T9 or TJ a straight. Someone may already have two-pair or a set. And there's a good chance there's a flush draw out there.
With all that money in the pot, folding is probably wrong. I would raise and hope that it chased everyone else and that it was checked to me on the turn. But only because there's so much money in the pot. In a smaller pot, it would probably be correct to fold with that board.
By raising you will possibly make it 3-4 way against 2 pair and 1 or 2 good draws. You're already behind. If the board pairs (which you need to beat 2 pair), it will fill someone up. The queen is horrible card for you unless you fill up on the river.
This flop is just too coordinated for you to continue.
I agree with the fold or raise philosophy but here it should be fold.
IMHO
You have to fold these cards regardless of the size of the pot. With all of those callers, there are just too many ways you can be beat. Use the fact that your hand was accidently exposed to your advantage for future semi-bluffing opportunities.
You can't fold here there is way too much money, and you have an overpair and a gutshot draw. I would probably three bet depending on how aggressive the raiser is and how likely I thought it would get capped on the flop.
Shawn Keller
Doubt if anyone is staying with 10-7..not likely Q-10(you have 2Q) No raises preflop so no A or K pairs.You quite likely have the best hand after the flop. With the size pot why not raise and see the turn? Fairly new player so would like to know if I'm way off base???
Just read the responses on this thread.
Your gutshot is not really that. Someone else already has a ten for sure.
It's a loose game, 7-10s is a possibility
etc.
Bad fold, IMO. The correct play here would be to re-raise, if for no other reason than to get KQ and the other overcards out of the pot. There are already 18 small bets in this pot. There's a chance you have the best hand, a ten will probably win you the pot or tie, and if you're up against 2 pair you can pair the board low or maybe hit a queen to win.
The problem with the hand is that you don't know which cards are live for you, but most probably you DO have outs, if not the best hand already. The action you've seen so far could easily represent something like TJ, which is top pair with a straight draw, a couple of overcards, and maybe a four flush.
I would re-raise and hope to get the rest of the field to fold. If they did, then I might take a free card on the turn depending on which card lands, or continue betting.
If the pot were a lot smaller I'd agree with folding.
First of all, whoever thought you had the nuts on the flop is nuts. You have a overpair, gut shot draw (not to the nuts) and a flush draw against you. Did you have the Q or hearts? If you did, we can also add a backdoor flush to your list or "outs" (not a nut flush draw).
I agree with your fold for three reasons. First, the odds are good you need improvment. Second, you can get the improvement and STILL get crushed later. Finally, there is no doubt you are faced with "reverse implied odds" in this case if you have the best hand.
I'd reraise. If the choice was playing your hand like a draw and folding, folding wasn't bad. But with the possible best hand and getting 10-1 from the pot, reraising is much better, at least so far.
I would call or reraise depending on the aggresiveness of the game, since the action does not necessarilly mean you are beaten on that flop. When the pot is big, it costs only a small fraction if you are wrong. Also, if you routinely make this kind of laydown, players may start to push you around and that will make your decision even harder. Never show the hand when you make a big laydown.
regards,
jikun
I'm by no means an advanced player but am nevertheless working my way through S&M's HEFAP (21st Century Ed.). I have a question in the very first chapter having to do with rating what I will call suited semi- garbage.
I will take 76 as an example. Unsuited, this hand is propperly ranked in lowly Group 8 but suited it is graduated to a "lofty" Group 5. Does the extra value of suiting warrant such an increase? If we forget the possibility of getting a straight flush (I have had none and have seen two of these in three years pf playing) that leaves us with the flush possibility with an overall possibility of 3.5% as the feature that distinguished 76s from 76. Thus, 76s, as far as flushes are concerned, is no better than 72s which no sane player would touch. The seven high flush if made will lose about half of the time to a larger flush, and will lose almost all of the time if a fourth of the suit hits the board. Summary: Garbage is garbage and even suiting does little to help. I feel that suiting does not change an unplayable hand into a playable one, except possibly AXs. Comments?
this has been discussed ad nauseum.
scott
I problems using the hand rankings until I realized that they were not to be regarded as gospel. I read an article where DS said that he cringes every time someone tells him that they've memorized the chart.
I agree that suited or not, 76 is not a holding I love. However, I think the suited combo gives you extra outs to take into a multi-way pot.
On the subject, of Axs, I think this hand creates more problems than the 76. flop one pair with the 76 and it's an easy decision to muck. Ax should be similarly easy to muck, but it is often tough to let go of top pair. True, Ax gives you nut flush potential, but how often is that potential ralized? (this is rhetorical) just my thoughts
This is a hand that one plays in late position for a blind steel, or on the big blind. One might play it occasionally to vary play as well.
I'd rather take 76 than a medium pair - I play it late with a large field - I like middle coupled cards a lot more than gapped suited ones.
I have been saying for quite a while suited cards are way over rated and one of the reasons there are so many losers in poker.
In the chaos of garbage that comes from a mere fifty-two card deck, looking for suited cards at least gives some sort of standard. You can take a half step back from 'wild ass guessing'.
Playing for flushes is very common even in the ten-twenty game I play. It is for losers, but it puts money in the pot. The right kind of money, the kind looking for a long shot.
Suited connectors below ten-nine are not worth much. So, when I get nine-eight suited I treat them like they are not worth much. Once in a great while I'll call every preflop raise to the cap, down to six-seven suited. The reason is that I believe it is wrong to play in too stylized a fashion. Not to throw off my opponents, though that helps, but because I think it is a mistake to play too rigid, or 'anal retentive'. If you begin to do this with ten-nine off, it comes too close to wild ass guessing.
I'll do the same thing but I don't need them suited. Actually prefer them non suited. The connected cards add 1 more srtaight and will be the nuts if you use both of them except on the bottom of the straight.
I like 76s up front only for deception. I usually raise with it in a tight game like the Reno games. Then,if the flop is three small cards, I can check-raise to steal. If I flop a draw, I can lead as a semi-bluff or trail until I complete the hand.
In loose games, since there are so many opponents, you must hit the flop to win. So, I usually pass here.
This seems to fall into the nebulous "it depends" category, but my very general answer is I'd tend to dump 7-6 suited up front unless the game is very passive/loose, and tend to call with it in late position if there are a few limpers and no raises.
One thing from Wild Bill's original post with which I have to strongly disagree:
If you make a flush with 7-6s and three of your flush cards on the board, your flush holds up a lot more than 50% of the time. Yes you will sometimes get shown higher flushes and yes you must play made baby flushes somewhat cautiously - but not to the point of paranoia. IMHO, the 50% loser statement is way off.
Caddy
I agree with Caddy. There is also a point that I've noted before: suited cards don't just add value to your hand when you make the flush, they also add value to your other draws when the flush draw gives you odds to stick around and make your hand another way.
For example, let's assume you hold 7h6h and the flop comes 9h 5c 2h. If you held 76off instead, you would have to fold to a bet on the flop unless the pot was huge, as you would only have three real outs. Even if you did call a bet for some reason, you would face even greater pressure from the double bet on the turn. But holding 7h6h, you probably have odds to stick around for both turn and river. That lets you win with a non-heart eight on turn or river, with a runner-runner 43 or 77 or 66 or (most of the time) 76, most of the time with a single heart, and it gives you a redraw with additional implied odds if the 8h hits the turn and someone else does have the nut flush. Also, having two hearts in your hand decreases the odds that someone else has two hearts, which improves the lone 8h as an out in the first place. Even a lone 7 or 6 might be enough to let you pick off an overcard bluff on the river under the right circumstances.
Individually, these draws don't amount to much, but they add up to quite a bit when taken together. This makes 76s quite a bit stronger than 76off, especially in late position.
The case cited by Dave W is exactly why I like these hands in tight games. First, I would likely check-raise this flop due to the increased number of outs. My only concern is a bigger flush draw behind me, or possibly a set of 9's or 5's.
If I was able to get the field down to 3 on the flop, I would bet the turn regardless of what hit. The only exception would be a non-heart 8, here I'd check raise a second time. However, if I was 3 bet on the flop, I'd lead out.
In a loose game (6 or more opponents), the flush draw in my opinion does lose some value because you constantly have to worry about a fourth heart or in the worse case a flush being no good in the first place. With fewer opponents, the chances of two players decrease. With a non-nut flush in a loose game, you need to play VERY FAST because disaster is around the corner. Another reason to be very selective with a large number of opponents in limit hold em.
"There are many situations where extra callers hurt you more than pot odds help.", is a quote of David Sklansky from the thread, 'Calling with random hands out of the big blind'.
Just what I've been looking for, a chance to disrepect pot odds. There are so many traps to fall into in this game and pot odds can easily become another.
But, I play for pot odds, the bigger the pots the more I want to play. So many of my opponents are totally trapped from the moment they sit down till they leave by pot odds. Basically, if you do not stand a chance of winning, no amount of money in the pot will improve your odds. I know a very good player who makes this terrible mistake. Watching the pain on his face as he gets dragged down the drain by a force that appears stronger than good judgement. He had to go. The pot got too big. BS.
An example: I have the small blind with 53d. Everyone calls the blind up to me, all of the full table except me. The buttons says, "I got to get in, the pots too big.". "Well, I don't.", I said. Not even for half a bet. Why not? Because, "There are many situations where extra callers hurt you more that pot odds help.". Calling was out. Raising was next to worse, but even if the table did what I expected and went nuts reraising, all that money would not change my chances. A night or so later, with AQ in the same situation, I raised and the table went nuts. I took it down because I also had card odds.
Good post, I agree with what your saying. The "allure" of "pot-odds" forces many players into errors that are VERY avoidable. I sense this thread in such plays as calling with two suiteds, small pairs,connectors and Ax hands. The number of players in the hand is NEVER mentioned as a negative factor. Well, I take that back, one person mentioned it, Bob the Coach.
I must be missing something because I don't understand this line of thinking at all. The pot is laying you 18-1 and you don't call. Assuming you play well post-flop, this is situation I drool over. I'm hoping to flop a monster or a nut straight draw or be gone. These pots are the ones that can make your night or even week.
Well, I agree with you both I guess. This has always been my thought "Whether player C folds or not, my hand still is not as good as player A's so whether the pot odds are 15-1 or 2-1, Im losing this hand".Why not save this bet? At the same time, I sure as hell dont want someone with a 5-1 draw drawing against me with pot odds of 10-1. So my take on it is that Pot odds are an extremely big tool in decision making, but, like anything else in poker, you have to adjust to the situation and learn when to listen to your experience and when to listen to pot odds. (I guess that could all be simplified into one phrase.. Implied Odds)
-Smaegol
So the results of one hand are strong enough for you to make a generalization for a whole class of situations.
A-Q offsuit is a good hand against 9 players. 5-3 suited is not.
You raised with A-Q when you would have poor position. This was a good decision? What was the reason for the raise? Reduce the field to only 7 players? Allow the slow play KK to reraise? Start a raise war when all you have is A-Q. To reduce your odds from 18-20/1 to 12-1 and investing 3 times as much.
And yet you fold 5-3 suited for 1/2 bet with something like 18-20/1 odds.
I would rather play the the 5-3 suited than the A-Q unsuited. In a pot like this you almost always need to make 2 pair or better to win.
Having revisited the thread, 'Random hands out of the BB', I see that David Sklansky has now clarified his statement about, 'There are many situations where extra callers hurt you more than pot odds help'. He feels that this concept is more important after the flop than before.
In the hand I use as an example above, I would not call a five dollar half bet from the SB with every player in the game having called. That's one hundred dollars in the pot if I call, and I'm suited! It's not the five dollars that I am worried about. It's what it might cost me after the flop that bothers me. The odds of this hand turning to gold are very poor, the odds of this hand turning into an expensive mistake are much better. When I look at my first card and it is a two or a three, depending on position, up to a five; I will most times not look at the second card. Trash cards tend to cost you money.
You are up three hundred dollars, then a little later it has magically disappeared. Where did it go I wanted to know? Well, after studying that drain I discovered that alot went to calling with marginal hands.
I know I played this hand horribly! What really got me however, was NOT that a supposedly very good player beat me with garbage, but rather, how much money he seemed willing to invest with his piece of crap...
I raised from early position with Kh,Kc. A loose player called 2 bets cold and a very good player in the BB called.
The flop came Tc,5h,3c. BB checks, I bet, loose player folds, BB calls.
The turn is a Qs. BB bets, I raise, BB re-raises and I fold?!!! He shows me Q5 off!
I know this is a terrible fold! I just had a brain cramp. My thinking stopped short. The only thing that made sense to me was he must have a set. Had I even considered 2-pair (if I did it would've been QT), I surely would have called with 8 outs.
When I raised the turn, shouldn't he at least consider that I could have a big hand (AA,KK,AQ,QQ,TT)? With QQ, there's not a card in the deck he could win with. TT he's in serious trouble, and anything else I could have I still have outs! So my question is, was his 3 bet on the turn a good play?
He probably did consider this. However, when he had two pair, he challenged. Good play on his part even though his odds were "awful" pre-flop.
I don't think your fold was that bad. Two pair was probably the worst hand he could have had, according to my calculations (which are probably not quite correct) the probably of him having two pair or worse would have to be greater than 55% for you to call, assuming you will call the river no matter what. >40% if you don't plan on calling on the river unless you make two pair or a set.
I don't think it was a good play for him to call your raise in the bb with Q5o. He may have felt he could read you well, and with the additional loose player would get maximimum value if he made the best hand, or steal the pot if neither of you flopped anything.
allan
Somebody spiked the buffet with stupid pills.
His dumb mistake was calling your preflop raise. He might have made a very small mistake by calling your flop bet, but he somehow "knows" you won't bet the turn without a pair or better, how can he fold with 7 bets in the pot? His 3-bet on the turn was certainly correct. When he hit his second pair he needs to reraise because the chances of you having AA, KK, AQ (20 possibilities that he can beat) are so much better than a bigger hand (QQ, TT = 4 possibilities).
For an interesting discussing about the merits of calling a raise in the BB with Q5o, see the thread "Plus EV" by Tom Haley in the April 1998 archives.
My confession: maybe the 5th or 6th time I play hold 'em I catch AA, the only hand that I can really play well, and make it 4 bets before the flop. Fairly slow low limit game. All I can remember is a flop of XXX with two diamonds. Three opponents, it's bet, raised, and I 3-bet in last position, getting nervous now. Qd hits on turn. I have Ad. With all the raising and reraising, paranoia seizes and I imagine that someone has QQ, a likelihood that's confirmed when the sneaky bastards all check to me. Thinking that the pot is already large enough for my aspirations, I avoid the trap and I check behind them, hoping for a diamond. I note that when I check the second position player shows some surprise -- she must have the queens. River is a non-diamond, no pair on board. UTG bets, second position raises, I confidently muck, one pair hopeless now. They both show KK. Some people have a talent for this. Not me.
Maybe I was just upset with the total lack of respect this player showed me, while I showed him tremendous respect with my laydown. Had I known he only had 2-pair, I surely would have called him with 8 outs. I can see him check/raising the turn. But what does he do if I make it 4 bets? If I have QQ (and let's fact it. If justice had prevailed, that's exactly what I would've had), it will cost him 5 big bets to find out there's not a card in the deck he can win with. If I TT he has 2 cards. This is why Q5 is unplayble in the first place. Against a solid player raising early, you can't be sure what you want to flop. You can hit hard (in this case Q5) and STILL get crushed!
Again, maybe I'm taking it personaly. I'm quite sure I deserve (and have earned) more respect from this player, than he showed here. I do see one positive however.. This is the 2nd horrendous beat this player laid on me in 2 sessions. I used to think of him as the better more experienced player. But better players do not continue to bad beat lesser players. If he continues to play in this fashion against me, he must eventually lose his money to me. So I am confident I must have surpassed him in the food chain of hold'em players! I am now officially off my soap box!
I think you are correct. He should be mucking that Q-5.
In a way, he did give you respect by his raise. He figures you for a top pair. Not Q's cause he has one. Not 10's cause he figures you might not raise preflop.
You have surpassed him in your card selection (unless he was on tilt) but maybe not on reading skills.
If results count then yes his reraise was a good play. He could have just called and shown weakness. His only options were to fold (he had 5 outs) or semibluff again.
Possibly he read you for AK but had to semibluff once he realized you had a strong pair. He would have to know that you could fold an overpair in this spot.
x
It was a terrible fold. BB could have had QT, AQc, plenty of hands that you could either beat or should be drawing to beat. If your play on this hand is characteristic of your usual play, you seem to be a bit weak tight. You say that BB is a very good player. If he knows he can outplay you post flop with lousy cards, then his preflop call isn't so bad.
Actually, given the play you've described here, I would criticize BB more for overcalling the loose player than for calling your raise.
>>It was a terrible fold.
I know it was a terrible fold. I don't consider myself weak tight, although I used to have this problem. I finaly decided that it was worth paying off at times even when I was fairly sure I was beat in order to prevent from being bumped around and/or saving me a pot down the road. I looked at these payoffs as an investment.
I was thinking of it this way.. You listed 2 hands he could have: QT, Ac,Qc. Everything else would be a set, meaning I have 2 outs. I wasn't even sure he would call with QT given there were only 6 bets in the pot. I agree his call on the flop was not terrible. If he put me on AK, he may have decided to just call his pair down. Although a case could be made that since he did not have a club, it wasn't worth his while to do even this.
But I still disagree with his 3 betting the turn. Maybe I'm just conservative, although anyone I play with would describe me as very aggressive. I may have check raised the turn, but I would not have let someone get into a position of capping the turn at 4 bets and costing me a total of 5 big bets to look at a hand that I never had a chance to beat. This is not to say that I would never 3 bet or cap without the nuts. But I would have had to show some aggression at some point prior in the hand. Or if neither of us showed aggression as well. But when one person raises from early pre-flop, he is implying he has a big hand. When he bets the flop, he is defining it some more. When he raises the turn, he is TELLING you he has a hand! No way I risk 5 big bets against such a raiser on a piece of crap like Q5 which is not even top 2 pair! If this is weak tight, then maybe I have some more thinking to do about the game which is why I posted this hand. Thanks for your response.
Well, now you know not to respect his raises so much anymore...unless that was exactly what he was trying to get you to do. Though I probably would have picked a better hand to work with.
Anyway, we need to talk a bit about statistical probability. If he were to narrow your hands down to AA, AK, KK, AQ, TT, QQ...let's just stop there. Those are the hands you can have and have raised with.
6 ways to have AA. 6 ways to have KK. 16 ways to have AK or AQ
Add in AJ for another 16. JJ for another 6.
Here's the important part: 3 ways to make TT and 1 way to make QQ.
Even if he really really respected your raises (which he obviously didn't). At the point he started raising he knew there was 4 possible ways you were winning and a signigicantly larger number of ways you were losing.
Yes, you could have had QQ. Justice would have been served and a party would have been held in your honor. But that's going to happen in this situation exactly one time out of however many possible hands he put you on.
Was he wrong to call your raise? Absolutely. Was he wrong to stick with you when he paired up with an overcard to the board? Not necessarily. Was he wrong to raise you with two pair? Not at all.
Sorry if this sounds harsh...I still haven't had lunch yet.
Dan
Jack,
As Izmet pointed out to me last week about some of my incorrect analysis, you have the number of bets wrong:
The question should have been "Should I have folded the turn for ONE bet?" ...since you only need to call one bet (his last re-raise) to stay in the pot.
You obviously think you should have. I didn't count bets, but I think you have enough outs to cover the cost of the one bet.
Mark
Very good point.
BB calls preflop, check-calls flop. 5 turns. And he leads into you. Why raise the turn? It's hard to argue for a fold with an overpair to the board, so you just call and plan on calling the river. Even if a K comes off on the river, BB will probably lead and then you can raise with confidence.
Two odd pair out of the BB is not an uncommon occurence. And since when is two pair not a super hand head up, which is the situation here. Bad turn raise, esp. since you label the BB as a good player. How many good players will lead into a person they know is not going to fold? This guy has a hand.
Of course, I would call the turn and when the river paired the five I might raise if led into figuring my two pair better than his. That's where I would lose an extra bet (or two in this case)
chris
I went to Atlantic City last Friday night and was surprised to see that NO one was playing poker at the Trump or Showboat. I really wanted to see a game, and join in if possible...Anyone tell me where the hold em games are in AC?
College Player,
The last time I went to Atlantic City we dropped a severely seasick guy off on a short racing boat delivery to Annapolis from Newport, R.I. It was a year before the casinos opened. Anyway, post this type of question on the Exchange Forum or rec.gambling.poker.
Regards,
Rick (subbing for WFM)
If you really want to see poker being played (and join if possible) go to the Taj, the Trop will do fine as well.
Good luck.
TAj or the trop, Even harrahs has a small room.
I agree, the Taj is the place in Atlantic City.
I like the Trop at Brighton Ave. Good poker, nice rooms, nice people, excellent full time dealers, decent food, good comps, smoking and non-smoking, daily tournaments, great parking Next is Trump Taj at Virginia Ave. Biggest, all no smoke, decent dealers, some crazies, big-loose games, parking sucks (too big-got lost a lot). Resorts on weekends only. Small room (North Carolina Ave. Harrah's in the marina. Sucks!! Sands is fair (Illinois Ave). Have some interesting games (5, 10, 15 and sometimes 10, 20, 30 7CS Caesars sucks.
Bally'y Grand is OK but the staff are nasty.
I know this subject has probably come up often; but, it is something I'm having a lot of trouble with right now. I will generally bet and re-raise flush draws on the flop, even if they are not nut draws, as long as I have at least two opponents. Occasionally I knock out callers--which is bad, but I also seem to be able to steal the pot more often on the turn and river, get more free river cards, and seem to get more action when I flop a big hand, like a set, as I'll play it basically the same way.
I get into trouble when I bet a flush draw into a paired board, as it sometimes gets raised and re-raised back to me and I'm not sure if I should even call. I may be drawing dead or probably have only six outs at best.
Is it generally best to play a nut flush draw passively when the board is paired?
Should a flush draw generally be folded on the flop when having to call two bets cold against a paired board?
When should a flush draw be folded on the flop against a paired board when having to call just one bet?
Many players will slow play if they flop the set, or full house, (I'm usually able to pick up on them immediately if I or someone else bets the flop and they are predictable players). So I also frequently find myself in a predicament on the turn.
When should a flush draw be folded for one bet on the turn against a paired board, where you may only have between 0-5 outs?
example:
Suppose I have AhTh in middle position and there are 5 callers before the flop.
Flop is 6h6sQh:
A good player in early position bets. I call or raise. A tight player who would slow play a six just calls in the bb, and everyone else folded.
Turn 2d:
bb checks good player bets, is a fold automatic if the bb is likely to cr?
If you are heads up against the bb,and feel it is likely he flopped the set, do you call him if he leads out and the pot is 5bb?
I realize that, as always, the answers to these questions depend on the opponents and the pot size, but I'm interested in any general guidelines you guys may use in this situation.
thanks,
allan
allan,
This is just a partial answer that you probably already figured out but I'll post it anyway.
A paired board is much more likely to fill a reasonable player up when the flop is something like Q Q J than Q 6 6 since reasonable players are much more likely to play QJ than Q6. So all your questions should have this additional subset included. Hopefully you will get some complete answers tomorrow.
Regards,
Rick
Depends on the texture of the flop. Q J J. is far worse that Q 5 5. With a NUT flush draw, usually your ok. However, against a Q J J flop, it is very hard to cold call two or more bets. Also, don't forget about a straight draw. If that hits on the turn, you will have to pay mulitple bets on the turn.
In the example you cited, if I had a heart draw, I would stay in on the flop.
If you fear a check-raise on the turn , you should fold your draw because you may have to pay 3 bets on the turn with a chance of drawing dead.
In a heads up spot, you can call if you feel your opponent will pay off a flush on the river.
I can't quite understand playing a drawing hand like this aggressively when usually you will end up with NO hand ? ? Books frequently advise against giving free cards to drawing hands - so why pay two bets or more to draw yourself?
Your correct, but the texture of the board is very important.
In the Q 6 6 example, you at a disadvantage drawing because the board can pair a second time, then it's lights out. The odds are less that a full house exists, although the possibility is there. You don't have to worry about a straight draw jacking up the price. I would play the draw softer and only cold call two if I had a nut draw. But, in Pot or no limit I would drop to a pot size bet. I would call a "taunt" bet. Let's say the pot is $60, my opponent bet $15, I would call if heads up.
Generally speaking, when NOT against a paired board: If you have a nut flush draw and one good overcard, that is 12 outs. With two cards to come, the odds of you making the best hand are 1.5 to one. Against 2 or more opponents you are making money on every raise. Thus, in this situation it is certainly correct to play a draw aggressively, even though you don't yet have the best hand.
4-8 game. Not a typical game i.e. fairly tight, plays like a passive 10-20. 3 callers to me, I'm in the cutoff with A8 of spades. I call, button calls as does the Sb, BB checks. No particularly strong players in this hand, or in this game for that matter.
Flop Ts 8h 5d. Checked around to me, I bet, button calls, quickly I should add. Sb folds, BB calls, and 2 of the 3 limpers call.
Turn is Kh. Checked around to me, I check, button checks.
river is 5s. Checked around to me, I check, button bets. everyone folds to me. I don't like that he bet. There's 56 bucks in the pot. Should I call or fold? I don't think raising is an option but if you've got an argument for that bring it on. I'll post results later.
chris
My guess is you call and your 8's beat his 8's with a lesser kicker.
My guess is he's got pocket 9's.
I agree with the round man
Well, I'd say you have about 4-1 odds of picking up the pot and pot odds of 7-1. I think a call is Ok here..
Im thinking the Button was on a straight draw off the flop most likely, or has 8's or 5's. and his river bet was probably a desperation/position bet. Another reason (With the pot being as big as it is) I would call.. He may have the trip 5's, but, pot odds warrant the chance. Even if he wins with 555, let him have it, he'll think he can keep getting away with bottom pairs..
just my .02
-Smaegol
You would have to be the weakest/tightest player on the planet to muck your hand here. And the button would have to be pretty weak to check a set or two pair on the turn. I would bet the river and if raised, I would call the raise unless I knew the button to be a stone cold rock.
I apologize. I misread your post. I thought that the 5s on the river gave you the nut flush, which changes the situation a bit. LOL
I thought you were a little too sure of the call.
Chris,
I would guess on the button having two hearts with a T or 5. I would call.
Paul
I would probably call no matter what, but would the button have just called your flop bet with a T? Including a T with a bad kicker? Or would he have raised to get rid of a field full of likely overcard? This is the only good way to figure out if he has a T.
If he has a K, would he even possibly have checked the turn? Probably not, as few players would do this in a limit game. I doubt he has a K.
If he has a 5, would he have called so easily and quickly on the flop? I wouldn't think so, at least not for most players. Of course, you know this player better than me.
It seems he has an 8 (and should have raised you on the flop), or has 97 or J9 for a straight draw. Since you can beat any of these hands, call. Raising seems to be a waste, because if we're wrong and he has a better hand, you'll lose more. If he has a weaker hand, he's probably unlikely to call your raise, and it won't win you extra money very often.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
.
I would have bet the turn, and mucked if someone raised behind me. By checking here you're basically conceding the pot, since anyone can take a shot at you on the river and, as you indicated, it's not clear whether or not you should call. By betting the turn you eliminate that guessing game.
So all i've got to do to knock you off a hand is raise your turn bet when the turn card is an overcard to the flop and you bet the flop and the turn?
I don't think I need to bet the turn here as button could easily have called the flop bet with a king and, since I usually do bet the turn after I've bet the flop a king up front might try for a checkraise on the turn (the board is quite raggedy). The only scary cards that can come on the river are 9 or A. Even if a Q or J comes off, it will likely be checked b/c the players up front are weak. The board pairing any card is good for my hand, I think.
These soft games you can often tell when a player trying to checkraise doesn't get to by the hound dog or mad dog look on their face. By checking the turn I complicate the play of the hand, which is o.k. for me since I play better than the others in the hand.
I'm a fairly aggressive player but bet,bet,bet is not my approach to the game. Does the notion of betting when a worse hand will call apply to play throughout the hand or just the river? I think it applies to both. While it's true you don't want to give free cards when you're ahead, you don't want to get raised or checkraised, when you can take a free card. Also, you often encourage your opponents to take shots at you, which I like b/c it complicates the play.
I'm curious if Sklansky or Abdul or Lonestar or one of our other wellknown and well respected posters would agree that betting the turn is as automatic as you suggest it is. I don't think so but what do I know.
chris
I'd call.
Trips? No. It's hard to put him on a five because, in addition to the two on board, you'd think that he was worried about being raised when he called your bet on the flop. He'd at least consider it.
A pair of tens? Very unlikley. The only ten you can put him on is something like T7s, and I think most players would raise with that given the opportunity to knock people out.
Kings? No.
Nines or eights? Perhaps. He might bet these because he thinks you're the only player that can have a ten and you didn't need a ten to bet the flop. There's also more 8's than pocket nines out there. But he shouldn't like his 8 much more than you like yours.
Busted draw. Maybe. But I think there are enough players out there that will bluff with a busted draw here to make the call worth it. Also, he called quickly you say? I don't want to put too much stock in that kind of tell, and a bluff here is usually suicide. But the kind of game you describe is one where you occasionally get 3 or 4 people to throw their hands away, and some players bet busted draws reflexively when the game is slow.
A raise to knock him off a ten or 99 would be utterly unbelievable.
Your hand is worth a call because you checked on the turn and no-one can raise behind you.
Actually the button was not in a good position to bluff against these many players in this situation. Since the turn was checked through with the button last to act, it can easily be caught and many players subconsciously knows that. If considering he is a tight passive player and the given action from the flop to the river, I think he is more likely to have a 5. However, I would call if he was capable to bluff, and fold if I know this player very well. In my 6-12 game, there are players who are not capable to bet in this situation as a pure bluff.
regards,
jikun
I should've included the following information in the original post: Button is tight, leaning toward weak but his table image is that of a rock. Older gentleman that doesn't talk much and is rarely in the pot on shit hands.
When he bet on the river and it was up to me (everyone else folded) I was perplexed but I called for the following reasons: 1) His quick call on the flop. (If he has a ten he's got great position and he has to consider raising; if he's got an 8 or a 5 he's got to consider folding) 2) after he bet the river and when I was deciding whether or not to call I looked at him and he wasn't breathing, swear to god he looked like a deer in headlights 3)he would've bet a king on the turn. The only argument that I thought of for not calling is that he would not bluff into that many players. But that had more to do with his understanding of the situation than mine, so I dismissed it.
I called. He tabled QJo. I won with eights.
The reason I posted this hand is that there were definate reasons to call. Not just because pot odds warranted a call but because, even though my hand was not that strong, I had to have to best hand given the way the hand played out.
chris
Been playing holdem for about 50 hours now in the local card rooms and Vegas. Invited to a "friendly" game with old high school buds and want to introduce Holdem and Omaha 8 or better to the dealers choice group. I think Omaha would be better accepted because of split pot.
What is the best way to set up the ante (I don't think I can sell the blinds idea because the deal passes after the hand). Should the dealer (me) post the blind?
Anything offered to help would be appreciated.
Steve:
Just use your normal ante's like you would for any other game. If your home game is small stakes with "non-poker" friends like mine I would recommened introducing Chowaha (called Chalupa in my game.. don't ask.) or Omaha H/L or Crazy Pineapple.
If the flop games get a warm reception, try hosting a H.O.P.E. only poker night with alternating rounds of Holdem, Omaha Hi, Pineapple, and O/8.
These games are much better when played consistently.
My 2cents. Now drop the chalupa and back away.
Packerfan1
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Hi Packerfan,
What's chowaha and crazy pineapple? Maybe wrong board for this question...
Thanks,
Marc
Chalupas...pinapples...man it's time for lunch.
Dan
Marc:
They're both variations of HE that work well for "home" type games.
Crazy Pineapple you get 3 cards and drop one after the flop. (As opposed to Pineapple where you drop one pre-flop) Some people even play this H/L split.
Chowaha in all of it's splendor is best explained here:
http://home.kscable.com/wolfdog/poker/chowaha.html
We play it Omaha style (Chalupaha) with 4 cards - must use two - H/L split.
Let's not spread it around that I told everyone these aberrations to the great game of HoldEm. :)
Packerfan1
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Whoa! My junk poker friends will love it! I definitely WON'T tell them about it. I am still regretting teaching them how to play "Follow the Queen".
we have everybody ante like normal. then, the player to the left of the dealer (UTG) bets first, but can check, too.
the bet rotates to the next active player as the rounds progress. it makes sense on a couple of levels :
the UTG player is first to act pre-flop -- bad. but last to act post-flop -- good. he also has the option of checking pre-flop so that the disadvantage of being UTG is mitigated by the threat of the check-raise.
if it gets heads-up, the active player just changes each round.
Try to sell them on this: When somebody chooses a game, you deal it for one complete orbit around the table (i.e. have everybody deal it once). This will also discourage, at least slightly, the dealer from calling some of the stupider games. Lets new games "sink in" a little bit too.
Took the words right out of my mouth. This adds a couple hands per hour. Get yourself some cards with the games written on them and leave them in the middle of the table for the entire round. Everyone knows the game without asking.
Holdem is deadly dull to non-holdem home game players. They just won't get it. Crazy Pineapple is a better idea.
I've instituted the "deal a round" concept with Hold'em, draw, and lowball in my home game. Works well and it allows you to post the blinds evenly.
All of the hands in these games go so quickly that playing one hand in a sea of junk poker makes it tough to "sell" the game. Plus, the pots are so small relative to junk poker pots. All in all, hold'em hasn't been a big hit with my non-poker aficionado friends. I am starting to wear out on the junk poker, though. If I have to play "Night Baseball" or "Screw Your Neighbor" one more time, I swear...
I like the "deal an orbit concept." I'll propose it at Friday's game.
Try "Pitch 2 after the flop." We play it high/low. It's a hold'em variant (I suppose), as you can play 0, 1, 2, or 3 of your hole cards. Each player gets 5 cards and we bet them preflop. 3 community cards are flopped, and you must discard two cards before the betting continues. Then, you have the (normal!) one card turn and river flops. Players love to bitch about breaking up their boats (or their quads!).....
Ah...the joy of the college game. We invented games right there at the table and sort of refined the rules in the middle of the hand.
How's this for a game? It's one I invented one of those crazy nights. It's called full moon fever. Everyone got two hole cards. They bet. Then you laid out cards in a complete circle on the table so that everyone had three cards. One in front of them, one to the left and one to the right. Now your left hand card was the person to your left's middle card and your middle card was his right hand card. So now you have 5 cards. You bet again. The people two away from you had one card they shared with you.
Now comes the full moon fever. You place a card in the middle. It's communal too...and wild. You have the same card, that's wild too!
Other than the wild part, I thought it had the ability to develop into something interesting.
I look back upon my college poker experience, along with most of life, and sweetly muse "what the hell was I thinking?"
Dan
Steve P,
You can always deal double or triple holdem 5 card draws. It increases the odds for a bad hand to at least see the flop of 6 or 9 cards for a $1 or whatever your playing for and have the dealer ante $3 as in all the games you play.
paul
Good manners are a sign of emotional intelligence, being emotionally intelligent is important to me. So, I do not understand why other players groan, look disgusted or say 'sh-t' under their breath sometimes, when I enter a pot. Even if I do not raise.
The other night the man UTG called. He watched with interest lighting up his eyes as the betting went around. When it was my turn and I just called, the light snapped off and he appeared disgusted.
In another hand, one of the two players in the pot with me folded, then said to my remaining opponent, "Get him Mike! Get him!" Why don't they like me?
You probably beat them too much.
It can't be that simple. I beat my locals all the time, as do others. Yet, I am well-liked by almost all the regulars, as are many of the other winning players. Your attitude and demeanor at the table are noticed.
I try to make the game as fun as possible, and especially for weak players. I want them to come back next time, and to never leave a game because I'm in it. Sometimes, they will even pick your table when they have a choice, because they remember how much fun they had last time. If I'm running real bad, I don't bitch, though I do get a lot quieter. When I'm running average to good, I chat, tell jokes, etc. However, I do this much more when I'm not in the hand, hardly everr while I'm playing a hand. Since I fold a lot preflop, this gives the players the appearance that I'm constantly participating, and many of them don't see me as being so tight.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Since I fold a lot preflop, this gives the players the appearance that I'm constantly participating, and many of them don't see me as being so tight."
Hmmm. I never thought about it this way. Thanks.
You are most likely a solid player. Tight-aggressive players are often perceived as "the enemy" by loose passive players. If you are in the pot, they are less likely to be able to make their draws on the cheap. Since you are playing against such fearful people you could be projecting arrogance without even knowing it. I take it that you made a profit at this table, which is more important in poker than being popular.
It is hard to act arrogant when even a lucky old lady can kick you bankroll.
Who said they were fearful? One of them wanted another of them to get me. Obviously, he wanted to get me but could not. Where is the fear there?
And when you feel disgusted, does that mean you feel fear? Isn't disgust more like, "Oh, sh-t.".
Because you're the best. They fear you. They hope for the day when they will see you fall. You are such an amazing player that they feel they cannot win when you enter a pot.
This is what you want to hear. You're a likeable good guy at the table but just taking too much money from them.
You wouldn't like my other answer, but then what does it matter at the poker table.
Keep winning the money. What do you really care if they like you or not?
PS. I actually have no idea why they don't like you. I only know why some players are not liked in games I play.
Believe it or not, I, even I am not liked by some players. Luckily their opinions don't mean much. 8-)
If people are groaning when you enter the action, you're playing WAY too tight. Play more hands and show a bluff once in a while. Mix things up a little.
As in any other social activity, if your are not liked it will probably work against you. I think if you are perceived as tight AND a prick when you win, players will probably 'defend' against this by playing a little better themselves - i.e. by tightening up. This is only natural since people generally don't like losing to assholes, compared to losing to a 'friend' when it's all in good fun.
I speak from experience. I have to guard against this myself. I can be very aggressive, rude, and bad tempered when I lose sometimes. These are all traites that can be perceived as obnoxious. Then when you show a full house after everyone has been drawing to make two pair, you look like someone who needs his ass kicked.
I know I really get bothered by a player who is so tight that it is transparent; who throws away when he doesn't flop (won't gamble) won't raise with a big hand (keep the suckers in) and never smiles when he wins!
While it may appear that my post was a type of brag,it is in fact about image. At the time that the player folded then said, "Get him, Mike!", I was not then a winning player. Now, after three years of serious work at beating the game, I have reason to believe that I am as bad as they think I am. The player who wanted to 'get me' had just gone too far with his hand, trying to get me. Everytime he is in the game with me I can count of him going too far to 'get me'. As for those players that react to me entering the pot, they are making a mistake. A mistake that I have taught them to make. It is a lesson that I can teach a new group of players in about an hour, given a couple of decent hands.
The whole point is that poker is about people. Alot of the posters on this forum appear to be number crunchers. That is good, but it is not enough. It is like what happened to blackjack when the number crunchers took on the task of counting down a six deck shoe. The game got lost in all those digits behind the decimal point. There is no doubt in my mind that once you have a strong game based in a good understanding of the numbers, you are basically ready to beat the game. It is only when you can beat the people, that you beat the game.
I do not care if they like me, because I know they respect me.
Previously you wrote
"The other night the man UTG called. He watched with interest lighting up his eyes as the betting went around. When it was my turn and I just called, the light snapped off and he appeared disgusted.
In another hand, one of the two players in the pot with me folded, then said to my remaining opponent, "Get him Mike! Get him!" Why don't they like me? "
Now you say that was years ago. It doesn't look like it was years ago; it looks like it was the other night.
Are you saying that the other players have remained the same and you now beat them consistently. None of them got better? AND you were actually worse than them initially but took 3 years to get better.
And you can teach other players in an hour given the right hands. Come on! Who can't?
Your post was a brag. It certainly was about image. Not a good one, I fear.
You are in the LB with (A9s, KQs, or 66) and a middle position player open raises and a late position player 3 bets (not a maniac). Would you call with any of these hands?
What is the weakest hand you should call with in the LB?
The Big Blind?
I would not call with any of these from the SB.
Depends on the player but I will need AA - QQ or AK. I don't like my position.
KK
Assuming at least one of the raises was legit, the only hands I would play (in either blind) is AA, KK QQ and AKs. Plus, I would 4 bet.
I can't think of a hand out there that's worth 2 and a half bets from me that isn't worth capping it.
That being said. Against a maniac, I'd cap it with a lot of high pairs, and AJs up. Against someone I respected, QQ up and AK. I'd prefer suited, naturally, but occasionally just AK.
I don't even think I would do it with KQs because while KQs is good, it plays better against a more people for less bets. Or at least more people. And I really want an ace in case (and when will this ever happen) I actually manage to get it heads up and neither of us flop anything.
Dan
When it comes to 3 bets from good players, the difference between LB and BB amount is diminished and chance against very good hand is increased. So the LB and BB should have the same calling standard. I would call with QQ or better.
regards,
jikun
I think the advice below which mostly says "QQ or better" is a bit too tight, in general. Of course, if the late position 3-bettor is a rock, that advice is probably correct, but saying that someone "is not a maniac" includes a variety of playing styles.
First, you need to consider that the open-raise came from middle position. A solid, tight-aggressive player will open-raise with a fair number of hands from middle position, particularly if the players after him are reasonably tight. Middle position is usually defined as 2-4 seats off the button, and from 2 seats off the button the tight-aggressive player will open-raise with a fair number of hands, perhaps 15-20% of his hands, and somewhat less from the earlier seats. If the player in late position is also tight-aggressive and knows that the player in middle position will open-raise with a fair number of hands, the late position player will likewise re-raise with a fair number of hands, although less than the middle position player would raise with. So, in the blinds, you don't need to play as excessively tight as you might if a good player in late position re-raised an early position raiser.
It's still a good idea to play reasonably tight in that situation, but I don't think you have to play as tight as others have suggested.
-Sean
My problem in the blind is I would have to beat two or more hands out of postion. I'm assuming one or more raises are legitimate, which I admit is somewhat broad. I would drop down considerably against a live straddle or a lunatic (probably to 6-6 or better).
The situation as presented by Bob is he believes at least one hand is of high quality. Can he cold call raises? It is a good question, totally dependent on the situation. He could drop down to 9-9 ob or so if he is against overcards only.
I think you can certainly get in there with hands of lesser quality when it comes from two late position good players. I would say the first one is trying to steal the blinds and the second one, with a fairly legitimate hand, is trying to forcibly remove the blinds and get it heads up with the blind stealer.
Again I would lower my standards if the first person is a maniac. The second person, if he's a good player, 3 bets it to get it heads up while I, with 7-7, could very well have the best hand of all 3.
Against a legitimate middle position raiser, and a late position 3 better, maniac or not, I would tighten up my standards considerably. Remember, it's probably going to get capped (assuming I'm not the one to do it) and just calling is only 3:1 odds. In other words, even money against 3 people on a hand where I'm probably not the favorite.
Dan
Sean, from the small blind only please suggest some other hands that could be worth playing here.
I was thinking JJ. Maybe AQs or AJs but these are just so dominated by AK. TR had posted that he would play with AKs but not with AK. I was tending towards this as well. If one of the raisers has AK our draws are reduced and the AKs gives me an advantage.
Any pair is a big favorite over 2 players with AK. I would estimate 60-65%.
Also most of the hands that are playable should be raised. You'll gain a lot of info when re-raised again plus you may well have the best hand.
How many players have called at least one bet to this point? If you think you would be playing these hands 3 handed I would Muck, Muck, and Muck. 4 or 5 handed: Probably Call, Call, Call.
Tight raiser or no information: QQ and above; AK
Raiser is not a rock and reraiser can have medium pair, AQs: TT and above; AK
Reraiser can have AJ or medium pair plus other hands: 99 and above; AQs
I live and play in the San Diego area. I also lived in Vegas for quite some time and had success at the 10-20 and 20-40 levels. Lately I have been sucking badly in California.
I have been playing 6-12 w/ a full kill and 9-18 w/ a full kill and am down $1300 or so since Jan 1 (since I moved here).
One cardroom nearby is called the Lady Luck. They have only one camera in the whole place and that is on the front door. There are no cameras on the tables. Many people here seem to know each other, and I am becoming less and less comfortable playing there. Cards are changed very often (which I generally don't like, but in this case I am all for it), and the collection is $3 every half hour, which I like a great deal. On the other hand, the room has about 12 tables and is managed very amateurishly (is that a word?).
Three questions:
1) How much cheating is there at this game (meaning Hold 'Em in general)?
2) When people cheat at Hold 'Em what are the different ways people can cheat?
3) If there are people "working together," how can it be taken advantage of?
Thanks in advance for any advice or ideas.
David
I'll let others respond to your three specific questions, but having played in S.D. since the late '80s I thought I'd address your concerns as they apply to poker here. Note, however, that I've only played once at the Lucky Lady. Nevertheless, I know people who play there regularly, so I hear about their experiences.
One cardroom nearby is called the Lady Luck. They have only one camera in the whole place and that is on the front door. There are no cameras on the tables.
Yeah, it's a "mom and pop" type place. The Village Club lacks cameras too.
Many people here seem to know each other, and I am becoming less and less comfortable playing there.
Sure they know each other. They play poker together almost daily, year round. Unless you spend more time with them, it's probably impossible not to feel a bit olike an outsider. But in my experience players here are mostly well intended, friendly people.
On the other hand, the room has about 12 tables and is managed very amateurishly (is that a word?).
Yes, I think it has a little catching up to do with other rooms around here, though the Village Club is sometimes accused of the same thing. But I've seen little in the way of procedures or rulings at the latter that could truly affect one's bottom line.
I will say that in all the time I've played in S.D., I have heard of only one confirmed instance of cheating. It's very rare. You do get some friends softplaying each other. And you do get some abuse of the "english only" rule. But, though you should of course keep your eyes open, I think you can play with very little risk of being the victim of collusion or other true cheating here.
Most of the people I know who play at the Lucky Lady play in their biggest game (30-60 on Mondays??, 20-40 or thereabouts other days last I heard.) I've heard no news or rumors of cheating there from any of them. (though I've been a little out of the loop in the last 6 weeks) I do know a couple of people who play 6-12 there as well, and have heard nothing from them either.
I haven't played at the reservation casinos since every place else went non-smoking, but have heard no rumors.
I can say that neither Oceans-11 nor the Village Club have had any cheating problems the I'm aware of. At the latter, however, the entire atmosphere is much more raucous. You will at times run into a lot of languages being spoken (mostly between hands, but the boundaries blur), more softplaying, etc. You're more likely to *suspect* cheating there, though it is very unlikely actually to happen.
I tend to think the players knowing one another actually helps prevent cheating. Any two or more regulars who might hatch a plan to collude will be well known to the other regulars who will likely notice anything "going on" between them.
Unfortunately I don't think I'll have a chance to follow up in this thread in the next few days, but if you have any specific questions or concerns, email me and I'll get back to you in a few days or so.
I am told there are a few "road gangs" working Arizona. Although I have only run into two signaling each other once in two years of living here.
Look for players to signal each other of their intentions and their cards watch for stack rearranging and hand signals to one another.
I know of 2 people who play the 20-40 hold'em at Casino AZ regularly (one of them bankrolls the other) who use chip placement to tell each other what they have. The reason I don't report it or tell anyone who it is, is because when I play this game it is an enormous advantage for me and I don't want them to quit doing it. (Although I rarely play the 20-40 HE anymore.)
Can you give me an example of what people who cheat commonly do exactly with their *chips* to represent a certain holding? I'm in california and would like to know what to lookout for.
Thanks, Bobby
I can only answer this from the blackjack perspective, where I've done this kind of signalling (legally.) One possible representation is $1 equals one pip. So, a stack of two reds and 3 blues next to a stack of 4 blues says "I hold K4". You would just need one bit to signal whether or not you have a flush draw, so perhaps a chip leaning up against the stacks means you have a flush draw. Signals in blackjack can also be done with the bet, either its location or amount, but I doubt this approach would be used in poker.
-Abdul
.
What these characters do only occurs after the flop if they are both in. If they do anything before the flop I have not noticed it.
I don't want to be specific about what they do for obvious enough reasons. But basically a chip placed on the hole cards means top pair, a chip in the hand means a flush draw, etc. This isn't exactly what they do but it should give you some idea of what to look for.
By the way, if you were to go into a game where these 2 were doing it and you were specifically looking for this sort of behavior, it would be very easy to spot. So if you can see it going on, my advice is to absolutely not report it to anyone, and try to decipher what they are doing, and take advantage accordingly. The last thing you want to happen if you notice players doing this is for them to quit playing in your game, as you now have a considerable advantage over both them and the rest of the table while they are playing.
I'm not going to get into whether reporting it or not is the right thing to do, but what's the difference between that, and noticing other forms of cheating?
Should you report a bend or scratch in the cards regardless of whether you think anyone at the table did it or notices it?
Should you report when you notice someone bending or scratching the cards?
Should you report it when one person is flashing cards to another player?
Now, the biggest question: To those who answered on any of these that they would report it, did you do it because you felt it was your moral obligation...or because you felt it would be to your disadvantage monetarily if you didn't? Choose only one.
Dan
Another thing, if you see anyone placing chips anywhere for the reason of signalling another person, they are 100% not bluffing in that hand. At least from my experience.
On a similar note, if they do not place chips anywhere when their "partner" is in the hand, they have a comparatively weak hand and are planning on folding to a bet usually.
I'm somewhat surprised that all the parnterships you have observed fail to signal when they bluff. They are giving up a lot of expectation. Fortunately, most cheaters aren't very smart.
I have played holdem for a long time in many places, although only on business trips and vacations.
I have only seen cheating once, and I view the soft playing of friends and the strange playing of friends as no big deal; in fact, I think when they play like maniacs, it improves my take.
The cheating I saw was marked cards in LV. I always feel the tops of the card backs for fingernail 'cuts' now. I am paranoid.
Mark
What makes you think the card marks were not accidental?
There is a distinctly notched card currently at Bellagio. I'm not saying that it's from cheating. I pointed it out two weeks ago, but the dealer did not break the card, and then I saw the card again yesterday but couldn't get my hands on it to break it.
I've been playing hold'em for 11 years, and I've seen undeniable cheating on several occasions. On one occasion, a guy was caught with an ace up his sleeve, literally. Those who believe they have never been cheated are simply inexperienced or play for very low stakes.
As for "how much", the question is more like "where." I believe one of the higher stakes games in LA is rife with collusion all the time, and others have arrived at the same conclusion independently. On the other hand, in Vegas 1-5 stud, you are unlikely to find any serious cheating, though there really is some (inept) cheating in California 3-6 hold'em and other low limit games.
The advent of online poker may result in more collusion in the card rooms in the future. Some of those online players collude by talking with their buddies in the same game on the phone or on the computer. Those who think this never occurs are mentally ill or something. In the future, we may encounter some of the successful colluders in the bigger stakes casino ring games.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Are there particular things to watch out for, that may indicate serious collusion in a game?
allan
Pay attention to those who...
...bankroll others in the same game; collusion is unavoidable in this case, even with the best of intentions.
...pretend not to know each other but do.
...angle constantly, keep shorting the pot, or chop except when they hold a big hand.
...raise and reraise with garbage but only seem to do so when a friend also has a huge hand.
...fold quite often when the friend has a decent hand.
...speak in foreign languages during a hand.
...speak in hushed tones.
...speak using English but it does not quite make sense.
...are part of a clique of players from the same country.
...play at the same table with a lover.
...check-check each other to the river.
...toss chips to each other.
...rearrange chips in front of their other chips each hand.
...signal each other directly with headshakes or straightforward English.
Except for the first one, none of these prove collusion. They're all just weak indicators, and 9 times out of 10 they won't point to a colluder. If you're up against two or more colluders who have carefully rehearsed signals and who split the money out in the parking lot, you'll never know what hit you and never be able to prove it even if you do. Fortunately, most collusion is done ineptly and is both ineffective and easy to spot.
-Abdul
I'll tell ya Abdul, if you ever watch Mason beat up on 3 Bet Brett you'd swear Mason was cheating. But on a not so serious note. One must always be aware of the possibility of cheating and be alert to it. Collusion is normally one of the easiest form of cheating to detect. I don't believe that I have been cheated in a Casino. But your posts have certainly made me realize that I must always be aware of what goes on when money and humans cross paths. For that I thank you.
Vince
BTW - Playing Holdem for 11 years. Hmmm. One would think one would get wiser with age. Well, I guess there are no absolutes.
The advent of online poker may result in more collusion in the card rooms in the future. Some of those online players collude by talking with their buddies in the same game on the phone or on the computer.
The prospect of more collusion in live games can be avoided or at least mitigated through the use of sophisticated video surveillance, perhaps supported by computer analysis, that could indicate to the house which players using laptops and cell phones at the table are surreptitiously signalling their hands to each other.
Jesus.
I suppose one can make the argument that online poker might enable more colluders to become more skilled, and that this might spill over into the live games. I would be surprised if, a century or so of public poker, that online games will open up any new or better way for colluders to profit undetected.
BTW, have you ever gotten together with the others that have independently observed collusion at the big L.A. game that is "rife with collusion all the time" and written a letter to the casino, or called the cops?
I suppose one can make the argument that online poker might enable more colluders to become more skilled, and that this might spill over into the live games.
That is basically what I meant. Online poker may breed colluders, who may then try to move into face-to-face games for higher stakes than they can play online. I did not mean that they would be colluding with computers while playing face-to-face games.
BTW, have you ever gotten together with the others that have independently observed collusion at the big L.A. game that is "rife with collusion all the time" and written a letter to the casino, or called the cops?
I have complained to cardroom management (totally ineffective.) But good idea, I'll talk to a professional from LA who recently moved to Vegas in part because of the cheating in LA and I'll see if he would be willing to write a letter together. It's unlikely the cops would be interested, especially not the cops in the ghettos of LA.
-Abdul
My greatest fear isn't that "online poker might enable more colluders to become more skilled," although this certainly is a concern. I'm more worried that online poker will allow certain people to overcome their moral qualms about cheating.
At their computer terminals, these folks could easily decide that, since lots of other players are (or likely are) colluding, it's alright for them to do so as well. Once they feel ethically comfortable cheating online, it is a much smaller step for them to start colluding in live games. After all, it can and does happen there, too.[1]
I've had mixed results about reporting cheaters to cardroom management. Some act quickly and strongly to protect the integrity of their games. Others are more concerned about keeping every possible customer (at least short-term) rather than eliminating cheating.
------------------------
[1] Perhaps this is part of the reason why Mason (at least publicly) so grossly underestimates the prevalence of cheating in live games.
Mark:
There's a kernal of truth in that, but it's a very general one, sort of like the "broken window" thesis for street crime. I'm curious about how you concluded that "lots of other players are (or likely are) colluding" online? Have you observed prevalent collusion in online poker?
If you don't haven't and there actually isn't much online collusion, then doesn't it follow from your argument that statements like yours are likely to exacerbate whatever cheating does exist? Ignoring for a moment your "cyber-ethics" argument, your general point is that corrupt people will cheat if others do, or more precisely if they believe that others do. Isn't it likely that prospective colluders, having been assured in so many terms that it already happens with great frequency, are more inclined to begin colluding, so that it is probably profitable and easy to get away with?
Wouldn't you agree that discussions of cheating are fundamentally irresponsible without an informed assessment of how much cheating actually occurs?
I recently started playing in a similar club (two tables, all regulars, no cameras, you get the idea). I haven't noticed anything which made me suspicious of cheating, but I don't know what I should be looking for. Is there a good book on the market which discusses types of cheating (signalling, marking cards, etc.) and ways to heighten your awareness of it?
I have heard that there is a team playing at Bay 101 in San Jose, and have suspected this while playing many times. I really have no proof, but sometimes I see people re-raise with trash, and that could be because their teammate has signaled them in order to isolate.
A more than seemingly random amount of the wheel cards were nicked at the Omaha8 table at the biloxi Grand. One suit per deck seemed to collect dents in back too. I couldn't tell if anybody who was playing at the table was doing it or not, (and I looked hard for people trying to look at the back of cards), but I took the phrase "protect you hand" extra seriously.
I have been in games where the dealers seemed to lift my cards on the deal more so than others. Is flashing something I should comment or even be concerned about and wouldn't it benifit the 1 and 10 seats more than anyone else ?
Also, no one has mentioned dealer/player collusion. I was at Bay 101 last weekend and I couldn't beleive the confidence I saw in junk hands through raising and more often than not someone connected while my big cards got slaughtered ! Is this a problem for strangers to a game ? I don't sweat it in Vegas but when I go to Cali the bad beats make me wonder .
It's easier to catch colluders if you play against them often.
If you regularly play against the same opponents, then you probably know who is friends with whom. If you are watching for collusion (and this is one of the things I do watch for at the poker table), you normally should focus more on these friends.
You will have a very difficult time picking up signals between partners who know what they are doing. Of course, there also are poor signalers. In either case, watch what happens when one of the suspected cheaters catches AA or KK. Does the "partner" rarely fold preflop and often bet or raise?
If you see a couple strangers do this twice or thrice, you should be suspicious but it's hard to make any accusations. If you see regulars do this time after time, then you can be reasonably sure they are signaling. Notify the cardroom manager, try to decipher their code, and/or avoid playing at their table.
I know two players who openly boasted about their online cheating. A few weeks later, I noticed they started sitting next to each other at the real life poker tables. Both are reasonably tight players--except when the other holds AA or KK. Eventually, they will be caught.
One of the things you need to pay attention to is getting caught in the middle of the colluders as they raise continuously to chop you up.
There is a set of twins at the Taj that do this....
Mike
Can someone please explain to me what a full kill is.
enrique,
A kill is an extra blind posted by a player, usually after he scoops a pot in a split pot game such as Omaha H/L (some games provide for a kill when someone wins two pots in a row). Lowball offers a variety of methods for killing the pot.
A full kill means that the amount of the kill is twice the size of the big blind and/or the betting limits double (as in stud H/L. For example, in 3/6 Omaha Kill, the kill amount would be $6 and the limits would become 6/12 for that hand. The killer often acts after the big blind before the flop but lately more games have the killer act in turn.
Sometimes you will see a half kill, a 1/3 kill and so on. For example, I've played in 6/12 Omaha with a 1/3, 2/3 and full kill. The killers blind would be $8, $10 and $12 respectively. Hope this helps.
Rick
OK, when the power bar of your opponent gets low, you come in one last time and hit him. If it's really low, even blocking won't help. Now your opponent starts swaying. If you're Scorpion, you back a full body length away and hold block while pressing up, up, up. Now your mask comes off and you shoot fire at the guy until he explodes!
That, my friend, is a full kill!
Dan
(insert techno music now)
This question may sound like old hat to you guys, but it's one that has been bugging me. This isn't a hand I have specifically played, but rather a combination of scenarios I've encountered time and again and played differently, with different results. Let's assume we are playing in a passive low limit game with 7-8 callers preflop including blinds. You are dealt JJ/TT/99 on the button. No one has raised, five/six people have limped and you are faced with a decision. Let's assume that a raise is not likely to knock out the blinds all that often. Do you raise? Odds are you have the best hand, but is it worh a raise?
If you have the best hand you may be costing yourself 8sb, and significant implied odds, by not raising. If you do raise, you are building a mammoth pot that will be won in a showdown. Is your hand going to survive that showdown?
Ok, if you flop a set you are in business. Since the odds of that are 7 1/2-1, the chances are remote. If we have an overpair, we are looking good for the time being. Of course, in a previously raised pot those middle/bottom pairs are going to stick around and catch those kickers. So are those gutshots, so are those naked aces. So, even an overpair is not that grand.
I don't know the odds of JJ/TT/99 not flopping overcards, but I would figure it at less than 50%. Since people are sticking and staying, those overcards and gutshots and button pairs figure to catch, while you only have 2 legitimate outs. At a table this loose, I don't even know how many "blanks" exist.
Now on the flop, if there is an overcard and a bet you are in trouble. If there is flush/straight/trip possibilities you are in trouble too with a bet coming to you and people yet to act. I think that unless we have an overpair to a raggedy board or a set we do not how to act from here on out. Indecision cannot lead to a maximized expectation.
If we didn't raise, I think the hand is just as difficult to play except that when flopping a monster it costs us money. Since that is rare, I advocate (to myself) not raising. I do like to have an aggressive image, especially at a passive table, so part of me wants to raise. Another part of me figures that it cannot be all that wrong to raise with the best hand. I figure to win more than 1/8, but with no stealing equity, I just don't know. Just some random thoughts. How do you guys handle these spots?
My 2cents...
I just call here and see the flop for one bet.
If I like the flop (overpair) or I love the flop (set) I'll get the same extra bet by raising post-flop.
If there are overcards and significant action before me I can get away from the hand for 1 small bet and move on.
The other theory is to raise middling pairs on the button after many limpers for the following reasons (as I understand it):
1. If you do hit your hand, the larger pot will encourage weaker hands to stay all the way to the end with you, thereby increasing your EV when you do actually hit your hand.
2. If you miss the flop, everyone may check to you giving you a free 22-1 shot of spiking your set.
In loose passive LL games, I want to see the flop as cheaply as possible and act from there.
Packerfan1
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I initiated a similar post below, "While we're on the subject..." or something like that. In my case I chose AK in late position with many callers. I think a similar analysis occurs here, as did below. You should figure to win many more than 1 out of 9 or 10 times every time you play this hand. Also, it is pretty easy to play these hands. In most situations you can get away from it easily, since it will become obvious is you're beaten, and you can take control when you're not.
So, raise, since you're getting a bit of pre-flop equity, and when you hit your hand, you'll have lots of people to pay you off, making you ecstatic. Not to mention the aggressive image which you desire at that table.
Bill
Personally, I make the raise unless it has already been raised. I fold if the flop does not help me. No exceptions, no runner/runner
But by raising with a good-but-not-great pair in a situation that is unlikely to make anyone fold aren't you increasing the pot and making your opponents' future calls with drawing hands on later streets correct?
Jon I.
Making your opponent's bad calls correct usually isn't a problem. If you do a pot equity analysis, you find that when you have the best of it, your preferences are (from least preferred to most preferred):
1. Opponent folds correctly in a small pot.
2. Opponent calls incorrectly in a small pot.
3. Opponent calls correctly in a large pot.
4. Opponent folds incorrectly in a large pot.
Thus for a fixed pot size, you do prefer your opponent to act incorrectly. But if your opponent is going to call anyway, you prefer having the pot big even though that makes the call correct. The reasoning in a nutshell is that your immediate profit when an opponent calls is independent of the pot size, but you have already built up more profitable equity with the large pot than the small one (remember, we are assuming that you have the best of it here, so that your equity should be greater than the amount you have had to put into the pot). Your immediate profit when the opponent folds is proportional to the pot size, but if he isn't going to fold in any case, that doesn't matter.
So in general, the idea of keeping the pot size small to make your opponent's calls incorrect is mistaken. A possible exception occurs if your opponent would fold incorrectly in a medium-sized pot but call correctly in a large one. In that case, you would have to weigh the bigger profit you could get from your opponent's incorrect fold against the bigger equity you would have in the larger pot, and it might be correct to keep the pot just small enough that your opponent would fold incorrectly. Another possible set of exceptions comes in multiway pots, where Morton's theorem may cause you to want certain opponents to fold or call correctly.
This one is not even close. JJ can (and should) profitably raise after limpers no sweat. Oh yes, in a multiway field the jacks will get their danglers visecracked much more often than not, but when they don't, it'll be well worth it. They are a group I. hand after all, you S&M zealots, glorious is Allah.
The same goes (almost) for TT and (almost almost) for 99. These hands win more than their fair share, therefore they should build early.
Yea, yea, it's sad to see AKQ overcards on the flop when jacks-equipped, even a singleton overcard feels like a punch in the gut on a pot like this, but hey, you gotta learn to take it. And remember, all is not lost when overcards fall...
BTW, I read in a book somewhere that JJ like multiway or headsup, but not (exactly) four-way. It is not so. Jacks can handle anything execept AA, KK or QQ. If these hitmen ain't around, it's a party. Two-way, three-way, four-way, everyway.
---
"24.39": And (as for) those who disbelieve, their deeds are like the mirage in a desert, which the thirsty man deems to be water; until when he comes to it he finds it to be naught, and there he finds Allah, so He pays back to him his reckoning in full; and Allah is quick in reckoning;
That Allah may give them the best reward of what they have done, and give them more out of His grace;...
---
I don't think it's that JJ's overall EV goes down with many players, it just becomes harder to play, making it more likely that you will make very costly mistakes, like folding the best hand or calling with a second best hand. If you had x-ray vision, the number of players wouldn't matter, the more the merrier!
The key element in my mind is whether or not the blinds will 3 bet. If you feel they will not, a raise makes some sense for the reasons already mentioned. However, you can also make a case for limping with JJ for 1 bet. In a multiway pot like this an intermediate pair probably must hit a set to win despite being the best hand pre-flop. My vote is to take JJ/TT/99 for one bet. You still have position over your opponents.
I will almost always raise in that spot. I'd be raising for pure value, plain and simple. Many times you'll have to throw it away on the flop, but I feel it's worth the extra small bet investment.
The problem with JJ,TT,99, is that when you do flop an overpair, the cards are often too bunched up. This makes straight draws almost a certainty. Now, hitting a Jack on the turn or river, may be the last thing you want, as it will likely make someone else a straight. Nevertheless, I feel it's usually worth a raise in the long run.
The Location: Horseshoe - Tunica The Game: $4-8 Hold'em, full table (after I sit down) Mix of Locals, an off shift dealer in the 9-seat and one other SARGE'er
I sit down in the 10 seat in late position (1 or 2 off the button), Dealer Rick tosses me a hand and we're off! I look down and see KJo, it's unraised and I just call $4.
Five or six of us (which seemed the norm if the pot was unraised) see the flop.
AQT - Rainbow - Ding!
I have the nut straight, early position bets and going by Lee Jones excellent advice on playing low-limit str8's FAST I raise. The lady in the 1-seat re-raises and it's folded back around to me. I pop it again and 1-seat lady re-raises.
At this point I'm putting her on a slowplayed AA or QQ (pre-flop), AQ, AT, QT, TT, etc. But I decide to hammer it with my str8.
We end up going about 10 small bets before I realize she will go all in (or nearly, she didn't look like she was going to quit re-raising), so I decide to back off and call not wanting to get all my money invested this early.
The turn is an 2! no flush possible, total rainbow. I bet $8, she makes it $16 and I re-raise to $24, she calls. I now definitely feel that she has trips!
River: K! I know this could be split if she has a Jack, but I decide to pop it for a "final" bet. 1-seat lady makes a "crying call" showing down a set of Aces! Dealer Rick pushes me a "nice first pot"!
Now this was a really nice "first pot" for me in that game, but I'm wondering if I played the str8 a little too fast on the flop (Investing about 10 small bets). Should I have backed off and just called after 4 or 5 bets?
I think my bets on the turn were correct.
Comments?
You are a solid favorite over any single hand on this flop, including a set. Your only concern is that she has the same KJ, and that they are suited to one of the cards on the board. In this spot, she could make a backdoor flush to beat you, but you can only tie her at best. However, against an unknown player at 4-8, I would still go ahead and put in everything on the flop, or any time I had the nuts. If she sucks out, pull out more money and hope for better luck next time.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you don't play fast, you may have ended up splitting that pot on the river. By playing fast, she did not put you on a straight, because most players will always slow play a flopped straight.
The bets you lost from letting others in were more than offset by her mistake of continuous re-raising, and there was no danger of another making a straight or flush.
A good deceptive play paid off!
I would've went to the cloth on the flop. You were a 2-1 favorite over the best hand that she could hold that didn't tie you -- the set she indeed had.
When you have the nuts and are getting action, there is no reason to stop.
Loose game. 2 limpers. QQ on the button and raise, just the two limpers call.
Flop A 9 5 rainbow.
check, check, bet. both limpers call.
Turn: off suit 2.
check check ?
Would you be inclined to bet again?
I am thinking that there are not so many free cards that are likely to beat you here since the only overcard, not already on the board is, the K. So a check may not be dangerous. Also one of the opponents might be playing a weak ace with CALL, CALL and then bet the river ( a play I like to make myself ). Also you might induce a bluff on the river from a smaller pair.
Comments? Check or bet?
D.
I check. They either got no help and may fold if you bet, or someone is slow playing and now will pop you. I agree that if neither of these is the case, that the free card is not that likely to be harmful in this situation. Here I am talking about mid-level to good players.
If I am against one poor player who is likely to keep calling with second or third pair in these situations, then I bet the turn most of the time.
David,
With this flop at the middle limits I like the check on the turn after getting two callers. Of course on the river you usually must call a single bettor but you probably should lay down against a bettor and a caller. If I checked the turn and the river came a blank, I would bet for value if the river was checked to me by typical opponents.
If the flop contained some reasonable draws or your pair was worse (e.g., TT), I would bet the turn and be prepared to laydown versus a checkraise by a typical opponent.
Regards,
Rick
I agree. No overcall on the river and bet smaller pairs on the turn.
D.
With this flop I think some players will call you with an inside straight draw (78s?) or middle pair, and then fold on the turn. You don't want to give them free cards. I'm inclined to bet once more, though it depends on the players quite a bit, as always. Mostly would they limp with medium/low suited connectors, and would they limp with ace-rag, suited or non?
I think you must bet the turn and then check the river. If someone check raises the turn, fold. If you show weakness on the turn by checking, what are you going to do if somebody bets the river? You are opening yourself to be bluffed by somebody representing a weak Ace. Just my two cents.
Rocketman73,
You usually call a single opponent when he bets the river since you induced a bluff on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
It costs you the same amount to check the turn and call the on the river.
You save a bet if the player actually has the A and would bet the river and you may also get a bet from an induced bluff that you call.
You do risk losing from the free card though.
D.
I keep hearing that the play in HE is different if you go from, say, AC out to Vegas or LA. I also hear that online such as Paradise is more conducive to west coast play.
How is the play different? Is one coast tighter than the other, or more aggressive post-flop, or tend to call down to the river or what? If someone can fill me in on the differences, I would appreciate it. I play in AC, and plan to head out to Vegas soon and want to know what to expect. Thanks in advnace for any info/comments.
CB
I've played in 3 locations, SoCal, LV, and CT (Foxwoods). Here are my general impressions.
CT: HE games mostly tight, with very few novices. Only real exceptions occur during major tournament time, when more "home-game" players come in from NY, Boston, etc. Limits only up to 20-40 most of the year.
SoCal: HE games mostly loose, with low limit games being passive or aggressive, depending upon chance, and middle limit games being almost always aggressive. Only occasionally are even middle limit games tight. Can't really speak to high limit games (50-100 or higher).
LV: HE games mostly tight, with no weak regulars who give it away, as they often play super-tight preflop, and make their mistakes postflop (but since they're in there so rarely, they can only lose so much). However, you get the tourists who come in and play awhile, and in many cases know next to nothing about HE. These players can play for an hour or 2 and feed the game to last the day. This type of clueless player is rare in SoCal and CT, as there is no tourism that visits the poker room in these locations (for the most part).
Many may disagree, and I may be wrong. I have the least experience in LV of the 3.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I agree with your assessment.
My experiences are in Northern CA (a little in So Ca), Nevada (including LV, Reno, Tahoe), and in AC.
I find AC (these days) very very tough, exactly as you describe CT.
I find No Ca. very agressive, with the poorer players (gamblers and good-luck-charm freaks) making it profitable.
And I have found Nevada great, as long as the tourists are there...and I love when the regulars consider me a tourist, since they do not know me. Helps greatly to be underestimated.
Mark
Greg,
I have experience in all three places (although it is limited to a few mostly mid-week day trips to Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun since I am visiting family and friends when I'm back there).
Your analysis is right on the money regarding holdem. When I do play at Foxwoods I usually try to play stud so my game doesn't totally degenerate. I end up doing OK but they don't give it away.
Last time at Foxwoods I played a 10/20 holdem mid-week while my Mom played bingo (dating your Mom is sort of fun and she usually buys lunch). It was the tightest game I have ever played in except for tournaments. I was starting to think that they were all looking at me as the live one (the guy I thought was the live one kept walking). But it was a pleasant game with good table talk so I hung in there.
Behind me the 5/10 Omaha H/L had pots with less chips in them than I keep in spare change on my dresser. It looked like a retirement hangout for ex Electric Boat types.
For holdem, I'll stick to California. If I ever move back East, I need to get better at stud.
Regards,
Rick
HE in Ca is almost always good in all low and medium levels. Atlantic City REALLY varies. Sometimes the $20-$40 HE has tremendous action and often the $5-$10 HE is EXTREMELY tough; ie tight, aggressive, knowledgeable players who have lots of tricks. And then there's the rake on top of all that.
Hi, I've came across a situation (came across it several times that I think it's worth noting). I'm playing 2/4 online with a habitual bluffer. I call several times with the board being KK4XX with a 4 on the river to his bet, and win. (he has Q8 or something like that without pairing up)
Anyways, on the flop he usually bets. He has been betting the last 5 or so hands in a row, then on this flop he doesn't bet. I don't bet either. Checks to the river than his bet. Everyone else folds. I have ace high, think a little, then call. He turns over quads!
My thinking is, in low limit, a habitual bluffer who calls on a good "bluffing" flop (paired, for example) probably has something. It's low limit, and he/she most likely doesn't realize that they should bet to take advantage of their previous bluffing... Any thoughts on this?
I think you are trying to generalize from specifics. You have to figure out these bad LL players on a case-by-case basis. This is assuming that there is any pattern at all to their play. Sometimes what you see as a pattern is just a short term aberration in what is otherwise essentially random play.
I don't understand how an appeal to "random play" or "bad LL players" helps at all in this case. The poster characterized the opposing player as a "habitual bluffer"! This is certainly a case of bad play, especially considering that the opposing player only got one bet out of quads, but it is hardly an example of "random play."
Ok,
I sit down in a 5-10 game and on my first hand I pick up AsQd in the big blind. I don't know many of the players at the table, but the ones I do know aren't great. UTG calls, a middle aged guy (MAG) raises and two other people call, but not small blind. I call too. So, there is 5 people in the pot ($50) plus small blind ($2). ($52).
The flop comes down Qh Jh 9d. I lead out and the UTG makes it $10 and the MAG makes it $15 and one of the other dudes calls. I am getting about 9-1 on my call, but I muck because I feel that I am beat by the preflop raiser. I put him on AA or KK, but because I don't know him, I don't know. I thought about capping it, but I am out of position on the next two cards and there are a zillion draws for the caller and I could be beat by either of the two raisers.
Next card is Jd. UTG bets, MAG calls, as does the other caller. Final card Qs! Bastards! UTG checks, MAG bets, caller folds. UTG calls and shows a Js,Tc. MAG has Ah6h. OK, yeah I am steamed, but since it's first hand I don't go on tilt. Later examination shows MAG to be a maniac. Here's my questions...
1.) I have never seen either one of these players before and this game is usually pretty tight. Would you guys have capped with top pair/top kicker against a couple of unknown raisers out of position? If so, how would you have handled the turn? You probably would have bet, gotten raised and what then? I know I probably played a little weak-tight, but that's not my main question...
2.) How do you handle players whose play you don't have a line on yet? Do you assume they are weak until proven otherwise (D. Sklansky quote in Cigar Afficionado awhile ago) A guy who plays pretty boldly in early position should be respected, even if you don't know them, don't you think? In retrospect, I probably should have capped knowing that an aggressive image will help at least.
Any thoughts??
Later, MDMAniac
I wouldn't have capped it -- I'd have called, then check-raised them on the turn. I'm curious what you were waiting for if you couldn't play top-pair, top-kicker strongly. 5-10 isn't exactly no-limit, nor is it a tournament -- trying to convince yourself you are facing the nuts isn't a good approach to a limit game. Occasionally you'll get beat with a flop like that, but if it was good enough to play before the flop, it certainly was good enough to play strongly after the flop.
Unkonwn players I assume are solid average until they prove otherwise unless they have certain tells they are loose.
I have a really hard time mucking top pair top kicker with that flop considering there has been pre flop action.
With 4 opponents someone else hit this flop and someone is going to bet. I would hardly EVER bet out from the blinds in this spot since your hand is so well disquised and you gain more useful information if you check. In general, you should bet more often in those situations where you are confident you can respond correctly to raises; and should check more often otherwise.
Check from the blinds. Bet when UTG since its obvious YOU hit this flop.
But to answer your question: This player raised twice which is every opportunity that you have witnessed. That means that either (1) He's got a premium hand (32:1) and is not a weak tight player and doesn't slow play, or (2) he's got a good hand (10:1) and reasonably aggressive, (3) he's got cheese (1:1) and he's a borderline maniac, or (4) he's got any hand (0:1?) and he's a full maniac. Judging by the distribution I'd say (1) is pretty unlikely and that's the only situation that warrents a fold on your part. There are a whole lot more kind-of selective aggressive players than super selective players.
Had you seen him fold three hands in a row and THEN do this then you have a more difficult decision.
- Louie
Is this not a coordinated flop? You're looking at 9JQ on board. Most players are going to see the flop with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 99, KT suited or not. And will likely see the flop with 8Ts. All of these hands have him at a severe dis-advantage -- as in he's already beat. Not to mention those hands which have a great draw at that point. He hit the flop, but his hand is extrmely vulnerable. It's not a terrible lay-down when he has no experience with some of the payers at the table and just sat down.
HHHmmmm. What am I missing?
.
I don't know about check raising a flop like this. For one thing, it's almost certain to be three bet, in which case you've got a real problem as there aren't any legitimate hands that someone can three bet which you can beat. Further, even if you are in the lead any 8 or K effectively kills your hand, and another heart makes it diffucult to bet with confidence. It's one of those classic situations where you might be ahead, but even if you are everyone else's draws are very live and have a decent shot of coming in. In situations like this, where the flop is scary but I still like it, I prefer to lead bet and then call a raise. If the turn isn't too bad I'll lead bet again; if I improve I'll check raise. If the flush card or straight card hitsl and there's any significant action I'll fold. In sum, there aren't many hands that the UTG player can have, combined with the hands that the MAG can have, that you have beat. Hence, I think it makes sense to wait and see how things develop.
With a bettor, a raiser and a caller of two cold it's very hard to say "maybe they're all on draws." Maybe they are, but more than 9 times out of 10 it's a big hand versus a big draw and you'll pay 10 more small bets to show it down, only to see what was represented: a set, two pair, or a straight. You also know you'll lose a big chunk of the time when the flush comes in. I think this was a good fold.
One question I have: does the 2-flush make it easier to call or harder to call?
The Gambling Forum Archive
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:22 p.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 9:31 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Joe
Posted on: Sunday, 12 March 2000, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Sunday, 12 March 2000, at 11:50 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Joe
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 1:09 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 2:43 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 3:18 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:44 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 3:08 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:48 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:02 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:31 a.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Should you always raise preflop with AA? Probably, "yes", but really, "it depends".
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: CB (cwb124@psu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 3:05 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 3:13 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:38 a.m.
Posted by: CB (cwb124@psu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 8:30 a.m.
Posted by: mick (moreys_wigs@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: shooter
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 9:49 a.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (Dick@annabelles-treasures.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: PRC
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:28 a.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 9:27 p.m.
Next, go to AC and play 2-4 or 3-6, and play very tight for the first hour till you see what you are up against. Play AA, KK, QQ strongly out of early position. Limp in with any pair from any position. The 2-4 and to a large extent 3-6 are no foldem games. Just about every player sees the flop with any crap, so if you flop a set or quads, you clean up. If not, fold. The implied odds in this game make seeing the flop with any pair worthwhile. Expect that you'll need to have a high flush (Q and up) to stay around for the turn with what is typically 4-8 people in.
You should see the flop about 20% and the river less than 10%. I thought that you cannot beat the rake, but you can if you play tightly enough and only when implied odds are high. "THE" book (HEFAP 21st) is great for 10-20 and up and even for 5-10, but for 2-4 and 3-6, you have to read carefully and pick out the parts that pertain to the low limit no-foldem games. The book is a must, but be careful. Also get Wilson's Turob Holdem. I ganantee the people you will eventuslly play against are using it at home.
Posted by: Rocketman73 (holybull73@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 9:16 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Gorsegner (gerald.gorsegner@level3.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Z.
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:24 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:43 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:35 a.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:45 a.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 3:12 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: enrique Melguizo (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:50 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 9:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:20 a.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:07 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:22 a.m.
Posted by: Pokr2win (pokr2win@excite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 4:49 a.m.
Posted by: pdk
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:12 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:57 a.m.
Posted by: enrique Melguizo (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Pokr2win (pokr2win@excite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:57 a.m.
Posted by: KOJEE KABUTO
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: Steve B. (steve@math.pdx.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Gorsegner (gerald.gorsegner@level3.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Jon
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jon
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Gorsegner (gerald.gorsegner@level3.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:53 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Gorsegner (gerald.gorsegner@level3.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: Matt Holcomb
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Jon
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 3:20 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jon
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: Matt Holcomb
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Gorsegner (gerald.gorsegner@level3.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 10:54 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: NJP (pserao@pica.army.mil)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer (raybclean2@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:56 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:08 p.m.
Posted by: Max (maxer25@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jon (wallisjon@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Player
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:38 a.m.
Posted by: Pierre (ps1@videotron.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Fred Monti
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:00 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ron Schott (CoinsNW@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: Jon I. (fomerly just "Jon")
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 8:46 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:41 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: Max (maxer25@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Jon (wallisjon@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Pierre (ps1@videotron.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 4:13 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:00 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: Max (maxer25@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:51 p.m.
Posted by: Pierre (ps1@videotron.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:18 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:07 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 7:25 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Max (maxer25@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: Pokr2win (pokr2win@excite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 7:20 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 8:46 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:44 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Sparty (michstfan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:44 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff (gomes_sergio@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: mick (moreys_wigs@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Max (maxer25@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Shawn Keller (skeller1@leland.stanford.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 4:39 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 8:32 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:51 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Scot Allen (sallen@sunblast.eng.usf.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:21 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 3:05 a.m.
Posted by: TOMC (Tczako@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: Fred Monti
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 1:18 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Sme
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: MikeC (MChearney@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:03 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (batesm@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (Matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 2:08 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim (gallen@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 8:53 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: T.Rock (imyourhuckleberry7@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: Michael
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: Jay Gorsegner (gerald.gorsegner@level3.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: Truc Bui (trucbui@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Go Get’m all!
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:18 a.m.
Posted by: Las Vegas
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 5:04 a.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 6:07 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 9:47 a.m.
Posted by: shooter
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 7:59 a.m.
Posted by: grammar police
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer (raybclean2@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 9:22 a.m.
Posted by: Vike (jschoen@rsasecurity.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Nichelson (chris_nichelson@ltsc.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 10:14 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 11:48 a.m. 1. Your in a tough game early player raises late player makes it 3 bets whatss your play? Do just call or raise?
2. A good player raises in early position everybody folds. Your in the big blind. What's your play?
3. Your in a very loose aggressive game 5 callers button raises. What's your play?
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:48 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Brabec (thebrabec@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Fred Montisanti
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Diane from Green Bay (bierd@wlgroup.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 2:22 a.m.
Posted by: Ron Schott (CoinsNW@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ron Schott (CoinsNW@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: Ron Schott (CoinsNW@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: Ron Schott (CoinsNW@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 7:52 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 8:38 p.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:54 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 3:28 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:42 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (blipcon@nccn.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:03 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 3:16 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin L
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:42 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Horton
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:10 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: way to tight it up
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Tony A.
Posted on: Thursday, 16 March 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:21 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Tony A.
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 9:03 a.m.
Posted by: Tony A.
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 9:15 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:26 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin L
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:33 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:05 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 8:44 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin L
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 7:14 a.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 10:39 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:01 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin L
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 9:17 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 4:33 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 12:06 p.m.
Posted by: steve
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:45 a.m.
Posted by: MikeC (MChearney@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 6:07 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 8:58 a.m.
Posted by: MikeC (MChearney@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 6:03 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 6:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 8:15 a.m.
Posted by: Lance Blair (lance@figurado.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: rob (r_sch@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:11 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:24 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock (aka typo-man)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: chris nichelson (chris_nichelson@ltsc.org)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mackie
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Marc (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Steve C. (sjchamp@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 10:36 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Caddy (cpike@optimedsys.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:58 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: Scott (sslemko@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 5:19 a.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: Buckwild (sslemko@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: Ray
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 March 2000, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 1:49 a.m.
Posted by: Tom B.
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 2:24 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Ertai (dannyboy456@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Don Schleicher (bostondonny@netzero.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: semi-rookie (roady@supernet.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 18 March 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: DAVE'em
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 3:24 a.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:58 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 5:37 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 6:15 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 7:59 a.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 8:47 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 11:12 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 8:38 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 9:53 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Sunday, 19 March 2000, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 1:55 a.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (tokyopokerparty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 3:36 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (tokyopokerparty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 6:07 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 8:48 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
The correct way to determine the probability of improving with two
(or more) cards to come is to first determine the probability of not improving, and then
subtract this result from 1 (or 100%) For example, in the case of a flush draw,
your chances of not improving are 38/47 * 37/46, or .65 (65%).
Your chances of making the flush with two to come is thus .35 (35%), and the odds against
hitting the flush are .65/.35, or 1.86 to 1.
Chances of making a hand on the turn/river/both
Outs
Turn %
Turn Odds
River %
River Odds
Turn/River %
Turn/River odds
20 42.6 1.35 43.5 1.30 67.5 0.48 19 40.4 1.47 41.3 1.42 65.0 0.54 18 38.3 1.61 39.1 1.56 62.4 0.60 17 36.2 1.77 37.0 1.71 59.8 0.67 16 34.0 1.94 34.8 1.88 57.0 0.76 15 31.9 2.13 30.4 2.28 51.2 0.96 13 27.7 2.62 28.3 2.54 48.1 1.08 12 25.5 2.92 26.1 2.83 45.0 1.22 11 23.4 3.27 23.9 3.18 41.7 1.40 10 21.3 3.70 21.7 3.60 38.4 1.61 9 19.1 4.22 19.6 4.11 35.0 1.86 8 17.0 4.88 17.4 4.75 31.5 2.18 7 14.9 5.71 15.2 5.57 27.8 2.59 6 12.8 6.83 13.0 6.67 24.1 3.14 5 10.6 8.40 10.9 8.20 20.4 3.91 4 8.5 10.75 8.7 10.50 16.5 5.07 3 6.4 14.67 6.5 14.33 12.5 7.01 2 4.3 22.50 4.3 22.00 08.4 10.88 1 2.1 46.00 2.2 45.00 04.3 22.50
Odds against making the hand(Dog)
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (tokyopokerparty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: Dreamer (raybclean2@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Brad
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 1:05 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 2:06 a.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: CB (cwb124@psu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 11:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Caddy (cpike@optimedsys.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 1:50 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 1:48 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mph@acm.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Caddy (cpike@optimedsys.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Ray
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chico
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: David K
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: all in (dressner@dialnet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Fox (andyfclg@ni.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 9:02 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: Buckwild (sslemko@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Caddy (cpike@optimedsys.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: Buckwild (sslemko@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: all in (dressner@dialnet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: CB (cwb124@psu.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Monday, 20 March 2000, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 2:56 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 3:09 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 8:37 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Mackie
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: MikeC (MChearney@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 2:55 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:29 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:42 a.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 9:55 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 9:47 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:15 a.m.At this point I am getting about 4-1 for my call of the check-raise.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 8:17 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 9:21 a.m.
Posted by: dpeace
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: Student
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:46 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Eanes (kevineanes@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Fred Monti
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: Student
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: RandomGuy (Landshark@yourmom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: RandomGuy (Landshark@yourmom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:23 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
2) build the pot
3) deception/set up a bluff
3a) deception - raise with 67s and if the flop hits you, you're good!
3b) bluff - if the flop comes something like KKQ, you can represent AK and steal.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:05 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 9:53 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 1:32 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: JOE
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Vike (jschoen@rsasecurity.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: RandomGuy (Landshark@yourmom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:13 a.m.
Posted by: Wrong Forum Man
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: Norin (stevennorin@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:08 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:17 a.m.
Posted by: richard (rabeyer@paccd.cc.ca.us)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Q
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: RandomGuy (Landshark@yourmom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 5:20 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 6:50 a.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 6:40 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:36 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 1:10 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 6:18 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 2:01 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin L
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:01 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 1:24 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neoMaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neoMaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 3:14 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: Q
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 5:36 a.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G.
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 8:22 a.m.
Posted by: chris nichelson (chris_nichelson@ltsc.org)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (greenwb@ufl.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 11:30 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: NJP (pserao@pica.army.mil)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 March 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 10:24 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: Moron
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Johan (update14@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: Johan (update14@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: all in (dressner@dialnet.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: NJP (pserao@pica.army.mil)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 8:36 a.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: TheKiller (mikeroe@cdc.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neoMaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: TheKiller (mikeroe@cdc.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neoMaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mackie
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Doug (not@a.real.address.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jon I.
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikeroe@cdc.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Smaegol (Kronerj@Hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Smaegol
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 7:07 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: T.J.
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Steve
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin L
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: steve
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 7:39 a.m.
Posted by: all in (dressner@dialnet.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 9:53 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: Smaegol (Kronerj@Hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 10:09 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: ratso (ratso222@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 9:05 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin L
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 6:58 a.m.
Posted by: steve
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 7:08 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Tony A.
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 10:39 p.m.
Posted by: Tony A.
Posted on: Thursday, 23 March 2000, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: E. Johnstone (ericjohnston@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: Tony A.
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 8:36 a.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: Mark A (st_george99@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: CB (cwb124@psu.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
Posted by: all in (dressner@dialnet.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 9:40 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 5:11 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 9:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 1:05 a.m.
Posted by: Caddy (cpike@optimedsys.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 12:54 a.m.
Posted by: robert chandler (zx11stud@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: gamblerbri (gamblerbri@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: T.J. Cloutier
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: T.J. Cloutier
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: mikeca (mikeca42@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 3:12 a.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 4:43 a.m.
Posted by: Mickey
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Pierre (ps1@videotron.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: all in (dressner@dialnet.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 10:19 a.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2000, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 1:24 a.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: steve
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 2:36 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 4:55 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 11:24 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 5:55 a.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 5:45 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: steve
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (Matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 March 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: guest
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: "wenatchee" max (wenmax@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: mark willson
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Patrick
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: George (glmonahan@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: Jay Gorsegner (gerald.gorsegner@level3.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: RunnerMike
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 8:16 a.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 April 2000, at 2:47 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Rich (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 March 2000, at 11:56 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 6:15 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 6:38 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 6:11 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 9:05 p.m.
Posted by: Badger
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler (scottw@avmltd.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (garycarson@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: ATWOOD
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:02 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:23 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: E. Johnstone (ericjohnston@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Lenny (lenholdem@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: E. Johnstone (ericjohnston@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 9:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mickey
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 10:12 p.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: Sme
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 11:43 p.m.
Posted by: Wrong Forum Man
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:07 a.m.
Posted by: JJ
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: JJ
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (guassjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: random dude
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:38 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Newbie (gaussjordan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:48 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Grinder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:55 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 6:46 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: all in (dressner@dialnet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Shooter
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 8:56 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 11:42 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: pdk
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:03 a.m.
Izmet Fekali - "A patient man shall wisely wait for the page to load..."
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:18 a.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 9:06 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 8:34 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:33 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:38 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Kirk Schneider
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: John Cole (jcole5044@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:45 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: PRC
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: RandomGuy (Landshark@yourmom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:56 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Kirk Schneider
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:13 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: Lenny (lenholdem@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 9:04 a.m.
Posted by: Shawn Keller (skeller1@leland.stanford.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Fred Monti
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 9:34 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Wild Bill
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: 2d (matti2d@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:26 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 9:41 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: Caddy (cpike@optimedsys.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: DaveW (wallace@netcom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: Winger
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:06 a.m.
Posted by: Smaegol
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: Jack D.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid (allanb@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:12 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: Jack D.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Jack D.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jack D.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:02 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: College player (jlee1224@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:05 a.m.
Posted by: Wrong Forum Man's Stand In
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:58 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 8:48 a.m.
Posted by: Doc Holmes
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: Ratso
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid (allanb@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:50 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: Digital babe
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:21 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid (allanb@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:57 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 8:52 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: Ratso
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: Smaegol
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 9:00 a.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:25 a.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 5:52 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 9:22 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: SteveP
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Nishimura (marcusn@stanford.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Jon I.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: mth
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: chance (chance@globeset.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Horton
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: Jon I.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 8:48 a.m.
Posted by: Cub (bcubb@k-online.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 4:08 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: everyman
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: jikun (jikun@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 1:12 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 1:43 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 10:53 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Genius/GZA (red45sox@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: David Matthews (david@bj21.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 1:07 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 8:06 a.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: Bobby D.
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 5:45 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 1 April 2000, at 9:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid (allanb@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 7:08 a.m.
Posted by: Vincent Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 9:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 1 April 2000, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 3 April 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Bosco
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: chance (chance@globeset.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: Headcase
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: MikeC (MChearney@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: enrique (emelguizo@lavinski.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: MDMAniac (mdmaniac@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Packerfan (Packerfn1@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G.
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: ratso
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Jon I.
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: DaveW (wallace@netcom.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: the Qur'an
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 6:17 p.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mad Hatter
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 10:35 p.m.
Posted by: TheKiller (mikeroe@cdc.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: mick (moreys_wigs@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: TR (tomcrich@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 10:55 p.m.
Posted by: mick (moreys_wigs@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 March 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 4:11 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 10:07 a.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Rocketman73 (holybull73@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 April 2000, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: CB (cwb124@psu.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Take The Points
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Tony (thwang@best.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 6:28 a.m.
Posted by: Lin Sherman (lindash@concentric.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: BK
Posted on: Saturday, 1 April 2000, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: MDMAniac (mdmaniac@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: Michael (mstein@socal.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 April 2000, at 4:53 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 March 2000, at 7:37 p.m.
Hold'em
March 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo