![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Hey folks some more good news. Our very own frequent poster BillM(urphy) made the final table of the $1500 Stud 8 or better Event. the event concludes today beginning at 4 p.m.. BillM like Sklansky is low man on the totem pole. His stack is T11,000+ and the next shortest stack is over T32,000. I talked to him this afternoon and mentioned that David Sklansky was low man at his table but edged his way up to sixth. Of course Sklansky's chip leaders weren't Dan Heimiller and Vince Burgio. There is a young player at the table, Larry, that I know from my Atlantic City days. He's no pushover. Billm Has his work cut out for him that's for sure.
One bright spot is that Phil Helmuth busted out ninth putting BillM in the final 8. The ante is T400 and the bring in T1000 so BillM really needs some help quickly. We can't help at the table but we can all sweat him from afar. Let's all give him a big congrads for making it this far and wish him the best (out loud) at the final table.
Vince
If you are wondering why I din't sweat him like I did Sklansky it's because he didn't finish up until 3 a.m. Too late for this old bird. I'm not there at four becaus I'm playing a small tournament myself this evenning. So there..
Is the WSOP being telvised? Is it on PPV? This is my first WSOP with ESPN and I was under the impression that it would be shown on ESPN, but they don't even have converage of the final championship table! I'm calling Binion's Tomorrow, but if you can help me out, please do! Thanks in advance!
"Is the WSOP being telvised? "
Sorry, I dunno.
Vince
I am saddened to find out thst there are people out there who are so lacking in knowledge in regard to simple arithmetic that they would play in either of these games.
Wait.
If there are people who are willing to pay $10 PER HAND TO PLAY 15-30 chances are they are not among the "sharpest knives in the drawer". In fact, they sound just like the type you would like to have as opponents.
Seriously, you can beat either of these games if the others are absolutely clueless - and I mean CLUELESS.
If this is the case, grit your teeth and go for it but - and I hope this goes without saying - you must play excruciatingly tight and press every single edge you have as hard as you can.
The second part of this will actually benefit you in another way; if you are "jamming" with every hand that you believe is the best, alot of your opponents will not be aware of the fact that all of your betting is being done when you have a big hand.
- In other words, you will (we hope) be perceived as an action player - not as a rock - so you ought to have little trouble getting paid off when you do make a hand.
Conventional wisdom is that if you can beat a 15-30 game for $40 per hour you are among the best in the world.
I have seen - and played in - games that I KNEW I could beat for twice that amount over time. (Ahem, I am NOT a world champion; nor am I anywhere near it.)
If this is one of those games, you should be able to achieve a nice win rate; just bear in mind that even with tight play you are going to be paying in the area of 20 dollars per hour to play. If they really "move the game along" it could be closer to 30.
You had better be an excellent player, your opponents had better be helpless, AND at least 75% of the pots will have to exceed $300; if you see alot of 150-200 dollar pots, RUN LIKE HELL. (I doubt you will - it sounds like these boys came to gamble - but if the pots are not huge you have no chance.)
I once found myself in a game with nine certified, stumbling, puke in your pocket drunks. It took all night and most of the next day but I finally had almost every chip that did not disappear due to the house charge. The thing was there was no rake, we were paying by the hour - $14 per. At the speed these guys were moving I doubt we were playing more than 20 hands per hour. I managed to win close to $3,500, but it took close to 20 hours. That's almost $300 I had to fork over to the house.
Looking back, I would much rather have paid $10 per hand; I have a hard time believing I won 35 pots over the course of that session. I doubt if I even won 20; more than half of the 3,500 came from four HUGE pots.
Search as hard as you can for another game, but don't AUTOMATICALLY write this one off as unbeatable.
By the way (please forgive if it seems as though I am defending anyone who would charge such a fee for playing), if the game does move as slowly as the one I previously described, AND if you are being well cared for - food, beverages, and certain other "amenities" that are often provided at private games - those in charge may not be making as much as you think they are.
Anyone who is picturing these entepeneurs as PROFITING $300+ per hour are probably way off. They are no doubt making good money, but quite possibly not as much as it would appear.
Best of luck if you decide to have a go at it but be honest when you assesS your abilities. If you play "a little better than the next guy" STAY HOME. This game is not for you.
Best wishes,
J D -
Good post.
this is more on the lines of typical high rakes for low limit games, below 5-10 that is. Except that they are making a killing when at low limits they are simply making a rather nice profit. Assuming the game lasts, which I doubt. For one thing, anyone who is familiar with the rakes and time charges around the country will think this is outrageous. Which it is. Having the rake take what probably averages to between 0.5-2 BB/hour, depending on how tight you play, in a FIFTEEN-THIRTY GAME is pretty insane. Loose players might be paying way, way, WAY more than that.
JD's response is great. I am really just adding piffle to the great job he already did, so I will stop now. Except for one more thing...
THAT RAKE SUCKS. IF YOU CAN PLAY ELSEWHERE, DO SO, AND IF YOU CAN'T, CONSIDER NOT PLAYING AS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.
Dave in Cali
You are brand new at the table and post in the BB. None of the faces look familiar.
Everyone folds to the cutoff (CO) who open raises and the button folds. The SB calls and you look to see both black sixes (6's). Would anyone re-raise? Right or wrong you just call.
FLOP: 2d Kh Ks
IMHO I think a bet here is worthy and if no one raises your hand might be the best. The SB checks, I bet, CO calls and the SB calls. What is the best play on this flop?
I will post the rest of this hand and the results under this one with a couple more questions. Thanks.
~stephen
Please read the extended portion of this post before you read below.
I bet the flop and wasn't raised.
The SB bet into me on the turn when I filled up. I raised, the button called, the SB re-raised and I capped. The button called. I put the SB and button on the other Kings and I'm hoping nothing hits the river that would be too scary.
When the Ace hit I figured it was scary enough and my fullhouse was just counterfeited. The SB bet into me again and I felt I had to raise. I guess in hindsight it was a big mistake since I knew I just lost this monster pot. The button calls the SB re-raises and I call and the button calls.
SB has AKo
I have 66
Button never showed
PS. This was online, if that makes any difference.
Thanks,
~stephen
I'm going to add a little bit to this. But first, here is the section in question so that everyone can see it.
"Sometimes you will need to add a few hands to those you play up front to throw your opponents off. For example, you occasionally should play a hand like
7s 6s
in an early position, even if the game is tough, to stop your more observant opponents from stealing against you when "rags" flop. Also, this is a good hand to occasionally raise with if you feel that your early position raises are getting too much respect. (That is you are not getting any action.) However, no matter what the reason for playing a hand like this, make sure that your hand is suited, and only do this occasionally."
Notice that the word is "play" not "limp." Usually on those occasional times that I do play a hand like this up front, I will be first in raising.
There is another point that Jim makes that I want to address. It is whether your opponents ever notice and then remember you making a ply like this. Well, a couple of weeks ago I sat in a $20-$40 hold 'em game at The Mirage (when Jim was in Tunica I believe), raised up front with a 7h5h, and made a flush. The next day I took a quick look at RGP -- I scan it every now and then to check out the latest insults -- and discovered a thread had been started about this very hand. Someone I didn't know who apparently was in the game posted the hand and was highly critical of my play. I think he said something to the effect that I was a washed up player who now thought that 75 suited had become a Group 1 hand. So at least in this case, someone noticed and remembered.
I remember that thread, Mason.
I also remember thinking "Boy, he got some advertising value from that hand!"
Also, if your raises are getting too much respect and you are able to win the pot without a showdown, don't show the hand.
The issue of respect and your bets is one of the big elements of this arguments. If your raises are getting too much respect, you may be able to use this to your advantage to win a pot that you don't deserve. I view this play as a semi-bluff. One of the ways to profit from a semi-bluff is when you catch scare cards to force an opponent to fold. Your raise on an earlier round set this up. If you raise with 76s and big cards hit, you are that much closer to representing a big-card hand that you don't have. This seems to be a much more common tactic in 7cs than in HE, but it still can be used. Personally, I pull a similar play with a small pair. I don't consider myself more than an average player, so I'm more comfortable with the notion that I'll either hit a probable monster or get nuthin'.
Are there poker venues in/near Montreal ? Inquiring minds need to know.
Thanks !
There is no casino poker because Casino de Montreal does not believe poker is lucrative enough for it's casino, besides many laws prohibit live poker games in a casino. That might change someday. There is a game in town every night. Mainly 5-10, with and without a kill, also a 10-20 game 2 to 3 times a week. Games are not too tough to beat, although tougher than your typical casino as there are not many fish/tourists. Rake is usually $5. Let me know if you're interested in playing.
Thanks for the responses guys. I agree with many posters here that these games are just not beatable. I think I'd rather drive the 1hr to a REAL casino to play.
Thanks again for the replies!
Of course it's "beatable" if your opponents are weak enough, although it might not be worth your time. After all, $3-6 with a $5 rake is beatable. Your fluctuations will be a larger multiple of your hourly and you'll have to tighten up, especially in late position and the blinds.
Rick--
An excellent post. Like you, I choose to limp with medium pairs, which as far as I can tell basically does the same job.
And, as Jim mentioned, you're just not going to get to the showdown often enough with these hands. My guess is that you'll show down about 10-15% of the time, which means in theory you can go for a loooonnng stretch without ever gettting any advertising credit.
However, I will admit that my reluctance to use this play may be at least partly based on anecdotal evidence. I'm one of the few players I know who's never misplayed suited connectors upfront (though God knows I had my day with KJo, etc.), and I'm almost sure I'm a loser with these kinds of hands.
GD,
Actually, in a tight game I almost always come in with a raise up front, especially if the blinds don’t defend well (where I can lower my standards a bit). I would come in with a raise with 77 and 88 but toss the smaller pairs. I also like to have a decent ace so I go down to about A8 suited or AJ offsuit. KQ is about the worse king I would play in a tight (or any) game up front, although a suited KJ might by OK. I also don’t like suited hands such as JTs and QJs in this spot.
However, if the game is more passive I mix up raising and limping with all kinds of hands. But I avoid any suited connecter worse than JTs when first in early to middle position unless the game is ideal, which is almost never.
BTW, are you the Guy Downs “GD” or the new GD I saw posting on another forum.
Regards,
Rick
Guy Downs-- the GD from years ago. The other GD, Gary Daniels, is I think a new poster.
That's a whole 'nother group of hands that I'm leery of- the suited A's. Particularly up front. But, I agree that in a moderately tight game I'd rather have an A7s than a 67s, so if I'm going to play either it's the former.
There is another side to this, though, and that is that well-known players like Mason are probably constantly having to deal with players taking shots at them, so they often have to throw off the competition a bit if only to reduce the number of times someone tries to bluff them out in a given session. In fact, there was a thread a while ago that dealt with this very subject, when Jim was critical of a call Roy Cooke made against him in a large pot; the thinking was that Roy probably had to call, if only because he likely has to deal with throngs of hometown heroes constantly trying to bluff him.
I guess there is a flip side to every coin hey. I didn't really consider that, but it is an interesting concept
Derrick
When 2-3 limpers are in, and then it's raised when it comes to you in middle/late position. What do you do with medium pocket pair like 88-TT (game is generally loose/passive)?
Thanks.
Depends on who's behind me yet to act and how weak/fishy the limpers were, but almost always I'll limp along...and pray for a favorable flop, such as a set, a bunch of undercards, or an open end straight draw. Occasionally, I might raise, but the reality is that there is little likelihood that you'll run anyone out with a raise in a loose/passive game, and I really don't think that should be your goal in this situation...Get as many callers as you can. I think limping and hoping for a good flop is your best bet here.
With a hand like that, what you do pre-flop is of little consequence. It's what you do after the flop that really matters.
It's really bad form to respond to yourself...
Ikke,
You can play these hands aggressively or passively depending on your control over your opponents and in particular your control the raiser on your right. Of course lean towards aggressive play with the tens and passive play with the eights if other factors are neutral.
By control I mean how much are your bets and raises respected and feared. If you have control over opponents they tend not to make tricky moves against you and release unless they flop a good pair or good draw. This is often a function of how you are doing (e.g., if you are sitting behind a slowly built mountain you usually have good control) and your opponent's own level of aggressiveness.
By aggressively I mean you can three-bet, probably eliminating the blinds and perhaps one limper. Ideally you end up with one limper and the raiser so it works better when there have been only two limpers. Of course this play is better with TT than 88. Now you hope to win many pots without flopping a set. When you are up against an overpair, you will usually find out on the flop when the original bettor makes it four bets. But more players get tricky these days so expect some to slow down with aces and make it four bets with suited overcards.
By passively you can call the raise, probably letting in at least one blind. Now more of your wins come from flopping sets; however, the likely betting will come from your right so for these cases you don't get maximum value (you would much rather have the blind leading when you flop a set to maximize the pot). But note that playing passively pre flop often provides the opportunity for a flop raise that will narrow the field since the aforementioned flop bet is likely to come from your right. So you will often raise on the flop with an overpair or one overcard to your pair with the right kind of board (i.e., not too coordinated or suited).
BTW, against tight limpers and a tight tough raiser I would probably fold the eights.
Regards,
Rick
Thank you very much for the response. It was very helpfull.
I mostly 3-bet with these hands or fold. I almost never call, because, as I understand, these hands (especially 88) thrive on implied odds (if you're going for a set), and they're ruined when calling two bets cold. But I might, and I will, think this over again; I might give too much away by folding these cards against fairly loose raisers.
Thanks again.
Ikke,
With three limpers and a raiser to your right I believe most would agree you have the implied odds even with somewhat smaller pairs since a blind will usually call. But it is a close decision with two limpers and a raiser on your right. I like at least calling, but others would disagree. When it is close you don't lose much by folding and I don't lose or gain much by calling.
Regards,
Rick
You are sitting in a shorthanded game, 4-5 players, you are on the button or one before the button and are dealt one of the following hands:
KJ suited or unsuited KT suited or unsuited
A9 suited or unsuited
Pocket pair 77 or lower
Someone raises before you. Which of these hands do you play and under which circumstances? In other words what would you consider? For example type of game, tough shorthanded game, loose or tight shorthanded game. Nature of the raising opponent, tough, calling station or other. Any other considerations which I didn't mention.
And secondly, how do you play each hand (if you're not going to fold), call or raise and what do you consider when deciding how to play.
Any feedback about this is very appreciated
Abbe
Normally you should 3-bet if entering the pot here versus a late raise. If everything is looking good for the resteal, then play about 55/A7s/KTs/98s/KJ. If situation is not ideal, then tighten up to about 77/AJs/KJs/JTs/KQ.
(Negative) considerations (i.e., excuses to fold):
- Tightness of raiser.
- Skill of raiser.
- Rake.
- Tenacity of raiser.
- Looseness of opponents behind.
- Tell: raiser putting chips in delicately
- Tell: players behind look eager to enter pot
-Abdul
Let me know what you think of this hand.
I have AKo in the SB. 2 limpers, I raise, BB folds, limpers call.
Flop comes J J 7 with 2 clubs. I bet, limper folds, button raises. I reraise, button calls.
Turn is the A of clubs putting 3 clubs on board.
I check, button bets, I think long and hard....
I really should fold here, but I make my only mistake of the hand and I call.
River is a third jack.
I bet, button thinks hard and makes a crying call.
This is a pretty routine hand. It is clear from the buttons play that he has a flush draw. As such, I have to reraise on flop because I :
1) Need to charge him for his draw. 2) Want him to put me on AA KK or QQ just in case he hits a smaller pair while drawing for his flush.
When the A of clubs came, I knew he made his flush and I should have folded. I only had 4. outs max to win - another A, or another J. And, it is very likely that he would fold his flush if one of those cards came, meaning that I would have no implied odds.
I assume this was a guy who would wait until the turn to raise with a J?
After a couple limpers a great many people will limp behind them pre-flop with JT, QJ, KJ and AJ.
As an aside: at a table with people who routinely wait until the turn to raise with three-of-a-kind you can often convince them you can't possibly have the third card when you bet/raise on the flop.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
You really think your only mistake of the hand was calling on the turn? It seems to me that raising with AKo out of the blinds is a mistake in itself. I am glad you won the pot.
Why are convinced that your opponent had a flush draw? There are many other hands that I would more likely raise you with from the button. These include: Any Jack, any 7, 88, 99, and TT. On occasion I might even have slow played QQ, KK or AA. Since you have AK it is unlikely that I have the latter two.
I think there is something to be said for mixing up our betting patterns to disguise the range of hands we would call/raise with. Of course its not quite that simplistic because each hand and opponent is situational but is a general guideline I like to follow.
My comments on the play of the hand are as follows:
If you put him on the flush draw, why are you 3 betting him with your drawing hand? If your 3 bet represents AA or KK, the flop raiser is on a big draw no matter what you represent because if he gets there you're going to lose a high percentage of the time anyways. I know you are trying to make him pay for his draw but I think it works better if you have a made hand and not when the other player is the favorite. Why not call the raise and see what the turn brings to this coordinated board?
I realize that tough players will frequently take at least one shot at you but I have found that sometimes a check and call approach works just fine if the raiser has position on me. This gives agressive players a chance to bluff off their chips which is fine with me.
I tend to agree with Matt and Dugie on this one. IMO you were far too agreesive before and especially on the flop by your 3- bet. You aren't even on a draw yet and you are out of position. You got very lucky with your runner-runner. Just my opinion.
Kind Regards,
Gene (holdemdude)
Please help me settle an argument with a friend regarding my play of a hand.
$20-40 game, which was quite loose/passive until this obnoxious (personality and appearance) overaggressive woman, who I know as a maniac, joined our table on my immediate left. We were 10 handed. She was raising or capping virtually every pot, often out of position, with some weak hands like J9o, Q10o, Kx suited and any ace. The deck was running over her and when it didnt her aggressiveness won her many pots when other players folded. She owned the table for sure.
She knows me and my play and knows I'm the tight/aggressive type. About 30 minutes afer she joined the table we have our first train crash together.
I'm in seat 8 (2 off the button) and find black pp5s - there are 3 limpers, I limp and true to nature she raises from cutoff. Button and SB fold, BB calls and 3 limpers call.
Flop is: 8h 6d 2s rainbow
I bet out knowing that she will raise (she'll do this with even one overcard) and hopefully knock the others out. She raises and all others fold leaving it heads up. I just call her raise.
Turn is a 3s, I check she bets and I checkraise! I'm fairly sure I have the best hand and I have a gutshot draw now too. She mucks.
Friend of mine says I should have check called her all the way down and probably (unless river hits her overcard(s)) won an extra bet from her. She would have bet the river if I checked for sure even if it completely missed her.
Comments??? Did I play this correctly? I didnt want to give her a cheap shot at hitting the river with overcard(s).
Thanks.
Wasp
Your friend is nuts. The pot was decent size and you didnt have much...assuming your hand was 55....that is what I think you meant. Anytime you can win the hand right there and not risk your opponent catching a card to beat you on the river, do it! Good play
If you knew she had three outs only, and would always bet anything on the river, then a check raise to make her fold would be right only if the pot contained about 13 big bets or more. See why? If she had six outs, a check raise that would mke her fold is right except for small pots where inducing a certain bluff is better. Of course all of this assumes she has a worse hand and will fold.
7-1
I think you are right and your friend is wrong but I am still uncomfortable with the way you played this hand. I would not lead into 5 people having only a baby pocket pair with two overcards on the table. I am sure the other players at the table have observed how she plays and will not necessarily let her raise drive them out given her reputation. I would check. If she bets, I would observe the action before committing any more money with this hand. By playing this way you might be getting the correct implied odds to play a two outer given the size of the pot as long as no one raises.
The problem with your line of play is that you have a weak hand that can be easily beaten if only by accident. I think there are too many opponents for you to be horseing around here. The centerpiece of your strategy is to bet your way to victory with no hand really. If she has anything she will stay with you and probably beat you.
Jim,
I consider 55's bet on the flop to be a good one.
The maniac will likely raise and this should help in cutting down the field and perhaps causing someone with a better hand to fold. For example, a player with a 6 in early position who may have planned to checkraise the maniac may now fold given the bet and raise already ahead of him. Heck, someone with an 8 may even fold (although unlikely).
With 55, you also have some backdoor straight draws. The maniac's raise will likely help you in the event that you end up making the idiot end of a straight i.e. the flop raise may knock out someone who without the raise may have stuck around to catch the good end of the straight. I'll admit that this reason is subject to attack because I am not sure (without doing the tedious math) that the pot was big enough to make this a factor worth considering.
The problem is that the maniac only needs to have an eight, a six, or any pair higher than fives to reduce to you to playing a two outer. If she has you on two outs she will raise 100% of the time. She may or may not raise on other holdings. If she is raising on just overcards, she will still run you down about 30% of the time if she is willing to go to the river. If a blank comes on the turn, you will be hard pressed to keep betting especially if a third overcard to your baby pair shows up. If your plan is to bet the turn regardless as long as everyone else folds, then you are starting to make a major commitment of money out-of-position with a weak holding.
The other problem is that all these other players may not fold because she is the one raising. Betting may improve your chances of winning but that does not mean you should bet. The increased chances of winning may not be worth the increased cost.
You most definitely should not have check-called. If she had 2 overcards, and she probably did, then she should have called your checkraise.
For example, if she had QJ and she knew that you had 55, she should call with 6 outs on the river.
By checkraising, you suggest so much strength that a Q or J might not be good even if it hits. IE a set, straight, or slowplayed AA or KK. By checkraising, you forced her to make a mistake by folding. So good for you. Heck, it's even possible you got her to fold a better hand - like 77 or A6.
I think you played it well. Don't listen to what the losing low limit players have to say. They can only dream of one day playing in a 20-40 game. Good work!
Your friend is wrong.
Vince
I do not think that I would have played pocket 5's pre-flop when a raise is likely to come after me, even with 3 limpers already in.
On the flop, I can understand trying to isolate the maniac by betting into her. But you need her to raise, and you need all of the other four opponents to fold. I think this is very unlikely. Even when that works pefectly, all you have is a hand that is quite vulnerable even if it is currently the best hand. Despite the large pot, I would check and fold the flop here.
Regarding the turn play, your friend is right that you would have gotten her to put in an extra bet if you had just called. But then you might have lost the pot as well, which is 9 bb after she bets the turn. If she has two overcards to your 5's, which is probably the case, then you don't want to give her a free card. Morover, you make her play incorrectly by getting her to fold on the turn. If your judgment that there was a fair chance of her folding to your semi-bluff raise was correct, then you played it right.
Had the pot been much smaller and heads-up from the beginning, then rope-a-doping as your freind suggested would have more merit.
Steve
I like the way you played once you made the decision to play, if you intended to drive the other players out by betting the flop and letting her raise.
My experience with this type of player leads me to wait for solid hands, maybe even more so than typical players since you are going to put more money in there and you are going toget sucked out on more often against an ultra aggressive players.
This was a risky play, but then I guess you knew that. I like your style against a maniac, but I might have waited for a slightly better spot to get aggressive. All she needed was a six, and if she is a true to life maniac, she wouldn't have folded it.
Nevertheless, I think that check-raising the turn is much better than check-calling the turn. With the pot being decent sized, you don't want her to catch one of her outs to beat you, so getting her to fold is better than letting her draw to beat you cheaply.
Dave in Cali
Paradise 10-20
Early position loose (EL) raises, Solid middle position (SM)reraises. I have KK on the button and make it 4 bets, both call.
Flop 6h 3c Qc
EL bets, SM calls, I raise, EL 3 bets, SM makes it 4.
What should I do?
looks like SM has QQ.
brad
Based on this action I figure EL for AA (or maybe but mathematically unlikely the other 2 ppKs) and SM for a set of Queens. SM's initial smooth call to EL's flop bet was a trap, but when you raise and EL reraises SM knows youre both fairly pot committed and is now going to build the pot, or try win it right there, and protect his hand which is why he 4 bets it on the flop.
If I have the King of clubs I call and see if I can pick up a backdoor flush draw on the turn (and hope the AA doesnt have Ac) - or another King of course. If not I muck. Its hard to lay down Kings but I think your hand is 3rd best (unless EL is a complete idiot) and you can be pretty sure of having to coldcall 2 bets on the turn and river if EL comes out firing first - SM is gonna raise it.
So what happened?
i think someone may have AQclubs, or AK clubs, maybe someone has set...who knows. at this point, you probably are behind. but i've playing in games where the first player here could be on a flush draw (not even nut), second could have aces, kings or maybe just a queen with a high kicker backdoor flush draw. second player, being commited to the pot, caps the betting figuring that if he doesn't someone else will.
you call and hope there isn't a betting war on the turn...if there is, then you can probably fold, as the MP probably has you beat.
tootight.
"What should I do?"
Do you have the king of clubs?
The loose early player had a set of 3s and the solid player had AQ. The loose player came out betting on the turn and was called to the end.
I folded "correctly" as the delayed raise from the AQ, really threw me. I initally put him on an underpair, but then concluded that he had a set of Qs or AA. Ironically the Kc landed on the river.
The AQs play was either first class or poor depending on his reasoning.
If he thought he had the best hand his play was poor.
If he took the view that there was a good chance he was beating the loose player, but wasn't sure about me - his play was excellent. If I called the 4 bets on the flop he could be sure that his AQ was no good and there was a chance that I would fold a better hand than his (which I did) leaving him heads up with the loose player.
Any more comments very welcome.
Scrap your perception that the guy with AQ is solid. If he had any sense he should have known he was behind with that hand and that action. Good post tho.
RG
I know John has written and much has been posted regarding calling a raise with AQ.
How do you feel about this one: 15-30 hldm UTG raises, player next to him re-raises, you are next.You look down and have AhQh. UTG is a typical player, Re-raiser willre- raise with mostly quality hands including 99, ak, jj,1010, etc.
Is this a cut and dry fold? how do you play.
x
Against a real rock of an UTG and against other very tight opponents, not likely to come in with 'sucker' hands helping me in a spot of bother against say AK, I will maybe lay down AQs vs a single raise.
lars
This article can be found at http://www.cardplayermagazine.com/members/magazine/articleview.asp?art_id=71
In this article, Roy Cooke describes a hand played in a $30-$60 poker game. To summarize the action:
1. Cooke gets AA UTG. He calls rather than raises. 2. Two players limp and the button raises. 3. He 3-bets. One limper folds. The other limper and the button call. 4. The flop comes 8-4-3 rainbow. Cooke bets. The limper calls. The button folds. 5. The 10h comes on the turn creating a 2-flush. Cooke bets. The limper calls. 6. The river comes an 2h completing the flush draw. Cooke bets. The limper calls. The limper turns over A5 for a wheel and scoops the pot.
Commentary:
Although Cooke congratulates himself about playing the hand correctly despite losing the pot, I think he played the hand very poorly.
He describes the button as "a very aggressive local woman with whom I’ve been banging heads for too long." Based on the way he played the hand, he should change the description to "a very aggressive local woman who has been banging his head for too long."
I can visualize this woman and her playing style because it a style seen often in the middle limit games in L.A. I can also visualize Cooke's style from reading his articles and because it is a style that is also often seen in middle limit L.A. games.
Cooke's style is one in which his bets and raises throw off a lot of information about his hand. The lady on the button's style is one that uses this rich source of information against him.
Specifically, Cooke will only raise from early position with a narrow range of hands (AA, KK, QQ, and AK--sometimes with JJ, 1010, and AQ). The problem facing Cooke is that when he does raise in early position, his hand is so well defined that unless he is beat, the other players simply fold. He can't get his big hands paid off---a problem facing many rocks.
Specifically, if he is going to limp with AA under the gun, he would be better off simply calling the buttons' raise, going to the flop 4+-handed, checking the flop and, depending on the action, going for the check raise on the flop or the turn.
By 3-betting the flop, he has done the equivalent of raising under the gun--signalling his opponents that he has AA, KK, or possibly QQ. If he had smooth called pre-flop, his opponents would have to add AQ, AJ, A10, KQ, KJ, QJ, Q10, JJ, 1010, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44, 33, 22 to the universe of possible Cooke holdings. Because he 3-bet the flop, his opponents were able to play very well against him--one of the limpers folded pre-flop and the lady on the button folded when Cooke bet out on the flop. These were both probably correct plays from a FTOP perspective that would not have been made if Cooke hadn't 3-bet.
It is true, he was able to get additional money in the pot and narrow the field pre-flop but at the cost of losing a lot of additional bets that would have gone in (many incorrectly from a FTOP point of view) after the flop.
Cooke could have done better by simply calling the raise, check raising on the flop, and betting out on the turn and river. If he had done this he would have had a much higher E.V. from his AA.
Specifically, when the flop came down 843, he could have checked into the field. Given the size of the pot and the limit there is almost no chance the hand would have been checked around on the flop. Too many hands want to prevent a free card and the steal possibilities are too juicy. Any hand with an 8, hands with a 4 or 3 plus an overcard, any pocket pair, and two overcards would have bet. If it had been checked to the button, she is likely to have bet with nothing.
Depending on the bettors position, Cooke could have trapped multiple players in for 2+bets and might even have gotten a bet, isolation raise, and been able to 3-bet on the flop. The option of just calling on the flop and check raising on the turn is also there.
This is a situation where the math gets complicated but if he had just called the button raise pre-flop there would be 9-12 small bets in the pot. By check raising on the flop, his opponents would be paying 2 small bets into a probable 10 to 16 small bet pot.
His opponents would need 7+ outs to make these calls correct. Many of the hands which he could trap into the double bet (such as two overcards, a pocket pair, and one pair plus overcard) would be incorrect FTOP to be calling 2 bets on the flop. From the E.V. perspective, he would be making monster gains on the flop and on the turn.
Cooke justifies his play with the following logic:
"It is important to understand in poker that if your opponents are correct in calling, you will do better in the long run if they fold. And if your opponents are incorrect in calling, you want them to call — even if they make a hand sometimes. The extra chips that you win when you take down a pot more than compensate for what you lose those other times that your opponents overcome the odds running uphill. The more you can charge them to make an incorrect call, the better it is for you. It reduces their price received from the pot and increases your positive volume wagered and expectation. I still like my preflop decision in that situation; trapping preflop was the right thing to do, regardless of the result.
You need to design your strategies to induce your opponents to make these types of errors. You must use your opponents’ tendencies to your advantage. For instance, if Ms. Player had not been near the button, I would have been more inclined to raise with my pair. Had I played several hands in the previous lap, giving my opponents the appearance that I was playing many hands, I would have been more inclined to raise. Thinking and making plays in a manner that will make your opponents make errors will enable your bankroll to grow."
I believe Cooke failed or could have done bettor in both his stated objectives by not 3-betting the flop. He would have gotten more bets from his oppenents when FTOP they would be wrong in putting them into the pot and he would have used a strategy better designed to exploit his opponents tendencies.
Kenneth Ng
I don't believe the FTOP applies very well to a large multi-handed pot. The equity gained by those bad calls benefits the draws much more than it benefits AA. I think the last thing you want is for a large field to see the flop when you are so badly out of position with a big pair.
IMO, you overstate the case for not 3 betting the flop. In tight games there is much to be said for getting money in the pot as soon as you are able.
just a couple comments:
"The problem facing Cooke is that when he does raise in early position, his hand is so well defined that unless he is beat, the other players simply fold. He can't get his big hands paid off---a problem facing many rocks. "
There are many tactics the tight player can use to get action. the tricky UTG player, more often than not, ends up being the one giving action.
"If he had smooth called pre-flop, his opponents would have to add AQ, AJ, A10, KQ, KJ, QJ, Q10, JJ, 1010, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44, 33, 22"
given Roy's rock image in the game it is highly unlikely he would limp with many of the hands you listed. The only hands I think he would consider limping with are QJs, Q-10s, J-10s, 88, 77. The other hands listed he would either raise or fold.
"Depending on the bettors position, Cooke could have trapped multiple players in for 2+bets and might even have gotten a bet, isolation raise, and been able to 3-bet on the flop. The option of just calling on the flop and check raising on the turn is also there."
This is a likely scenario for our looser, more agressive california games, but from what I've read about vegas poker this scenario just does not seem likely. I think Roy made the right decision because he knew that if the flop did not hit anyone he wouldn't make any money. The same is not always true of california games.
Overall I agree with your analysis of how to play this hand in games where many players will go too far with a hand. But in tight games, where people will easily dump a hand, raising pre-flop for value has alot of merit. I don't know if you or Roy is "correct" but I certainly don't believe the decision is as clear cut as you claim.
Think about how the other players played the hand after Cooke 3-bet.
One limper immediately folded. The aggressive player on the button called the 3-bet but folded on the flop when Cooke bet into the field.
What do you think these players had? At a minumum they held two overcards to the flop. If Cooke hadn't 3-bet, they would certainly have taken one off for one bet on the flop and been wrong, FTOP, to do so. With AA, they need a double hit to beat him. They would be putting money in the pot while drawing virtually dead.
Cooke's pre-flop 3-bet almost certainly allowed his opponents to correctly deduce that many of their potential outs were negated and they avoided giving Cooke any equity thereafter.
Cooke's 3-bet contained high quality information about his holding and the other players used this information to play their hands much more efficiently against him.
"...they would certainly have taken one off for one bet on the flop ..."
In a tight game you can not be sure that people will chase when garbage comes on the flop. Roy chose to get money in the pot when it was very likely he would get called. based on Roy's description of the game there is a good possibility he could have "stolen" the pot on the flop. In which case it would have been a mistake to smooth call the button raise. You have to discount your future expected action when making these sorts of decisions. In a tight, LV style game, there is a large discount on the future expectation because the players are very unlikely to chase with marginal hands. The same can not be said of a loose game. In a loose game the discount factor is very small. In a loose game case a smooth call, hoping to trap later in the hand, would be correct because you can be more certain of players staying in the hand. You also keep the initial size of the pot smaller, making the other players' mistakes larger.
I think this is a valid criticism. One thing Kenneth didn't mention about the hand is that Cooke states he had not played a hand in a very long time and his image was as rock-tight as it could get at the momement. He thought if he raised UTG everyone would fold.
When he limp-reraises, he does, as Kenneth argues tell everyone he has AA or KK. This sets up a situation where only those who like the flop will stay at that point so he wont even get paid off by top pair, good kicker.
I wish Cooke hung out here now and then instead of RGP.
Paul Talbot
A player limps with aces. He get someone with A% to call, a FTOP error. He gets raised - another one. He reraises and gets an 15 to cold call. This player has made a fortune, and just looking at this particular hand, he got something great to happen pre-flop, when he has the "nuts".
How is this bad play? Can he count on someone to bet for him on the flop - no - button raiser could have tons of hands. If the flop has an ace, he might get no action and miss out on 3 SBs pre-flop.
If he check-raises the flop, he only breaks even compared to 3 betting and betting out.
The "information giveaway" pre-flop is expensive, but, given the situation, still worth it.
Dan Z.
I agree.
I don't know how Cooke's play can be categorized as being bad given all of the FTOP errors he caused others to make.
I also disagree with Talbot's suggestion (if I am reading him right) that top pair on the flop wil fold because Cooke has given away his hand. The pot is way too big for a 5 outer to fold. Besides, if he does fold, that's not necessarily a bad thing for Cooke given the size of the pot.
I'm sure Roy raises with more than the hands you list UTG; he is not a rock, as you'd realize if you had read more of his articles.
..Cissy Bottoms, considered by many to be the best medium limit hold'em player in the world. FWIW.
RC played in the $30-60 game I posted about above. On his come-in post he raises after a Jxx flop, catches a 5 on the turn and knocks of QJo w/J5s and a 3-flush on the flop. QJ was first in and didn't raise pre-flop.
On the next hand, RC is first in, raises w/87s and flops a straight!
I am surprised aggressive woman did not raise the river. The chance that Cooke has a flush are extremely remote. There is no way he can put her on A5. He almost has to call the raise against an aggressive sneaky player. For an aggressive player, I am astounded that she did not raise him on the river with that hand.
It wasn't the aggressive woman on the button who had the A5, it was the middle position fish. The woman on the button folded the flop.
Cooke's whole situation appears to me to be that he is getting too much respect preflop...he should throw in a few pure bluffs from UTG ...the blinds he picks up should pay well, indeed. The advertisement value from when he gets called will entice players to chase him when he does get a good hand. I tend to play a litlle rockish, mand a bluff or two seems to cure the problem.
A very, VERY good Saturday night $30-60 game at Bellagio. All fold to a very loose aggressive player on the button who raises. SB, playing his 2nd hand, calls, I re-raise w/AA, both call.
Flop K-8-3 rainbow. SB bets, I raise, button calls, SB calls. Turn Q, check, I bet, button shows his hand to his neighbor then folds, SB goes "you have KQ, huh" then calls.
River offsuit 9. SB bets out with that forward leaning, kinda nervous/embarassed head duck/body twist that's the neon sign of a weak player who thinks he just sucked out. I call. SB has K-9o(I told ya'll my new nickname's gonna be "The Dogcatcher"... :) ).
Button asks to see my hand. Mason(to my left), sez to Michael W.(?) from the forums who's sweating him, something like, "..that's why you wait till the turn."
Comments?
I gather Mason feels you should have waited until the turn to pull the trigger rather than raising on the flop. In this way, you are likely to fold the bettor. It is true that a player will frequently bet and fold on the expensive street when popped.
The problem with waiting until the turn in this situation is that you have a third player in the hand who you need to push out. I like your play given two opponents. Given one opponent, the other play has more going for it.
I don't remember the hand. But based on your description you seem to have played it fine. You just got a little unlucky on the end.
I doubt that Mason made such a comment. I know Mason. He only makes silly comments about my play. The play you are referring to is correct in a loose game with a big pot. You need some fire power in those games to get the loiter out. A double bet on the turn is a good way of accomplishing field thinning (described in HPFAP 21st) in a loose game. Your play here was... correct. Of course, if I were you I would win the hand the next time. It sucks loosing twice in a row with Aces.
Vince
Vince,
Funny how these things work out. Last January, Bill M is playing 15-30 with (us mopes) you, me, and Natedogg. Now (put some WSOP winnings in his pocket) and he is in the 30-60 game with Mason, etc.
When am I going to read something good about you?
Abe
"Vince...When am I going to read something good about you?"
Perhaps, when the moon begins to crow at the rising sun.
vince
If you "wait until the turn" you're less likely to get sucked out on on the river. By raising on the turn, though, you're doing what you can to eliminate the 3rd player, who might suck out on the turn. To me, given two opponents, it's a 50-50 proposition.
It so happenened both players called your flop raise. So if a suck-out card came on the turn, that's the way it goes. Even had you just called the flop, there's no guarantee SB would have bet the turn. He might have checked anyway, given the two opponents behind him and the Q coming on the turn.
My philosophy has always been to pound, pound, pound with pocket Aces, but "waiting until the turn" certainly has its merits.
Anyway, you just got unlucky on the river. Just calling on the flop might just as well have led to you getting unlucky on the turn.
Anywhere in california or LV?
And then times and location, as from experience these are pretty rare to find,and normally higher limits than my br can handle..
Thanks
Hmmmmm, it sounds to me like the itch got the best of you? ;-) wb sir :)
Naw man, its just i wanna play this game, either tourney or live but i dont wanna fork out 25k+ and sit with the likes of Chan/Cloutier etc when i do.
And it's allover the place here, but from experience, even as a recreational player, dont burn the WHOLE bankroll on a car! Last 2 months have SUCKED =)
Gl man ... Cya
Hey, grab the ol lady and drag her to vegas one weekend! Free drinks, and a night of capping the rocks every street in a 1-5 stud would be fun!
The conversation has been had and that is not far off in the future! Goose is in as well! I hope you have as much fun in the 'bankrollmobile' as you did at the 20-40 game getting there!!!! LMAO
And don't forget.......Q3 OFFSUIT IS THE NUTS!!!!
I'm BB with AKo. Very unusual in this pretty tight game it was 7 players when it came to me . I check .. flop comes A-K-J rainbow. SB checks ....so do I planing to check-raise... but nobody bets. Turn Q no flushdraw possible. SB bets i fold !! Midposition player raises .. all fold including SB. Should i bet the flop ??
Tough one. There are 5 people to act behind you and you have top 2 pair. I would be inclined to check raise here as well. You want to limit the field a little. I don't think you played incorrectly... just a bad result...
Derrick
"I'm BB with AKo...7 players when it came to me...flop comes A-K-J rainbow...SB checks...so do I planning to check-raise...Should i bet the flop??"
The temptation here is to do what you did, which is to check from EP, hoping to get someone else in LP to bet your hand for you, so you can then hopefully thin the field by raising and making it too expensive for the lingerers.
But, let's face it---your only "real" threat in this hand are those players that hold naked queens or tens that are waiting in the wings, hoping for a free card, or hoping to slip in under the radar for a single bet, so they can suck out on you (even though, conceivably, a lone jack could pair the board to counterfeit you as well). Pretty much anyone else is going to fold to a single bet automatically because they missed the flop.
And, while you'd think that someone must bet a big flop like that for you, thereby making your check-raise a good play, I still think it's better to take the initiative from early position and bet out against a big field like that. By betting out, you set yourself up for a 3-bet when it gets back around to you (provided someone raises), and at a minimum you might drive a few players out with your single bet (though probably not your main threats, as described above).
And, another good thing about betting from EP is that you might get a few people to fold between you and a late position player who has a hand like A-Q or A-T. I don't think that an A-Q or A-T is likely to raise on that flop, even from late position, with so many people in the hand. By eliminating a few players in between, it becomes more enticing for people holding these hands to raise.
Overall, though, I think there's something about 3-bets that makes people think twice about playing a gutshot, and your mission is to drive those stray queens and tens out, or make them pay for their gutshot. In California, two-bets on the flop is often considered obligatory, and many "suck-out" type drawing hands will obligingly limp along with the action without a second thought. However, 3-bets is usually indicative that there's some serious business happening, and those borderline players hoping for a gutshot will usually behave and get out of the hand.
While trying for a check-raise isn't a bad play, and you would certainly expect someone to bet your hand for you on a big flop like that, nothing is for certain unless you put the first bet in there. By doing that, at least you're getting some money in the pot, and at the same time you're setting yourself up to "send a message."
Tough decision I think. You want to do whatever you can to eliminate the gut shot drawers. Are you most likely to accomplish this by betting or checking? With this flop, my guess would be that betting might be better, since early position limpers are more likely to have high cards than late position limpers, and thus you're more likely to get raised early when you bet, making it more likely the singleton Qs or Ts would fold because it was 2 bets to them.
Of course a singleton Q is likely to have an A, K, or J with it, so they might still take one off. But my general policy is when in doubt bet. You might get raised by A-J or K-J.
Now if only that damn third card was an offsuit 7 instead of a J. . .
What was your tilt factor at the time? If you were solid and able to take this hit without downstream effects, then it plays ok either way in an aggressive field. If you were on edge, betting can be superior solely as a tilt prevention move: regret will be lower.
I've been very impressed recently that every player I've faced for more than 10 or so hours in $15-30 to $40-80 (with 2 possible exceptions) has recognizably tilted at some point. They don't get crazy, just loose and in a hurry. For most of the stronger players, it's the most expensive flaw I see in their game, as it most definitely is in mine. Tilt prevention strategies become critical to success.
Here's one of mine: Sometimes I just can't resist the temptation of little pairs, even in early and inappropriate middle positions. When it gets that way, I will often muck without looking at the second card if the first is too low.
Anyone else use strategies like this? Please share 'em....
Last night in a 20-40 HE game played 11 handed, I am middle position and two players have called the flop. I have AA (both black) and I raise. I get a cold caller of two bets behind me, the small blind calls (A player who nearly always defends his blinds) and the big blind (Maniac of the table) reraises. Both early limpers call and I reraise. Everyone calls to the big blind who caps it. We take the flop 6 handed for $600 in the pot preflop.
The flop comes 6 7 10 all heart. Small blind bets out. Big blind raises. All fold to me. I three bet. Small blind reraises and big blind raises again. I fold. What I am wondering, was the reraise wrong on the flop. Should I have just folded.
Results were the small blind had QhJh and big blind had AhKh. I am not complaining about losing at all...I just wonder what others think of my preflop play and my raise/fold on the flop.
Thanks.
Preflop you played perfectly... it was capped wasn't it? On the flop 6 handed I would let go of the hand when it is bet and raised into me. There are too many opponents against you on such a coordinated board.
Derrick
The pot is big and a maniac has raised in front of me? I play it the same way as you, hoping to drive the SB off. The maniac could only have a heart draw (or if he's a true nut, a str8 draw). When they play back at me I fold.
The only way I play it differently is if the SB is a reliable bettor.
IMO, fold the flop rather than reraising. If you fold the best hand once in a while, whatever. Most of the time, when it's bet and raised to you, someone has at least one of the suit on board, which means you will be against at least a darn good draw, if not a made flush. I just don't think it's worth it to routinely go to the river in this situation.
Dave in Cali
An interesting little play by one of my opponents didnt work out so well for him last night. I was in the big blind with 3s6s. There were 5 callers and now raise. This includes the blinds. The flop was
2 4 Q two spades.
The big blind bets and I call with the bad flush draw and the gut shot. The turn was a 9. Everyone checks. The river was the Ts. Big blind checks. I check feeling that I will be happy to win the pot with this hand without putting anymore in the pot. Ends up that all check. Now I think I have a winner. The small blind then starts complaining saying, "I knew you had a flush draw...you were supposed to bet your flush draw. I have the nut flush." He takes down the pot but I get a nice laugh.
I think your check on the river was wrong. Why play the hand for a raise if you won't bet your hand when it is made. In this case you got lucky, but more often then not you will have the best hand, and you would get raised by weaker hands such as trip T's or a straight.
Derrick
I don't think you'll get raised by a worse hand much in that situation at all.
I don't think it will happen very often, but I do think it can happen. If someone makes a set or a straight on the river, they may raise.
Derrick
That guy outplayed you badly. He wins in all scenarios. Unless you hit the non-spade gutshot the pot is his because he is going to push you off any other hand. Also, if you both make the flush, he is likely to pick up an extra bet. Of course you didn't be the river because you had no clue where anyone was at and just played it safe. This is why the ability to read hands is the most important skill is cards.
IF he outplayed me, then why did he win the absolute minimum with a very big hand. Why didnt he bet the turn? Why didnt he make the bet on the river which I would have had to pay off? I certainly cant see how he "outplayed" me. Further, I must have had some sort of read if I didnt bet the flush. So why do you assume that I simply had no reading ability?
You are correct that he had a hand the completely dominated mine. Does that mean he outplayed me? In this case I think he was outplayed...at least by the definition of making the least possible with a big hand.
I played this yesterday in an 9-handed Paradise Poker 10-20 hold'em game.
Utg folds, and I am next. I call with AhTh. Two more players call and the big blind checks.
Flop is JJT rainbow.
I bet, next player raises, the other two fold, and I call.
Turn is an 7 making the board 4-suited. I bet with the intention of folding to a raise, my opponent calls.
River is a two. I check and call.
Did I play this hand correctly? Given the way I played through the flop, would it have made a difference if the turn card was a 6?
Thanks Steve
I think that you played the hand fine. Because the turn card is a 7 there is a chance (from your opponent's point of view) that you are betting a straight which means that he might not raise you if he has a jack. However, in my opinion, this doesn't change things enough for you to check and fold on the river in case he bets after you check. A more interesting question is if a blank hits on the river should you bet for value?
Steve,
If this was a tight game (as online games usually are) I might fold or perhaps raise (especially if the blinds give up more than most) with this hand in early position. So I hope the game was loose and passive for this limp.
I like betting out with this flop. You can have the jack with an early limp. When you are raised and the two other opponents drop, I think the call is good against a typical opponent, who might generally wait for the turn to raise with trips. If someone else had cold called the raise, I would be more likely to fold.
On the turn I once again like betting out as you did. Whether I would fold to a raise is player dependent, but against many players I would. When you were not raised you are either up against a weak jack or a weaker ten or a draw. If the turn was a six I would play the hand about the same, but perhaps be less likely to call a raise (since I have no redraws to a jack) but do have redraws to a straight if my opponent has a 98.
On the river I like the check and call. You give the draw a chance to bluff and save getting knocked off if you bet and are raised.
Regards,
Rick
I like the way you played this hand. A flop raise tends to deny trip jacks in a small, unraised pot like this. If your opponent had a jack, he would wait until the turn to pull the trigger. I like your turn bet because you can beat any weaker tens who will call you. If you get popped, you can fold. I think the likelihood of him having specifically nine-eight for a straight is too small to become overly concerned with. However, if he has something like king-queen, ten-eight, ten-nine, or queen-nine you do not want to give him a free card. A flop raise is frequently done by players on a come hand in an attempt to get a free card. I would probably have bet the river since he did not raise you on the turn and you figure to get calls from weaker tens. You might even get called by a smaller pair hoping you were on some kind of busted draw yourself.
I do not always play ATs in early position, but the game was softer than average in this particular case. Still, I know that one has to play this marginal hand well after the flop if is to be played at all.
I figured my opponent was more likely not to have a J rather than have one for reasons others have stated. My idea on the turn was to get information by betting. If I was raised, then I could fold, and I would have saved a bet over check-calling to the end. Also, it would prevent a free card from being given. Still, I was not confident that they way I played it gives too much action to my opponent when he does have J to be worth it.
What I did not think about at the time was that the 7 would have been a scary card to my opponent. So his calling would not have allowed me to rule out a J. In this case I did not rule out a J anyway, so I checked hoping to induce a bet from a weaker hand. I think this is better than betting for value. I figure that my opponent needs either a T or a J to go to a showdown if I bet into him. So I would have to have a clear fold if I was raised on the river if I wanted to bet it for value.
It worked out, my opponent had KT.
Thanks for the comments.
IMO you decide on the flop whether or not your going to the river. If I counted everything right your getting a little better than 2-1. One thing about this situation is that your opponent can back off on the river and you may not collect that last bet when you have him beat. I think it's also important to think about what hand your opponent put you on. Without going into a lot of detail, if your opponent would play a hand with a T or J in it this way I think it is about 50-50 for having either one. There are 2 unaccounted for J's and 2 unaccounted for 10's.
Without going into a lot of detail, if your opponent would play a hand with a T or J in it this way I think it is about 50-50 for having either one. There are 2 unaccounted for J's and 2 unaccounted for 10'sI hate to nitpick, but counting the cards in the deck does not mean he is equally like to have a T or J. It is certainly possible that there may be more hands involving a T that he would fold preflop than there are hands involving a J, meaning that he would be more likely to have a J.
Excellent point but what I said was if he would play a hand this way on the FLOP if he held a jack or ten. So let's look at it a little closer on the flop:
AJ = 4 ways AT = 4 ways
KJ = 6 ways KT = 6 ways
QJ = 6 ways QT = 6 ways
JJ = 1 way TT = 1 way
JT = 4 ways
J9s = 2 ways T9s = 2 ways
J8s?? = 2 ways T8s = 2 ways??
Looks pretty close to me might have missed something though. Are you thinking he would be more likely J7s than T7s? Possibly he would play Jxs where x is 7 or less when he wouldn't play Txs. Then I concede the Jack is more likely.
AJ = 6 ways AT = 6 ways
KJ = 8 ways KT = 8 ways
QJ = 8 ways QT = 8 ways
JJ = 1 ways TT = 1 way
JT = 4 ways
J9s = 2 ways T9s = 2 ways
J8s?? = 2 ways T8s = 2 ways
Hope I got it right this time but you get the idea.
"JJ = 1 ways TT = 1 way" Should read "JJ = 1 ways TT = 3 ways"
Full table. I'm 2 off button. Mid pos player (MP)raises all fold to me. I have red ppA I 3 bet it, rich fish (RF) who plays 99% of hands on button calls (he has won about $400 from me and about $700 more from other players so far sucking out runner runner with appalling rags), both blinds fold, MP caps it, we both call.
Flop Ac7sJd
MP bets, I raise, RF calls, MP calls
Turn 5s
MP checks, I bet, RF calls, MP calls
River 3d
MP checks, I bet, RF raises (wtf?), MP calls, I 3 bet it, RF caps it, MP contemplates and mucks, I call, RF shows 24c for runner runner str8. Sickening. He stacks his chips up neatly then leaves table to go to restroom. A minute later someone asks for deckchange so while thats going on I decide I'll take a quick restroom break too.
As I enter restroom I see Rich Fish kneeling down, with his back to me, tieing his shoelace.
(i) Someone has left an empty beer bottle near the faucet.
(ii) The janitor's mop is leaning against the wall. It has been recently used so the head is wet and quite heavy.
(iii) There is a large heavy metal trash can just inside the door.
What's my best move???
Does anyone know Johnny Cochran's phone number?
You don't need Johnny Cochran--just be sure you get a judge who is a poker player, that way he's sure to let you off with a small fine.
that's a good laugh. Anyway, how can you fault him, his duck-four was suited.
What I wonder, is why in these 'fairytale' stories, the fish always seem to hit the perfect cards (even two in a row). What would for instance this fish do, if he instead hit a deuce on the turn and another deuce or a four to go on the river? I particularly wonder what he'd do if he catched a runner-trip.
lars
I thought you never get these kind of WEAK opponents are never found at the upper limits. How oftern do these types usually end up in the bigger games? What you described is pretty bad even for a 3-6 game.
Knock him unconscious with the empty beer bottle, shove him upside down into the trash can and perform colonic irrigation with the mop.
Have fun.
None of the above.
Consider other options. a). Offer to buy him a drink. b). Compliment him on how well he plays the small cards, and how difficult it is to put him on a hand. c). Make small talk (kids?, job?)
Whatever you do, you've got to make him feel welcome and deserving of playing in your game. If you scare him off, you've done yourself and others a disservice.
"What's my best move???"
1) Stop calling a guy that kicked your ass a rich fish and accept him for what he is
2) Learn how to play poker
3) Stop whining
4) Bend down, kiss his ass and thank him for playing in your game.
5) All of the above.
Vince
P.S 5) is the best answer.
and 6) get a seat change so your sitting on his left.
good luck.
Phone all your friends and get them to come join the game..
Here’s a hand I played about thirty minutes ago in a Northern California cardroom. $20-40 hold’em, typical lineup of tightish players. UTG folds, next player (Chris) open-limps, I limp behind, a guy in middle-late position raises (Joe), button calls, BB calls, open-limper calls, I call.
Flop is 665 rainbow. Checked to me and I bet. Joe raises me. Folded to Chris, who cold calls, and I call.
Turn is a 4. Still rainbow. We check to Joe, who bets, and we both call. River is an ace. Checked to me and I bet.
What if the turn was a three or two? Or a nine? Or a broadway card?
sucker
PS let’s pretend Joe just entered the game
It sure looks like Joe has a big overpair. Your call on the turn should have been partially based on picking up four more outs with any seven to make a straight. I think you should check and fold if the river gets bet. Joe either has an overpair or his preflop raise and subsequent play was based on overcards which means the ace got him there. No poker player worth his salt is going to fold on the river with all that money in the pot when you bet and they hold KK,QQ,JJ, or TT. If he has AK or AQ he has an easy call. I think your river bet was a poor one with little chance of succeeding.
With the scenario as laid out by sucker, is a check-raise on the turn by sucker a viable move?
Keith C.
If you know the button will lay down a hand it's not a terrible play. But asssuming that Joe just entered the game and you don't know him, I think Jim's suggestion is the best way to play this hand.
I'm assuming you're not intending to call on the river if you check.
I don't think it's a profitable play in the long run. The problem is that you're trying to represent either(1) middle-limping with a six, betting the flop in front of the raiser and not checkraising the turn, even though your chance of another bet was highest then (he sees the cold caller on a paired flop); or (2) betting overcards into the preflop raiser and calling the turn with maybe just one overcard and now trying to get him to fold his pair, which is like saying "I thought you might have overcards on the turn but now I think the AJ (or worse) is good," which is not entirely inconsistent, but it should make him wonder. He needs just over 8% to call and my guess is that most $20-40 players wouldn't consider it an undue risk or an automatic save-bet.
What's worse, if you're right and he's weak enough to fold here, since he just sat down you're basically asking him to commit to not doing it anymore, at least with you. In fact, if I was Joe the first thing to pop into my mind are all the future hands I might like to get away from but won't be able to because I let a single bet blow me out of a decent pot. Note that this favors him calling even when you've convinced him.
I like check-raising the river better because it's easier to represent being a trap-happy jerk. I like betting the wheel card best of all because more hands are consistent with your play and it looks more like a save-bet. A nine or a boardway card? He'll shrug his shoulders and call.
I agree completely. I think I played everything fine up until the river.
My rationale behind the river bet was that I was going to call anyway, and this guy might just be dumb enough to make some sort of laydown. The size of the pot also makes my "wishful thinking" bluff not much incorrect, if at all.
But on the drive home, I realized that when he bet on the turn into both of us (one of whom cold called a raise) there is virtually no chance I can win without improving. And he also knows that the pot is so big he will have to see it to the end no matter what happens. So you guys are right; I should've just checked the river.
Chris, I must admit I never even considered checkraising the river, which is definitely not a bad idea considering the size of the pot. At the very least, it will scare the crap out of him. :D
Sincerely, sucker
Last night I came up against two A-A hands within half an hour. What I found interesting was that one player, I think, played it so much better as to earn several more bets. I'm interested in comments on how these 2 hands were played from the AA standpoint.
Hand #1- 2 players limp and a very liberal raiser raises his button. SB calls, I reraise with QQ, all call and the SB caps the betting. 5 handed. Flop comes J-rag-rag rainbow. SB leads, I raise 2 call and SB re-raises. I call and we're 4 handed.
Turn pairs one of the rags. SB bets, I fold and rest call. River is nothing and SB gets 2 callers and scoops a huge pot.
Hand #2- I'm in the BB with 77. UTG limps as do 3 others. SB folds and we're 5 handed. Flop is is 6-2-2. I bet, UTG raises and all fold to me. I call. Turn is a 10, I check and fold and he slams his aces down complaining that he can never get any action when he has a hand.
I realize that the other players' holdings make a big difference in the action but these two hands I think displayed two very different approaches to building a pot.
I think it's difficult to build a big pot with A's UTG. If you come out raising pre-flop, you narrow the field. If you go for the limp-then-raise pre-flop, you fail to generate much of a pot if none of your down-stream opponents make the initial raise for you.
On the other hand, the small blind often has the opportunity to build a bigger pot. Most limpers will not fold to a single raise from the small blind. Many limpers will get tied in to the pot pre-flop when there are multiple raisers. Personally, I'd much rather have A's on the button or blind than in early position, due to the likelihood of a juicier reward.
Winger,
Hand #1 - I like very much your fold on the turn.
Hand #2 - Did you know the UTG player to open-limp with his big hands, or perhaps you had some sort of read on him? because by the way he played it on the flop, it looks like he has a six and thus you have him beat.
I probably would not have been able to make that fold on the turn. In fact, I'd probably would've reraised the flop, bet the turn, (or call - checkraise the turn) and lost a lot more money than you would've.
(then again, he did limp UTG, so perhaps if I knew more about how he played, I would have played my sevens the same as you. But against unknowns I would definitely go to the end despite the small pot.)
Sincerely, sucker
AA on Hand 1 got a far better spot than AA on Hand 2. You had Queens in the BB? Actually, I think SB on Hand 1 should've three-betted pre-flop. The fact that you should come in three-betting with Queens in the BB is almost fairytale-luck. For the flop to come J high, and two rags to go, is also quite a good spot.
He deserved his big pot, if for nothing else, than for the extremely good spot he found his Aces to be in.
lars
I understand that the position and the types of hands out makes a difference in the size of the pot. The point of the post was what I consider a mistake in the play of the hand in the second case. And some good thinking by the SSB in the first.
If you're going to limp with aces, and you hit a flop where your either way behind or way ahead, I don't know why you would raise out all your action. Given the way UTG played the flop, he would have been much better just raising pre flop with his aces.
In the first hand the SB knew he could limit the field on the flop by check raising the button (who automatically bet when he raises pre flop). My play forced him to speed up the play and try to use me to limit the field.
When I initially read your post, I thought that the initial player with A's bet or raised on every occasion (an approach that would be difficult to criticize, though not very remarkable or particularly creative). As I re-read, I see that he first called pre-flop then raised (capped) when the opportunity arose. I agree that he did a good job at maximizing the pot size. I assume that you found his betting pattern sufficiently suspicious to feel comfortable mucking your Q's. Nice read.
From Page 167 in Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players (HPFAP)-New Edition we are told that if you have pocket kings or queens in the big blind and the under-the-gun player raises with six people calling that you should just call and not reraise. According to the authors, the idea is to bet when the flop comes, assuming there is no ace, and have the under the gun player raise thereby becoming "your unwitting partner in knocking people out". The idea is that when pots get large you do everything you can to win them even if it means sacrificing some preflop equity. Furthermore, your reraise only serves to make the pot larger which gives everyone the correct odds for chasing you and you are "giving your hand away".
Whether or not the under the gun player raises your flop bet depends upon his two card holding and how it fits the flop. For example, if the under the gun player was raising on pocket tens or jacks and an overcard flops he probably won't raise your flop bet especially with six people yet to act. If he was raising on two big cards like AK or AQ he won't raise your flop bet unless he flops top pair for the same reason. Much of the time your flop bet will not get raised since JJ,TT,AK,AQ, AJ suited, and KQ suited are the most common preflop raising hands for an under the gun raiser.
You almost certainly have the best hand at this point, especially when you have kings. By failing to reraise you miss collecting an extra seven small bets when you win the pot. So it is costing you quite a bit of current round equity to make a play that will frequently backfire. While making the pot larger is giving your opponents better odds to chase you, it also gives you better odds when you are chasing. Of course, this is not a reason for reraising but it is a fallout of your 3 betting here. With over twenty small bets already in the pot preflop, you are getting the correct odds to play a two outer when an ace flops or when someone else just happens to flop a better hand. With regard to "giving your hand away", in a jammed pot with lots of opponents it will almost always take the best hand to win anyway and deception in these situations is not worth much.
Failing to reraise with pocket queens is probably borderline. But with pocket kings, I would reraise every time.
This was taken from the loose games section and this section of the book is addressing "no fold'em hold'em games" found at the low limits ($6-$12 and below).
What does everyone else think?
And with the big suited cards he probably won't raise with a big draw on the flop.
I agree with you Jim. You're sacrificing, what, between one and two big bets before the flop on the triple parlay of the utg raiser raising, the raise knocking out a weak draw and the draw hitting if it had stayed? Without using a computer, how would you roughly calculate relative ev on something like this?
Further, how often does this situation come up in the first place? Quadrennially? I've played in a lot of loose games and I can't remember having a big pair in the blind against an utg raiser with half a dozen cold-callers between us.
I like the notion of trying to shut down the action early when the pot is big a lot more than I like this illustration.
With an utg raiser and six callers before you in the bb, I'd always 3-bet pocket pairs TT and above and often 3-bet 88 and above, although a year ago I wouldn't have agreed with this. I haven't thought about this much or run any sims because the situation is so rare, but here's why I think it's right: (1) the raise will certainly show a positive return against the field because you're so likely to have the best or second best hand; (2) the risk of an additional bet when you have to call anyway is small; (3) you're setting yourself up to maximize the value of a set or an overpair (how can an early player, especially an utg raiser, avoid shooting at the 24 bets in the pot if you check the flop, or perhaps the turn? How can they avoid raising your overpair with overcards?).
Part of this conclusion is also driven by the overwhelmingly unpersuasive arguments to the contrary. For one, the idea that pairs, much less big pairs, "go down in value" is not only incorrect but irrelevant if true. The issue isn't whether they're less valuable but whether still valuable. If so, raising is positive unless the greater pot size that results from your raise somehow makes your hand go negative or results in a lower ev than merely calling. So the idea that raising is only good if it drives players out is a fallacy, even though I'd prefer dead money to everyone calling.
The other argument is that you're giving your hand away. I think this is the better of the two, but I don't buy it because (1) the size of the pot largely negates the problem; (2) if you never raise here you're giving up too much; and (3) if you can make this raise with 88, they size of the pot will make them put you on 88. And although no one has argued for this, if you only raise here with AA you're really giving your hand away.
"For one, the idea that pairs, much less big pairs, "go down in value" is not only incorrect but irrelevant if true."
Huh? It's not only incorrect but irrelevant if true? If it's incorrect it's not true. If it's true it's certainly relevant. The relevancy comes not from the value of the big pair so much as the play of the hand although "value" is a good way of looking at it.
"The issue isn't whether they're less valuable but whether still valuable. If so, raising is positive unless the greater pot size that results from your raise somehow makes your hand go negative or results in a lower ev than merely calling."
Of course this is true. The issue is determining which play, calling or raising, yields the greater ev. This cannot be determined by considering pot size alone. Post flop playing factors that influence the outcome of the hand are the driving force underlying the ev of this situation. A small bet into a big pot has almost no thinning effect. It does increase the pot size but this is not usually a goal with just a big pair after a flop. The potential of thinning the field at some point must be considered when involved in a big pot. Not raising preflop with many callers offers the best opportunity for accomplishing this goal from a disadvantaged position such as the blinds.
Vince
If you had read all our stuff you would know that your idea of reraising with a pair of eights out of the blind after many players are in for two bets is not something that we would have any problems with. In fact, this raise would also be okay with even smaller pairs. The time to do this is when you hold a pair that almost always needs to flop at least a set to win and your raise will hook players into staying in with hands that they shouldn't and wouldn't if they knew that you would only bet in case you do flop a set. (This reraise with a small pair is probably better on the button since everyone may now check to you giving you a "four card" flop.)
However, when you hold a hand like two queens as opposed to a pair of fives for instance, a fair number of your wins will come when your hand does not improve on the flop. Thus if you can follow a strategy that increases this number of wins, it can have much value if the pot is large.
Nothing in my post implied you guys have problems with my reraising 88 in the bb; you're probably where I got the idea. (Although I think the better rationale is the two ways that 88 can be the best hand after the flop, instead of building the pot to tie them on, which is why I wouldn't do it with the smaller pairs).
I also get the theory behind limiting the pot size to increase your chance of winning it. With the bigger pairs, however, I don't see how an unquestionable loss of value necessarily translates into such a higher winning percentage or opponent mistake quotient that you can afford to give up the extra preflop bets. Perhaps if your argument could be (or has been) quantified some way I'd buy it.
"Perhaps if your argument could be (or has been) quantified some way I'd buy it."
This statement is indicative of some players belief that there is a pure mathematical approach to playing poker. There isn't. You, Mason, David, Mark Glover et al. cannot (never will) be able to quantify the best play in this situation unless you strictly define each and every players play each step of the way. Now what good would that do. The bottom line here is that the hand PLAYS better the way it is described in HPFAP.
vince
I'm not asking for what you describe, I just want to see if there's something else to this other than a theory and a reputation for getting things right. Besides, everything about poker comes boils to math (much to my regret).
"Besides, everything about poker comes boils to math (much to my regret)."
Not true. It may boil down to logic and reason but quantifying a "play" may, quite frankly, be impossible.
vince
"The bottom line here is that the hand PLAYS better the way it is described in HPFAP."
Vince--
If you are playing against a pre-flop raiser who will not raise with overcards when a) he is bet into, and b) he doesn't have position, then the above mentioned claim is shaky. And, since most players at the mid limits WILL NOT raise with AK or AQs when they miss and are out of position, Chris' concerns are legitimate.
For instance: There's a pre-flop raise, six callers (or whatever), and you call with QQ. The flop: J 7 5. You bet and the pre-flop raiser pops it. Now honestly-- and I'm asking you to draw from you volumes of HE experience-- just how often do you like your hand here? When the pre-flop raiser raises here you are usually ska-rewed. If he calls you 'know' what he has, but the fact remains that you're usually not going to get any help on narrowing the field unless you're beaten, so you might as well get more money in the middle with what is probably the best hand.
Mason, do you have an estimate to how much more often you're going to win if you don't 3 bet preflop?
Here's how I'm thinking of estimating this: Without the 3 bet, there are 12 SBs in the pot. If the UTG raise works, then they get about 6:1 odds. I'd have to estimate how many players have odds to call, and how many have mutually exclusive outs.
I'm just not sure this will be accurate. The 6:1 shouldn't be enough to call, since they all must fear a reraise, but that's offset by the chance that UTG won't do you the favor of raising on the flop.
I would 3 bet here with K's every time. I think the equity you lose before the flop is too much to give away. With Q's I would probably raise most of the time as well, but I can see the point in HPFAP for Q's.
What could you be reraising with from the BB? I would reraise with hands like below.
JTs, QJs, KJs (20% of the time) (12 hands)
AQs, AJs, ATs (40% of the time) (12 hands) definitely more often with AQs
QQ (75% of the time) (6 hands)
KK, AA (95% of the time) (12 hands)
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s 65s(5% of the time) (20 hands)
How often will the above decisions occur? About 5% of the time.
This means about 2/3 of the time if I reraise out of the BB I would have AA, KK, or QQ's. Is this giving away too much information? I don't think so. It is often an asset if you reraise with JT suited to be put on A's, K's, or Q's. This way when you hit you are almost guaranteed to be paid off, and when you miss you have some bluffing power (although very weak bluffing power with so many opponents).
I lean towards Jim on this one. I think you shouldn't slow play K's in a loose game. Q's maybe, K's no.
Derrick
Jim,
In a game like this I agree that you need to build the pot with your top two or three pairs along with AK and perhaps AQ suited. It is hard to imagine making up for the large loss in pre flop equity when you just call. And as you point out, there are few flops where you are likely to bet out and have the UTG player actually raise according to plan and drive out the right players.
The other problem with this example is that it just doesn't come up often. Even in loose games you rarely get six cold callers of an UTG raise. OTOH, you might see five or six limpers and a button raise. Now with TT, JJ and QQ you might want to just call out of the blinds and go for a checkraise (against the button pre flop raiser) on the flop. But even here I would make it three bets pre flop with KK, AA, AKs, AQs and AK.
I have one last point that applies to familiar opponents who observe your play fairly well. If you are going to raise out of the blinds with hands where you have a big edge, you need to raise with some hands that have little edge. For example, if seven players are in for two bets, why not raise with 88, 99 and JTs. Now you can check the flop when you miss your set or draw and get fancy or come out betting when you flop well.
Regards,
Rick.
Rick, I highly regard your input at these forums, and with you being a far more experienced and probably better player than me, I'd like you to shed some light on something you wrote in this previous post:
"OTOH, you might see five or six limpers and a button raise. Now with TT, JJ and QQ you might want to just call out of the blinds and go for a checkraise (against the button pre flop raiser) on the flop. But even here I would make it three bets pre flop with KK, AA, AKs, AQs and AK."
I think I'd do excactly the opposite! Well, that's maybe a bit of an over-statement, but I think I would:
Call with TT, because my bad position on the raiser doesn't validate a re-raise. Go for the check-raise on the flop with TT? That depends a lot on the flop and the action before it gets back to me.
Re-raise with JJ, QQ, KK and AK because I'm likely to be ahead on the button, very possibly even dominating him (there are lots of hands he'd raise into a lot of limpers with in button). Hoping for heads-up or three-way of course (six-way action wouldn't be bad either, then I could play my sets and overpair-to-the-board only).
Cold-call with AA, AKs and AQs for deception (AA) and for value AKs and AQs (which are worth more in family pots than heads-up against a middle/big pair or even worse, AK in AQs spot).
These are difficult decision, but that's what I'd do I think.
lars
"I have one last point that applies to familiar opponents who observe your play fairly well. If you are going to raise out of the blinds with hands where you have a big edge, you need to raise with some hands that have little edge."
I agree. In last week's HPFAP problem we discussed the wisdom of playing a hand like seven-six suited in early position. I mentioned that rather than limp in or raise with this hand from early position as a deceptive tactic, that you would be better off raising with it from your big blind after several players have limped in. You should be deceptive in situations where you are not giving up much and you were planning to play anyway.
Jim,
There is a theory that goes something like this:"Big pairs go down in value in a multiway pot" I am not fanatical about theories but if I feel they fit the situation I tend to follow them. The question here is how does K,K PLAY better given the situation described. I disagree with you about whether an UTG player will raise your bet on the flop with A,K or A,Q if all he has is 2 over cards. In loose games just the opposite is true. They will raise. O.K. let's say that they may raise. In fact in large pots they may raise with one over card to their pair if they feel they can get a free card on the turn. Not a great play, in fact a mistake, but that is the point. You must give your opponents an opportunity to make a mistake. That is part of playing poker. I play this hand with that in mind. I do not find fault with raising preflop but I would rather play in this situation by calling preflop and then playing the flop and turn using whatever information I may gain to increase my chances of winning a big pot. Another point is that if you raise preflop all of your opponents will now play correctly by calling your raise and you may just find yourself in a capped pot with everyone calling correctly.
vince
Jim I played with you a couple of times at Bellagio and I know that writing like you and some of the others do really can open yourself up to shots and second guessing.I respect very much what you do.That being said I find myself disagreeing with some of the points here.First a reraise is valuable here if you can drive opponants in the middle out,if not you announced your hand and killed a couple of stratedgy moves.Now even a knucklehead will ck pop you on the turn or raise you from behind and will have a great read .Part of edge comes from bad players laying down hands that they should call with in big pots.Its the live ones your tipping off.The'll know where there at.Thats not a good thing ina big pot.The sharp players may actually be able to blow you off your hand.What if an ace hits and you still have the best hand?If Im in the hand whether or not I have an ace ill make sure that if you check youll have to call 2 cold if there is a late bet.And yes this play affects future action negatively sometimes as once I played against you and had a similar situation occur where I had QQ's under the gun and raised got called in some spots you reraised in the blind.To make a long story short instead of going to war with you on the turn and calling the river I mucked a set of QQ's(flop was AKQ)on the turn without calling a bet and only smooth called the flop.I normally dont play that good but I had all the info I needed.Ill reraise with those hands sometimes BUT I also make the same play with small pockets pairs too and my opponents know this.
I think Kings can be played either way and Queens really should not reraise most of the time. Personally I would generally tend to play Kings as HPFAP#2 advocates although it may depend on just how terrible cards these guys are willing to play. The worse rags they (and the UTG raiser) constantly show down the more inclined I would be to reraise with Kings). Where is this game, anyway???
There is a factor which weighs on the side of the HPFAP approach, besides all the other reasons. It is simply that you sometimes will have the lower pocket pair. Ok, you say not that often, but when you do it will likely get capped if you reraise--definitely what you don't want in that situation. This factor does weigh on the side of the HPFAP approach. If you have queens there is about a 50% chance of an overcard hitting the flop if your opponent does not already have you beaten.
Also, the deception may be worth more than it seems inititially depending on what transpires during the course of the hand.
The queens and kings in the hole are like a big shiny red apple. Of course the best thing to do when you have a big shiny red apple is to put it on your head, stand on a tree stump and give seven inexpert marksmen seven bows and arrows. Say loudly, "Fire away gents." But you only do this for those seven small gold pieces (well sort of) you get before the flop. So lets say one of the marksmen misses the apple and hits out your eye? Oh well. At least you had the seven small gold pieces in your pocket for a while. It is better to have loved and lost...
No big deal, get a pirate patch, and away you go. Give no heed to the play after the flop, get all your money in before the flop, like those brilliant no limit tourney players and you will never go wrong. This is like that theory of not raising middle pairs (like QQ, JJ) after several limpers. Hogwash. Raise, raise, raise!
Forget math, theory, and all the rest and more important read RGP daily.
And good luck!
Ms. Information. ;)
with five cards to come, you kings are only the favorite right now. there are many flops, especially with six players, that will make your kings very foldable.
question: with seven players staying through the end, how often will KK hold up and win??? use two scenarios: one w/ six other random hands, one w/say, only hands from category 1-6.
tootight
KK wins about 38% of the time against 6 opponents with random cards staying until the end. Against "real" hands, probably no worse than 25% and typically higher due to some folding and the presence of doubly dominated hands holding each other's outs -- like KJ, AQ and QJ, the last making for a bigger pot with nearly zero additional risk to the kings. I doubt that there's any combination of cards that kings can face (excluding AA and the other KK, but maybe even with them) that can bring the win rate down to 1/7.
This gives the kings a rate of return of at least 80% (100% if KK won only 25% and made the same number of bets every hand). The few TTH sims I've done with KK played aggressively in late position against 6 loose opponents also show them profiting by about 7 sb, or by not much less than what they'll risk on average.
So perhaps by not 3-betting with KK preflop you're losing closer to a small bet than the 1-2 big bets I suggested above. That's still pretty big hit for one hand.
Jim,
As in a number of holdem decisions, not all are clear cut. Sure, you could run simulations and determine one choice is say 53% more successful than the other. However, that does not take into account the other game factors such as your table image, players involved, recent action et al.
I will usually three bet(70%-80%) but sometimes call(20%-30%). Both can be successful plays.
One point not brought out is that by just calling the raise, with six other opponents, you can decide to shut down easier if an "A" flops or say three to a suit not in your hand.
When we are the raiser, we usually take initiative and lead bet or raise on the flop. So, what happens when we see a flop like: A,J,7?
Do you check or lead bet? Many of us will feel more committed to bet out if we were the one to make it three bets. Yes, no?
Bob
Bob
Jim,
I agree with with your post here. I have a general rule and that is when I believe I have the best hand before the flop that I will always try maximize my value for it by raising and re-raising regardless of the number of players already in. Like, you said my failure to do so would result in collecting six or seven smaller bets pre-flop. It's really a simple mathematical calculation. If I believe I am beat on the flop, then at most it will cost me is one extra small bet. But should I be the best come the flop and throughout the hand, then by not raising I will have cost myself. Not good is it?
The nature of a multiway action hand does not deserve warrant for slow playing a big pocket pair. Get the most of money in when you are the favorite. Otherwise why play at all?
Furthermore, I can gain more information from UTG by re-raising pre-flop to see where he/she stands? By only smooth calling I don't know whether or not they only have AK or AQ? Should they miss the flop, they won't be likely to raise? Should they raise if I have QQ on the flop, then a decision needs to made on whether or not I am trailing. (Perhaps UTG has KK or AA?)
Lawrence Ng