![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
1. If any two cards are an 11-10 dog and you hold a pair is wise to try and get head up against a raiser preflop? In other words reraise the raiser and continue betting if no A,K or Q comes.
2. I see people call from early position with AA or KK and then reraise if there is a raise, is this a smart move, I tend to come out raising to thin the field. If I am in late position with 5 or more callers, I just call and hope to thin the field on the flop because if I raise preflop, I seem to attract callers because the pot gets too large.
Opinions and advice appreciated!
1. It depends on how well your opponent plays, and what the chances are of really isolating him with your raise. I generally don't like this move, because it can cost you an awful lot if it goes wrong, and you can't win much if it goes right. What if your opponent has Aces or Kings? What if THIS time he raised with 99 and hit a set? What if you raise to isolate him but another player calls behind you or 3-bets you?
2. With Aces, you simply want to build the biggest pot you can. If you are CERTAIN that a raise will come behind you, go ahead for a call-reraise. You don't really want to limit the field with Aces, but you want to make sure that each player pays the most possible before the flop (i.e. if there are going to be 10 small bets in the pot, you'd rather that it's from 5 people calling two bets than 10 people calling one bet). It's a huge mistake to not raise with Aces if there are already 5 callers. You have the best hand by a big margin, and you have position on them. You MUST raise. If someone re-raises, cap it.
There are very few times when I won't raise with Aces. One is if I think I'll only win the blinds - that's a pretty big loss of EV. The other is if a player raises in early position and I'm in the big blind and no one else calls. In this case, the deception value of just calling may earn you more money than the re-raise before the flop.
Dan
I have to disagree with Dan here.
I don't believe that "you don't really want to limit the field" with AA. Pairs play far better against 4 or fewer opponents. I say almost always raise AA in early position! If someone reraises, all the better. Then you should cap it (almost always), or just call if you want to disguise your aces.
I do agree with a raise on AA in late position regardless of the amount of previous callers or raises.
This argument has gone round and round before, but I believe that the general conclusion (including by Mason and David) was that Aces make more money as the number of callers in the hand increases, PROVIDED that they all pay the maximum amount that you can make them pay. In other words, if limping gets you 8 callers but raising gets you four, you are way better off raising. You get 8 sb in the pot either way, but you've got a better chance of winning it in the latter case. However, if you raise and all 8 people call you, you will make more money than if just four call.
I remember someone doing a study that suggested the maximum EV was at 9 players, but I don't have a reference for that.
Mason or David, if I've misrepresented your position, please feel free to correct me.
Dan
I can see that working if you were running a computer simulation. In that case, by all means come one and all.
But AA doesn't play like that in the real world. With tons of callers, unless you improve you are in a very awkward situation in early position with SO many different scary upcard combinations possible.
I'm not greedy. I'd rather be betting with a lot more confidence against a couple of fewer players.
Besides, unless you're playing in a unusually wild game, you never really "know" that there will be a raise if you just call. If it is that wild, then you'll probably get re-raised anyway.
If you want to be sure they're paying the max, you have to raise in the first instance.
You're forgetting that AA can make some big hands. You can flop a set, you can make broadway, and you can make a nut flush two different ways. These are all longshots, but added together they make up quite a bit of EV. Then there are the times that you knock off two pair when the third card pairs. All of these circumstances can win huge pots.
AA makes more sets than small pairs, because you tend to stay with AA longer. It makes more flushes than AKo for the same reason. Many times you'll have something like AhAs, and the flop will be KsTs4c. The turn is 3s. Now you've got a pretty good hand, even against something like KT. You can hit a 3, a 4, an Ace, or a spade to win the whole thing.
The myth about AA winning more against fewer players stems from the fact that it LOSES more often when the number of players increases. And when you lose with Aces, you remember it. So emotionally, it feels like they lose more money when the number of players goes up, when that it not the case. The profitability of Aces increases, but the variance increases even more.
As for the case of call-raising, I would only do that if I felt pretty sure that a raise was coming from someone else. The game doesn't have to be wild for this to happen - many tough games have the characteristic that someone coming in in late position will often raise. So the pots will usually be raised once, but they won't be wild. In these games, raising with Aces early often will win you only the blinds or one caller. If I'm faced with the choice of raising and risking winning only the blinds, or not raising and risking letting many players in for one bet, I'd choose the latter if I felt that the chance of my getting in the re-raise was greater than perhaps 75%. I have to admit that I only go for a call-raise perhaps 1 time in 10 that I have aces, because the conditions are rarely right for it. For example, if there is already a caller in the pot, I'm raising.
Dan
1. Generally no, because (1) you won't absolutely know that your opponent has no pair and (2) as you indidcate, a scary board is probably more helpful to your opponent. The possibility of an overpair is very dangerous. Even if your opponent is likely to have just overcards that are a small underdog to your pair, say 53-55%, when your opponent holds an overpair you're in terrible shape, usually worse than a 4-1 underdog. For example, if you have 99 and can put your opponent on AK, AQ, AJ or KQs (in which case you'll win about 53% of the time) or any pair from AA down to TT (in which case you'll win about 19% of the time), you'll be up against a hand you'll ususally beat (in a cold simulation to the river) about 63% of the time, but will end up losing overall about 60% of the time. Add to this your greater susceptibility to being manipulated by your opponent and you have a bad situation.
You therefore need special circumstances -- position, control and so forth -- to justify raising to get it heads-up with a medium pair. For example, if you have a tight image on the button with 77, weak players in the blinds and a persistent stealer to your immediate right pops it, trying to get it heads up is probably your best play. Or if you're behind a late position limper who came in with what is probably a very weak hand. Baby pairs, however, are generally only good for trying to flop sets against the right number of opponents.
2. Limp raising with big pairs is a good move when it's likely that you'll be raised if you just call, but your raise will probably cause you to win a very small pot. When I'm in early position against a very passive field that almost never folds or raises preflop, I almost always raise because someone will usually call and I don't want to play AA or KK against 7 or more opponents that I let in for one bet each.
1. You should be thinking muck or reraise with a pocket pair. If you do decide to play, there should be no cold caller between you and the original raiser if you have pocket eights through jacks. You also have to consider what non-paired big card hands the original raiser would play with. Against someone who never raises without a big pair or AK, you may as well muck anything below JJ. Then there are players who raise with AJ KQ or worse along with everything else non-marginal, these are the players that you can three bet you pocket pairs against. Another consideration is how close to the button you are. This is important since you don't want anyone to cold call or cap the action behind you. So, you really don't want a loose agressive type on your left when you make this type of move.
2. I would consider playing this way only if the current table conditions are loose agressive. The risk of multiway action is probably too great when conditions are normal. This is a reasonable way to punish a maniac who has been isolating successfully.
The only tells I seem to pick up on a consistent basis in limit poker are the following:
1. watch the players to see if they are loading their chips to bet or call, putting their cards under their chips indicating a call, or obvious disinterest and apparant praparation to fold.....this enable me to sometimes call with hands that I fell wont get raised or raise with hands I would normally call because the field behind me looks prepared to fold.
2. When 3 flush cards come and a player looks at his cards, it almost always seems he/she is looking to see if one of his cards matches the appropriete suit, if the fourth suited card doesnt come and noone appears to have made a flush I can attempt to steal the pot.
Any other useful tells in limit that I am missing?
Even when I have a tell in limit, you cant seem to get a player off a hand since people tend to call with any hnad that might win because the cost is not high enough to get them out.
No limit seems to be the main place where knowing your player and their tells is highly useful and beneficial because you can use that info to fold or bluff..
Am I missing something?
No, you have it about right. In limit poker tells are just one of the many tools that should be in your arsenal. They do have a little value.
Other common tells exist. Book of Tells by Caro not all bad. Gaining experience helps you find more tells. I think tells most useful on the river for limit hold'em.
Tells also have more value when playing short handed.
Excellent point!!!
There is one more set of tells that you will recognize when you see it. I have seen plenty of poor, gambling, loose players who literally tell the table what they have. (This is in a 3-6 hold'em game, in the poker sticks here in Phoenix).
Watch for the following comments:
"Dealer, give me a spade!!"
"Come on, flop a lady for me."
(while showing hand to neighbor who is out of the hand) ... "YES ! "
I am not making these up; they all have happened at my table. And I have never seen one of these people lie while doing this; although you certainly should watch the player over time and make sure. Fortunately, these are usually the players who play every hand, so your observation shouldn't take too long.
At the lower limits, these players are not even as clever as the players in Caro's book, who are trying to act. With these opponents, strong means strong and weak means weak.
Keep up your observation work.
Dick
At the next slightly higher level, 6-12 for instance, I usually find these statements to work the other way. Either opposite from what they need or meaningless. There are also some that ask for what they need but they are usually doing it as a kind of reverse psychology and mix it in with other misleading verbalness.
David
Also, when you're pondering a call or a fold against a player like this and can't discern any tells, just ask him what he's got. You'll be amazed...
I can't believe that nobody has mentioned this. When a player says "let's gamble" or something to that effect they have the nuts (or think they do in the case of very weak players).
At low limit tables I've found that I sometimes overestimate what others think is good. That is a player might give off a tell that says "I'm good" and have a pair of aces with a bad kicker and the board is scary (3 or 4 straight, 3 flush, paired). Make sure you understand what a player will get excited about.
I actually had this happen in a pot limit game this weekend. I have pocket queens and raise the maximum before the flop. I get two callers. The flop comes with an ace and two blanks. The other players check to me and I check. The turn comes a nine which makes no straights or flushes. The first player bets, the second folds, and I now have a very tough decision. I think seriously about folding as I look at the player. He is totally giving off tells that he doesn't want to be called. His hand is covering his mouth and he just stares blankly at the pot. He is also a little nervous due to the large amount that he has committed to the pot. I decide to call and he turns over Ace-King. I didn't catch a queen on the river and he won a large pot. The fact of the matter is that he didn't want to be called because he was worried that I had an even stronger hand. He was indeed giving off a revealing tell, but that didn't mean that I could beat him.
Justin
*Steam raise* is another one. It usually means that player is holding something Group 1 or 2.
The best tells, I've found, are those from players who are acting. These can be extremely consistent. The typical thing is a player who will bet quickly with a weak hand and slowly with a strong hand. This sort of tell has made me a lot of money -- allowing me to bet a weak hand for value on the end, or even pick up a pot with a check raise bluff.
William
First of all, I just want to say this is a great message board; it's quite useful to beginners such as myself. Keep up the great posts everyone!
Anyways, here's a 3-6 hold'em hand I was in tonight. I have Pocket Aces (heart and spade) one to the right of the button. Betting comes to me, 3 already called, I raise. Small blind calls, UTG calls, other 2 fold. Flop comes 2d 3s 5s. Checked to me, I raise, both call. Turn comes 4c. Small blind(decent player)raises, UTG(fairly loose player,but not a maniac) reraises, I reraise to make it $18. Small blind caps, UTG folds, I call. River comes 9h. Small blind bets, I call. He turns over Jh6h. My question is how would you have played this hand? Did I make a mistake by not reraising the river? Also, I put him on an ace with a decent kicker. Obviously I misplaced him, but was what I placed him on that farfetched? Any and all comments and criticism are welcome, it should help me to become a better player. Thanks.
With a board like 2345, just having an Ace is no big deal. The player who bet into you has at least an Ace, and you are hoping to win half a pot. With a bet and a raise to you, you should consider folding. A re-raise on the turn is wildly overplaying your hand. Once you call, if it's re-raised and capped, you should fold. Now someone is almost certain to have a six, and I would suspect 67.
If it were me, I would have folded on the turn when it was bet and raised in front of me. If you want to call, then certainly you shouldn't raise on the river.
How did you 'put' the small blind on an ace with a decent kicker? It seems like the most likely thing for him to have here is a four or a spade draw, but he could have many hands. Don't be too quick to put people on hands without strong evidence, and be prepared to re-evaluate your judgement of what they might hold as the play develops.
Dan
How can I tell if another player has the nuts
Once there was four to a straight your big pair was no longer work anything. You should have played this like you were drawing at the ignorant end of a straight. Esp. at a low limit table. I would have dropped it on the turn with a better and a raiser in front of me. Too often you will find yourself holding the smaller straight. If you put somebody else on an A then you were only playing for half the pot. This should discourage you even more.
You were holding what is called the idiot (or ignorant) end of a straight when there was 4 to a straight on the board. You really want to get to the showdown cheaply in that situation as you have a very weak, and not so deceptive, hand. You had half the aces in the deck, and yet there was a bet and a raise when the 4 fell. That should have suggested the strong possibility that there was a 6 out there. Generally it would not be worth a call at that point as you are going to have to call at least 2 bb on the turn (maybe more) and at least 1 bb on the river. The best you can hope for is a split pot after investing all that money. It is certainly not worth trying to make a fancy play on the turn, such as raising, as there is the strong likelyhood that you are already beat and have no outs (except maybe a 6 to catch up).
One other point, you labeled the small blind as a decent player and yet he called a raise in the small blind with a trash hand (any two suited cards). I count 9 small bets in the pot preflop, so he barely had odds (if you take into account implied odds) to chase that draw on the flop, and never could have gotten odds to chase on the turn with only 2 other players in the hand. He doesn't sound like a decent player to me.
A Poker Guy!
That's why i didn't think he had the six, because he seemed farly soild so why would he play that trash. However, i now realize that even if he had an ace, i still wouldn't have made much money, and i should have got the hell out.
Don't be so quick to assume that someone can't have a certain card.
He could have had 56s, 66, 67s, A6s, and still be making at least a plausible call. J6s would have surprised me, but nothing should surprise you in 3-6.
In a typical low limit game based on the action, you have to strongly consider someone having a six. As I read your post, that is what I said to myself. Besides which the only others who would have continued to give action would have been another Ace holder. So it was basically split the pot or lose it all.
Sorry Speeds but you were out to lunch on this one.
Once there's 4 cards to a straight on board with a bet and a raise, your aces are toast! If you want to be a good player, you have to learn to release what were previously the best cards.
To reraise on the turn there was basically flushing your money down the toilet.
The game Chicago (high spade in the hole wins half the pot) is one of the best games to call against loose players. I'm amazed at how many times I get away with slowplaying the ace. I find that "cards speak" gives an even greater advantage, since you often backdoor into a scoop hand (such as two high pair) that you wouldn't have been sure enough to declare. Has anyone used the following possible variations:
A high ante - This would make the game playable among better players (but not so high that the game would become a crapshoot). You couldn't just wait for the ace or king; you would have to enter the action without a spade in many cases. If this led to several players calling on the early streets, flush draws would go up in value.
A qualifier: to win half with the spade, you would need to make two pair or better - this would allow other players to enter the pot against a sure ace of spades. If the pot was heads-up, the ace would not longer have a freeroll, and the opponent might even have the advantage at certain points. The ace of spades and two total blanks would be a weak holding, and something like a pair of jacks including the spade would be a strong hand.
High/Low Chicago - the best high, the best low, and the high spade (with king being high and ace being low) would each win 1/3 of the pot. A two-way low hand would have the advantage over a dry high spade. In multiway pots, you might have a spade against a few low draws, but the spade would have to be careful not to narrow the field unless he had a decent high hand.
I've played it where the highest spade is considered the next highest card then the last open spade ("mod").
I've also played declare pot match. If you declare both ways then you have to win both ways else you match twice.
I would think the second of these would be positive if you are good at declare. I would call it because the guys I played with like to play lots of crap shoots and with pot match this game can go for quite a while.
I invented a version of this game I called "soldier's field" (which is east of Chicago I believe) which is played razz and lowest spade. I found low games more profitable then low games in my private poker game.
I would think the h/l + high spade would make the pots pretty small which might not stimulate action. On the other hand you might get more bad calls with people drawing one way.
Does anybody have some advice on bluffing in terms of how often to do so, how to, or anything else?
Preferably against one opponent almost never against 4 or more.
Loose games - Virtually never bluff - occasionally the table may take on characteristics of a more tighter game and some bluffing might be possible.
Typical and tight games - look to semi-bluff regularly and occasionally total bluff when a good situation comes up. For instance a busted straight draw and a flush card comes on the river ( against an opponent who can fold). Short-handed and heads-up needs quite a bit more betting.
I like the bluffing info from Bob Ciffone's Improve Your Poker.
David
I tend to look for bluffable players, rather than plays. In low limit, many players just aren't bluffable no matter what the situation, and some are. One guy I play with is as predictable as clockwork: if he catches two pair or a set on the flop, he fires like hell and then mucks when somebody bets the flush card on the river, cursing the dealer. Another one I like is players who feel guilty when their less-than-great hand hits. Last night I had pocket kings once, flop comes 8 high, UTG bets, I raise, he calls. He knows I have a big pair, I know he has the 8. Turn comes 8, he bets again, looking guilty. I grumble and call. River comes Q, he bets, I raise. He says "so that's what your pair was", and mucks, thinking he's just hit his instant karma. I didn't argue :)
How can I tell if another player is holding the nuts?
> How can I tell if another player is holding the nuts?
If you really need to know, then he probably is. :)
call on the river.
Friday night I always go to the card room to play HE, this week things were slo and i had to play 4-8, apposed to 10-20. I found my self playing hands all the way to the river and catching my one outer cards!! pissing many of the regular 4-8 players off,here is one hand out of many full table very loose ,with only 4 decent players and 1 rock ,i play a 9d Qd in middle position, its 3 bets to call i make it 4 to see the flop 8 players see the flop!! wich is 10d Jd 8s its bet in the SB raised to my right i make it 3 bets < I have flopped the nuts with a possible straight flush with 2 outs 8d kd ,, well its capped in the SB 6 of us see the turn,,10c well its checked to me I bet out 2 fold SB raised BB folds player to my right calls and i raise. well again its capped in the SB 4 of us see the turn 8d my miricle 1 outer has hit the table SB bets out player UTG fold so does the player to my right I raise leaveing it heads up well to make a long story short o took down a huge pot beating Qaud 10's,,,,, within 1 hr i was leading the table in chips i had went on a massive heater to gain 70% of the chips on the table,, this has never happened to me before,, as the night went into the morning around 3 am i found my self being beaten my pocket KK were beaten by those one outers i was getting earleir,, any ways my stack of $1200 went down slowly,, till i was with in $200, of my buy in of $160. I left with just what i came with 14 hrs later $160. i feel that at one time i was the best player there , I played the best game I think I have ever played ,,what did I do wrong ? any comments please,,?
Your luck ran out.
ummm thanks !! can any one tell me something i dont know or is that all there is to that poker night!!>? is it something simple i did wrong? or something i did not do? as u can tell Im rather frustrated.. thanks ,,
..Friday night I always go to the card room to play HE, this week things were slo and i had to play 4-8, apposed to 10-20. I found my self playing hands all the way to the river and catching my one outer cards!!..
Catching 1 outers not lucky? Expect to happen all the time?
..i play a 9d Qd in middle position, its 3 bets to call i make it 4 to see the flop 8 players see the flop!! wich is 10d Jd 8s its bet in the SB raised to my right i make it 3 bets < I have flopped the nuts with a possible straight flush with 2 outs 8d kd ,, well its capped in the SB 6 of us see the turn,,10c well its checked to me I bet out 2 fold SB raised BB folds player to my right calls and i raise. well again its capped in the SB 4 of us see the turn 8d my miricle 1 outer has hit the table SB bets out player UTG fold so does the player to my right I raise leaveing it heads up well tomake a lo ng story short o took down a huge pot beating Qaud 10's..
You do expect it to happen! It won't! If what you say true you play terrible.
..this has never happened to me before,, as the night went into the morning around 3 am i found my self being beaten my pocket KK were beaten by those one outers i was getting earleir,, any ways my stack of $1200 went down slowly,, till i was with in $200, of my buy in of $160. I left with just what i came with 14 hrs later $160. i feel that at one time i was the best player there , I played the best game I think I have ever played ,,what did I do wrong ? any comments please,,?..
If what you say true you not play good you just lucky. You play really bad and it caught up with you. Your luck ran out.
On second thought maybe you right hard to find a problem with how you played. You got unlucky when you missed your one outers. Hard to figure.
what did I do wrong ? You stayed too long! It's hard to get up and leave when the cards turn, however, that's exactly what you "should have" done. After losing several good hands, you pressed on. Next time, rack up your chips and GO when you begin losing good hands and chip count goes down.
Sounds like you played too long,played too many hands. What is so great about Q9s making it 4 bets from middle pos. Would you play the same way in 10/20?
yes i would have played that hand in $100/200 if we had that high of limits ,, thats one of my favorite draw hands, such as my 6 8 suited or O i like them both!!
Sorry to say, but if you'll cap the betting with these hands, you'll be more than welcome in every 100/200 game in town, as well as almost every other game in town also.
While you may be a good player, based upon your original post, you are playing a VERY loose, albeit aggressive, game. This style of play will not turn a profit in the majority of HE games, as more skillful players will adjust well to your aggressiveness and turn it against you. At certain tables, when you're running well, you'll get the results you've described. In the long run, your current style is not likely to be profitable.
Read the 2+2 book HE for Advanced Players, and follow their advice. You'll likely get better results.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think you should go back and hit the books then. You are not going to be a winning player with this type of playing.
It sounds like you played too many hands and also went too far with top pair against a big field. The result was you experienced the expected wild variations. Or as puts it, your luck ran out. Even if you were playing correctly it sounds like the kind of game where you would expect big swings.
David
When I post a huge win (and $1000 in 4-8 holdem is a HUGE win) I put a stop loss on my game. If I lose, say, $100 I'm gone.
I'm not a fan of leaving a table where I'm the best player, but you do get tired after a while. Winning can put you on a form of tilt as well.
Good point WGB, that winning can put you on a form of tilt!This may happen more in a no foldem game but it happens. Bill
One of the things that you need to understand is that certain hands only have positive value when they are getting what we refer to as high implied odds. (See THE THEORY OF POKER by David Sklansky for more discussion.) This includes hands like Qd9d. When you are putting in many bets before the flop with these hands, they will cost you money in the long run even though you will get lucky with them every now and then.
When you are hitting one outters and winning, and doing things like raising with Q9s when it is already 3 bets to you, you are gamb00ling, and should recognize it. Lucky streaks tend to reinforce bad play which, in the long run, will cost you lots of money.
On the particular hand you discussed, your preflop play was not optimal, and the hand pretty much played itself the rest of the way. It is not an indication of skill to play a hand that flops the nuts and rivers the stone cold nuts. Too bad there wasn't a bad beat jackpot there :(.
Play the hell out of your rush if you believe in such things, but once it's over, you have to slow down and regain your composure before you give it all back (which kinda happened), while waiting for the rush to return. Some people get upset with someone that sits down and goes on a rush like you did. Me? I am happy for them and just pray they don't leave and hope they keep playing the same way.
But, a win is a win, and you should feel good about that.
A Poker Guy!
OK well the stone cold nuts is just that i beat my self,many times threw that night did i catch small heaters, i would be up and get stuck and get back up,,though can i ask this i counted 9 times that my Ak Aq Aj A10 hit runner runner flushes, was that luck ? or my K siuted winning the fush on several hands, or slow playing my pocket Aces, hitting trips and just calling down with 7 callers to beat pocket kings who also hit trips on the flop and we both had full houses on the river,?? was that luck or did play those hands right, yea the poker god was on my side many times last night,, though for somereason, i did not reconize my LUCK was gone!! well if any thing i will try again next friday night thow i have to say winning that many hands that i did the players started to bealieve me when i would raise or even bet out first on the river card I had many pots folded to me!! thanks again,, BTW any help for the lack of self controll and or dicipline in these big wins>?
I would recommend two things.
First never play a session as long as you did. It is hard to play well when you are tired, and you wont be able to easily see it in yourself. I think that if you are there for more than 2-3 hours, you need to get away from the table for 20 or 30 mins and really think about what is working, what isn't, and make sure you are up to continuing.
Second, I would recommend when you are up money, you set a stop loss limit. If you are up $1200, never give back more than, say, $200, without getting up and leaving. I think we have all experienced that terrible feeling that comes from building a tremendous stack and giving it all back. Its a lot worse than just going in and losing your initial bankroll.
Hope it helps, and good luck.
A Poker Guy!
"though can i ask this i counted 9 times that my Ak Aq Aj A10 hit runner runner flushes, was that luck ?"
no, obviously you have a mystical power over the cards. Why don't you pull up a seat next to me?
> can i ask this i counted 9 times that my Ak Aq Aj A10
> hit runner runner flushes, was that luck? ...
Yes, and it's luck when it happens to the pro too. The odds of making the runner-runner flush are 23:1 against. If we each record the last 240 times we flopped 3 to the the nut flush, you'd hit about 10 of them and I'd hit about 10 of them. You will have called all 10, made 8 big pots and lost to 2 full houses. I will have called maybe 5 (the ones where I had pairs and/or other outs), and won 4. I will have saved more money on the ones that got beat, and the biggest difference of all: the 230 times it didn't get there, you will have spent about 500 bets chasing while I will have spent about 100. 400 bets at a 4-8 game is a few thousand dollars. Thank you for your contribution.
Well all that comes to mind is Thanks!!! for some reason I was looking at my 4-8 poker night a little differant than most would! I do read i have kept up to date on my poker books and am a very avid reader of this site,, I will think and study what has been posted towards my input, I hope with Luck AND Skill to report back next week with a positive story!!! again THANKS BTW ,,,Lee what a theory, I will take that to heart and ingrave that in my mind ,,, thanks
retired and thinking of moving to phoenix area and looking for friends and foes for poker info in the phnx area understand that ft mcdowell has decent games there dick in phoenix please e mail me lets chat bout poker there thnaks al txhotmod@aol.com
Last night I was down to heads up. It seemed like I was being bullied around. I didn't play too many hands. I was playing heads up as if I was still playing with a lot of people. How should I adjust my style in a heads up match without chasing all of the time. I realize that in the long run, I'll win 50% of the time, but when do I stay in without just throwing away chips? Is there more bluffing involved in a heads up battle?
If you play heads up them same way you play against many opponents and your opponent makes anything close to the correct adjustment you will be slaughtered. You will not win 50% of the time in the long run or anywhere close to that. (This assumes a conventional or at least relevant ante structure).
Read the (all-too-short) section on shorthanded play in HPFAP, check the archives for threads on short-handed play -- there are some excellent ones -- and check dejanews for old r.g.p. threads on the subject. In a nutshell, you have to play many more hands, play them more aggressively, watch your opponent like a hawk and constantly adjust and fine-tune your game to outplay your opponent and keep him off balance. In holdem, any ace, two big cards or pair are generally worth a raise, you must bluff and semi-bluff a lot, slowplaying becomes more important (but harder) and your image is paramount. But there is much, much more.
(Also, if you're playing heads-up in a casino that continues to rake the pot, you may be wasting your time as the house is likely to bust your inferior opponent before you do).
Even a rake reduction down to say $1 at 20 is still quite steep with two more or less equal players. What you're really trying to do is attract another customer, and are willing to keep the table open for a little while incase this does happen. BTW I agree with everything chris posted, and would add that familiarity with executing moves is also crutial.
Heads-up play is an art. If you have no experience at it, don't play for money until you learn more about it. One way to cut your losses is to offer to play freeze-out games. Each player throws some money into the pot, gets $500 in chips, and winner-take all. These can be great home games when you can't find a lot of players to fill a full home game.
In fact, home games are the perfect time to hone your short-handed playing skills. You can play smaller limits, and typically it's hard to field a full 10 players in a home game anyway. But four or five handed can make for an excellent learning experience. If you don't want to beat your friends for a lot of money (or have them beat you), play freeze-out.
Dan
I've played quite a bit of HE in the past couple years, but never in Vegas. I generally play 4/8 and 6/12. I've got some info on good places to play; where are the places to avoid and why? i.e high rake, bad atmosphere. Any opinions on god or bad, favorites or dislikes are appreciated. Thanks
does anybody have any absolute rules or odds about when to stay in or fold on cerain down cards or hands with the flop.
I don't live in Vegas but as the rule you should not avoid anything on a hearsay. I take objection to ALL vegas rooms based on smoking and I guess since I don't know you I can't say - ambiance also very subjective. the smaller games in smaller places are by proxy very limited and may have some problem beating. Look for places YOU like and try to catch tourists. The horseshoe may be very crowded and busy now but the strip games may be good (Mirage, Bellagio, Mandalay Bay)
Just so you know, in the future these types of posts should go on our exchange forum, not The Theory and Strategy Forum.
I was going thru the first NL hand in rounders where as self proclaimed later, our hero got outplayed in Boat vs. boat for 30 large ones. He on the 4th st. checked his boat to trap Teddy KGB. I was thinking if he did not put KGB on a flush draw as he did, he may have smelled the rat early and even so how do you play a weaker boat ?? I suppose the correct play would have been a bet the pot or say 4-6k and if KGB raise fold ? How do you play hand like that ? Check is of couse only wrong if you are doing it for the raise !! So make a sizeable bet ? or check ? NL experts what do you think ???
I don't consider myself a no-limit expert, but I thought he played the hand well. If he bets like you suggest and gets raised he still has to call because he could possibly be up against something like AK. By playing it this way he can trap his opponent or induce a bluff. He was just unlucky in that he was against a pair of aces.
i think the hand was played well, but with certain flaws in out heros thinking. over bet the pot on the flop. call. i would have put kgb on a ace. but ace what? ak suited? mabey. more likly just some kind of a ace. fill up on four. check. of cource. i also would have been thinking about las vegas. (actually missippi). i also would have lost it all. without regrets. unlucky thats all.
Our hero made "the" cardinal mistake here. He wagered too much of his bankroll (100% in this case) on the outcome of a single hand while not holding the nuts.
If you do this enough times you are guaranteed to go broke.
The thing that impressed me in the movie was that the hero pretty much admitted this. The hand was played well, but he made the mistake of letting his 'money card' cloud his judgement and forget that he wasn't holding the nuts.
nuts, smuts. if you are going to play big bet you have to be willing to go all in without the nuts if you think you are winner or can win with a bluff. and i havnt mentioned having the nuts. our hero lost it all in one hand and there is nothing stupid or less then noble about that. perhaps he should have found a smaller game and only put a portion of his bank up at a time. however mabey hes a gambler and wants to hit the big time and is taking his shot right now. whatever. losing your whole bank in one hand is just part of the learning process, and is a lot eaiser to swallow if you have a good job to back you up. youll be back.
It's thinking like this that keeps me in business!
good
You have hit the nail on the head. May I humbly expand this concept a little further: he should not have had his entire bankroll on the table at one time in a no-limit game. I also think that our hero admitted this, and his risking not only his entire bankroll but more (tuition and expense money to finish school) was a big life-affecting mistake on his part.
Do any of our posters who play a lot of no-limit have any guidelines as to how many buy-ins you should have in your bankroll? Obviously, "number of big bets" is not as meaningful a statistic here.
(Those of you who read my other posts will realize that this is for curiosity only from me.)
Dick
In 'other than structured limit' i.e. pot limit or NL the criteria is how much the blinds are and how much money at the table. The later is a bit tricky cause you can't lose what you don't have in front of you but you can't win it either (by double or tripple up) I have some very smart poker player friends who play small NL with only a small buyin and just hang there for a while. Even when I play my favourite 10(20)-200 with a 20 kill I seldom buyin for more than $500. Also having money on you can be a big benefit even if you don't buy in for all, like applying a 'break' in the situation.
Actually, both David and I draw a distinction between what some people call money management and what we call bankroll management. In SKLANSKY, THE VIDEO David discusses this, and in the new addition of GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I also address it. Here is what I added to GTAOT on Bankroll management.
Bankroll Management
We have just seen how the idea of money management is a fairly worthless subject. But there is another area that is quite important which some gamblers confuse with money management, yet it is in reality a totally different subject. We refer to it as "bankroll management."
Fortunately, most forms of successful gambling are highly fluctuating. The reason I say "fortunately" and not "unfortunately" is that these fluctuations will serve as the hook that will keep the bad players in action, and allow for winning opportunities to exist. But these swings will also cause large chunks of your bankroll to occasionally disappear, and if you are not careful, it could all "fade away into the abyss."
So how do you manage your bankroll, and what is the proper amount to be betting? It turns out that this is not an easy subject to address. Many of the correct ideas will seem counter intuitive to some of you, and it will not always be easy to stick to the proper guidelines.
However, there are some good statistical tools that will allow us to attack this problem and to establish a proper bankroll strategy. If you understand and follow the advice in the essays that follow, your gambling career will be well on its way to success. If you ignore it, even if you acquire the prerequisite skills to win, you still may have disastrous results.
10-20 game this weekend. Game had gotten pretty tight. One off the button, it's folded to me and I raise with J-8s. Only the button calls. Flop is K-rag-rag. I put button on A-J or something like that. He was having a rough night and I had seen him chase a few, but he was a fairly solid player. I bet, he deliberated and called. Turn was another king and the second club. I bet again. He deliberated for a long time, almost mucked, then called.
Now I figure he has A-Q or A-J of clubs. River was a rag. I bet again, he takes like 3 minutes and calls, showing A-Q offsuit. Two questions: (1) how stupid to try to run this play off (might have been better if the turn was a rag) and (2) I considered saying "I don't have a king" or "a king will beat me" while he was deliberating at the end, to try and represent a hand like 10-10. But I didn't say anything. Should I have? I think that might have made the difference.
S
Several Comments:
1) J-8s is a pretty weak hand to raise with, even as a blind steal.
2) If the button is a good player, I would suspect a pretty good hand.
Fair enough -- but there had been several uncontested steals in the last few rounds, plus the guy was a bit rattled so I thought he'd be a good candidate to raise in front of.
I am more concerned with the rest of the hand. Pretend I raised with J-Q off. What about using leading comments like "I have no king."?
I don't like using table talk to manipulate the play. In my mind, it's a form of angle shooting and shouldn't be allowed.
This hand illustrated the danger of attacking the blind with a marginal hand. You're out of position if the button calls you, and if he's a good player you've got a problem. If you check when the flop misses you, he's likely to bet just about anything, and you have to fold. If you bet and he has a good hand, he may put on a broken wing act and let you lead into him all the way to the river.
If you bet the flop and he calls, then you are faced with an equally tough decision on the turn. Any time you have to make tough decisions, you are asking for trouble.
If it were me in this situation, if he called the flop I would probably give it up on the turn and just check. The King on the board splits his overcards, meaning that he's not calling you with two overcards. So he's either got a draw, or a pair of some kind. If he has a small pair, you *might be able to get him to drop them with a bet on the turn, but his call on the flop would indicate otherwise.
So... Against a typical opponent, I'd probably check the turn and hope for a free card, and fold to a bet. Against a very weak player, I might bet again (these players will often call the flop bet with just about anything and then release their hand on the turn). Against a tricky player, you might even try the occasional check-raise bluff on the turn, but I wouldn't do that without at least a major draw for outs if I'm called.
Dan
Dan - Very helpful. I agree in retro that checking the turn then betting the river makes a lot of sense. I've read a lot of your posts and respect your experience -- but don't you think you are taking your conception of ethics too far if you never use table talk? I think it can be easily overdone and even obnoxious, but a little bit makes a game more fun and can give you some legitimate edge....
No, I don't think I'm taking it too far. I take a hard line on 'table talk' designed to influence someone's decision. And I have yet to see a really strong player resort to it.
What about Mike Caro? Is he a really strong player? (I honestly don't know -- never seen him play -- but he sure seems to advocate the occasional influence move....)
My instinct is to agree with you, so don't get me wrong. I can't remember ever actually trying this kind of thing. But I don't really see it as "wrong" or unethical to do. I think it's more about personal style and dignity to you, and maybe (to a lesser extent) to me, too.
Table talk that influences play exists in an ethical gray area. It would be clearly wrong to say something like, "I have a full house", hoping to induce your opponent to fold, and then show down nothing. The other end of the spectrum is silence. Where do you cross the line?
I wasn't aware that Mike Caro endorsed this type of action. I know he talks alot about having a wild image and that sort of thing, but that's a far cry from what we're talking about. Just to be clear, I'm talking about saying things like, "I need a spade!" when you already have a full house, or saying, "I don't think you made your straight" before betting (implying you have a hand weaker than a straight) and showing down a flush or something.
Less clearcut and often effective against good players is something I'm inclined to say from time to time after making a bet on the turn if my opponent pauses to think: "What're you going to do with that ace-king now?" It's still surprising how often the reaction is fold, and it doesn't really matter if I correctly put my lone opponent on big slick. I'm curious as to why this works as well as it does.
Although I may be wrong, I believe that Mike Caro advocates doing quite a bit of talking, especially about his hand, during the game. If he has QQ, and the board is KdQdTsTd, he might say something like "Either I have a T, or I need 1 more diamond, it's been so long since I looked at my hand, I just can't remember!"
He is, I believe, a big advocate of providing your opponent with 2 options, so that he will take the mindset of determining which is correct. Of course, of the two options given, neither is correct. In the above example, he is trying to induce someone with a hand like TJ or AK into calling. The TJ will think that his T is better, and the AK may call hoping that Mike really is only on a spade draw.
BTW, I think that comments of this sort are completely within the rules and ethics of poker. The only grey area for me is with respect to tournaments. If someone tells what they have, especially to induce a fold, they have made a decision that they wish to forego further profit on that hand in exchange for the certainty of not going bust. However, it is to the advantage of every other player if this guy has to risk going bust. In this case, influencing your opponent can be a disadvantage to those not in the hand. In such a situation, I think that talking about your hand, whether truthful or not, might be unethical (but I'm not too sure of that).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Dan,
FYI - In Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Mason relates an anecdote in which The Adventurer plays a hand against Mike Caro. Caro blatantly lies about the hand he is holding.
Q
I feel a little bit vindicated. Thanks for the comments. Like I said, I think a little bit of table talk can make the game more colorful. I think something like "I don't have a king" (which was true but which implies I have something like 10-10) is much more stylish than saying "Muck it -- I have a king." People who chat at you all the time are annoying (my guess is that helps caro keep an edge in some games), but I don't really think they are unethical.
Well, just because Mike Caro does it doesn't vindicate you... It might just make Mike Caro wrong as well. Verbal misdirection is generally frowned upon in the poker world, and in some cardrooms will be considered outright cheating and may get you kicked out. It certainly may cause the house to award the pot to someone else.
An incident happened to me in a club about 3 years ago - A player bet on the river, and I was about to call with my two pair when he said, "Save your money. I have a full house." I thanked him and mucked my cards. He then threw his cards face up on the table and laughed - he had nothing but a pair.
The end result was that this player was barred from the club for one month.
And yes, I consider actions like that unethical, whether Mike Caro or John Doe engages in them. Furthermore, actions like that are bad for poker, and if everyone did it the game would be chaotic.
Dan
I see where you re-raise this subject above, but I wanted to respond directly to this post. You would have to agree that what you just described is a lot different than what I proposed. I agree that just because Caro does it doesn't make it right; I just wanted to point out that your viewpoint on this subject is not unananimous. Undignified and even "bad for the game" is different than unethical.
I definitely agree with you that you don't want to chase off the casual players, and I am sure that playing with a guy like who chats all the time would drive off many people -- including possibly me.
Trying to steal on the end was mandatory, since you had almost no chance of winning a showdown.
I think you should have checked the flop and the turn. And to answer a previous poster, no you don't have to fold the flop if he bets. It's entirely reasonable to check-call heads up, hoping to steal later in the hand. Steals like this tend to work pretty well -- people assume that since you called the flop, you have something.
The hand could easily go:
flop -- check, bet, call turn -- check, check [if he bets again, you should fold] river -- bet, fold.
Pretty hopeless call with AQ on button when RHO raises on probable steal. Must ReRaise.
The King on the turn was a BAD card since it reduced the chances you have a King. Perhaps this guy noticed. The best turn card would be the biggest card the opponent doesn't have.
If the player was genuinely thinking then its an OK bluff.
If you don't mind angle shooting, next time pause for a couple moments (17.6 shakes of a lambs tail) before stealing on the end, it looks like a marginal value bet. Yes, "Can't Beat a King" is a well formed angle since it IMPLIES you have some other reasonable hand without saying so; thus denying the opponent the opportunity to doubt you. Looks like it would have worked since the opponent had plenty of time to come to the desirable conclusion on his own.
- Louie
You have raised before the flop. So, in the eyes of your opponents you should have some thing very good. I agree with your raise considering your opponent had a rough night and wanted to steal the blinds as long as your image was very solid because you do have a weak hand. Because he called the flop, I personnally would have check the turn because another King come. The chances that you have a King is very thin. Most important, he knows that!!! So in checking the turn, it will demonstrate that he is right that you do not have a king. Now if he bets, which I would do, throw your hand away. But if he checks, then you bet the river. This will tell him that you may not have a King but probably a pocket 88s or better. He will then throw away his AQ. I would have called you with AQ myself on the turn because I would not have believed that you have a King and would have found very strange that the turn King did not even scare you. I would have interpret this a sign for a bluff.
While playing 10-20 this weekend at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, La a discussion came up about low limit games with high rakes. Frequent RGP contributer TBill and some others said a low limit (4-8, and 3-6-12) with a rake of $5 cannot be beat over the long run. Well if you live in south Texas like I do and play in home games here or drive the 3 hours to Lake Charles or Kinder this is your only option. The casinos take max $5 and have a jackpot drop while the home games also take $5. My feeling on this topic is that the only statistic that really matters is how much you leave with compared to how much you came with. I think these games can be beat and want other opinions. Here is my thinking along with my assumptions. Assumptions: 1) You arent playing for a living. You have a good job with disposable income and can handle the invariable swings low limit will provide. 2) The players in your game are also able to handle the loses. They will not stop playing just because they always lose and even if they do stop there is an almost unending supply of players behind them. 3) You are a fundamentally sound player and 70% of your opponents arent.
Over the last 18 months I have logged over 400 hours in these types of games and averaged $9-$10 per hour. I play for fun and not for income. My best friend and poker buddy has experienced almost the same results. Another player who is probably better then both of us has done even better. My feeling is that is doesnt make any difference to us what the rake is since it appears that the bad players are paying the brunt of it. Now I know that if the rake was less that my hourly rate would be higher but that isnt the point. The point is that in the long run it does appear that this type of game is beatable under the right conditions.
Let me know what you think.
Randy (Mitch on IRC) Katy, Tx
These low limit games have high rakes, but there are a lot of opponents in every pot, and they make MANY errors. IMO, this overshadows the rake by a large margin.
My results in 3/6 with a $5 rake are slighly higher than yours, in over 1000 hours of play. A friend of mine played more than 1500 hours of 3/6 with the same rake before moving up, and he won almost exactly the same amount over that period of time.
Randy,
I am a part time player at the 6/12 to 20/40 level (although I will play 3/6 kill Omaha), but you should note that I work in the industry in Los Angeles as a floorman. I have written before on the rake on rgp and this forum so I will limit my comments to a few points.
At Hollywood Park, our rake is $3 for both the 6/12 and 3/6 holdem games (at the Commerce and Bike the rake is $4 on the 6/12 (I am not sure of the 3/6 rake) but they have a small jackpot or other promotion).
Anyway, a major factor is how the rake is taken. Because of the L.A. county sheriff’s interpretation of 1989 law, we must take our rake before the hand even starts and drop it no matter what. In holdem we do this by posting the rake on the button and it must be "dead" (i.e., the rake does not count as part of a call or raise).
In Las Vegas or Foxwoods and most other places, there usually is a system where the rake is taken after certain thresholds are reached (e.g. $2 rake on $20, $3 rake on $40 and $4 rake on $80 - I think this is the Foxwood’s rake).
Other things being equal, it is much more favorable for the better player (who is bound to be more selective) to have the rake taken Las Vegas or Foxwoods style. In these games the people who win the most pots (i.e., the loosest players) pay the most rakes. In L.A. everyone pays the rake.
That being said, I do know that many top players who understand how to play in loose games do very well at 6/12 holdem. Their win rate approaches $20 per hour and I have heard of even better rates (I don't know of any reliable figures for 3/6 holdem in the county). Of course, this isn't much of a living.
The paradox is this. Having a large collection and/or collecting it "up front" drives away the tight players. Places I have played low limit with a low rake taken after thresholds always seem to be full of tight (but not necessarily talented) players. Put that group in our games and they would get up once they saw they had to pay $3 to play pot s with only four or five bets in it.
By driving away the tight players, casinos and card clubs get far fewer hands per hour. Hands with multi-way action and unaware players take a long time to play.
I am convinced that if we could change the law such that we only take the rake on a threshold as we did prior to 1989 ($20 would be OK for 3/6), we would make more money per table per hour and we would have more games. Sure, the house would make nothing on a steal of the blinds, but at least we could have a game where the blinds occasionally get stolen.
There is so much more to say on this but I have got to go.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I almost forgot. These are my views and not necessarily those of casino management.
Foxwoods rake is stiffer. $1 at 10, $1 at 20, $1 at 30 for 5-10 or 80 for 10-20, $1 at 80 for 5-10 or 160 for 10-20. However, no rake unless there is a flop. Reductions start at six handed through two handed for hold'em. All pot raked flop games are played with a threshold kill.
It seems to me the math is rather simple. If you have 2 players calling pre-flop who have less than 50% expectation or 1 calling pre-flop when there is a raise and they have less than 50% expectation, then the rake is paid for right there. Virtually every 5-10 game I have seen has met these conditions. This doesn't even count for bad play post flop. Therefore these games can definitely be beaten. If you find that nobody is calling pre-flop with garbage and the rake is high, then look for another game.
Danny S
I am new to Ca. but here are my observations about the games:
Where I'm from I used to play HE 1-4-8-8 pot rake. I was a ragular winner averaging over 1bb per hour against fairly good opponenets.
When I moved to Ca. I saw that the players were soooo incredibly bad at 3-6 I figured I would go down a level and possibly make more money with less bankroll swings. I found this not to be the case. I was instead making no money bacause of the button fee. I determined that it is impossible for anyone to make money with a fee the equivilent of one small bet.
I now play 6-12 and am winning at a rate of slightly less than 1bb per hour. Here are my opinions of the CA. poker scene at 6-12 and below.
The dealers are below average. -hollywood park is the best of the worst.
The casinos are like a zoo. -espescially the crystal casino
THe players are awful and very rude. -again crystal casino takes the cake
The button fee discourages good play and good players. -Oh, how I long to be back at Bellagio.
Any other observations on the casinos I've been to? Are there any other casinos in the area that are more "professional"? Am I way offbase?
Radio,
It seems to me that you aren't yet making the adjustments from the 1-4-8-8 to the 3-6. Both games have strategies that will earn you more than 1BB per hour. The 6-12 at the Commerce is usually good for 1.5 BB per hour, if not more. I think California players tend to be more openly verbal and expressive than their Nevada counterparts. It may seem more rude to you than it does to them. When I first moved to California from the East coast, I thought Californians were meek and brain damaged, they thought and spoke so slowly; it was only after living in California for five years or so that I realized that New Yorkers tended to be the loudest, rudest people on the face of this earth. Of course, after a stint in the Air Force stationed in Korea, I revised that opinion once again. It takes awhile to acclimate yourself when moving to a new environment. In a couple years all this will seem quite normal to you.
A selective good player will win about 2 pots an hour in a reasonably loose game. All things equal the difference between a $3 and a $5 rake is $4.
Since very good players can beat these low games for up to 2-3bb/Hour I'd say:
OF COURSE THEY CAN BE BEAT!!!
Try not to be sarcastic when you empathize with these players that can't beat these games. Empathy should make them less crotchedy and so won't alienate the suckers.
- Louie
PS. You don't think "profit" is "fun"? Are you a communist? :)
Nyet!! I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party. I said I play for fun and not for income. I always try to make a profit.
This is a hand I played in a 15-30 Stud game.
I was high with (A 8) A. One player had called the bring-in when it came to me. I raised to 15. The player to my left reraised with a jack up. Now the aggressive player to his left made it three bets with a ten up. All folded to me and I capped it. The player holding a Jack folded and the player with the ten called my raise.
Since the player holding the ten raised a bet and a raise from an ace and a jack, I didn't think a pair of tens was a very likely holding. He was more likely to hold a good 3-flush (like 3 to a straight flush, but then why knock out the jack), a pair of aces in the hole (least probable), or trip tens, I thought.
On fourth street I caught an offsuit queen and my opponent paired his door card and led out for 30. Now Quads was exactly as unlikely as aces.
I called him down, made Ace's up on the river, and lost a big pot to unimproved trip tens.
Was folding the best play on fourth street? Any other comments?
Just a comment that I got about three lines down your post when I thought - bet the opponent pairs tens on 4th street. This is very common and while it's difficult advice to follow sometimes you really have to be SURE he has not got trips to call in this situation. When an opponent acts strongly/stands up to some heat on third and then pairs his doorcard - FOLD.
Andy.
The guy was obviously trying to make a steal attempt at the pot.He was hoping that by him reraising the aces and jacks a good player would put him on trips and make a laydown,but actually a seasoned stud player would smell a fish because to raise with rolled up trips in an early round to chase away his action is suicide.The correct play would be to raise in the later (more expensive)rounds if he indeed had trip 10's. So by his reraising I would put him on a high pocket pair or split tens.When he paired his doorcard you should have folded right away.No question about it. C.M.
mabey he made the raise with rolled up tens because he knew you were a experienced stud player and would smell a fish. when he hit his susposed quads, now your really thinking because quads are so unlikly that he probable has duces in the hole so you better pay him off with all that money in there.
You have to be VERY aggressive to raise with Ts against a player likely to have Jacks and an Ace who likes it. I would put this player on either KK or QQ or a big 3-flush. Did you have the Ace of his suit? Players who will rereraise with the underpair will also raise with a large variety of hands.
This is different than if the T had raised and our buddy with a J reraised, than caught a J.
It'll cost you 4bb to call him down and there is already 7bb out their, 10bb by the river so you are getting 5:2 pot odds. If you SEE his KK I THINK you can try to outdraw him.
I'd of called, and not liked it at all when he bets again on 6th street.
- Louie
My post didn't make this clear, but I know this player and I think he is rather competent (though he clearly got out of line that time). A good player would have folded a pair of tens in that spot without hesitation. Therefore, I agree with Louie Landale.
well to bet out witha a pr 10 no matter 2-10 ,20-40 against a ace ,, or J showing ,, u have to think trips or flush though 3 to a srt8 is a possible.. yur best move in that case with a un unproved hand is to fold when he pr'd his door, while waiting for my 10/20 seat in HE I played a playover in 2/10 second hand in i catch 3 3/ 3 i called the bring in raised on forth when a K hit called down by 4 players pr my K on 7 with all 4 players calling me down,.If i would have bet out raised,,, or checked raised i would have lost 12bb after 5 street,, thow he represented his hand from the get,, the next hand could be yur pocket 10's with a 10 knocking down yur door ,, save yur chip for that hand!!
Agreed. Pair of Tens is unlikely.
".. yur best move in that case with a un unproved hand is to fold when he pr'd his door .."
Disagree. The opponent pairing the door card is bad when the opponent can reasonably have a PAIR of that rank, AND is reasonably selective (don't fold Aces against the guy playing EVERY hand when he pairs his door card). If the opponent can have either a 3-flush, some 3-straight, or trips, it seems more than 10-1 AGAINST him having you beat when he pairs his door card. (he can have the case two Tens in the hole, or AKs, or AQs, or AJs, 97s, ... or QJ, or J9 ...)
Anyway, the more I think about this hand the more I suspect the Ten had a read and believed the Jack did NOT have Jacks.
- Louie
good call louie ,
Posted by: allan scott
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 8:27 p.m.
guess it depends on the player. see poker esays number two i believe. almost the same situation from two different angles discussed. (not quite the same, more bets going into your pot). what it amounts to is how predictable is the three better? and how predictable does he think you are? if you dont know each others play at all, and thus dont know who is zooming who i would lay it down on third. if you play with each other a lot almost anything is possible (depending on your past actions if you are both players) and i would just have to check call it down.
Ok so I could not wait till friday to try my Luck again,2nd hand into the table in the SB, I look to find Ks Qh,, its 2 bets to call 1 1/2 for me. I called!! with 5 players in the hand to see the flopp it was raised in middle position by a rock, a player I have played many hrs with.. I had to put him on A A ,,K K or no lower than J's well heres the flop Kc Q c 3h, well with top 2 pr and a flush draw flop I cant bet, thow the BB checked middle position bets outs
In an old thread a player with A6 gets into a raising war against A4 with an A64 flop (or something close to that). It inspired David Sklansky to comment that a good player wouldn't bet out with this huge hand heads up. But compare that situation to what you faced.
There was a big preflop pot. You were UTG against half the table with what was almost certainly the best hand on the flop but up against opponents with likely second best hands. And not only second best hands but hands with which they probably would have popped you -- almost certainly with AA or AK. You then could have reraised and built a pot for your powerful hand while putting maximum heat on the other likely hands: underdog draws that you want to make pay through the nose. And you could have made anyone with AA or AK (1) nervous and a little sick when they called you unimproved on the river or (2) somewhat vulnerable if they had mucked and learned on the showdown that this was a good move with a big hand against YOUR raise.
You need to consider not how well your hand looks in the abstract, but what kind of hands your opponents probably have and what kind of action you're going to get -- how the hand will probably be played. IMO, you had a big betting hand and missed an opportunity. I would have bet the flop and reraised. I would have considered a check-raise on the flop only if I was in a no-foldem game with opponents that play most any suited cards or connectors and won't let go no matter what.
I don't see the sense in calling w/ KQo when a rock raises, since you have no idea what kind of flop you want and your hand is likely dominated.
GD,
I was just about to write a quick response limiting my comment to why the heck did Allen call a rock out of position in a five way pot with a hand like KQo. Then I see that once again you beat me to the punch.
Allen - when GD refers to being dominated I believe he is saying that the typical good flop (i.e., a pair) to your hand is going to often be an expensive second best hand to the raiser. The concept of "domination" is frequently discussed by Abdul Jalib who tends to post on rec.gambling.poker (apparently there is some bad blood between him and Mason - too bad). You can search for his archives on www.dejanews.com. He also has a new website where he is posting his essays. It is worth checking out. I'm going to try inserting my first link in this post if you want to access it.
Rick-
1) I never beat you out (but thanks for the kind words).
2) As far as I'm concerned there's no worse hand than KQo against a raise from a rock. In fact, I virtually never play this hand for a raise even if it's a loose player who popped it (although I guess you could make some kind of a case for calling in the BB). Anyway, I'd really like to hear how other posters play this hand. IMO it's one of the most intriguing HE hands there is, since if the pot hasn't been raised KQ is a monster, but in a raised pot it's a total rag.
GD, same for me. Under a raise, I throw the hand away. In the BB, if there are 3 players or more, I will call if I close the raise . I will raise with it, if there is only one bet to me and I am in late position.
Played heads up to the river, KQo is about a 2.5-1 to 2.9-l underdog against most combinations of raising hands and is weaker after a raise than many other seemingly "inferior" hands, like 97s or QJ. And it's in much worse shape if the raiser has some combination of on AA, KK, QQ, AK or AQ.
However, when the SB is getting, in all likelihood, 5.5-1 to call in a multiway pot, and is not confident of his read on the raiser, I don't think that folding KQ is an automatic play. I'd have to consider the likelihood of getting paid off if I hit a big flop, how aggressively I could bet it, whether I have any chance of bluffing and so forth. I think that calling in the SB with KQs for two bets is highly correct against four average players.
Am I wrong? Should KQ never call 1 1/2 bets cold?
Chris,
Geting the odds in the original post, I would call a late raiser who is raises too much from late position. I would reraise a player who puts in a late postion steal raise if the player is someone who fears me. I might call a late position steal rasier who won't lay down an ace high if we both miss (but remember, he could have much less). I would also call a maniac who raises from any position but I would worry if tight players cold called the maniac. But I still maintain that calling with KQo against an early raise by a tight player is suicide.
Getting the original odds, KQ suited is much better because of the cases when you get the flush or the flush draw.
Regards,
Rick
I do not understand why you played the hand to start with if you knew you were beat. You have KQo so the chances are greater that he has pocket Aces instead of KK or QQ from the description you gave as a rock player. With pocket jacks he probably would have called only. So, I beleive this was a mistake to call. But then, once you called, what is the best strategy when you flop the 2 top pairs. In this particular scenario, I would have come out betting and raised at every opportunity I could get to make sure the flush draw and straight draw would pay for the maximum.
again there Iam just at the bottom of my play, i was a little scared to stick my nose into that big of flop ,,,, I bet out im sure to be raised, if not reraised, then im stuck thinking about calling tree bets instead of one with what at the time is the best hand,,thow if i put the rock on A A or k k QQ then yea im beat, but to check as i did he bets out no raise all call I have to think that not going for a check raise on the flop or turn puts me in the best spot to do just what i did ,, am I wrong about my theory ?or about my thinking? or why do i get the feeling i should have lost all that pot?.. rember I said rock not smart!! his play is hard and tite but loose agresive, he slo played his set of king's to a 3 8 K flopp to loose to a straight on the river, thus leading me to think, I could get into his way of thinking on such a huge flop.. am I wrong there? again a lot of input to help me out , theres a differant spot for differant flops!! thanks to all! AS
AS wrote: "his play is hard and tite but loose agresive"
I don't understand this. How can he be both tite (sp) and loose? I think you need to work on characterizing your players a little more concretely if you can. It seems that you're putting them on the hands you WANT them to have to justify your actions at that time, rather than putting them on a hand based upon their history alone. If you had really put this guy on AA-JJ preflop, you would have folded your KQ. If you hadn't gotten scared after the flop, you wouldn't have put him on such strong hands, and you would have played your hand more aggressively.
AS also wrote: "he slo played his set of king's to a 3 8 K flopp to loose to a straight on the river, thus leading me to think, I could get into his way of thinking on such a huge flop"
Slowplaying trip Ks on that flop isn't a mistake, given that someone has to make runner-runner to beat you. In such a case, you usually want to give one free card, so that they can pay you off on the turn. Of course, if they'll pay you off on the flop as well, then don't slowplay.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Guys, I think "Allan Scott" is trolling...
But I've been wrong before.
What is trolling?
wgb,
I'll wait for Dan's answer also but in the meantime I would guess it is one of the following:
1. Something a prostitute does on Hollywood Blvd.
2. A way to catch fish is you have a small boat.
3. Playing a pot you should never have entered in the first place.
Regards :-)
Rick
well if 3 is the answer than i trolled!! GOT LUCKY
A "Troll" is a message left with the specific intention of stirring up the online community. It's a prank. For example, a troller might go to "Alt.Fan.Rush.Limbaugh" on usenet, and post a message saying, "I heard that Rush Limbaugh was arrested for molesting someone's sheep". Hundreds of messages of outrage will ensue, and the troller has accomplished his purpose. Some people actually get their kicks out of this, and some trolls are far more sophisticated. On a poker forum, someone might post a long message giving a pseudo-scienfitic rationale for 'hot streaks' or something, knowing full well that it's a bunch of junk.
Dan
Dan I wanna thank u for yur concern toward keeping this a no storie telling forum, thow I have to say I have been reading 2+2 for a while now! I have not made a post as of yet for the reason of wanting to learn and understand others
My apologies, Allan. I see that you're posting regularly to some other threads, so I guess I was wrong about the trolling thing. I'll see if I have anything to add to your original message...
Dan
Its my regular loose-aggressive home game. We open up the cards and I get 88 in early position. UTG calls, I raise, all fold to the button who calls, BB calls, and UTG calls.
Flop is perfect A 8 4 rainbow. Two checks to me, I bet and get raised by the button (a very aggressive player--who has been studying up and improving). Two folds and I call.
Turn is the last 8. I check, button bets, I raise, he calls.
River is a J. I bet and he calls with AQ.
So, its lucky quads on the first hand and I'm up 8 big bets in 3 minutes.
HERES MY QUESTION: What do you do different (if anything) when you win big the first hand? Do you try to get a little more aggressive? Or, do you sit behind your chips and wait (with their $) for something? Anybody have a method? -- Or experiences with this situation?
Pick up your chips and leave!
carlos
If only so easy!!! what book can be read to teach that dicipline?
It would have to be a bad book. There are no good reasons for leaving, and many good reasons for staying. Unless, of course, you're a losing player, in which case you should quit while you are ahead.
Agreed. In fact, I think the only books that 'teach' this kind of discipline are those found in the venerable John Patrick series.
Besides the normal reasons you would stay (assuming you were a winning player), you would have even more reason to stay, especially if this were a low limit game.
You can fold 3.5 million hands in a row, but if you even *think* of trying to run a naked AK bluff, you will get called with 3rd high pair. You cannot convince the typical low limit fish of your prowess through showing your (obvious) skill. However, convince them that you're lucky, and your bluffs have bite. Someone who snags quads every hand (well, all 1 of them :) surely has a chance to show that he's lucky.
Mike Caro has written much on the baffling power of appearing lucky.
Mooselini.
I was really kidding! When that happens to me on the first hand I play, I will usually just play my normal game.
carlos
You have to consider that this is a home game, not a casino game. In most of the home games I've played in, doing this is perceived as unethical! After all it's their money... I guess the choice is being alienated (eventually) from the game, or trying to play conservative but solid poker and maintain your edge.
Bill
Winning one big hand early doesn't call for a a change in stategy. But going on a "rush" (winning 2 or 3 big hands quickly) usually causes me to play more aggressively, especially against passive opponents. The only difficuly here is to avoid getting carried away with yourself and losing back the money (and the image) you have gained. Black Jack
In limit play I would just try to continue playing correctly. Don't alter your style, it seems to be working. And, there is not as much to be gained by dominating the table as in no-limit. In no-limit if I have gained a dominant position, then I would push it hard and try to wipe out the small stacks. Alpha-Dog.
An expert player does not give his chips back. He multiplies them. Keep up playing solid and aggressive. This is the only way you can make big bucks. I have seen some nights where I collected between 4 to 7 thousands of dollars playing 20-40. So, you must keep playing your best.
There's absolutely no reason to play differently at all. You won the first hand with quads. So what? (Coincidently, I won the second hand I played today with quads)
As soon as I hear people justifying their oddball plays because they were "playing the rush" or because "I'm just not hitting today" then I know they just don't understand the laws of probability and that they are weak players.
Sunday in a 1-2-5 Pot Limit game I made quad 4's on my first hand of the night. I played for another four hours and picked up a nice $800 win.
I haven't made quads since before the flood, so I'm really not in a position to comment. That said, I don't think this kind of monster really effects your table image, since even the bad players understand that hitting a hand like that is nothing more than a fluke.
Don't underestimate the 'Tilt' factor of hitting a big hand when you first sit down at the table. If some guy is in the game stuck to his eyeballs, and he hasn't seen a decent hand in several hours, it can drive him insane to see someone sit down, be dealt quads, and drag a nice pot. This guy may give you some unreasonable action soon. In a pot limit game, this is fairly important.
It "looks" like a tough laydown, but why would you call a guy who you were convinced had AA, KK, or QQ when you have KQ????? And he has position on you to boot!
Out of all the hands he might plausibly have, only 1 (JJ) warrants a call from you. Many scenarios here get you in deep trouble. For example, even your top 2 pair flop is quite tenuous given your description of this guy. Good chance he has trips, could catch an ace for trips, or pair the board on the "off" cards. Many ways for you to lose big.
Be patient and wait for better opportunities.
Oops! This one goes with the next post
The prevailing wisdom seems to be not to make any changes to your overall game plan in a situation like this----and thats what I'll do NEXT time.
The sad story from this game was that I gave it all back the SAME ROUND! Out of the next 9 hands, I started with QQ, AK, and KQ--(a hole card rush)----bet em all up real good too, but had to eventually fold each of them. The other players thought I had flipped my beanie. But then I sat "like a stump" and folded for the next 2 hours.
Thanks for the tips, guys. GD, I hope you get quads this weekend.
No time to read other responses so I appologize for duplicates.
I would be more inclinded to bluff on the river than normally.
Important NIT: Its no longer THEIR money when it in YOUR stack. Thinking otherwise is detrimental.
"This hand is the first hand of the rest of your career."
- Louie
No time to read other responses so I appologize for duplicates.
I would be more inclinded to bluff on the river than normally.
Important NIT: Its no longer THEIR money when it in YOUR stack. Thinking otherwise is detrimental.
- Louie
with trial and error ive developed my own standard play with this if i dont know number one player from a hole in the ground. ill let you know what ive decided and why, if i get any response from any of you pot limit omaha players out there.
Some thoughts:
thank you for your thoughtfull response. thats what i do with the situation as outlined. if he raises again (unlikly) i might just have to go all in right now, actually if i dont know anything about him i might just have to lose all my money right now. that would be a tough situation.
actually since the pot if unraised originally, and the money is deep, there is no chance that im getting broke on this hand, however in all likelyhood im probably going to have to pay off a substancial bet on the turn, and mabey the river.
really this kind of stuff is what pot limit omaha is all about. i know im not the only pot limit player out there so lets have some feedback and ill give my imput for what its woth. how bout it ray? or anyone.
Six handed the differences are: the chance of hands matching the flop is much greater, and the chance of a lead bet being for real has also increased. I would be reluctant to get involved with 99 here if the preflop raiser almost certainly has to have a high pair. QQ is more dangerous in this situation as well. The preflop raiser is more likely to have AA. You don't want to get stuck in a 3-way all-in situation with AA and a drawing hand. A good player in that spot would not be raising preflop with 99 in his hand, and would not commit much of his stack on that flop with AQ or 99, especially not leading out. He might bet, and then fold if real strength is shown later. You won't get much action from him that you want. If you call, and a drawing hand calls, any 8,T,J or K gives the draw a potential straight. There may be flush potential on the board as well. And if a blank hits and he leads out, then what? Just calling is giving odds to drawing hands behind you. This is why redraws are so important in Omaha - just QQ has too many ways to lose when it gets a set on the flop. My choice here would be fold 99, and raise or fold QQ depending on the exact details - the opponents, the suits of the board cards (is there a 2-flush?) and how deep the money is.
If I have middle set then unfortunately a lot of this comes down to knowing your players. Here I make a decision before I put another dime in the pot what I think the chances of the preflop raiser having Aces is, the vast majority of pre flop raises are not made with Aces and the over whelming majority of players will reraise with them unless it is one of those games where players seem to feel commited for their entire stack as soon as they have called the blind, so most of the time I am going to play this hand for having the best hand out there.
With this many players if the money is deep I know that by betting the flop I am not going to get rid of that many draws. In this situation a lot of people are going to call with any three of K-J-10-8 even if they think I have a set, it is not a great play but a lot of pot limit omaha players are not great players. And if there are two of a suit out there this just compounds the problem. There are a lot of people who massively overestimate their drawing hands in Omaha, and there are a lot of people with hands like the nut flush draw and a gut shot or with a 13 outer straight draw are going to make a move at the pot so just because there has been a bet or a raise I am not automatically going to assume that I am looking at top set.
So having decided I have the best hand I am probably only going to bet or check raise if I think I can get the bulk of my money in ( ie 70% of my stack ) or if I can genuinely narrow the field down to heads up or win the pot there and then. I dont want to get 25-30% of my money in this pot still be 4 or 5 handed and have half the cards in the deck still scare me, and have put myself in a position where if someone now bets the pot if a scare card hits the turn I have priced myself out of the pot. Normally I am going to wait until the turn and make my move there. Also I have found because I havent made a move on the flop a lot of people will give you less credit for having a hand and will give you action on the turn with lesser made hands which are exactly the hands you want to get action against.
Like I said before at Pot limit Omaha I think most of the mistakes players make is by overestimating the potential of draws so even though I am aware I could be up against top set i still think middle set is a good money making hand unless your knowledge of the players giving you action says differently.
hummm. you sure got a point there. so much depends on how deep are we. and they sure seem to call a lot so the turn gets vey scary at times. i tend to make a move on the flop, but having thought about your post, mabey the turn is better with that many players. oh well if i could be right every time i make a move, then just send me a check.
this is a difficult question with that many players. if i move on the flop at least i can possibly narrow down the possible hands out there. with that many players i start getting worried bout the nuts. i normally dont lose all my money without them in a multihanded pot that was raised in the first place. if i move on the flop and get action from more then one player im pretty easy to get bluffed out of the pot on the turn. of course i assume the better knows that and saves his fancy plays for someone who is capable of laying down a hand. but mabely that is assuming a lot.
The following post is part of a response to an opinion poll concerning "What are three key cardroom rules that need to be unified for use in all cardrooms" conducted by Poker Digest. It was written last August and finally published in this week's issue (Vol. 2/No. 10). I would appreciate all comments. After the Poker Player Pet issue, I realize some on the forum have lost confidence in this magazine and might even be amazed that they publish my drivel. However, this is something I feel strongly about and I think my approach to enforcing this policy has merit. Note that this issue contains excellent articles by David and Mason so hopefully the magazine will continue to grow. Please note that this is my opinion and does not necessarily represent the view of casino management.
"Key Card Room Rule Number 3: I currently work as a floorman in a major Los Angeles area casino and am a respected player at the middle limits. These casinos now share similar rules and all have a policy prefacing the main body of the rule book prohibiting speaking any language other than English while at a gaming table. Most who play in Los Angeles would agree that this policy is at best enforced sporadically and generally only upon request. However, vigorous and consistent enforcement serves the long run interest of poker players and the card room industry. As an experienced player and floorman, it appears that the vast majority of conversations at the table in languages other than English are in fact innocent and social in nature. Despite this, these all too frequent conversations create the appearance of impropriety, which can be more damaging than the rare instances of actual cheating or collusion.
To effectively implement this policy, which minimizes potential offense taken by players whose native tongue is not English, I recommend the following approach to enforcement:
1. Be sensitive to the feelings of the players. When enforcing the policy, emphasize that the reason the only allowable language is English is that it is the language understood by most players. Do not say that "foreign languages" are prohibited (neither the constitution nor law specifies English as the national language to the best of my knowledge). For example, a player who is more comfortable speaking in Korean would far more likely to be offended by the second approach than the first.
2. When posting or stating this policy, group it with other rules of etiquette that are in fact functionally equivalent. This will further reduce the emphasis on cultural differences. I believe polite, social conversation with a neighboring player is good for the game, but it no conversation should be conducted "sotto voce" (i.e., in a whispered voice obviously meant to be private). For example, when sitting at one end of the table, would you be more bothered if two opponents at the other end were speaking openly and casually in Spanish, or if two players who to your knowledge speak only English were constantly whispering in each other's ear.
3. Top management must insure that every level of management and all employees understand the need for the policy, know how to enforce it intelligently, and when playing off duty set an example by adhering to the policy scrupulously.
4. Management should count on very visibly losing the occasional customer who, despite your best efforts at diplomatic enforcement, is offended that such a rule is vigorously enforced. They often will make a lot of noise as they leave the casino and you may assume that they will probably play at a competitor. But their loss will be more than made up for by the many players who enjoy playing in a casino that intelligently enforces proper ethics and behavior. (Refer to note No. 3)
Note No. 3: I find the management in most casinos is extremely reluctant to bar or discipline problem players. The nature of problem players personality is such that they will often make a lot of noise in reaction to attempts to correct their behavior (e.g., "I pay over $10,000 a year in collections and your telling me I can't throw cards! I'll take my business to the other casino up the street!") If the player does leave, the typical manager will subtract the $10,000 from gross income; however, that same manager rarely takes into account the larger group of well behaved players who prefer to play in a more civilized atmosphere. Well behaved players tend to be very quite about the reasons they play in a particular casino (or prefer to play in home games). This topic deserves an essay in itself, but I'll stop here."
Regards,
Rick
I agree with the general concept. The appearance of a problem can be as damaging to a poker room as having an actually problem. I also agree that most conversations in a foreign language are probably innocent, but how can you be sure.
I and some of my friends feel that part of the reason that the rule is not well enforced has to do with a fear of losing business. Whether this is true or not, this perception also needs to be cleaned up.
I do however disagree with your nice guy approach. This is probably the way it should have been handled several years ago. But today is different. Thanks to the internet, and some posters who have little understanding of how the card room industry operates, there is now "cheating hysteria."
In other words, I believe it is time for the cardrooms to take tough and highly visible action. Specifically, signs should be posted emphasizing only this problem and players should be given one warning before they are given a short vacation, and repeat offenders should be given a long vacation.
Of course this will only work if all the clubs do it. If one club doesn't participate this action will fail. This is perhaps where the California Card Club Association (which I believe is now called the California Gaming Association) can help. I know that they are normally a political organization, but this could be a time to temporaily expand their function.
Unfortunately, the preception of cheating is becoming widespread in the cardroom industry. Many years ago, when I first began to play, I believe that there was a problem. But with the rise of limit hold 'em and stud, improved management awareness (and better equipment), and p
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 12:56 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:08 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:22 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 4:42 a.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 May 1999, at 5:20 a.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 8:19 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Allan Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:01 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Mooselini (mooselini@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Bill G. (McHigel@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Black Jack
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Darren (dragon124@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 10:43 p.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Monday, 3 May 1999, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 5:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:04 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 4:36 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 5:53 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:21 a.m.
Posted by: Abe
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 4:27 p.m.
AQ9 is a very connected board, and there are a lot of hands that you want to force out, especially if the flop is two-suited.
Middle set is a lot better than bottom set (but you still have to be very careful with it, especially in multiway pots). When you hold middle set, the chance of someone holding top set is small. With bottom set, you will often lose to top two when the board pairs, and to a draw when it doesn't. In general, I rarely enter a pot with medium pairs, unless the hand has a lot of other strength or the game is shorthanded.
In a 3-handed game, you can't just play the nuts, even if the money is deep. You often have to play much weaker made hands strongly. Middle set is quite good when only three random hands take the flop, and a lead bet can be a lot of weaker things even from a tight player. If player #1 had A9 and checked, that would be a serious mistake. If you have 99, player #1 is more likely to hold AQ than AA or QQ.
Bluff opportunities are an important element of pot-limit Omaha. Even if your opponent had the nuts on the flop, much of the deck will present the possibility of a better hand on the turn or river. You really have to know your opponent, and know when he tends to fold and call in these spots.
If you knew nothing about the opponent, the game is 3-handed, the money was very deep, and the board had a 2-flush, I would raise the full pot.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 6:55 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:03 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Dominic Bourke (dominic@bourke9.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:17 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 7:31 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 May 1999, at 3:51 p.m.