Medium Stakes Hold'em
August 2001 Digest

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..

• Re: BillM at final WSOP Table.
  Posted by: Twoomey
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 5:03 a.m.

  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!

  • Re: BillM at final WSOP Table.
    Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:34 a.m.

    "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 -

• Re: A question about the RAKE
  Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 7:59 p.m.

  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

• Results...
  Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 11:46 a.m.

  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.

• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#1
  Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 11:29 a.m.

  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.

• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#1
  Posted by: Twoomey
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 4:55 a.m.

  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 !

• Re: Poker in Montreal ?
  Posted by: steve (steven_saab@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:31 p.m.

  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!

• Re: A question about the RAKE
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 2:50 p.m.

  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.

• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#1
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:56 a.m.

  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

  • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#1
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 8:03 p.m.

    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.

• Re: Well Known Players...
  Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:06 a.m.

  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.

• Re: Preflop question
  Posted by: Skidmark (macpherd@inreach.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:12 p.m.

  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.

  • Oops! Didn't see the raise (n/t)
    Posted by: Skidmark (macpherd@inreach.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 4:56 p.m.

    It's really bad form to respond to yourself...
• Re: Preflop question
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 12:39 p.m.

  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

  • Re: Preflop question
    Posted by: Ikke
    Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 3:21 p.m.

    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.

    • Re: Preflop question
      Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 4:37 a.m.

      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

• Re: Preflop question about Shorthanded games
  Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 8:11 p.m.

  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.

• question
  Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 7:16 p.m.

  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
• Re: 15-30 hand
  Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 9:49 p.m.

  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.

  • Re: 15-30 hand
    Posted by: Dugie
    Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 1:08 a.m.

    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.
• Re: 15-30 hand
  Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 12:10 p.m.

  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

• Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
  Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 9:38 p.m.

  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

  • Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
    Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 9:50 p.m.

    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.

    • Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
      Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 9:59 p.m.

      7-1
• Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 2:20 a.m.

  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.

  • Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
    Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
    Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 4:57 p.m.

    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.

    • Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 2:48 a.m.

      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.
• Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
  Posted by: Winning Player
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 2:21 a.m.

  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!
• Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
  Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 9:41 a.m.

  Your friend is wrong.

  Vince
• Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
  Posted by: Steve Fiete (sfiete@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 10:18 a.m.

  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
• Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
  Posted by: alraiseya
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 7:59 p.m.

  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.
• Re: 20-40 correct checkraise?
  Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:13 p.m.

  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?

• Re: 10-20 KK hand
  Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 5:45 p.m.

  looks like SM has QQ.

  brad
• Re: 10-20 KK hand
  Posted by: Roadgambler
  Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 5:46 p.m.

  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?

  • Re: 10-20 KK hand
    Posted by: tootight
    Posted on: Wednesday, 2 May 2001, at 7:20 p.m.

    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.
• Re: 10-20 KK hand
  Posted by: Skidmark (macpherd@inreach.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:05 p.m.

  "What should I do?"

  Do you have the king of clubs?

  • Result and comments
    Posted by: DaveMcG
    Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 2:00 p.m.

    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.

    • Re: Result and comments
      Posted by: Roadgambler
      Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:17 p.m.

      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.

• fold (nm)
  Posted by: Stuart
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 12:37 a.m.

  x
• Re: opening situation
  Posted by: Lars Eidissen
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 1:30 p.m.

  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 agree with Mr. Cooke
  Posted by: ClovisPkr (newey_melrose@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:04 p.m.

  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.
• Re: Cooke Cardplayer Article-IMHO He Played it Wro
  Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:45 p.m.

  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.

  • Re: Cooke Cardplayer Article-IMHO He Played it Wro
    Posted by: Kenneth Ng (kenneth.ng@csun.edu)
    Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 4:51 p.m.

    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.

    • Re: Cooke Cardplayer Article-IMHO He Played it Wro
      Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:25 p.m.

      "...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.
• Re: Cooke Cardplayer Article-IMHO He Played it Wro
  Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 3:55 p.m.

  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
• FTOP error?
  Posted by: Dan Z.
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 4:03 p.m.

  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.

  • Re: FTOP error?
    Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
    Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.

    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.
• Re: Cooke Cardplayer Article-IMHO He Played it Wro
  Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 7:07 p.m.

  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.
• "Woman" is....
  Posted by: BillM
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 9:04 p.m.

  ..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!
• Limper's River Play
  Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 10:23 p.m.

  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.

  • think you misread..
    Posted by: RobertH
    Posted on: Thursday, 3 May 2001, at 11:54 p.m.

    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.
• Re: Maybe you both missed the point
  Posted by: Yankee Jim (james1p@springmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 11:42 a.m.

  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?

• Re: $30-60 Hand & Mason's Kibbitz Of Same
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 2:36 a.m.

  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.
• Re: $30-60 Hand & Mason's Kibbitz Of Same
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 5:04 a.m.

  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.
• Re: $30-60 Hand & Mason's Kibbitz Of Same
  Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 9:56 a.m.

  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

  • Re: $30-60 Hand & Mason's Kibbitz Of Same
    Posted by: Abe (abespringfield@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 6:32 p.m.

    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

    • Re: $30-60 Hand & Mason's Kibbitz Of Same
      Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 10:56 p.m.

      "Vince...When am I going to read something good about you?"

      Perhaps, when the moon begins to crow at the rising sun.

      vince
• Re: $30-60 Hand & Mason's Kibbitz Of Same
  Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 2:42 p.m.

  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

• Re: Is There a Medium Limit Horse Game?
  Posted by: Sasquatch
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 11:57 a.m.

  Hmmmmm, it sounds to me like the itch got the best of you? ;-) wb sir :)

  • Re: Is There a Medium Limit Horse Game?
    Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 12:38 p.m.

    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!

    • Re: Is There a Medium Limit Horse Game?
      Posted by: Sasquatch
      Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:48 p.m.

      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
    • Re: Is There a Medium Limit Horse Game?
      Posted by: Sasquatch
      Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:50 p.m.

      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 ??

• Re: 30-60 hand
  Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 10:24 a.m.

  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
• Re: 30-60 hand
  Posted by: Skidmark (macpherd@inreach.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 1:54 p.m.

  "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."
• Re: 30-60 hand
  Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 2:28 p.m.

  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. . .
• Re: 30-60 hand
  Posted by: Matt (mflynn3@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:12 p.m.

  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.

• Re: Black Aces
  Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 10:21 a.m.

  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
• Re: Black Aces
  Posted by: Winger
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:43 p.m.

  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.
• Re: Black Aces
  Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:52 p.m.

  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.

• Re: Small Blind 3-6 suited
  Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 11:57 a.m.

  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

  • Re: Small Blind 3-6 suited
    Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 2:06 p.m.

    I don't think you'll get raised by a worse hand much in that situation at all.

    • Re: Small Blind 3-6 suited
      Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 2:32 p.m.

      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

      • Re: Small Blind 3-6 suited
        Posted by: JV
        Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:44 p.m.

        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.

        • Re: Small Blind 3-6 suited
          Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
          Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 12:08 a.m.

          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

• Re: A hand to comment on
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 3:46 p.m.

  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?
• Re: A hand to comment on
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 4:51 p.m.

  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
• Re: A hand to comment on
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 6:00 p.m.

  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.
• Re: A hand to comment on
  Posted by: Steve Fiete (sfiete@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 4 May 2001, at 9:20 p.m.

  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.

  • Re: A hand to comment on
    Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
    Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 6:01 a.m.

    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.

    • Re: A hand to comment on
      Posted by: Bobby (impollon@fas.harvard.edu)
      Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 1:36 a.m.

      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

      I 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.
      • Re: A hand to comment on
        Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
        Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 5:51 a.m.

        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.

        • Whoops - Bad Counting on My Part
          Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 5:54 a.m.

          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.

          • Whoops- still counting bad
            Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
            Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 9:19 a.m.

            "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???

• Oh I forgot to ask...
  Posted by: Roadgambler
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 1:06 a.m.

  Does anyone know Johnny Cochran's phone number?

  • Re: Oh I forgot to ask...
    Posted by: George (gstephens@anthill.com)
    Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 3:54 p.m.

    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.
• Re: $20-40 hand with a FISH - whats my best move?
  Posted by: JV
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 3:48 a.m.

  that's a good laugh. Anyway, how can you fault him, his duck-four was suited.
• Re: $20-40 hand with a FISH - whats my best move?
  Posted by: Lars Vegas
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 6:56 a.m.

  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
• Am I wrong?
  Posted by: ClovisPkr (newey_melrose@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 11:47 a.m.

  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.
• Re: $20-40 hand with a FISH - whats my best move?
  Posted by: texaz
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 8:01 p.m.

  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.
• Re: $20-40 hand with a FISH - whats my best move?
  Posted by: Dave L
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 9:08 p.m.

  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.
• Re: $20-40 hand with a FISH - whats my best move?
  Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 11:03 p.m.

  "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.

  • Re: $20-40 hand with a FISH - whats my best move?
    Posted by: bob t (rjruler@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 5:08 a.m.

    and 6) get a seat change so your sitting on his left.

    good luck.
  • step 6
    Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:17 p.m.

    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

• Re: 88 in early position
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 6:05 p.m.

  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.

  • Re: Check-Raise on Turn???
    Posted by: Keith C.
    Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 8:49 p.m.

    With the scenario as laid out by sucker, is a check-raise on the turn by sucker a viable move?

    Keith C.

    • Re: Check-Raise on Turn???
      Posted by: Winger
      Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 9:38 p.m.

      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.
• Re: 88 in early position
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 8:51 p.m.

  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.
• Re: 88 in early position
  Posted by: sucker
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 1:17 a.m.

  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.

• Re: AA twice- Making Bets
  Posted by: Dave L
  Posted on: Saturday, 5 May 2001, at 9:45 p.m.

  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.
• Re: AA twice- Making Bets
  Posted by: sucker
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 1:28 a.m.

  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
• Re: AA twice- Making Bets
  Posted by: Lars Vegas
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 8:27 a.m.

  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

  • Re: AA twice- Making Bets
    Posted by: Winger
    Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 6:29 p.m.

    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.

    • Re: AA twice- Making Bets
      Posted by: Dave L
      Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 9:31 p.m.

      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?

• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 5:41 a.m.

  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.

  • A better play; the "down in value" myth
    Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
    Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 12:57 p.m.

    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.

    • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
      Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 3:53 p.m.

      "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
    • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
      Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 1:17 a.m.

      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.

      • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
        Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
        Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:42 a.m.

        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.

        • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
          Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
          Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 9:19 a.m.

          "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

          • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
            Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
            Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 4:18 p.m.

            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).

            • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
              Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
              Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 5:59 p.m.

              "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
          • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
            Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
            Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 9:15 p.m.

            "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.
      • Re: A better play; the "down in value" m
        Posted by: Muffin
        Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 7:39 p.m.

        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.
  • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
    Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 4:10 p.m.

    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
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 7:58 a.m.

  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.

  • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
    Posted by: Lars Vegas
    Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 8:47 a.m.

    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
  • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 12:39 p.m.

    "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.
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
  Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:07 a.m.

  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
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
  Posted by: Paul3 (prev333@aol.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:45 a.m.

  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.
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
  Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 6:31 p.m.

  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.
• how 'bout them apples
  Posted by: Ms. Information
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 6:41 p.m.

  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. ;)
• poker is a seven card game
  Posted by: tootight
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:02 p.m.

  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

  • Re: poker is a seven card game
    Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:08 a.m.

    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.
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
  Posted by: ACBob (rd1lewis@pacbell.net)
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:43 p.m.

  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
• Dem Queens and Kings...
  Posted by: Lawrence Ng (lng33@home.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 6 May 2001, at 11:59 p.m.

  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
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 12:49 a.m.

  In the case of kings, the long run expectation might be as good by reraising as compared to the way that we suggest you play it. Certainly, however, you will win a much higher percentage of hands playing it our way.

  In the case of queens our way is almost certainly better as long as the player to your left is an aggresssive raiser.

  If you are playing in a so called low limit no fold'em hold 'em which the loose game section of our book does NOT target, then it makes more sense to reraise since you are so likely to be against players with just any two cards. But in bigger games which are fairly loose your opponents still require hands that make some sense. Thus you are giving up less before the flop by not reraising in this type of game than in the former.

  Finally this play is often recommended when the game is not loose at all but there so happens to be many players taking the flop.

  • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
    Posted by: Jeremy Pfeifer (jpfeif@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 1:25 a.m.

    Isn't it true that large pairs lose value against more callers. If you allow opponets to call with 9-10, 10-J suited you are giving away more money as they have a shot at outdrawing you. It seems that killing these draws preflop is the most profitable long run play. Also, if overcards flop, UTG is likely to call/fold to your bet, allowing chasers to call on the cheap street. Forgive me if I am reiterating points but I like to post prior to reading others posts...

    • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
      Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 1:34 a.m.

      You are in the blind, those hands that you are objecting to are already in if they are out there.

      • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#2
        Posted by: Jeremy Pfeifer (jpfeif@hotmail.com)
        Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 1:59 a.m.

        If there are six callers those hands are definitely out there. If you make it three bets from the blind you may get MP marginals to fold, if UTG makes it four bets, you definitely get folds. If the game is loose then those six players will call anyway so why not reraise to gain the extra bets on a hand that is the preflop favorite?
  • Loose Games Section-Not for Low limit??
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:16 a.m.

    "If you are playing in so called low limit no fold'em hold'em which the loose game section of our book does NOT target,.."

    I thought the loose games section was added to HPFAP to specifically address the loose, no fold'em hold'em low limit games. From Page 3 of the Introduction to HPFAP it is stated:

    "Many of you have complained while Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players was the advanced text, it did not explain in enough detail how to play in loose,low limit games. This has now been thoroughly addressed and those of you who are familiar with the so called low limit texts will see that our approach is very different and much more profitable."

    And in reading Page 152, which is the introduction to the Loose Games Section, it states very specifically that the games being addressed in this section are: "These games, usually at the lower limits, are referred to as no fold'em hold'em."

    I believe the overwhelming majority of your readership believes that the loose games section of the book is addressing no fold'em hold'em.

    • Re: Loose Games Section-Not for Low limit??
      Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:41 a.m.

      We are addressing games in which players play too many hands and go too far with their hands. These games can occur at all limits. However, at the middle and higher limits, many of these loose players do have some playing skills and don't automatically play the worse hands. There is a difference between this and what many people describe as the very loose low limit games where players just automatically call and have little playing skill.

      In games like this (where players just automatically call and have little playing skill) you give up more before the flop with some of these (non-raising) plays than you would normally where there is is some hand selection, etc.

Let's say that you have AK offsuit in middle or late before the flop and raise, but you miss the flop. The flop comes rags (no two suited, maybe a straight draw.)

An early limper bets out and everyone else folds to you who is last to act. Should you raise/fold/call?

Does it make a difference whether the game is loose or tight?

Thanks

Lawrence Ng

• Re: When to raise on the flop when you miss with A
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:47 a.m.

  I need more information. How many players were in originally? How big is the pot? What are your specific cards and what are the specific cards on the flop? How big a field did the early limper lead into on the flop?

  In general I would call in a heads-up situation with my two big overcards which represent six outs. Do you have a gutshot straight draw as well? Any backdoor draws? A six outer is a 7-to-1 shot and the pot odds will normally be there to take off a card for one small bet in a raised pot.
• Re: When to raise on the flop when you miss with A
  Posted by: ChrisVWH (cvinall@smug.adelaide.edu.au)
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 7:15 a.m.

  In the games I play in (Paradise 1/2 - passive and fairly loose) I tend to raise in this situation and then check behind them on the turn. I'll fold to a bet on the river if I haven't made a hand since they're always too scared to bluff by then. If the game you're in is aggressive rather than passive, raising might not be a good idea since you are quite likely to be threebet.

  Chris
• Re: When to raise on the flop when you miss with A
  Posted by: Scott Wyler
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 4:07 p.m.

  I think in general, the best play is to call and then fold on the turn unless you pick up more outs, unless the bettor is nutty. I had several of these last night and tried different approaches. It is likely that someone caught a piece of the flop if you didn't, even if you are just up against the blinds, and don't forget small pocket pairs. Another factor is the texture of the flop. 9-10-x with two hearts, for example -- many players will bet with QJ or a flush draw. You might want to raise here because he could be drawing, you have back door outs (helps if you have a heart) and you can get a cheaper look at the turn.
• Re: When to raise on the flop when you miss with A
  Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 5:39 p.m.

  These are all the things you need to consider before making such a play. In general, I tend to raise IF the pot is <= four handed, I am last or next-to-last, and the flop is not very coordinated.

  Things to consider, in no particular order:

  The bettor. This is the most important factor. Who is betting into you and what do you know about him? This is THE most important factor. Should I repeat that one more time? :)

  The flop. If the flop is 89T two tone, fold. If the flop is 889, fold. If the flop is QQ9, fold. If the flop is 277 or J45, then you can think about playing.

  Your position. Very important. If you have two preflop cold-callers behind you should lean towards folding.

  Your image. Do they KNOW you will push AK on the flop? Do they think you are tight and unimaginative? Do they even know you? This is very important.

  The mood of the table. Aggressive or passive? Loose or tight? Gambling mood or serious quiet poker mood? Proceed accordingly.

  Number of players in the pot. My general rule of thumb is if there are 5 or more players contesting the pot, I won't take much heat on the flop when I miss with AK. I think that staying in for the size of the pot is a bit of a fallacy. Often, one or both of your overcards will improve somebody else's hand (when it's 5+ handed).

  The size of the pot DOES matter when for instance you are three-handed and it was capped. You are obviously facing a big pair and if you miss the flop, you can take one off to catch your A or K and beat JJ or QQ. Sometimes you run into KK or AA when you catch that king, but generally you will be ok.

  Damn this game is complex.

  natedogg
• Re: When to raise on the flop when you miss with A
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:49 p.m.

  In a tight game I would raise in the hopes of getting a free card. If reraised I would fold. ON the turn I would call if I picked up outs or if the odds are favorable and I think my pair will be good if I hit it. Of course there are many other variables, i.e whether the limper would checkraise with a good hand etc. It is a tough situation, and calling might be the best play if you think you cannot get a free card and the odds are favorable.

  pat

Hi to all

This is a hand I played a few days ago at the concord club in vienna. Limit was 150-300 (which is about $10-20)

The game was 7-handed, and as usual, pretty loose. I was in the BB with JJ, 3 players called, including the SB. I decided to check and see what happens.

Flop comes Q-J-3 rainbow. Nice flop for my hand. SB checks, I decide to checkraise since it was very likely that some of the remaining palyers would have a Q, a J, or and open end straight draw and bet this hand. Of course both players checked behind me. The plan didn´t work out right.

Turn: A. 4th suit. SB checked again. I thought about my opponents again. Both of them belonged to the players who play any A and bet them when they hit, as long as they aren´t raised. Being sure, that nobody has the straight, since they would have bet the draw, I try to be tricky again. You know, I missed the bets on the flop, so I gotta make up for this mistake. How to do it? Check raising, of course. One of them had to have something now. I checked, both players checked behind me. At this time, my face probably went red and steam came out of my ears.

River: You guess it: K. Board now shows: Q-J-4-A-K. We all checked around to the button, who bet. We all mucked.

I really had to lough at me, when I saw the river. I think, it was only fair, since I played so stupid. (I think the big mistake was on the turn). Anyway, I never lost this little with trips. The funny thing is: Even If I had 72o, the pot would have cost me the same.

Regards

M.A.

• Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 6:05 a.m.

  M.A.,

  Of course I'd tend to bet out or checkraise on the flop and if not then I would bet the turn. But that is off topic for this post :-).

  Given you didn't bet earlier I believe you should have called on the river. Think about it. Why wouldn't the button bet a ten on the turn after being checked to twice with only three opponents? This is especially likely since his most hands containing a ten that didn't pair the board (which he would surely have bet earlier) are T9 and T8, which can make a straight even if called on the flop or turn. If I were the button with these hands, I would be very likely to take a stab at the pot by the turn. You also have to figure that no other player has a ten, as it is a certainty that they would have bet the river fearing they would lose a call if they didn't. Nor could any opponent have a better hand without the ten.

  So after the button bet the river, there are three big bets in the pot and you won't be checkraised one time in a hundred. Call and I bet you win at least half the time, even at the expense of being the object of a few laughs when you show your hand.

  Regards,

  Rick
• Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 2:48 p.m.

  Your fold at the river having a set was the most serious error. A pot that is checked around twice, screams for a bluff bet on the end especially from the guy last to act.

  • Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
    Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
    Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:03 p.m.

    Jim,

    I don't know if you read my post (I usually avoid looking at other responses before I reply in order to keep my opinion unbiased) but I said it was better than even money to be ahead on the river call. The more I think about it the river call is a big favorite to take down the pot.

    I think in this case fear of looking silly got in the way of what was best in terms of expectation.

    Regards,

    Rick

    • Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
      Posted by: M. A. (martin.aigner@aon.at)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 1:56 a.m.

      Rick and Jim,

      actually I didn´t even think about calling the bet. No matter what game it was.

      But as I stated before, the game was in vienna, where 95% of the players wouldn´t bet on the river without the straight. Not with a bluff, not for value with trips or 2 pair. On the flop and turn, it´s something different. But definitly not on the river for such a small pot.

      But in the USA that´s something completly different. And I would have mucked there too. So thank you for your advice. I´ll remember it the next time, I´m there.

      Regards

      M.A.

      • Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 2:53 a.m.

        M.A. in America we do the courteous thing. When no one shows any interest in a pot rather than delay the game or let the money rot in the center of the table, we simply bet thereby allowing everyone the opportunity to fold so that we can get on with the next hand.
      • Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
        Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
        Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 9:08 p.m.

        Obviously M.A. is such a great player that he doesn't need advice or analysis from the like of Jim or Rick. You guys should mind your own business.

        • Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
          Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
          Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 11:53 p.m.

          No no, 3 Bet Brett, he's a great player. Seriously. Look how well he read the opponents in this hand. He didn't bet the first time because he felt sure that someone had the last jack, a queen, or a pair of their own. He didn't bet the second time because he felt sure that not only did they have the jack, the queen, and a pair of their own, they also had an ace. He didn't bet the last time because not only did they have the Q, the J, a pair of their own, and an ace, but they also had the 10.

          Why else would they bet on the end? M.A. read them perfectly.
    • Great Minds-Parallel Paths (n/t)
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 3:21 a.m.

      (n/t)

      • Re: Great Minds-Parallel Paths (n/t)
        Posted by: M. A. (martin.aigner@aon.at)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:55 a.m.

        Rick and Jim,

        I apollogize, if it sounded, that i wasn´t graceful for the advice. My mother tounge is german, not english, so it might be, that it sounded a wrong way. I really appreciate the advice from both of you, Rick and Jim. Still I´m sure that in this game, with this particullar players a call aould have -EV. But in most other games, you are definitely right. And I hope, that I learned this from your posts, since I would have made the mistake of not calling probably in 90% of all games.

        You wouldn´t believe the difference between Poker in the USA and Austria at these limits. Probably everyone here posting on this forum would run over these games. Just aks the players, who have played in vienna (not in the tourney weeks, of course).

        Anyway, 3-Bett-Brad and Dan Osman: I never stated, that I was a great player. I don´t even think I´m a good player. My play is good enough to win in vienna and break even in Vegas at the 4-8 games. I know that I don´t have any chance to beat a 20-40 game at the mirage. But so what? Don´t I have a right to post here not being able to beat the best? And if my post above did sound like a critic to Jim and Rick, please always keep in mind that some of us not only play a worse game than you do, we even speak a worse english! But unfortunatly I can´t find any Poker forum in german or french.

        Regards

        M.A.
• Re: Did you ever play trips like this? A funny han
  Posted by: Lawrence Ng (lng33@home.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 1:47 a.m.

  This is why it is a good general rule to always play sets fast and furious. I tend to make a habit of always betting and re-raising when I flop a set.

  Also, why didn't you call the river? Given the last player is to act, he's going to bluff if he has position. I know I would. Pay him off!

  Lawrence Ng

The flop will come:

Two suited 55 percent of the time. Three suited 5 percent of the time. Two connected cards 34 percent of the time. Paired 17 percent of the time.

As the highest card in the flop decreases:

Pairs go up in frequency. Connected cards go up in frequency. Suited cards go down in frequency.

As the high card in the flop decreases the threat of straights and sets increase.

When the composition changes the threat factor changes from one type of hand to another. Formula Won (Michael J. Barry)

-A physician, an engineer, and an attorney were discussing who among them belonged to the oldest of the three professions represented. The physician said, "Remember, on the sixth day God took a rib from Adam and fashioned Eve, making him the first surgeon. Therefore, medicine is the oldest profession."

The engineer replied, "But, before that, God created the heavens and earth from chaos and confusion, and thus he was the first engineer. Therefore, engineering is an older profession than medicine."

Then, the lawyer spoke up. "Yes," he said, "but who do you think created all of the chaos and confusion?"

-Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip, set up their tent, and fall asleep. Some hours later, Holmes wakes his faithful friend. "Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see."

Watson replies, "I see millions of stars."

"What does that tell you?"

Watson ponders for a minute. "Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Timewise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?"

Holmes is silent for a moment, then speaks. "Watson, you idiot, someone has stolen our tent."

-It will be noted here first that calling an opponent who rarely plays anything but 88 or unsuited cards Tens and above with KQ is a loser. Nobody could tell you exactly before today. This is done by with a new profiler. Expectation of the price in the future of such a program to be about $250. The program to be on the market soon. Tm Holdem Analyzer. Included in the program will also be the breakdown of the blind hands and the breakdown of the flops. From what I have seen the program may change the way you play poker and should be priced higher.

Tip of the Week:

Today's tip seems of little importance but costs a lot of money. Presentation of the hand in a weak fashion especially in holdem is wrong and rarely right. Weak opponents note subconsciously on how you bet your hand. Presenting a hand weekly gets calls from under pairs that are getting odds to play the hand to for the next bet. Betting in a aggressive fashion may get these opponents to fold. Reraising when you may not be the favorite also accomplishes the same goal. You must take every possible to step to make sure your presentation of the hand is strong. When playing a lot of hours or distracted your presentation becomes weak. Even drinks on the table can cause you to produce a weak presentation. Recently on the table I mentally noted exactly this problem. My normal path of betting is with my right hand but the drinks I just ordered were on the right side of my chips. Rather then knocking the drinks over or moving the drinks to my left I bet the hand using my left hand in a weak fashion using an irregular presentation. The player likewise called me down with bottom pair and spiked trips on the river. In the pot my belief was that he would not have called me on the flop if I would have bet the hand aggressively and in a normal fashion. Remember simple things often cost a lot of money. In Fact they cost you pots one of the biggest errors in poker.

Remember play well and have fun. Hosh!

• Re: Hosh's Tip of the Week
  Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 7:48 p.m.

  "My normal path of betting is with my right hand..."

  Hosh,

  It's a good thing you didn't get caught stealing in Iran. Not only wouldn't you be able to wipe your ass and eat, you wouldn't be able to play poker either. Shiver me timbers!

  vince

I was at Grand Casino Coushatta in Kinder, LA. Friday May. 4 around 11pm. There was a 10-20 that was fairly loose with a few real players. 4-5 players per flop there were a few people that were in way to many hands. Anyways here is what happened.....

I got KcKd under the gun and fire out a raise. I play very few hands being fairly tight. The observant players at the table noticed this and I only got 2 callers. The BB and the button cold called my bet. On the flop comes 4c 4s 8d. BB checks I fire out my bet the button folds and the BB calls. On the turn comes 3c. Once again the BB checks and I bet. He pauses then he raises. There is $150 in the pot. Do I need to call, fold or raise ? I call his raise and on the river comes a 7c. He bets and I call. He reveals his hand. 7s4d He gets a full house on the river but he had me beat the whole way. When is it an understood that you are beat when players play cards like that ? How do you put anyone on a hand when players call raises with that ? Do you need to fold on the turn when he raises ? Please any insight would be appreciated.

Carl James

• Re: What can you do ?
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 10:53 p.m.

  I don't think you can't avoid paying him, especially on the turn. On the river it's a hard decision with AQ, not kings. With a smaller pocket pair most players like to test earlier and with a bigger set they often bet the turn or (usually wrongly, I think) wait until the end. A bluff or a small set like this works best right in the middle. You don't think he'll pay 3 bets to try to make you fold overcards on the river more than 20% of the time? Maybe not, but IME passive players that play junk like this don't jam with a little piece of the flop and aren't there to fold 80% of the times they miss, especially the ones that imagine that they "outplay" the rocks. But I agree it's a tough spot, which means that you can't be too wrong or right.

  Judging from the tone of your post, the real issue is: how you feel about it? The same result was just as likely to obtain any time he doesn't have a pocket pair or a king. So are you more or less happy that you found a player that plays any two in the bb for a raise? Another way of looking at: you can pay these guys off a lot more than normal players and still end up way ahead.

  • Re: What can you do ?
    Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 12:40 a.m.

    Also, the orginal poster asked how do you put a person on a hand like this....answer you cant. It is very difficult to put a player on a hand when they dont know what they have!

My original post is a couple of listings below. Apologies for not breaking down the play further down to allow for the more intricate details to properly assess how AK should be played. I will do that now.

Since I am posting in the medium limit section I am assuming to have AK in a 10-20 limit or higher. So, the players will no doubt be tighter, smarter, more experienced, trickier, and tougher. In a low limit game, whenever I miss with AK I tend not to raise the flop if I miss because most players will call you down with almost any pair on the board given the action is less than 3-way. The nature of a mid-limit game requires more skill and thus knowing how to play AK when you miss the flop is very important. Thus I appreciate the advice that everyone is giving on how to play AK when it misses the flop.

Here is my take on AK missing the flop. Assume the following:

1. I am last to act 2. Flop comes rags - something like 8-2-4, 10-3-7, 3-4-9. The flop is also all rainbow. 3. There are 2 or less other players in the pot. 4. The game is relatively tight-aggressive with usually less than 3 or 4 players to see the flop without a raise pre-flop. 5. All the players are regulars and none are crazy-fish.

Now, if someone in front bets and everyone else in between folds, I will raise the flop. My reason for this is simply to attain a free card and to get more information on where the better stands. If the original raiser re-raises me, I will probably fold as he could easily have flopped a set or in all odd-likelyhood two pair. In both cases I am drawing dead or slim. If the turn misses me, and the better still bets out then it is an easy fold.

Now hear is the question: My ace or king comes on the turn and the better bets out on the turn. Should I raise or call? Clearly a fold is a out of the question.

Now let's change the scenario. Let's assume that two other players in between me and the original raiser decide to call the flop bet and it comes to me. I think I will just also call instead of raise. My reason here is that I don't think I will get away easily without having an actual hand given the number of callers on the flop. Most likely someone hit a pair (or has a pocket pair). I will see the turn and fold if an Ace or King does not arrive.

Any further comments welcome.

Lawrence Ng

• Re: More on playing AK when you miss the flop?
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 3:13 a.m.

  When the flop misses you completely, it is non-threatening, and you have less than three opponents then you should definitely plan on playing big slick. If it is checked to you, you should usually bet. Give your opponents a chance to fold. If someone leads into you after you raised preflop, then you can either call or raise as long as you have no callers in between the bettor and yourself. I don't like raising if there is a bettor and a caller. My raise will not drive anyone out since they are already committed for one bet. Whether or not you raise a bettor depends upon your assessment of your opponent. If he is the type you can manipulate than I like raising otherwise it may be best to just call. The problem with raising on the flop and then dogging it on the turn when checked to is that you are telling your opponent that you have ace-king or ace-queen. If you are going to raise the flop bet you should usually follow through with a bet on the turn when a blank hits. In this way, your opponent may fold on the expensive street where prices have doubled and he is now worried that you have an overpair. Give him chance to fold bottom pair, middle pair, a weaker ace, or even another ace-king. If he calls your turn bet and then checks to you at the river you at least get a cheap showdown with the nut non-pair hand and never have to worry about being faked out.

  If your opponent stays with you on the flop and then bets the turn when an ace or a king arrives you should normally just call and not raise. He knows that a turn card that is an ace or a king will touch many preflop raising hands you could have so his bet frequently means two pair-aces up or kings up. Actually you prefer a king to show up on the turn rather than an ace since many players limp in with any ace but not necessarily any king. If he checks to you at the river when a blank comes then you can step in and bet since this would tend to deny two pair.

An interesting hand occurred this past weekend. Playing 20-40 HE with a half kill and it was a 30-60 hand. I was in the big blind with 8-9 of diamonds. That is a $20 blind. The kill checked there was a raise and it came back to me $60 to go with 6 players already committed to the pot. I called. (Is this correct)

The flop came 6 7 10 rainbow. I bet out and got called by all players. (Should I have check-raised hoping to get some people out. The preflop raiser was in the correct position to make it so I could have hope of knocking out players)

The turn was the 5 of hearts bringing in two hearts. I bet and three players called.

The river was the 9 of hearts. I check and it was then bet. Two of us called. The bettor had A 4 of hearts. The other caller had a long 8 for the straight. Should I have played this hand any differently? I do understand that in the long run this player called with A 4 of hearts will lose...but the short run sure stung.

This game is EXTREMELY lose and I am beginning to wonder if I need to try a few more "fancy" moves to try to force players out when I have the best hand. For example, I flopped two pair 10 times Saturday but only dragged two pots. I bet these out and played them as fast as I could without added the check raise. Please help me out here.

• Re: Flopping a straight
  Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 12:16 a.m.

  Firstly, where is this game? If this was 20 years ago I would be on the first plane there. Secondly, you played your hand correctly. However you are correct that other weaker hands need to be played with an eye to knocking people out. Read HPFAP again.

  • Re: Flopping a straight
    Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 12:32 a.m.

    Game is in Bettendorf, Iowa. Games goes every Thursday night and Saturday on the Isle of Capri casino.

    It is a very wild game...and at times very frustrating. Sometimes I wonder if it is such a good game to play in because it is TOO wild.
• Re: Flopping a straight
  Posted by: Steve Fiete (sfiete@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:08 p.m.

  With the pot that big, there is not much hope of knocking anyone out that you would want to knock out. Maybe you would knock out someone who has one overcard to the flop, but you should want these players to stay.

Didn't go thru all the responses to Jim's Problem #2. But this is the bottom line. When UTG raises and gets lots of calls, QQ shows a nice profit whether it merely calls or reraises. The question is whether the the profit is higher if it does reraise.

Reraising results in three things: (1) The queens win more when they do win. (2) The queens lose more when they do lose. (3) The queens win less often.

The question is whether the upside balances out the downsides. The answer is definitely not against decent or better players. For one thing, those bets you pick up when you win is partially negated by all those times it costs you an extra small bet or two when you don't win. (The second small bet occurs when your raise forces you to take a card off that you wouldn't normally.) Secondly your raise will mean you win less often. It does increase you winning chances very slightly in one way; when you spike a set that you wouldn't normally, but this is quite rare. It is far more likely to decrease your winning chances when your raise adds to your chances of being outdrawn especially when you don't make trips or better.

The key here is the greatly increased chances your raise will cange a winner to a loser when you don't improve. When you have a pair of nines in this situation it is a much smaller downside to a raise, which is why it may be right. Here you are mainly raising because of the exta profit you will make when you make trips. Your decreased chances for winning with one pair only, don't matter much. The same is true for aces but for a different reason. Your raise may entice overcards to call on the flop which hurts queens but not aces. So again with aces, the raise doesn't decrease winning chances much.

The clincher in this question is whether the original raiser will often raise on the flop if you just call and then bet (but not if you reraise.) If so, it is inconceivable that your overall profit will not be higher with our recommended play, with two queens, given all the extra times that play will make your unimproved hand win.

• I now agree with QQ but KK....
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 2:45 a.m.

  You have me now convinced that with pocket queens the HPFAP recommended play is best.

  But I struggle with pocket kings.
• Re: QQ-B Blind- Raised UTG
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 6:33 a.m.

  There are at least four things this analysis ignores:

  (1) the possibility of more preflop value going to the queens if the bb's raise causes the pot to be 4-bet or capped;

  (2) the likelihood that one or more opponent incorrectly folds as a result of facing at least two instead of just one preflop raiser;

  (3) the value lost when your opponents fold losers as a result of this play; and

  (4) the value lost when you flop a set and your opponents, as a result of the larger pot, incorrectly try to draw out.

  Obviously, not all of these variables act in concert, they overlap and weigh against each other to some extent. But without some way of assigning weight to them individually or in the aggregate, David's conclusion about the conceivability of raising being more profitable than calling is unfounded. Guessing at how these things manifest themselves under various conditions is like ancient astronomers trying to guess the weight of the moon.

  The downside queens face if they raise applies to any hand worth raising, including aces, which all agree are worth the risk of a bigger pot. Although queens are closer to the marginal pocket pair that gains the least or suffers the most because of raising, they're not close.

  In a cold simulation against 7 opponents, pocket queens win about a third of the time. That's probably within a few points of real world experience if 7 opponents pay 3 bets or more to take the flop as the hands most likely to fold are those that would rarely win had they stayed until the river. So your ev on raising if there were no further bets is about 1.5 small bets. Accordingly, even if queens win only 25% of the time, they can afford to occasionally "waste" a bet to see the turn as a result of the larger pot and still be ahead on the raise. (The times when they pay off a better hand all the way or lose to a draw on a later street are more than compensated by the multiway money going in after the flop when they win).

  So the "clincher," the prospect of greatly increasing your chance of winning if the original raiser raises, is really the only thing this argument has going for it. Consider how many contingencies have to pass before this ship comes in. They include but are not limited to P[you wanting to bet the flop] X P[him wanting to raise it] X P[opponents have winning draws X P[that they'll fold for 2 bets but not one] X Value[pot at the end if this works], compared with P[you winning the pot if you raise preflop] X Value[bigger pot that results if you raise].

  There's no question that a larger pot creates a window of vulnerability for all pocket pairs. The question is whether that vulnerability exceeds the value from raising. Given that the magnitude of the vulnerability is based on speculation and the magnitude of the extra value from raising can safely defined as significant, it seems that the better play would be based on the greater certainty.

  Finally, I have the distinct sense that neither DS nor MM are fully convinced of their own argument, or recognize its vulnerabilities. Why else, for example, are we suddenly injecting "better or decent players," a half dozen in a row who cold-call an utg raise, in order to further narrow the utility of what has to be an exceedingly rare play in the first place? With all respect guys, you're trying to bolster your argument in a way that tacitly concedes that it will almost never apply.

  • Re: QQ-B Blind- Raised UTG
    Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 9:30 a.m.

    I did not ignore #4 in my analysis. Getting 4 bet helps little since it increases the chances dramatically that you are already beaten in most games. #2 never happens. I don't understand what you mean by #3. I'll agree that you could gain as much as 1.5 bets by raising if there was no future betting. You gain even more when you make a set and your raise makes players chase. However in tougher games you gain much less since your opponnents hands are more apt to beat you and the original raiser is more apt to have aces or kings. The question then becomes how much do you increase your chances of winning the pot by not raising? I would estimate you go from about 24% to about 37% if UTG raises the flop a lot. That is worth over two small bets.

    In the case of kings, reraising is better in games where your reraise causes queen jack to call when the flop is 932.

    • Re: QQ-B Blind- Raised UTG
      Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 11:43 a.m.

      Another raise means you're beaten in most games? I agree that in most games, 4 or 5 bets before the flop make queens an underdog. But we're talking about a loose game where 6 cold callers come in after an utg raiser. I bet that Rick N. will say the chances of the pot being capped in a typical loose mid limit CA game are 80% or more even when the queens are good.

      No. 2 never happens? You've never layed down a hand because more than one aggressor means who might have to pay more than you'd like, the possibility of the flop betting going to 3-5 instead of 1 or 2?

      In no. 3, I (think) I meant to say "fold winners," as when utg 4-bets and someone with a hand that would make a small straight no longer likes it before the flop.

      I like the 24-37% figure. How'd you derive it?
  • Re: QQ-B Blind- Raised UTG
    Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 7:40 p.m.

    You seem to be arguing speculation with speculation of your own. ImO poor speculation on your part.

    "Obviously, not all of these variables act in concert, they overlap and weigh against each other to some extent."

    I was going to comment on this sttement but I think that my comments would fall prey to the same fault I find with this statement. They would "overlap and weigh against each other to some extent". Now if I could only decipher what in the hell that means I would understand what I'm saying, to some extent, maybe.

    "So the "clincher," the prospect of greatly increasing your chance of winning if the original raiser raises, is really the only thing this argument has going for it."

    The only thing! Why, is that not enough?

    "In a cold simulation against 7 opponents, pocket queens win about a third of the time."

    I believe you forgot to place the word "random" between "against and 7".

    If you considered this you would not have made the following statement "Finally, I have the distinct sense that neither DS nor MM are fully convinced of their own argument, or recognize its vulnerabilities. Why else, for example, are we suddenly injecting "better or decent players," " This recommendation comes from HPFAP not Lee Jones' low limit Holdem or more appropriately "No Foldem Holdem" I know that Mason and David have always stated that this play was best against somewhat reasonable opponents not random 3-6 players.

    vince

    • Re: QQ-B Blind- Raised UTG
      Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 9:40 p.m.

      Vince:

      If you do a quick turbo sim with opponents playing typical loose starters and folding some after the flop I think you'll find that QQ win 7-way about 1/3 of the time.

      The "better" loose player qualification appears in HPFAP, but not in the chapter or the discussion of this play. Other portions of the loose game section specifically target, as the introduction states, "games, usually at the lower limits, [that] are referred to as 'no-fold 'em hold 'em.'" The first chapter in the section refers repeatedly refer to "bad," "poor" and "weak loose" players that are the "ultimate for you."

      So I don't think it's accurate to say that S&M "have always stated that this play was best against somewhat reasonable opponents." (empahsis added)

      More importantly, what portion of the cases where 6 players will call an utg raiser will consist largely of "somewhat reasonable" opponents? Maybe 5%?

      • Re: QQ-B Blind- Raised UTG
        Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 6:35 a.m.

        HPFAP is just what it claims to be: for the advanced player. No Foldem Holdem players do not fall into that category very often. Maybe %5? I used 5% because you used 5%. I don't have any basis for picking 5%. Just a guess. How about you? My guess is that at the mid limits in a loose game you will find better than 60% (maybe closer to 80%) of the players making reasonable calls preflop. Calling a preflop raiser with a weaker than recommended (S&M) hand becomes more reasonable after the initial caller cold calls. You will see this quite a bit at mid limit poker. One of the major diferences between your opponents at the mid limits and those at the lower limits is that at mid limits a high percentage of players play good to very good after the flop. Low limit players have a much greater tendency to make bad calls post flop. That is the prime reason that I agree with raising with this hand at low limits but not mid limits. At the mid limits you have a good chance of influencing the outcome of the hand with post your flop play.

        Vince

Hello All, I recently came up against this hand in a $10/20 game and I'd like to get some comments on how I played it.

I get K-10 of clubs 1 off the button. 1 limper, my immediate right raises, i call, button folds, blinds fold, 3-way to the flop. Flop comes As-Jc-4c, giving me a straight draw, and a club draw. Limper checks, raiser bets, I call, limper calls. Turn is Qh. Limper checks, raiser bets, I raise, limper folds raiser sighs and calls. River is a blank, Check to me, i bet, raiser calls and I scoop the pot.

Nobody said anything about the hand, but about 10 hands later I saw one guy call a 3-bet cold with A-5 offsuit and ended up making trip 5's on the turn/river after missing the flop completely and calling a raise, and ends up scooping, the guy on my right goes "jeesh", and i mumble "yeah call 5 bets with no hand, then call with a pair of 5's all the way to the river. I hope he doesn't leave", and the guy looks at me and goes "well, you called a raise with k-10, you think you played that better?"

I didn't think that I played the K-10 hand too poorly, but apparently this guy did, which is why I'm questioning my play. what do you guys think of that hand?

-Jason jxpfeer@yahoo.com

• Re: $10/20 hand, please comment.
  Posted by: Kevin J
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 2:02 p.m.

  I normaly wouldn't pay two cold for either hand against a legitimate pre-flop raise. If I had to choose, I'd rather play the KTs in a large multi-way pot. I'd rather have the A5 in short handed spots against possible non-legit raises such as steals or isolation plays.
• Re: $10/20 hand, please comment.
  Posted by: James T
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 2:58 p.m.

  I don't think KTs is a good hand to cold call 2 bets preflop with only 1 limper and the raiser to your right. KQs may even be debatable unless you think the player to your right has very loose raising standard. Just my two cents.
• Re: $10/20 hand, please comment.
  Posted by: pokerbase (pokerbase@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 4:58 p.m.

  Next time just don't say anything. No good can come of it.
• Re: $10/20 hand, please comment.
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 6:07 p.m.

  Maybe its just me but I think you played OK. I would even consider reraising if I thought the raiser had loose raising standards or If I thought he thought his raise would get it heads up against the limper,or even get him to fold. I might even have raised on the flop if I thought I could get a free card or if I thought my opponent was weak.

  • Re: $10/20 hand, please comment.
    Posted by: JXP (jxpfeer@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 1:36 p.m.

    i only called because i thought he was raising to get heads up with the limper, as you said, but i figured i had a good drawing hand and wanted to get good value if i hit a flush or straight, so i didn't wanna scare off the other guy. plus i know this guy on my right would raise any pocket pair...i've seen him cap with 3's and play to the river. Thanks for all the input everyone..

    -jason
• Re: $10/20 hand, please comment.
  Posted by: Carl James (Iceman5691@aol.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 6:09 p.m.

  hello,

  I feel that you should have reraised on the flop. You have a drawing hand with huge capabitlites and calling on the Flop only sets you up fo calling on the turn if you dont make. If all the bets are correct i count $85 in the pot and $10 for you to call and $20 for you to raise. I feel the $20 would be a good bet and put you in a powerful position. For you to draw one of your 13 outs left to near guarentee you taking down the pot. Just my two cents..

  Carl James
• Re: $10/20 hand, please comment.
  Posted by: nate foster (nate7out@aol.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 8:45 p.m.

  and i mumble "yeah call 5 bets with no hand, then call with a pair of 5's all the way to the river. I hope he doesn't leave", and the guy looks at me and goes "well, you called a raise with k-10, you think you played that better?"

  you should know better than to talk strategy and/or belittle poor players at the table.

  nate

6 handed $20-40 game. Loose/passive mainly but occasional storms and capped pots but these were not the norm. I am in cutoff with Kd Jc, 2 limpers, I limp, button limps, sb calls and bb checks. We all see the flop:

Kh 8h 6h

Checked to me I bet, button raises, SB folds, BB calls others fold to me, I 3 bet it, button caps it, BB calls, I call. The turn comes:

Js

I bet out, button raises, BB mucks and I call. River is a horrible:

3h

I checked it, he bet and I made a crying call.

He turned over Ks Qc and my 2 pair won the pot, much to my relief. But the hand raised some interesting issues which I'd like to ask you all. I have essentially 4 questions.

(a) Would anyone fold their top 2 pair to his river bet when the 4 flush got there?

(b) If the BB was still in the pot and also check-called the buttons bet would you muck? (personally I would as I figure one of em for a flush)

(c) If the BB was still in the pot and bet out on the river would you muck with the button still to act after you?

(d) How did I play my hand? Should I have 3 bet it on the turn?

Thanks.

• Re: $20-$40 The dreaded 4 flush on river...
  Posted by: Kevin J
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 2:07 p.m.

  I wonder if anyone can make a case for betting and just calling a raise on the flop, check/calling the turn, and perhaps check calling the river.
• Re: $20-$40 The dreaded 4 flush on river...
  Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 4:32 p.m.

  I think that heads up, I think a call is automatic. Especially when you checked and he could be betting just to get you off the hand (as was indeed the case). Regardless, the money in the pot dictates a call here.

  But going back a bit, I fail to understand why you 3-bet the flop with top pair and THIRD best kicker. The raise should have told you, you were beat, the cap should have told you you were beat. They don't call KJ the second best hand for nothing. I hope you realize how lucky you got when he turned over KQ.

  • Re: $20-$40 The dreaded 4 flush on river...
    Posted by: Ben
    Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:14 p.m.

    Well I knew he didnt have AK as he would have raised. I didnt put him on KQ either as I thought he would have raised with that too. I honestly read him for the Ace of hearts with a flopped underpair to my King. Of course I was wrong but when he capped it on the flop I was kind of pot committed and of course the turn Jack changed things a lot - if the Jack hadnt come i'd have resorted to a check/call approach. I accept I got lucky - doesnt happen to me all that often so it was gratefully accepted :)

    • Re: $20-$40 The dreaded 4 flush on river...
      Posted by: Pro
      Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 11:34 p.m.

      Did it ever occur to you that he might have flopped a set, or a small flush, and that he didn't want to give any free cards away? Under the circumstances I think most good players would play a set or small flush fast this way. IE making sure that the BB doesn't call with the 3rd nut flush draw, etc.

      If you thought that he might have a smaller pair with the ace high flush draw, then you were very very wrong indeed to reraise him. He was a big favorite to win the hand. Think about it.

      9 flush card outs.

      3 2 pair outs.

      2 trips outs.

      14 outs. Hmm that might actually be just about even money. I know that 15 outs makes him like 53% favorite.

      Anyway, your play betrays some inherent weaknesses in your play that are going to continue to prevent you from becoming a winning player.
• Re: $20-$40 The dreaded 4 flush on river...
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:57 p.m.

  I think a limp is incorrect on the flop, since you want to drive out the blinds here if you can. secondly, I wouldnt have three bet the flop here, since even if a bettor does not have a flush, you are not that much of a favorite against a fourflush, and may be an underdog in many situations.

  On the turn I would consider reraising. Your opponent must be as scared as you are on the turn,and your reraise will likely prevent him from bluffing on the river. If he rereraises then you can figure him for the flush against most players. Once the heart comes on the river I would bet, and if raised I would fold unless I thought the player was capable of a bluff raise. By playing strongly you win more money when you have the best hand, and can more safely play your hand,and in this situation it is better to bet than to check call on the river, IMO, although I am a recently converted stud player.

  Pat
• Re: $20-$40 The dreaded 4 flush on river...
  Posted by: Dan Z.
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 11:21 a.m.

  When you get raised on the flop, you are almost certainly beat. You could be against KQ, 2 pair, or a set. You should probably fold. Is this guy goint to bluff in to 6 players. Can he have the Ace of hearts alone?

  No he can't have the ace alone, because why would he make it 2 bets to everyone else in a 6 handed pot. This is silly. If this player is at all good or conservative, you know you are beat, and likely drawing dead, esp. with the cold caller.

  Can he have the ace of hearts and a pair you can beat? This would mean he played A8 offsuit or A6 offsuit in a pot that would be 5 or 6 handed. If he is this loose/poor of a player, then maybe you should play on, but the BB calling cold should make it a fold (except against maniacs).

  Dan Z.
• Bad play
  Posted by: Pro
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 11:22 p.m.

  You played it pretty badly.

  Don't limp in with KJo after 2 limpers. That is a sign of very weak play.

  Most of the people I know that are losing players complain that they lose because they keep getting their AA and KK snapped off. I don't think that's true. They lose all their money by playing trash like KJ offsuit and then overplaying it when they hit the flop but make a second best hand, like you just did.

15-30, fairly typical game, maybe a tad on the loose side. I have been running good. Am in late position, have A-9 of spades. Four people already in with one raise. I call (depending on the texture of the game or if I am running good, I sometimes play these type of hands,mistake?)No one else calls, 5 see the flop. Flop is 7-8-10 with 2 spades. I have open straight draw and nut flush draw. One guy opens, original raiser raises, 2 drop, I re-raise, one call, raiser caps it. Turn is a rag, first player checks, original raiser opens, I re-raise, 1st guy drops, raiser just calls. River is another rag, I miss. Player checks, I bet figuring its my only chance to win, he calls. He has pocket Queens. A friend of mine at the table says I played the hand way too aggresively. Please comment on my play. thanks.

• Re: Too Aggressive
  Posted by: Jason
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:39 p.m.

  i did not mind you play until the turn, where i would not have raised. you have to put him on some sort of legitamate hand at this point...just call. given that you did reraise the turn, you have to bet out on the end (as you said). but if you hadn't bet the turn, you would have saved two BBs because you would have just folded on the river to a likely bet on his part.

  best, jason
• Re: Too Aggressive
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 8:11 p.m.

  Preflop your cold-call with As-9s is marginal. Since you have several players already committed plus one of the blinds will usually play, calling is okay but you really need to make two pair or better since if you flop a top pair of aces you are in mortal danger of being outkicked and a top pair of nines can easily be overpaired.

  On the flop, you have a fantastic come hand. You have 15 outs with two cards to come making you a mathematical favorite to make a straight or a flush by the river and you will be going to the river with this hand. Your ace overcard may even be an out. On the flop, I think your play is fine.

  On the turn, your reraise is only slightly problematic. At this point you may well have 18 outs considering your ace overcard. I would just call but your reraise is only slightly too aggressive.

  At the river, having showed so much strength on every betting round, you have to bet since you have no chance of winning a show down. Who knows but your opponent may have been on a draw himself and he might fold a pair or a bigger ace here at the river.
• Re: Too Aggressive
  Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 9:35 p.m.

  I would have played the hand exactly the way you did. Every step of the way it was correct and frankly if you showed your hand after being called on the river it will get you paid off the rest of the night.
• Re: Too Aggressive
  Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 10:59 p.m.

  I would not have bet the river because the other player has shown that he has a hand and unless a total disaster card comes (like the 9 of spades) he will grit his teeth and call. your flop play is fine. betting the turn is OK IF there is a decent chance the other guy will fold.
• Re: Too Aggressive
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:54 a.m.

  First, I would also make the call before the flop.

  As for whether you played the hand too aggressively, before you make the fourth street raise you have to come up with an estimate (in your mind) of how often your opponent will fold if you raise again. Given the action he is saying that he has a pretty strong hand, and the large pot will make him inclined to pay off. Some players will never fold in this spot, so your raise and subsequent desperation bet would be wrong. Others, can let their hand go, so here your play might be right.

  The more accurately you can estimate the appropriate probabilties the better you will be at making this type of high risk play. This comes with experience, knowing your opponent, understanding how they perceive you, etc.

  • The pre-flop call
    Posted by: Lars Vegas
    Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:55 p.m.

    Mason, I found it interesting that you think this call-able pre-flop. However, I figure the reason you say 'I would also make the call before the flop,' is that you are an outstanding player, likely to make many and big 'money making' moves post-flop too.

    However, as a novice low limit grinder, I don't think I'd call with this hand. Simply because I don't think it's a money maker. I think you must be an above-average player to make this hand, in this spot an EV+ call. It's only natural that the better a poker player gets, the more hands he'd like to include somewhere in his pre-flop strategy, because the better post-flop play, the more EV+ starting hands/situations right?

    Furthermore, do you think A5s (with the added better straight potential) is even more playable in this spot? Or does the weak and probably outkicked anyway, nine kicker, more than make up for this?

    lars

    • Re: The pre-flop call
      Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:27 p.m.

      For sure it is only a marginal call. The counter argument to what you say is that in the game you describe your opponents are weaker so that you won't have to make as many great plays. But I do agree that for the hand to be profitable you must be able to play it well no matter what the game.

      I also don't see much difference between A9s and A5s. The nine should come into play enough to balance out any straight potential.

My wife and I are about equal in ability and results, but we are not similar in styles. Now that we play internet poker and can see each others play closely, well, it looks like there will be a dead body found soon.

Here's the hand that we argue over all the time. It's the line drawn in the sand.

KQs in the SB, unknown player limps mid table and two very aggressive players in cut-off and button limp too.

Do you raise? Thanks for the input.

MS Sunshine (ms and mr)

• No, not from SB and 3 limpers (n/t)
  Posted by: VinRouge
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 1:42 a.m.

  .
• Re: KQs in SB three limpers
  Posted by: James T
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:48 a.m.

  Just call. You are out of position and up against aggressive players. KQs is not like AK which can win unimprove because of the Ace...
• Re: KQs in SB three limpers
  Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:12 a.m.

  If the very aggressive players are also pretty loose, I would raise. Since they didn't raise, their hands are probably not that great, so I think you will show a profit in the long run. I don't think you give up much by not raising here though, because you are in the worst position and KQs is definitely a drawing hand.
• no raise, just call (nt)
  Posted by: docriver
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:31 a.m.

  nt
• Re: KQs in SB three limpers
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:42 a.m.

  Yes. Because of the suited aspect of your hand you like to play in a large pot. You may want to read the chapter titled "It's Important to be Suited" in the loose games section of HPFAP-21.

  • what about KQoff?
    Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 10:35 a.m.

    Of the 7 people to reply so far, it's gone 4:3 my favor. This might have made me happy, but Mason came down on the other side. I was about to rethink my thinking, but then I realized Mason had been mislead. My husband's icky KQ in the SB was not suited, it was offsuit. Being suited was Mason's main proponent for the hand, although truth be told, that extra 4%(?) still wouldn't be enough for me to raise a hand where I will have act 1st on every card. To my way of thinking, you are not going to be able to bluff out 4 players from up front when you flop nothing. Bluffing from behind if they have all checked is another story. I'll tell you what though, if Mason believes a suited hand would be worthy of raise in that position, then I definitely need to get more aggressive with suited big cards. Thanks, Mason, I will!

    Thank you one and all for your comments,

    Mrs. MS Sunshine

    • Re: what about KQoff?
      Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 10:46 a.m.

      You are not raising so that you can bluff into your opponents. The idea is to raise to make the pot big. There is a tendency among poker players to call when the pot gets big even if it is incorrect to do so. You make this play so that when you make your hand the pot is big and others will be tied to the pot because of it's size. The suited requirement is a probability that you want working for you and gives you enough advantage to make the raise. You would not raise with K,Qo. It's just not as pretty. Being a woman one would think that you would understand that.

      Vince
    • Re: what about KQoff?
      Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:14 p.m.

      You may not be taking into consideration *all* of the adavantages of being suited. There is a lot more to being suited than just making a flush. For example, if you flop a gutshot, you may be in a position to coldcall a raise on the flop if you have a backdoor flush draw (which you obviously can't have if you start off unsuited). As well, with big suited cards, you can sometimes win by making 1 pair on the river. The chances of you being able to withstand the betting on the flop and turn and stick around to get lucky by making a big pair on the river are much greater when you start off with a suited hand. Finally, being suited gives you extra ammunition for pulling off successful semi-bluffs.
    • Re: what about KQoff?
      Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:22 p.m.

      Here's an excerpt from HPFAP-21 page 173 that should help:

      If your hand is suited in these loose games it is a giant advantage. One of the nice things about raising with suited cards before the flop (especially the ace suited), is that when you flop a flush, or for that matter a four-flush, you welcome all bottom pairs calling. They may be right to call, but it doesn't hurt you. They may be making money by calling on the flop because there are other people involved. But they are not taking money from you. They are making you money.

      The Fundamental Theorem of Poker states that if somebody is gaining money they are taking it from you. That's true in a heads-up pot, but there are exceptions multiway. For instance, in a four handed pot it could be possible that the fourth player in is gaining $1.00 from the second player in, $1.50 from the third player, but giving $0.75 of it back to you.

      So if you flop a four-flush, especially an ace-high four-flush, and a player calls getting 12-to-1 with bottom pair, he may be costing whoever holds top pair money because of the odds that he is getting, and perhaps even costing someone who holds middle pair a little money, but he is not costing you anything. He is rather making you something.

      • Re: what about KQoff?
        Posted by: Lesley Buchanan (lesforshort@excite.com)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 4:35 p.m.

        Wow!! What a thorough and well-thought-out explanation. Who could argue with logic like that?

        skp, your arguments were also very good. Thank you gentlemen.

        MS Sunshine
      • Mason? Re:what about KQoff?
        Posted by: VinRouge
        Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 8:05 p.m.

        Mason [this is in response to the KQ being suited not KQ offsuit]

        The original poster said he was in the SB thus having worst position throughout the hand. Also mentioned in the post is that the cutoff and button are aggressive. For deception purposes, under these situational and positional circumstances, I would argue that a smooth preflop call with KQ suited in the SB could be more profitable if the flop/turn hit your hand given the aggressive nature of the late position players and the check raise opportunities offered from being in the small blind. You may be giving up a little preflop but could gain more on later rounds after the limits have doubled when the aggressive types have become mentally committed to the pot?

        What do you think?

        • Re: Mason? Re:what about KQoff?
          Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
          Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 9:37 p.m.

          If the tendency of the players are extreme, you may be right. However, you generally are happy to go ahead and make a big pot here, but there are always exceptions.

          • Re: Mason? Re:what about KQoff?
            Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
            Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 11:31 p.m.

            "If the tendency of the players are extreme, you may be right. "

            Regardless of what their tendencies and regardless of what the flop is a raise preflop with K,Qs is the best play.

            Vince

            • Re: Mason? Re:what about KQoff?
              Posted by: VinRouge
              Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:18 a.m.

              With all due respect I disagree, given the lineup at the table that MS Sunshine described. If there were 5 (maybe 4, but definitely not 3) or more limpers then absolutely I would raise making a big family pot (I would also do it at a tight or an extremely loose table). But with this short field, and the table conditions described in the original post, I limp because I want to achieve 3 things by limping in.

              (a) Make sure I hit the flop/turn and can checkraise later from the SB when the aggressive types bet/bluff/semibluff whatever (b) Make sure no Ace (non spade if I have KQs) flops (c) Rope-a-dope the aggressive types when conditions (a) and (b) are met by checkraising on the turn and/or river

              I have often been in this spot with KQ suited in the SB and, overall, by raising preflop you get much less action postflop in my experience when the flop fits (and misses the others thereby reducing their bluffing proficiencies particularly if they are in late position and aggressive)

              Then again I mainly play potlimit in the UK (but also play up to $80-$160 FL when in the USA). I dont think the mindset of a PL player should be all that different to a FL player in this spot (as per the original post's table conditions). Again my own experiences have resulted in greater profits later on by limping in with KQ suited, than from showing too much strength preflop.

              • Re: Mason? Re:what about KQoff?
                Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
                Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 12:21 p.m.

                This is limit poker. When you get an opportunity to raise with in an appropriate situation then it is correct to raise.

                I will admit that I din't look closely at the lineup when I made my remarks but after rereading the original post I am even more convinced that a raise is correct. The cutoff and the button are extremely aggresive types. They limp! What kind of hands do they have? Probably mid suited connectors or worse. Make them pay. You really have 4 limpers if you count the BB and I do. Make him pay to play. If he is the type that will discard a weak Ace then even better. Playing the hand post flop is certainly a consideration. So being a good post flop player is a plus. But if you are a mediocre post flop player a raise is even more appropriate because big pots can be played straight forwardly against the type of players described and not much ev will be lost.

                I do not play pot limit but it is my understanding that in pot limit you must build a pot. So wouldn't it be better to rasie heer so that if you make a hand you can make a bet that will either protect your hand or make you a lot of money?

                Vince
        • Re: Mason? Re:what about KQoff?
          Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
          Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:57 p.m.

          My attitude is that if you think your hand is best, and is worth a raise, you should generally go ahead and raise now, while these things still hold true. Unless the opponents are pretty darn extreme in their playing style, I won't usually give up my pre-flop edge in hopes of gaining it back through deception post flop. Also, if you flop a flush draw here, you certainly don't mind that the pot has been raised. this will make it more likely that others will call with weak hands and make you money.

          Dave in Cali
• Re: KQs in SB three limpers
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:44 a.m.

  Easy raise. Perhaps unless you suspect sandbagging by aggressives that raise with everything except the really good hands. Otherwise your hand is not only better and plays well multiway, it probably dominates what they have.
• Re: KQs in SB three limpers
  Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 6:39 a.m.

  Yes, you raise for all the reasons Mason gave plus Vince says yes. In the only poker game I played with my ex I lost my shirt. Literally, and my pants and my socks ..etc.etc.etc.

  Vince
• Re: KQs in SB three limpers
  Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 1:39 p.m.

  NO.

  with aggressive, bad players in the hand you can make your money post-flop. With aggressive good players in the hand you have terrible position.

in late position in a 40/80 game with AA UTG, a loose aggressive raises (very loose, very aggressive, almost a maniac, but not quite) everyone folds, I three bet.

big blind calls (BB is a loose and somewhat passive player), UTG caps it - me and BB both call.

Flop is KT3 rainbow. BB checks, UTG bets, I call (don't like the K, yuck). BB calls.

Turn is a J BB checks, UTG bets, I call (J is a crappy card for me too...gives QQ a draw, and now I can only beat AK or QQ) BB calls

river is a 5. BB checks, UTG bets, I call, BB calls.

UTG turns over JJ for a set of Jacks (hit on the turn). BB turns over KJ for two pair.

I muck my AA as I grumble to myself about myself me just one jack-off.

I think I played this fine....with the possibility of raising on the flop as a just as good play as flat calling.

But I almost always tend to remember my losing hands only..and want to see what ya'all think

• Well played
  Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 4:39 a.m.

  What are you going to do? Raise on the flop mostly likely costs you a bet and half, the way the hand did come down. It wouldn't have moved anyone and they would have checked the turn to you. Then what do you do? Also, if you call the flop and turn brings a blank, you may get a double bet in two spots. This out weighs the cheap flop for someone's gutshot, if it is out there.
• Re: another AA loser
  Posted by: ChrisVWH (cvinall@smug.adelaide.edu.au)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 7:56 a.m.

  How is raising the flop a "just as good play"? By raising the flop, you take control of the betting and can either check behind on the river, or fold to a checkraise on the turn.

  Chris

  • Re: another AA loser
    Posted by: docriver
    Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:32 p.m.

    or you get repopped on the flop or repopped on the turn...thus your option of checking the river is dead. that's why i don't think raising the flop is that much better than flat calling given the board.

    • Re: another AA loser
      Posted by: Alec (AlecBigdof@aol.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 4:55 p.m.

      you are wrong, you have to raise this on the flop.

      • Re: another AA loser
        Posted by: docriver
        Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 11:14 p.m.

        raising on the flop is better than raising on the turn? I agree with skp's comments that raising on the turn if a non threatening card (any card other than a K, Q or J hits) hits the turn. i agree with skp that not planning to raise on one of these streets is bad, but given the turn card, that changes things, and adaptation is key.

        • Re: another AA loser
          Posted by: Puggy
          Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 7:25 a.m.

          By not raising the flop, you let in the big blind with a whole slew of hands that he could and should fold for 2 bets. How about AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, JJs, QQs?? You want them hanging around to catch their gutshot when they could have folded for a single bet?

          And who cares if you get repopped on the flop. There's still a great chance you're in the lead. I don't see how calling can be correct on the flop.

          Puggy
• Re: another AA loser
  Posted by: Puggy
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 9:44 a.m.

  Doc,

  I think it's imperative to raise this flop since the big blind is slightly loose. He could easily have a gutshot draw here with AQ or AJ and you want to make him fold that. Also, if he's loose, he'd probably take a card off with a pocket pair of Js or Qs for a single bet but fold for 2 bets.

  Raise the flop, call down if reraised. Bet the turn if checked to.

  Puggy
• Re: another AA loser
  Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:00 p.m.

  I would say that it is a bad play if you intended on just calling down all the way after the flop no matter what the turn card was.

  That is, your call on the flop is fine (a raise would be fine too). Your call on the turn when the Jack comes is also ok but if, say, a deuce came on the turn, I would certainly hope that you would be planning to raise the UTG's bet.

I've been playing lower limits building a BR because I refuse to deposit a large amount online because of the fiasco at Pokerspot.

I just started playing 10-20 and don't know many of the players yet.

I've been playing about 2 rounds and have only played both hands both from the BB with no raises. One I mucked after the flop and one I won with when flopping a set of 3's and check raising the turn and 2 players folding. The game seems to be fairly loose preflop but not overly aggressive post flop. A lot of limping but not much defending from the blinds. As I mentioned before, I do not know these players for I have just started playing this site at this level. I pick up 2 red aces on the button and it's surprisingly folded to me. The 2 players in the blinds have not played many hands. Which is more profitable, raise or limp?

If anyone is interested I will post the results later. But my main concern is the overall profitablity.

• Re: 10-20 Planet Hand
  Posted by: Les (lesforshort@excite.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 10:43 a.m.

  Dear Gene, John and I talked about your post briefly this morning and both of us agreed: Why give the BB a free shot at three cards? Take the $15 and smile.

  Les
• Re: 10-20 Planet Hand
  Posted by: Caddy
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 11:01 a.m.

  Aces on the button are worth quite a bit more than just the 1.5 small bets, so I don't think you want the blinds to fold here. I'd probably be a little greedy, limp here, and try to win a few bets after the flop. However, if the blinds are the types who will strongly suspect a steal when you raise first in from the button, and usually call, then raise.

  Caddy
• Re: 10-20 Planet Hand
  Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 11:19 a.m.

  Gene,

  I know you'd rather not win just the blinds with AA, but a raise from the button here looks very much like a blind steal. It's tough to put you on a premium hand in this situation. You might even get a reraise from one of the blinds.

  I think raising is more profitable than calling here.

  • Re: 10-20 Planet Hand
    Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:51 p.m.

    And a limp here looks like a big hand unless they decide you are just an idiot. But since you've been playing tight, you have to raise here.
• Re: 10-20 Planet Hand
  Posted by: Scott Wyler
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 1:24 p.m.

  In light of your description (not much defending), I would limp. If either blind is the aggressive type who will pop you with a decent hand and try to resteal, or if the BB usually defends, definitely raise.

  what happened at PokerSpot?

  • Re: 10-20 Planet Hand
    Posted by: Gene (holdemdude)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:30 p.m.

    Scott, I'm hopin Mason or David will reply as well.

    The fact of the blinds not defending was the key to my concern in this post. I still have mixed feelings on long term profitability. I probably would say that raising most the time would be the correct play. You would gain 1 and 1/2 bets a majority of the time. And you're still a big favorite over even against 2 opponents with random hands (the blinds). In HEPFAP Mason and David talk about mathmatical catastrophies. In this case an example would be the BB has 27 and limps then flops 22K.

    In this hand I did raise and got 3-bet by the BB (who had AKs); flopped a king and won a nice size pot for heads up.

    As far as Pokerspot, back in January they stopped sending cashouts due to their credit card processor freezing all their assets. It's too long of a story to go into detail here. If you are interested send me an email and I'll fill you in a little more.

    Thanks to you and everyone for their input.

    Kind Regards,

    Gene (holdemdude)
• Destiny
  Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 5:47 p.m.

  Some hands you are destined to lose money on (eg, you have KK someone else has AA and flop is AKx). Some hands you are destined to not make money on. AA on the button against the blinds only is one of them.

  Just raise and hope one of them has some kind of hand.
• Re: 10-20 Planet Hand
  Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 7:14 p.m.

  Are you ever going to want to steal the blinds?

  If so raise, players will remember a button limp with aces, maybe good things will happen and a blind will read you for a steal, call with a decent but dominated hand, flop top pair and give you lots of action.

  Raising will also set up future hands where you do not have aces on the button yet can continue to steal.

  Just my opinion ..

Last weekend I was playing 20-40 HE with a 1/2 kill. I was in late position with a somewhat weak hand, A-5 suited. The flop came 10, 9, 8. There were five of us that saw the flop. The flop was checked. The turn was 2 and again it checked around. The river was a 5. It was checked to me and I bet. All fold to the final two players. While one player is thinking the other play starts to muck his hand out of order. The dealer tells the player to play in turn and pushes his cards back to the player. The player then throws his cards over the dealer's hand face up. The looks at the player who was trying to decide whether to call or not. It was like he was saying, "Call him, I'm not gonna call him"

The player that did this has been playing for many years and it good friends with the player who was thinking. I have two questions:

1) What should I have done in the situation? This is actually two parts...what should I have done immediately and what should I have done after the results of the hand?

2) What should the house do in response to a complaint of this nature?

• Re: 20-40 Collusion Incident
  Posted by: docriver
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 12:30 p.m.

  sounds like the guy who threw the cards was just having a bad day
• can't matter much
  Posted by: Dan Z.
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2:10 p.m.

  If he can beat A5, he probably calls anyway.

  If he can't, you gain because he is more likely to call with a lesser hand.

  If he raises, well, he would have probably raised anyway, as he has no reason to fear the player behind him.

  In other words, it probably doesn't matter. Why do you bet here anyway?

  Dan Z.

  • Re: can't matter much
    Posted by: Alec (AlecBigdof@aol.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:17 p.m.

    I think a bet here is correct. It has been checked around twice, if someone had any sort of pair, they would have bet. If they do have a bigger pair but not top pair, your only chance to win the pot is to bet and hope they fold. As far as the collusion aspect, I think you are over-reacting. They would not be this obvious if they were colluding. Sure, he was trying to send his buddy a message but I dont think it was that big a deal.
• Re: 20-40 Collusion Incident
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 3:36 p.m.

  Players are suppose to act in turn and they don't always do that. What's interesting about this hand is that in general when players collude they do not show their hands on the river. I suspect that the player in question probably had something like a flush and a straight draw and perhaps a pair. He was probably just unhappy about not hitting his hand. You need to give more information for us to have a better idea if he was really trying to help another player.

  • Re: 20-40 Collusion Incident
    Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
    Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:20 a.m.

    Not a lot of other information. They do not normally give each other any breaks or anything. Just this time even after the dealer told the player to play in turn he still shoved his cards over the deals hand face up. Then the guy thought long and hard and finally called. The funny part was the fact that he called with less than my pair.

I have black AA UTG. I only call, MP (rock solid) raises, button reraises (all others fold) and I cap it. flop is rags but 2 diamonds. I bet they call. Turn is another little diamond. I bet and MP raises, button folds. I (puke and) call. River brings the king of diamonds. i check and he bets.

Would you call for 1 more bet here? What if the river were not a diamond? not a king?

• Re: AA vs. probable flush
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:49 a.m.

  nigel,

  You wrote:”I have black AA UTG. I only call, MP (rock solid) raises, button reraises (all others fold) and I cap it.”

  I can understand a limp reraise with AA but since you were raised and reraised already why not flat call and hope the MP caps it, which would put him on a big pair? If he doesn't then at least you have disguised your hand and with only two opponents that is a big advantage at the cost of two small bets (some of the time).

  ”flop is rags but 2 diamonds. I bet they call.”

  OK but note that they have an idea what you have but you have less of an idea of what they have.

  ”Turn is another little diamond. I bet and MP raises, button folds. I (puke and) call. “

  Try not to puke when you call. It is a reliable weakness tell.

  ”River brings the king of diamonds. i check and he bets. Would you call for 1 more bet here?”

  You look doomed but there are 12 big bets in the pot. With this opponent will you win one time in 13? If so call.

  ”What if the river were not a diamond?”I would almost always call.

  In the original river scenario you really have to worry that three kings may value bet. So I would be a little more likely to call if another baby diamond came rather than the king of diamonds. But I would usually call a non diamond king.

  Regards,

  Rick
• Re: AA vs. probable flush
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:09 a.m.

  Although making tough folds on the end like this is not the way to make money in limit hold'em, I don't see how your hand can be any good. If your opponent was still drawing on the turn, then the fourth diamond just got him there. A rock is not going to make a move on both the turn and the river and not have a diamond in his hand. If he does not have a diamond he will worry that you have one. If he has a big overpair without a diamond, he would simply check it down here and hope his hand is good. If he was playing on pocket kings well he just rivered a set and he still beats you but it is inconceivable that he would bet here without a diamond.

  • Re: AA vs. probable flush
    Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
    Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:44 a.m.

    Jim,

    All that you wrote applies to a rock or tight player and against one I would lay down for the reasons you mention. But in my way of thinking “solid” implies an ability to get inside an opponent's head. If the MP player has this ability he might make both the turn raise and river bet with a weaker hand than Nigel's (such as QQ or JJ) without a diamond in the hope that Nigel will fold on either round since the board is scary to any pre flop capper if he doesn't hold a diamond.

    Rick

    • Re: AA vs. probable flush
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:33 p.m.

      I interpreted "rock solid" to be more like "rock" and less like "solid". If the guy can also be tricky and make a play like this with QQ or JJ while not having a diamond then he would have to be very tricky indeed to have started this ruse on the turn.

      • Re: AA vs. probable flush
        Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
        Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:28 p.m.

        What can I say Jim, I play in La La Land ;-). Tricky is second nature over here. But I agree that the laydown is right against most opponents.

        Regards,

        Rick
  • Re: AA vs. probable flush
    Posted by: Nigel (c21g@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 12:04 p.m.

    I folded but am second guessing myself. As Rick points out it is a question of whether this guy is solid/tricky enough to bet out with a non-flush. I consider him capable of it but I don't know still whether a call is warranted. I flip a coin here.

    • Re: AA vs. probable flush
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:36 p.m.

      Nigel, keep in mind that this guy would have to have started this on the turn with a raise and then follow it up with another bet on the river. I think it is rare to find this kind of premeditated thinking.
• Re: AA vs. probable flush
  Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:16 p.m.

  I have quit paying off in this situation. Especially if your rock is a TOM I guarantee you are dead in the water. Regards, Dave
• Re: AA vs. probable flush
  Posted by: Mike
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 4:31 p.m.

  Call it and you will know what he holds and you can better sleep after that.

  Mike

I have pocket tens 2 after BB....I raise. old geezer (tight and passive, it seems, but not so sure) calls, loose guy calls, one of the loose blinds call.

flop is 987 with two spades. checked to me, I bet, geezer and loose guy call...blinds fold.

turn is Ts - three spades on board....

I bet...geezer raises, loose guy folds...I call.

river is a 4d - I check, he bets....should i call? the only hands he can have that I can beat are :

99, 88, 77, T9s, ATs

a few hands later, he was two after the blinds and limped in with AcKc...the flop comes K42, with two clubs, someone bet, and he flat calls...then raises on the turn withut a club.

• Re: set against old geezer
  Posted by: docriver
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 4:19 a.m.

  fyi - this is my last post with this handle...i'm getting recognized too much on Planet.

  good bye two plus two - will be reincarnated sometime next month under a completely unknown, completely different name.

  • Re: set against old geezer
    Posted by: Muffin
    Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 11:05 a.m.

    Ask the server to change your handle there. Paradise will do this once, they say, so maybe planet may do it if you have a good reason. This seems to be a good reason.

I'm playing on planet poker, in the 20-40 5 player game. A very loose aggressive player (LA) name withheld because alot of you play on planet open raises. All fold to you in your BB and you have QdJd. Would you call or raise? I think folding here in this situation is unthinkable. I just called and we took a flop of 7h 8d 9s. What would be you're play from here? I chose to bet out and was raised. I called and we took the turn of 2d. I checked and called a bet. Would anyone let this hand go here, or would anyone even go so far as to check raise. I considered checkraising, but just called instead. The river is a 10h. I bet out instead of going for a checkraise, because this player raises the river with alot of marginal holdings and I decided it would be better to get a 3 bet in. She just called and I didn't see her hand. My friend who plays live casino games with me thought my play was horrible, but I don't think in that type of game I could give up so easily. What do you all think?

• Re: 20-40 5 handed
  Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:36 a.m.

  I think you played it fine. The only real question is whether or not to go for a check-raise on the river and this depends on the player. Given that the board was T higb I would expect her to check it down with any Ace so you have to bet.

  If you think she would bet a busted hand then check, but given that you had bet earlier I don't think this is too likey so you should bet hoping she paired her kicker and will call but not bet.

  My opinion,

  Paul Talbot
• Re: 20-40 5 handed
  Posted by: Doc
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 4:18 a.m.

  you can't checkraise the river with that board. if she has a J, you'll get 3 maybe 4 bets out of her with a bet. if she does not have a J, you may not even get one bet.

  the other thing to keep in mind is thatthe last card was a T, and not a 6....so if she had A9, a T is an overcard, and a hand that you would call with all along - thus a T screams that A9 is beat. of course, this is assuming she is thinking about stuff like this...some players don't....but even if they don't, they are unliekly to bet out unless they have a big pair, a set, two pair or a straight.
• Re: 20-40 5 handed
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 1:45 p.m.

  I have very little experience playing shorthanded but overall I like your plays here. Preflop, I would call every time out of my big blind with queen-jack suited. Folding is ridiculous.

  Once the flop comes with only one opponent in a shorthanded situation like this, I like your lead with two overcards, a gutshot straight draw, and a backdoor flush draw. Your lone opponent may fold facing a highly coordinated board like this. In these shorthanded situations his raise can be done on a vast array of weak holdings.

  At the river, you must bet your hand because with four parts to a straight on the table there is too good a chance he will just check it down.
• Re: 20-40 5 handed
  Posted by: suspicious
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 3:18 p.m.

  What exactly about your play did your freind think was horrible?

  I think alot of the play in shorthanded game depends very specifically on the player at hand.

  For example ont he flop will the player raise w/just over cards? or does the raise means top pair or better.

  On the turn how often would thius player let go if you bet out/ or if you check raise?

  Finally the river bet always seems a bit inconsistent, if you checkraise then later you may get some free checkdowns w/weaker hands which you may want.

  I definitely wouldn't ahve let go of this hand at any point in time though...
• Re: 20-40 5 handed
  Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 4:11 p.m.

  All fold to you in your BB and you have QdJd. Would you call or raise?

  I would never reraise from the big blind with this hand. You are facing an aggressive opponent who has already got the pot heads up with you. If you raise here you are VERY likely to see a reraise and all you have is queen high. You should just call in this situation roughly 100% of the time.

  You didn't say what position Angelina (oops! I mean the aggressive player) raised from, but regardless of how late the position, almost every conceivable raising hand has you beat right now. All pairs, all ace high hands, all K high and K suited hands. If you raise, what exactly do you put your opponent on? QTo? Is this the rare hand where she will raise with 78s to throw off her competition? The odds are not good for that, but even so, she has position on you. Just call. Which is what you did.

  I just called and we took a flop of 7h 8d 9s. What would be you're play from here? I chose to bet out and was raised.

  I think betting out is a mistake. Betting out with a big hand is the way to go, but with a draw, you want to check-call or check-raise. You are almost certainly going to get raised by an aggressive preflop raiser when you bet out on the flop, regardless of what they have. Any decent player is going to raise with a big ace because you are very likely to bet a draw here hoping to push off a big ace. Even a lousy player will know to bet out if they have a T here, and the raiser knows that. You are almost guaranteed to get raised if you bet out here. So don't do it unless you want to make it three bets.

  Also, betting out in this situation is indicative of a major flaw in many a player's game (in my opinion). It's called "every raiser has AK". If every raiser had a big ace, this game would be a cinch. The problem is compounded when you face players who will raise on the flop with just a big ace. What are you going to do? Three bet the flop with Q high? Even if you catch a crappy pair, are you really going to three bet the flop with a pair of 7s against someone who is clearly telling you "I have a big pair"?

  I think putting the raiser on nothing but a big ace every time is a dangerous game. I'm not saying that you do this, but your play of betting out on the flop made me think of players who do this too often.

  The other option is a checkraise on the flop which I think is a fine play. The check-raise looks like a value-bet because you KNOW the raiser will bet the flop. If you bet out, it can look like a cheap semi-bluff hoping to push off an ace high with your draw. A check-raise says you are greedy and you wanted that extra small bet from the aggressive raiser with your VALUABLE hand. It's harder to put you on a draw when you checkraise. You will probably get called but you can often win it on the turn if they really do have only an ace.

  The fact that you got called down on the river shows that this player very likely had more than ace high.

  Betting the river is an absolute must, as everyone has agreed. And you absolutely cannot let go of this hand on the turn.

  One last comment. Many players will choose to check-raise the turn here once they pick up 9 more outs. I don't like to raise on a draw from out of position. The problem is that you have to check the river if they call. When you have position, you can utilize the turn-raise bluff much more effectively. I think check-call on the turn here is fine.

  natedogg

  • Re: 20-40 5 handed
    Posted by: suspicious
    Posted on: Thursday, 10 May 2001, at 5:35 p.m.

    I still don' thtink the river bet is automatic, and in a shorthanded game one shoudlnt' think about the play of this hand only but how the play of this hand affects others hand and others perception. If you tend to bet out your made hands on the river then you had better also start bluffing alot on the river, and if you check your made hands alot of the river you can get a few cheap check downs on the river w/you marginal hands and you can sometimes checkraise bluff.

    I think alot of how to play this is dependent upon what you want to project and how the others are perceving you...
• what if it was not the BB
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 9:05 a.m.

  I think you clearly had to call in the BB. But then I was thinking of variations of this hand and I was wondering how people would play it in late position against an early position raiser, or a middle position raiser. I think if the LA was in early position you might have to reraise or perhaps fold. What would be the correct play?

  I think I would have checkcalled the flop and checkraised the river, but I think your play is fine.

  Pat

A fairly tight player in 2nd position raises. On the button I am holding JJ and reraise. He makes it four bets to go. Flop comes 998. He bets and I raise. He calls. The turn card is a 6. Not sure whether he is going for a check raise or not I check. On the river comes a Q I check again. I am wondering what sort of profit this play will have in the long run. I could not bet the turn for sure. As there is a good possiblity he could have check raised me. I believe he four bet to see if I had Ak or AQ as he bet into me on the flop. What do you guys think of the play that he made.

• Re: 30-60 play
  Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:11 a.m.

  I think if it is a tight player you aren't going to get 4 bet by ak suited or not. So on the flop I believe you are most likely behind.

30-60 weak-passive game at Bellagio. Lots of really awful players.

Family pot and I'm on the button with 62s. Is it ever conceivably correct to call here? Why or why not? What if UTG raises and everyone calls? Does this change anything? Last question, what if I'm in the BB and there is a raise and everyone calls: Should I throw in one more bet? The pot odds seem pretty enticing.

Thanks folks. I appreciate the help.

• Rick, this one's for y ou (nt)
  Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:58 a.m.

  :o)
• Re: need professional help
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 2:49 a.m.

  My nemesis Brett provoked me so I better answer. I would never call with the 62s on the button. Make it a 64s or even 53s and it is a good call for one bet with at least six opponents (including the blinds). I think you need the additional straight chances provided by the single gap hand, which IMO is only a little worse than no gaps (but two gaps is much worse and three gaps might as well not be connected).

  One problem with these little suited hands is that in the loose games you get many players who will play suited Qx, Jx, and Tx. So you run into flush over flush more often than in a typical game. But if you are connected you will often back into a straight when going for the flush, or the straight draws you often flop will be enough.

  In the big blind I think you can call a raise with small garbage two suited such as 62s as long as you are getting at least 13 to 1 on your call (the raiser and five other players). Some would disagree (perhaps Tommy Angelo and 3 Bet Brett) but I'm pretty sure that is where the consensus is.

  Regards,

  Rick

  • Re: need professional help
    Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:29 p.m.

    But if you are connected you will often back into a straight when going for the flush, or the straight draws you often flop will be enough.

    Wow. I must be running cold. Really really cold. That's the only explanation for why this statement seems to me like the unintelligible ravings of a man who has gone places and seen things my mind can never comprehend.

    Not to imply that YOU are an unintelligible raving madman, but just that I cannot comprehend what you say. You might as well have said: "it's best to slowplay if you flop five of a kind or better".

    natedogg

    • Re: need professional help
      Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
      Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:03 a.m.

      I originally wrote: ”One problem with these little suited hands is that in the loose games you get many players who will play suited Qx, Jx, and Tx. So you run into flush over flush more often than in a typical game. But if you are connected you will often back into a straight when going for the flush, or the straight draws you often flop will be enough.”

      You wrote: ”Wow. I must be running cold. Really really cold. That's the only explanation for why this statement seems to me like the unintelligible ravings of a man who has gone places and seen things my mind can never comprehend.”

      There is no question I am deranged and have seen wonders and beautiful sights beyond your wildest imagination. If I were at top form last night I would have wrote the above as follows:

      ”One problem with these little suited hands is that in the loose games you get many players who will play suited Qx, Jx, and Tx. So you run into flush over flush more often than in a typical game. You need a reasonable chance of flopping a straight draw to make the hand playable. The bottom line is you need to be connected (one gap is OK) and suited to play these little suited hands in back.”

      ”Another little known advantage of being suited and connected is that you will often back into a straight after flopping a flush draw or back into a flush after flopping a straight draw. In addition the straight draws you often flop will add significant equity.”

      Here is an example that should clarify my rewritten point above:.

      Let’s say you have 6h4h and call four limpers on the button. The blinds call also. The flop comes Qh 9h 5s. You have a flush draw. The turn comes the 2s. You now have the flush draw and inside straight draw. The river comes the 3d. You started with the flush draw but backdoored a straight. This won’t happen anywhere near as often with 6h2h. And 6h4c isn’t as good since you can’t make a flush. But the 6h4h is well worth playing. If course, these suited hands would ultimately prefer to make the straight rather than the flush.

      Regards,

      Rick

      PS Never slowplay five of a kind. Bet bet raise raise, hope everyone folds and ask for a new setup :-).
  • Re: need professional help
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:49 a.m.

    I think you've got to be right. Consider that you've got about a 13% of flopping either a flush draw, two pair or trips and it looks like you're gettting way more than the needed 7-1 to make the call. Of course, sometimes you'll lose when you flop good, but the overlay should cover that.

    However, I'm with Nate when it comes to backing into straights. I consider it unethical, and anyway I haven't done it since the 90's.
• Re: need professional help
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:11 a.m.

  In a game where the small blind is two-thirds of a bet, you can play this hand for one chip in the small blind if several players limp in. That is about the only time you should play Six-shit suited. Of course, if you get a free play in your big blind this would be an ideal time to play this hand.

  • I wonder what others think!
    Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 10:53 a.m.

    Jim,

    Obviously we disagree on this one. Per my post above In the BB against a raise I would advocate playing small disconnected suited garbage such as 62s as long as you are getting at least 13 to 1 pot odds. You’re going to flop a flush draw alone 11% of the time or so. BTW, my estimate applies to typical opponents. If your opponents are not to aggressive post-flop yet pay off when you make it on the river than I believe you can call with a little less. Of course the reverse is also true.

    When the small blind is half the big blind I would only need about 11 to 1 to call. I shade my requirements a little lower than the situation above because generally unraised pots won’t face as much post flop pressure.

    I wonder what others think.

    Regards,

    Rick

    PS You need to post under the guy above who wants to quit college and play poker. He needs a little Jim Brier sense drummed into him ;-)

    • Re: I wonder what others think!
      Posted by: Gabe (veltri@pacbell.net)
      Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:43 a.m.

      If this hand is worth playing here, in the situations you were talking about, it can't be worth more than $3.00. Don't forget, it costs Jim $3.00 more to play this hand. Gabe

      • Re: I wonder what others think!
        Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
        Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:34 a.m.

        Gabe,

        When the decision is very close we can play hands in our time collection games that Jim can’t play in the rake games he usually plays in. Jim doesn’t pay the $3.00 rake alone. It is split among the many players contesting for the pot, and is technically taken from the winner of the pot. Jim’s equity in these multi-way pots is a fraction of the total equity, but a worthwhile fraction IMO. For example, if he wins one pot out of ten, he would pay an average of 30 cents in rake.

        Of course heads up and in blind stealing situations the rake is much more of a factor.

        Regards,

        Rick
    • Re: I wonder what others think!
      Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
      Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 4:50 a.m.

      I think the only issue is whether to call one bet on the button with 62s. It's definitely worth a call if it were slightly more connected. But there isn't any 6xs that's worth a two bets. My vote would be to call with 62s, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

      In the big blind versus a raise and a family pot I'd always call with 62s.

      • Re: I wonder what others think!
        Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
        Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 12:07 p.m.

        Chris,

        I'm glad you essentially agreed with me and are even a little looser with the 62s. Maybe 3 Bet Brett will get off my back. He still busts my chops about the time 1) I called with Q9 offsuit on the button against four weak limpers including one who almost played his hands face up AND 2) calling with suited garbage (I think it was 62!) against a raise when I had already posted a make up late blind and was getting about 11 to 1 or even better.

        But you wrote: "There isn't any 6xs that's worth a two bets.". Would you call an early raise and five cold callers if you had a 65s? Assume that at least one blind would call and they would rarely make it three.

        Regards,

        Rick

        • Re: I wonder what others think! (and a quick sim)
          Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
          Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:52 p.m.

          My practice is to virtually never play lower suited connectors for 2 bets, but I prefer low limit rake games where the ev on these things even multiway for one bet is tiny. In a time-charge or bigger game with passive players post-flop it might work, but I suspect the cutoff is probably closer to 98s with JTs doing pretty well. But I don't really know.

          I ran 800,000 hands TTH with a family pot and 62s on the button for one bet, $30-60 with no rake, and came up with an ev of -$0.64 per hand with insane fluctuations. The lineup I used was one that sees a family pot less than 1% of the time (meaning that I had to plow through 100 million hands to get 800,000 family pots). I didn't look at how "well" the button played after the flop. My guess is that a good player against mostly passive opponents could make a couple of bucks, but maybe not.

          Maybe the best answer is: you can play this situation constantly for your whole life and still lose with a positive expectation. Given that the fluctuations in these games are already sickening with huge payoffs for the nuts, can't you find a better spot to invest $30?

          In any event, the sim suggests that a slightly better 6xs hand is certainly profitable for one bet on the button, and that 62s in the bb certainly has enough preflop money in a family pot to see the flop for one bet. In a 5% rake $3-6 game, I get a TTH ev of about half a small bet when the bb calls a raise with 62s against only seven loose opponents. The only suited hand I dump in this situation is 72.
• play it
  Posted by: Ms. Information
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:10 a.m.

  There are tons of glorious flops for that hand and you should definitely play it on the button with as little as two limpers. Of course raising may be be better.
  

  And when you bust their long awaited QJsuited they will be muttering of bad luck and standard deviations.

  Oh ya, RGP is where it is at!
  

  Ms. Information.
• Re: need professional help
  Posted by: Scott
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 5:13 p.m.

  One of my biggest weakness in all button games is staying in by completing the small blind and calling one raise from the BB, I would do it here as well. I would fold on the button, alot of hands will beat this.

Earlier on today the following occurred:

I wasn't involved in the hand, but the here's the story. The size of the game doesn't matter.

There were a few limpers and the flop came Ks-Qs-9h. Everyone checks to the button who bets, and gets like 3 callers. Turn comes a Js and all check again to the button who bets. This time only two people call. River comes an 8s making 4 spades on the board. Both players check to the button again who bets. This time only one old man calls and the other player mucks.

Anyways, they have to show their hands and the old man shows Qh-7s for a very small flush. The button, a player who is losing, on tilt and has been bluffing a lot throws his cards towards the muck, however the cards were thrown face up with one card touching the muck and another card touching the board.

The cards were exposed and it was shown that the button had 8h-10s. Thus he had turned the straight, but rivered the second nut flush. In his fury I guess he forgot that he had the 10s so he threw his hand away.

Now the old man goes into fury because the cards were thrown and they touched the muck, but they were faced up. Unfortunately not both of the cards touched the muck, only one did. So old man is still upset because he thinks its a dead hand and that he (the old man) should take the pot. The button sits quietly and says nothing.

The dealer doesn't know what to do. So here is where I decide to step in. (Mistake?!)

I tell the dealer to call the floor over and make a ruling. The floor comes over (an experienced poker manager I must say) and the dealer explains the situation, however the dealer explains it as well as a goddamn idiot trying to talk nuclear physics. So I then explain the situation to the floor.

The floor then rules that the button's cards are dead and the pot belongs to the old man.

Next thing I know I am getting juiced by the button player. He constantly says, "Thanks a lot, Thanks a lot", very sarcastically.

I told him that it wasn't personal and I had nothing against him, and that all I wanted to see was a ruling. But he doesn't stop and I decide to leave instead of taking all this anger from him.

Any comments or suggestions are much appreciated?

• Re: Should I have kept my mouth shut?
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:50 a.m.

  Lawrence,

  As a player I would probably prefer that the button player call for the floorman but since the game was stalled what you did was fine. You were also correct in clarifying the facts. You obviously do a good job explaining things and as a former floorman I appreciated clarification of facts from observant players.

  Rules differ from club to club and this situation is perhaps in a gray area. If it were absolutely certain that the cards were tossed in face up and there was no question about the fact that the button had the bigger spade I would award the pot to the button. Los Angeles rules tend to allow a floorman to go a long way towards awarding pots to the best hand after the action is complete, especially if the hand is face up and discernable.

  Regards,

  Rick

  • Re: Should I have kept my mouth shut?
    Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:56 p.m.

    I agree, and don't see on what solid basis the button could be ruled to have a dead hand (in any cardroom, actually--I am having trouble envisioning a reasonable rule that would allow the button's hand to be declared dead since the cards were "shown" face-up. The button did not say "fold" or anything like that, apparently). He might have thrown his cards in anger but they did land face-up on the table, and I don't think the once-touched-the-muck=dead rule applies to face-up hands in the showdown, does it?

    • Re: Should I have kept my mouth shut?
      Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
      Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:31 p.m.

      If I had made this same ruling, my boss would have me drug tested. Both cards face up? This is a no brainer. The hand is live.

      Yes, sometimes dealers do not relate what has happened clearly. I want someone not in the hand to say "That's not exactly what happened", but I'm still going to check with the dealer before awarding a pot.
• Re: Should I have kept my mouth shut?
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:03 a.m.

  The floorperson's ruling was flat-out wrong. At showdown, if a player's cards lie face up on the table they are live. It doesn't matter where they are on the table or whether or not they touched the muck. To see how ridiculous the ruling was consider the following hypothetical example. You are in the #1 seat (just to the left of the dealer). At showdown, you turn your cards face up on the table but one of them inadvertently touches the corner of the muck. No cardroom in the world would declare your hand dead.

  As a player at the table, you have the right to call the floor whenever an irregularity occurs. It was perfectly proper for you to request a floorman in this situation. It speeds up the resolution of the issue and does not slow down the game unnecessarily while the players and the dealer wonder what to do.

  The button should have argued with the floorperson for making a terrible ruling.

  • Agreed n/t
    Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 12:57 p.m.

    ^
• Re: who cares? these guys always like that NT
  Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 7:42 a.m.

  .

  • Re: who cares? these guys are always like that NT
    Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 7:43 a.m.

    .
• GREAT POST!!!
  Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 8:42 a.m.

  GREAT POST!

  I'll respond, then look at the other responses.

  You did fine. IMO players have the repsonsiblity to uphold the integrity of the game. Especially in the case of of green dealer or one who is intimidated by the situation.

  Calling the floor is the first thing the dealer should have done. When he didn't, your suggestion was the next best thing. Not only for a decision to be rendered but "what time's the next flop?"

  A good floor will ask the dealer to explain the situation, then ask for the players input. When the dealer was not clear in his explanation and the floor does not ask for players input, you were not out of line for offering. You should do that.

  Whether or not the button is liked or disliked, maniac or solid player, IMO the floor should have awarded the pot to him. His cards were exposed and even though one hit the muck, both his cards were clearly exposed and he showed the winning hand. Cards read, right! Just my opinion.

  Kind Regards,

  Gene (holdemdude)
• Re: Should I have kept my mouth shut?
  Posted by: Sam (rachael.charley@home.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 10:44 a.m.

  You did fine, it was the floor person who made two mistakes. 1. When the dealers explanation is incomprehensible the floor should immediately ask the players in the hand what happened (so as not to put you in the situation you found yourself in) 2. The button should win the pot
• Re: Should I have kept my mouth shut?
  Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:35 p.m.

  Calling for a ruling is the best way to handle the situation, especially if the dealer is unsure of what is going on.

  Unless you want to listen to a quickly escalating argument - Call the floor, get a decision, next hand.
• I guess I am a Minority of One
  Posted by: Alec (AlTang67@aol.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:03 p.m.

  I dont have a problem with someone calling the floorman in a situation like this, but it does bother me if someone who was not in the hand feels compelled to explain it to the floorman. The dealer is the first person who should explain the situation to the floorman. If he is incapable of, for whatever reason, then the players involved should. Some guy who wasnt in the hand though, I feel, should keep quiet. I think you were wrong to take this task upon yourself. As I said, it really bothers me when guys are out of a hand but feel they must inject themselves into a dispute they have nothing to do with.

  • Re: I guess I am a Minority of One
    Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:35 p.m.

    The dealer did attempt to explain it first and was butchering the explanation. This is common, especially if the dealer is inattentive or has problems with English.

    The other players have an interest in seeing the facts explained clearly, a decision rendered, and getting on to the next hand.

    Regards,

    Rick
• Re: Should I have kept my mouth shut?
  Posted by: Scott
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:36 p.m.

  Anytime a player goes "in to a fury" the floor man should be called, if not by the dealer, then a player.

  If I was sitting near the old guy, I think I would have told him to calm down and cards read. The floorman made a bad call, maybe you didn't explain to him correctly!! ;)

I am currently playing 10-20 and 15-30 games, and I use only money i have won previously ( i have about $8000 right now).I am a college student, I am 19 years old, and thinking about turning pro. I consistently beat these games , but I know there is a big step up to a 30-60 in terms of competition. My worry is not the competition, but I have no idea of what kind of bankroll I really need. I am guessing around 15-20 thousand, but like I said, I dont have a clue.

• Re: bankroll requirements
  Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 3:14 p.m.

  When I was playing full-time I used 300 BB for my BR. That's just the BR, not what I lived on or payed myself from my winnings. I payed myself $x weekly just like an employer would. Not more, not less. 3 things I would consider before playing full time.

  1. Playing at a higher limit than you've been playing is not necessary to play full-time.

  2. If you must, play at the higher limit for 3-6 months, then decide. Competition will be much tougher (but there still are mostly poor to average players)

  3. Talk to a successfull full-time player. One who is still a student of the game and preferably one that knows you and your game. Ther is much more than BR requirements and game skill that goes into being a full-time player.

  Remember, this is just what worked for me.

  Kind Regards,

  Gene (holdemdude)
• Re: bankroll requirements
  Posted by: olblueyes
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:58 p.m.

  If your consistantly winning at 10-20 and 15-30 why move up yet. One thing i have learned from playing cards so far is not how high the limit is,but how weak the players are. If you can sit in games were the players and weak and love to give thier money away sit in them. If it just so happens to be at a 10-20 or 30-60 game. I know your trying to go about it the "right" way and from what i found the only person i listen to is Doyal Brunson and he says about 200 the bb of the game. But my advice would be to watch the games,calcualte the money you plan on putting in play to the money you already in play at the table,see if your odds are good and see if the competiion is low wich in turn would be great for you. Reguardless of the limit find the sucker and take thier money.

  • thanks guys
    Posted by: daniel (daniel@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 11:27 p.m.

    the information was helpful

Tight UTG limps, I raise with KcKd, very loose-agressive button who is stuck over 2 racks calls, UTG calls.

Flop is 5h Js 6s

UTG bets, I raise, button calls, UTG folds. I assume the button is drawing to a spade flush by calling the raise cold. If he had AJ,KJ or even QJ or JT he would have reraised. He showed down pocket 66 earlier in a pot he had no chance of winning, so he could also have pocket 77-TT.

Turn is 6h

I bet, he calls.

River is Ah

I check-call. He shows J8h for the runner-runner. Did I play the river correctly? The chance of him having an ace is pretty slim and being stuck, he was making these bluffs on the end all night trying to get even. Would you have check-raised and tried to get another bet out him? My problem when playing against these loose players is not having a good read on them. I knew he didn't have A5 or A6 yet I still checked.

I let some bets get away from me that sesion by not raising because I was afraid of him showing down some strange straight or weird two pair. Where do you draw the line between being too aggresive and too passive when somebody is just giving their money away?

• Re: 15-30 hand
  Posted by: Buckshot-B (buckshot-b@home.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 2:02 p.m.

  I don't think there was a better way to play the hand. You put him on a hand and he happened to get there. What are you going to do? There is no other way to play the river. There were too many things there. Check-call was the best play.

  ~stephen
• Re: 15-30 hand
  Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:07 p.m.

  Check-call the river, give him a chance to bluff with his busted draw or his pocket 3's. Look at it this way--What is the hand he could have that you want him to call you with? (It's odd that he had a J, since by your description he would have beat on the pot a little harder with top pair). If you can't figure out what hand it is that you want a call from, it's generally better to check and show down.

20-40 (California). It was a brand new game (full). On the second hand, I was dealt Ah-As in MP and opened for a raise. A few callers, including the button (a passive guy who rarely abandons what he starts) and an unknown player in the BB (UP).

The UP, in this case, is wearing Ray-Ban sunglasses, a tan sport coat over a sweater vest (even though it's 90-degrees outside), has a 3-day beard, appears either well-tanned or Mediterranean, and, to top it off, is wearing a baseball cap advertising the Atlantic City slot machines. He bought in short (about $300) and won the blinds on the first hand with a UTG raise.

Four of us see the flop, 4-4-2, all red, two hearts. UP bets. I raise, straggler folds, button calls, UP re-raises. I go ahead and cap it and three of us go to the turn, which brings a black 5.

UP bets. What's your play here?

Results and my commentary to follow...

• Re: Rockets v. Maniac
  Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 1:27 p.m.

  Call it down. If you are behind you have 4 outs.

  Derrick

  • Re: Rockets v. Maniac
    Posted by: sean (twoplustwo@dobermanpages.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 4:17 p.m.

    "Call it down. If you are behind you have 4 outs. "

    Hard to say how many outs you have...

    I would assume that the two remaining A's are outs... If the river brings another 4 then 4's full of A's is probably good, the four remaining 3's could very well be outs... unles he has a 6. If you are being attacked by another overpair lower then A,A then obviously most of the deck becomes an out... I'm not sure which four outs you meant actually.

    sean...

    • Re: Rockets v. Maniac
      Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 6:34 p.m.

      I said if you are behind you have 4 outs. I should have said about 4 outs.

      How can you be behind with A's with a board of 4-4-2-5.

      He can have A-3. In which you have 1 A as an out or 3 3's or 2 4's. 3 outs split the pot, so count them as 1/2 an out each. You have 4.5 outs (~4 outs).

      He can have 3-6. In which you have 2 A's or 2 4's as outs (4 outs).

      He can have a 4x. He has trips. You have 4 3's as outs or 2 A's (4 outs).

      He can have 22. He has a boat. you have any 4 or any A as outs (4 outs).

      He has 55. He has a boat. you have any A as outs (2 outs).

      If he has 42 or 45 you only have (2 outs).

      If he has 44 you are drawing dead.

      IMO, if you are behind, you MOST LIKELY have about 4 outs. You very well may not be behind though. He could have K's for instance and be pushing it just as hard. He also could have a 3 and be pushing hard on the draw. Or he could have a 4 flush. After all he is a maniac.

      Derrick

      • Re: Rockets v. Maniac
        Posted by: Lawrence Ng (lng33@home.com)
        Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 3:59 a.m.

        As KGB said in Rounders,

        "Payz ze man his money...."

        In other words, call him down all the way and hope he doesn't have a 4 or straight. I don't see how anyone could lay down Aces on a 4-4-2-5 board.

        Lawrence Ng
• Re: Rockets v. Maniac
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Friday, 11 May 2001, at 5:16 p.m.

  I would reraise the turn. If he has a draw with two hearts then a reraise is correct,I think. He could be playing A3 of hearts,or he could even be trying to play you off your hand thinking that you might be playing a high draw. He could also have a high pair smaller than aces. If he has A3 then you are screwed, but I dont think he would play that hand this way, although I suppose its possible. A bigger worry is the button who is calling and withstanding a lot of heat. At the very least you must call him down the whole way.

  Pat
• Results/Commentary
  Posted by: Skidmark (macpherd@inreach.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 12:06 a.m.

  Let me preface this by saying that I thought this was an interesting hand because the concern here isn't so much winning or losing the hand, but controlling how much you win or lose. When faced with someone you perceive as a maniac, it does well to take advantage and hit him for all he's worth.

  Anyway, here's the results, and some of my commentary will follow, for those who are interested:

  I called the bet. All three of us went to the river, which was a black six. UP bet again, I really didn't like it, but called. Button player (remember him?) raised! UP called, I mucked, figuring straight or FH for sure. Button showed pocket 6's for full house. UP showed 8-2 of diamonds.

  Here's my comments for those who are interested:

  I strongly considered raising the turn. The UP just screamed that he was a gambler, and while I often give players the benefit of the doubt and play them straight until they show otherwise, I felt he was the real deal.

  So, I simply had to resolve myself to the fact that UP could have literally anything (i.e., a random hand of any value or rank), and I also had to understand that the button was yet to act, was a straight-arrow and uncreative. Button was already digging into his chips for a call, and I felt a raise would be useless if my intention was to isolate myself against the "maniac." Ultimately, I was faced with a situation where I was up against what were conceivably totally random hands of virtually any strength, although I felt that the button had to have something reasonable to have cold-called two-bets twice ont he flop.

  Anyway, in deciding to raise or not, I considered 1) whether I could run button player out (no), 2) whether the maniac would raise back at me (probably), 3) how important it was to extract maximum value from this hand when iw as pretty comfortable that I had the best hand at the time (kinda), and 4) what I felt would be "safe" cards to catch on the river (meaning cards that I could feel comfortable enough about to value bet the river).

  As stated before, the button was going nowhere, so 1) was moot. The UP's stack at this point was down to about $160 (or four big bets) and I felt he'd have no problem coming back at me, but I would ultimately be committing myself to paying off an inordinately large amount in the event I was behind or got sucked out on on the river. I felt getting maximum value for their "draws" was important, but I wasn't really 100% certain they were drawing. In the end, I figured there were approximately 17 "feel good" cards that could come on the river (any ace, any non-heart over an eight), and felt that if any of those cards should hit the river, I would raise then.

  So, I elected to call rather than raise, and the rest is history, though a raise wouldn't have done a damn thing to change my fate. I think I played the hand quite solidly, myself, considering all of these circumstances.

  Epilogue: UP was the real deal. He and I locked horns a few times, where I played him passively and called him down with mediocre to weak hands and won a few nice pots. He was about $600 in the game overall, and then he just went on a mortal tear. For fifteen minutes he totally dominated the game with wacky suck-out draws and all kinds of crazy stuff, finally running his stack to about $3000, and promptly left the game to go play California Blackjack or Pai-Gow. C'est la vie!

  • Disagree
    Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:11 p.m.

    Your justification for not raising? >1) whether I could run button player out (no),

    Good! he has 2 outs, you want him to throw as much (practically) dead money into the pot as he can. You give him some credit for calling preflop; could he be calling with a 4? If not, then you must have him beat. I'd be more worried about the maniac.

    >2) whether the maniac would raise back at me (probably),

    Same comments as 1). However, you have to be concerned a bit more here, since this guy MIGHT have a 4.

    >3) how important it was to extract maximum value from this hand when i was pretty comfortable that I had the best hand at the time (kinda), and

    Not sure what you are saying here. You were happy not extracting maximum value?

    >4) what I felt would be "safe" cards to catch on the river (meaning cards that I could feel comfortable enough about to value bet the river).

    Given the current situation on board, I'd be inclined to assume all hands are either made (or are very unlikely to get better). Lets focus primarily on the button; what hand is he going to have that likes a flop of 244? then a 5? then a 6? Does he have a 3? If so, there is more than 1 maniac in your game.

    I think you may be letting results influence your thinking. Had the maniac had 82, and the button 99, you would be thinking to yourself that you had missed bets, and you would be correct. I think you may have gotten a bit lazy here in focussing on the maniac. You say "I give the button credit for 'something'". Well, what? Given your knowledge of him as a player who "rarely gives up on what he started", he could have almost anything, from a mid pair to simply two overcards.

    I don't like the slowdown on the turn when the only one betting at you is a maniac. You say you thought you had the best hand, so why let people have a free card to maybe catch up.

Hollywood Park Casino, One of my friends TL, a solid player is sitting in the BB with KQo. Another very tight player, Tom, open raises 1 off the button, fold to Tommy who calls. Both these opponents know each other well. Flop comes: 235rainbow. TL bets- Tom raises TL calls. turn 6 still rainbow TL bets- Tom folds. I think that TL played the hand way too risky for such a small pot, but at the same time I think Tom played the hand wrong too. Tom had pocket JJ. Tom knew that TL is tight and should have known that a: it is unlikely for TL to have a 4 in his hand b: TL almost certainly doesn't have 2 pair c: TL is aware that Tom is tight and may be trying to run him off his hand. I think that there are way plenty of hands that TL could have that lose to Tom such as 77-TT maybe A6s or A5s, maybe 67s, add to this the possibility of a bluff, I think that Tom had a payoff hand. Another interesting thing was that TL made a bad read because he said to me that he figured Tom had no overpair because he expected that hand to raise on the turn rather then the flop. Sounds to me like too much trying to outguess eachother lead to a strange result- what do you guys think?

• Re: Interesting hand between friends....
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 8:37 a.m.

  First, the player in the big blind should have considered reraising against the possible steal raise. See the short handed section in HPFAP-21 for more information as to why.

  Second, even though the player in the big blind is tight, there are a few hands that he should defend with out of the big blind against a possible steal raise that do contain a four. Thes include A4s, K4s, 44, 54s, 64s.

  • Re: Interesting hand between friends....
    Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
    Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 7:45 p.m.

    Yes there are those few hands that contain a four as well as the BB possibly having a set, but don't you think that the guy with JJ should have payed off? He only needs to win one time out of four.

    • Re: Interesting hand between friends....
      Posted by: Russ (rgarber@stanford.edu)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 1:36 a.m.

      Are you certain the guy had JJ? Seems to me there is a good chance he didn't have JJ and just said he did.

      • Re: Interesting hand between friends....
        Posted by: Goat (PunkRok777@aol.com)
        Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 5:31 p.m.

        Yes he did for sure, he thought i saw his hand because I was standing behind him. When I asked what he had he said "you saw what I had". He wouldn't lie anyway.

I’m posting this here because the best mathematicians seem to hang here and the discussions in the Internet Poker forum seem to disintegrate into shout downs and ridicule.

Please help with the following theoretical calculations. The following are givens.

1) You are playing online poker. Any limit.

2) You can see the hole cards of 5 other players plus your own two cards.

After the flop, you have knowledge of 15 cards to the myopic players 5. You know if your hand is live and can more accurately calculate the true nuts for any flop.

A) If you don’t pump and dump, or any other obvious colluding tactic, and simply play good solid poker using Sklansky’s starting hand guide as a base for calculation, what is your percentage advantage over the “blind” competition?

B) If you are a +2BB per hour winner normally, what would your win rate be with this advantage?

C) Next, can you lower your starting hand requirements before the flop because you have your largest advantage after the flop? How low can you go and still have your advantage?

I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether collusion is feasible or if it is happening, (I happen to think that it is), I just would like to know what the increased advantage would amount to and what kind of incentive there may be to jump over the low hurdles standing in the way of would be colluder(s). Thanks for your help.

• Re: Math problem
  Posted by: mathsnob
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:49 a.m.

  The best mathematicians are here!? Now that really is funny.

  But seriously I think your question is too complicated (eg not well defined), to give a definite answer. A really big factor is how well you know your opponents and how much control you have over them, and the type of game it is. I suspect the edge you pick up in a tight game is much greater than that in a loose game.

  • Re: Math problem
    Posted by: Chip Breaker
    Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:17 a.m.

    Ok, I understand. I'll make it simple.

    Suppose you have 8 outs after the flop. If you can see 5 cards, I calculate the odds at 4.88 to 1 against, if you can see 15 cards I calculate the odds at 3.63 to 1 against. Just talking the numbers, not the control you have at the table, do you start out after the flop with a 25.64% better chance of hitting your outs?

    • Re: Math problem
      Posted by: mathsnob
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 8:00 p.m.

      Yes, if none of your outs are in the hands of your opponents. This is a good point that you note.
• Re: Math problem
  Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 7:06 p.m.

  Not great at math myself, however if you know your opponents, you can add scare cards into your potential outs, supposing they are not calling stations. So say you are open ended on the flop and you know your opponent had a single pair, you can now add flush cards/ and over cards to your potential outs, if he can lay down a hand..

this was a 10-20 hand i played at hollywood park last night. i had no read on any of the players involved in the hand yet as i had just say down.

i was on the button with pocket queens. 3 players limped to me and i raised. the big blind called as well as the 3 in the middle. $100 in the pot.

the flop is J97 rainbow. everyone checked to me and i bet, everyone called. $150 in the pot.

the turn is an 8. BB checks, next player bets $20, player after him calls, next player mucked. my turn: what should i have done??

thanks, mike

• Re: 10-20 hand
  Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 1:56 p.m.

  Save your money. This card is a global killer for your hand. The pot is protected, so it's highly unlikely that the bettor is pulling any sort of move without the straight. You also have to worry about the BB and maybe the turn limper having better hands than you even thou they may not have a ten.

  MS Sunshine (mr)

  • result
    Posted by: mike l. (asd@asdf.com)
    Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:55 p.m.

    that's exactly what i was thinking as my pocket queens went flying for the muck right there on the turn. i was pleased with my good laydown. the big blind called.

    then the river came a ten. to add insult to injury it got checked around on the river, the initial turn better showed 73o, the next player showed A2o (no pair even) and the big blind also had 73o. i kid you not. so my hand was the best on the turn and the river. the $210 pot got split 3 ways.

    • LOL n/t
      Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
      Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 3:02 p.m.

      n/t
• Re: 10-20 hand
  Posted by: gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 2:50 p.m.

  Fold. Someone's got 10-10; 10-J; 10-9 or 10-K. Most likely at least the BB. I'm sure Sunshine said something similar.

  Kind Regards,

  Gene (holdemdude)

it's weird, im not sure if it's a phenomenon exclusive to 10-20, but it seems like people outplay and outthink themselves often at that level and make laydowns they shouldnt.

is it that a decent 10-20 player is good enough to think about the other player's holding well enough to fold decent hands, but sometimes not good enough to realise they should call someone down with a less than thrilling hand? there's very little of the "keeping a player honest" mentality that is so common even in 6-12. it's not uncommon to hear groaning at the showdown: "damn i folded the best hand again.." it seems like the level of player at 10-20 varies more than at low level as well. ---- ive recently been making the transition from 6-12 to playing more 10-20. an interesting hand came up last session and i wondered if a "better" player would have made a laydown where i did not. i had 87h in middle position. utg raised preflop and player to my right called. i called as well because i figured the chances were strong this hand would end up multiway based on the action of players behind me on previous hands. one more player called as did the big blind. $100 in the pot.

the flop came 884, two spades. utg bet out, next player folded, and i raised to charge possible flush draws. next player and big blind folded, utg called. $140 in the pot.

turn is the 2 of spades. utg checks, i bet $20, he raises. i call. comments?

river is ANOTHER little spade. 6 of spades i think. he bets into me and i call. comments?

results coming soon, most of you can probably guess what happened anyways. i saw this player last night doing very well at the 40-80 table.

• Re: 10-20?
  Posted by: gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 3:08 p.m.

  Calling 2 bets cold with 87s in MP with that many players left to act with hopes of a mutilway pot IMO is just throwing your money way. You're also susceptable to be 3- betted. If you're last to act or the BB in a mutiway pot is one thing. You got a great flop but sounds like you still may have lost the hand anyway, which reiterates my thoughts.

  Kind Regards,

  Gene (holdemdude)

  • result
    Posted by: mike l. (asd@asdf.com)
    Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 5:14 p.m.

    i agree basically about my preflop call, but i dont think it was the most atrocious call given that i was pretty certain the hand would end up 5-7 handed and a reraise was unlikely.

    he had pocket aces with no spade. he did everything to put me off what was an obvious 8. i couldve so easily have let myself throw the best hand away, but i could sense that this was a really solid player and that the likelihood of him putting a move on me with that turn checkraise was too high. i put him on a big pocket pair right from the start (AK with at least one spade was also possible) and decided that the pot odds were there to call him down--there was too good a chance that he held no spade which meant my hand was definitely good on the turn (and when the little spade fell on the river). i raked a pretty decent pot.

    this is an interesting contrast to the hand below where i let myself be completely pushed off the best hand by an ill advised bluff and two morons.

    im trying to formulate something here about when to call with a very possible second best hand and when to dump a potential best hand. it's a little disconcerting to move up to 10-20 and see players pulling the moves on me that have been my bread and butter against rocks and awful players at the 6-12. im trying to learn how to adjust to this change in the competition.

    • Re: result
      Posted by: Winger
      Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 10:49 p.m.

      If he's a good player, he'll have the flush every time he bets into you now.

      I like to use the same play and it's a good play as most players will lay down a better hand. But some don't, and those players never see that move twice from me. But they still pay off.
    • HP 10-20
      Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 7:28 p.m.

      Mike is it correct you are moving from 6-12 to 10-20 at HP?

      Just my opinion but that is THE toughest game at HP, 10-20 is my common comfort level, but i will play either 6-12 or 15-30 only there depending on my mood, or a NL game in ventura. Have you tried the 15-30? i find it plays a lot like the 6-12 with a bit more thinking, though nowhere near as tough as the 10-20, and while i havent seen or met rick he plays 20-40 if i get that far, i goto another place ;-) j-k

      Best of luck,

      Ray

      • Re: HP 10-20
        Posted by: mike l. (asd@asdf.com)
        Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 8:53 p.m.

        good points, ill keep them in mind, thanks.

        i normally play a 6-12 kill game elsewhere (outside of l.a.) that's extemely easy to beat. but a friend and i have been going to HP pretty often lately and ive been playing both 6-12 and 10-20 there. that hp 10-20 table was very loose and good the other night (check out my post below this one for a good example). there were at least 2 any two card players there with no postflop skills to speak of, lots of gamblers.

        im curious about that ventura avenue place. my friend lives there and im wondering how good the 6-12 kill hold em game they spread on fridays is. that's not the best neighborhood and the place is very small so im concerned with issues of safety and collusion/cheating. any comments?

        ive not adequately studied no limit or pot limit so that's not an option yet.

        • Re: HP 10-20
          Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:41 p.m.

          I wont play it, i dont play any other game they spread. This goes along the lines of game selection, i think if everyone knows eachothers name there (like they do) it is one of the tougher games.. not lookin to be a world champ, just make some money..

          My opinion..

          Saw that one night the 10-20 WAS flowing had about 3 tables going, maybe it has changed, usually only one table from my experience and again all same players...

          Good Luck..

          -Ray

          PS there are some good times to pick a good game at the club in ventura for NL, i had no ring game experience but wanted to play badly, and needed to get my feet wet, good place to do it.. 200 buy-in and i look to double before i start really playing...

1. AhAc in late position, one early limper, I raise bb calls. FLOP Ad,10d,6h

All check to me and i decide to check. Mistake? turn 3d early limer bets I raise,bb folds, el calls. comments?

(I was fairly sure that he didn't have a flush and that he probably had a ten with a diamond)

river is another diamond, he bets out I hesitate and call. comments? mistake? ( i was 99 percant sure he had a diamond, not sure why i called, I knew it was a mistake when I did it)

He held Kd,10

2. Ac,10c in early middle, UTG limps(no read on him as he just came to the table) I decide to raise(other wise i would fold) everyone folds bb calls so does UTG

flop A,4,5 UTG bets out, I raise bb folds, UTG calls Comments?

Turn is a ten Utg check, I bet, he calls

River 3 utg checks I bet he raises, I called Comments?

UTG had pocket dueces for the straight

I tried to put him on a hand that he could have played from that position, and I thought for sure that 2,6 was out of the question, maybe A,2, My best guess was a slowplayed set, but i never thought pocket duces.

My question is How many would Pay of on the river?

3. 4d,4h in the middle position, 2 players limp befor me I call one more afler me and the button raises(female player fairly predictable) everyone calls.

flop 5c4c3d I bet out everyone fold to the lady who calls. comments

turn is a 2c I bet out and get raised call hoping to pair up

river is a blank

i check she bet i call comments?

she held aq for the straight

would you make the final call

• Re: A Few hands to comment on
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Saturday, 12 May 2001, at 10:45 p.m.

  1. Regardless of the reult of the hand I would definitely have bet here since there are two diamonds on the board.

  2. I would payoff here unless my opponent was weak and I had a good read on him. BTW It seems that there have been a lot of similar hands posted recently. Your opponent misplayed his hand in my opinion, so you got hosed.

  3.I see a theme developing with these hands! In this case I would fold since you said the player was fairly predictable, and she therefore could easily be read as holding an ace.

  Pat

Planet poker sets up certain games so that a maximum of five players can be in the game at a time. I have been doing pretty decent at these games but if I was better I could be making a killing. Here are my question (spare me the basics like you need to play more hands as the number of players goes down and such), I want the gritty details i.e. what hands to play what percentage of the time.

What are the chances if all five players see the flop that someone flop that some hits top pair - top pair or second pair?

What hands should I limp or raise with UTG. Do I fold pocket fives after a limp/ call or raise?

How do I play ace high. Should I fold A-8 after a limp? Do I three bet A-10?

Help all you shorthanded wizards.

• Re: 5 handed play-do you have the answers
  Posted by: Andreas (Poker@winning.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 5:22 a.m.

  I've been playing theese games myself and I find them to be great fun (mostly 2-4). The quality of play might be higher then the normal tables but I enjoy the game more. Isn't that what it's all about?

  Anyway, UTG I raise with aces down to maybe A7, kings downto maybe K9, pairs downto 55 and a couple of other hands (QJo/QTs/JTs). UTG I almost never limp in. If I limp it's on the button, one off the button or the SB and there are already a couple of players in.

  How to play A8 and AT. As always "it depends". It's kind of player dependant, if you have position on a total fish both of theese hands are 3bettable. But if on the other hand you're up against a good player you probably should be wary.

  I think theese games stress your postflop game much more then full games so your preflop game should be less important. Knowing when to push A-high all the way to the river, now there's the real trick...

  Just the way I play (for good or bad)...

  Sincerly, Andreas

  • Re: 5 handed play-do you have the answers
    Posted by: JV
    Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 5:43 a.m.

    Andreas,

    I completely agree. I love these games. I can't go back to full hold em games with these around. I like your idea of not limping UTG. However, I would raise less there. It is difficult to outplay a cold call from the button with some of those weak hands. I make all my money value betting marginal hands.

    I have heard Abdul say that the game doesn't change that much five handed, what do you think?

    • Re: 5 handed play-do you have the answers
      Posted by: Andreas (Poker@winning.com)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 6:06 a.m.

      Maybe my raising standards UTG are fairly liberal. I've been doing OK so far, not great. My game still needs some improvements. But AT is a 100% raise UTG 5handed to me. K9 might be a tad weak thou.

      I think 5-handed is an entierly different game then 10 handed. But I feel that the game changes more dramatically when it goes 4 or 3 handed. If you fail to fold you will be more severly punished since you're generally fighting over smaller pots. Valuebetting the river also seems more important.

      One drawback of the game is that it's very tiltinducing though, getting beaten but badly dominated hand a couple of times in a row is just horrible. Overall I love them though, especially when live ones that has understood that you need to play more hands shorthanded start to play every hand.

      Sincerly, Andreas
• Re: 5 handed play-do you have the answers
  Posted by: zzzzzz (ray@shano.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 7:39 p.m.

  I find shorthanded i am making more information raises, and field thinning raises. The more you know about your opponents postflop play, the better you can profit, that is more or less what i am looking...

  Just my experience and HO

  -Ray

From Page 57 in the chapter on semibluffing we read:

"Now suppose the flop is: Qc-6h-3d and you hold 7d-5c (giving you a gutshot) against many opponents. This is another time when semibluffing is usually correct."

I am assuming that you got a free play in your big blind with many players (six players for example) since no one would pay money to take a flop with seven-five offsuit.

But what are we trying to accomplish by betting here into a large crowd? We are hoping to win the pot right away or catch a four on the turn to make our straight if we get called. If we had a small number of opponents like one or two then there is a good chance that we can win a small, unraised pot by simply being able to bet first. So our semibluff has a good chance of succeeding against a small number of opponents. But against many opponents the likelihood of having everyone fold when we bet is negligible. I cannot remember the last time I led into crowd of six or more players and everyone dutifully folded. Since we have no chance of winning the pot outright by betting, what is likely to happen? Since there are many limping hands containing a queen, there is a good chance that if we bet we will get raised. We will be obliged to call the raise. So what we have done by betting is increased our cost to take a card off from one bet to two bets. But a gutshot is a four outer which is an 11-to-1 shot on the next card. If we are paying two bets to take a card off than our drawing odds versus our pot odds get ruined. Our goal is to take a card of cheaply when we have a small number of outs. The other problem with betting is that we never get a free card. Wouldn't it be nice to get a free card to our gutshot against a large field when we have no hand?

What does everyone else think? How many of you guys play this way?

• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#3
  Posted by: JV
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 5:20 a.m.

  I don't think anyone can play it this way. I can't even imagine making this play at an excruciatingly tight game.
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#3
  Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 9:32 a.m.

  This is t9 all over again. If you win the pot outright 5% of the time, the bet is clearly correct. Your gain is about a third of a bet when it works. The bet also sometimes wins you the pot when you make a pair of sevens that wouldn't normally win or sometimes even a pair of fives. That should happen about another 5% of the time. That's 2/3 of a bet gained total. Another upside to betting is the deception it gains you on future hands plus the probable extra bets you will make immediately if you hit. Meanwhile the main downside is those times you are raised and you don't win. That should cost you less than half a bet in most games.
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#3
  Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 1:01 p.m.

  I have to say that betting into 4 or more will result in a show-down at low limits. I find that one should hit the flop ard or get out. I don't agree that this is a semi-bluff situation but rather a gutshot play. However, with fewer opponents I have had excellent success at semi-bluffing as long as a tight image was set up in advance. Online if the table turnover gets bad this will not work anymore and you have to get the image again. Really afraid of that Q as it's hard to believe how many will stick around with Q trash and you can't get them out. I am looking for the room that has all my money in it that I won by making the opositon make bad mistakes and they are paying me in the long run, ha,ha, Regards, Dave
• Re: Problems in HPFAP-#3
  Posted by: Dan Z.
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:21 p.m.

  Jim,

  Let's put ourselves in our opponents heads, esp. the early position players, as these are the ones most likely to limp with a medium pair or a Q.

  There is a bet from the SB or BB into several players. if I call with a weak Q or medium pair, I can be drawing slim, or have it raised behind me with a real hand. There is not much to draw to, so he is likely betting a Q or better, and not a draw. Beign in the blinds, he could have 2 pair or a set, or a big queen. The pot isn't huge, so I should fold my nines, and maybe a weak Q. Especially if the bettor is seen as a rock.

  So, if the early players don't have a queen, or AK (unlikely) they will almost certainly fold.

  Only a late postion player can call with such a hand, and this player can often be bluffed on the turn.

  This is using the psychology of the protected pot - everyone thinks someone else will keep the player honest, or that someone must have a hand.

  So there is some small chance we can win. I think you underestimate this, because this chance only has to be a tiny fraction to make a bet the play.

  We are much better than 11-1 to hit, because it a straight is unlikely the 4 paying opponents is holding a 4.

  Another benefit is that a QK or QA or set might low play this flop, and look to raise the turn, so we are not too likely to get raised on the flop. If we are not raised, we lose nothing since we will almost certainly call a bet here, except maybe if the hand will be heads up.

  Good luck.

  Dan Z.

  • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#3
    Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
    Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:54 p.m.

    Dan Z.,

    You wrote:”Let's put ourselves in our opponents heads, esp. the early position players, as these are the ones most likely to limp with a medium pair or a Q. - - There is a bet from the SB or BB into several players. if I call with a weak Q or medium pair, I can be drawing slim, or have it raised behind me with a real hand. There is not much to draw to, so he is likely betting a Q or better, and not a draw. Beign in the blinds, he could have 2 pair or a set, or a big queen. The pot isn't huge, so I should fold my nines, and maybe a weak Q. Especially if the bettor is seen as a rock. “

    Why would a player who thinks at this level play a weak queen up front?

    ”So, if the early players don't have a queen, or AK (unlikely) they will almost certainly fold.”

    They would have to be decent players. How often do six decent players call before the flop?

    ”Only a late postion player can call with such a hand, and this player can often be bluffed on the turn.”

    If the late position player makes the call with a weak queen after others have folded, he will go to the river with all that dead money.

    ”We are much better than 11-1 to hit, because it a straight is unlikely the 4 paying opponents is holding a 4.”

    This is at most a small factor IMO.

    ”Another benefit is that a QK or QA or set might low play this flop, and look to raise the turn, so we are not too likely to get raised on the flop. If we are not raised, we lose nothing since we will almost certainly call a bet here, except maybe if the hand will be heads up.”

    Good point here.

    Regards,

    Rick
  • Re: Problems in HPFAP-#3
    Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
    Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:01 p.m.

    Jim,

    I too would want fewer opponents (at most three) OR the open ended draw (with six opponents) with unaggressive players on my left so if I did get raised they wouldn't cut off my action.

    Also, I'm not sure this would work 5% of the time against typical opponents as David indicates below, at least in California mid limit.

    Regards,

    Rick

    • Above S/B Under Jim Brier (n/t)
      Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:03 p.m.

      .

Here's a hand I played this evening which some of you might find interesting. The game was a loose $30-$60 hold 'em, and the players in the blinds were extremely loose.

An early position player raised. The person on his left called. A middle position player made it three bets. I had QsQd on the button and called, and both blinds called. So six of us saw the flop for three bets each.

The flop was 6d 5c 2d. No one bet.

The turn was the 8d. The players in the blinds checked. The initial raiser checked. The player on his left bet. The initial three bettor folded. I raised, and everyone, including the turn bettor, folded.

All comments are welcome.

• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:51 a.m.

  You should have bet the flop. You need to give your opponents a chance to fold a gutshot straight draw,a smaller pocket pair, an ace overcard, a king overcard, or a big singleton diamond like an ace or a king, rather than handing out free cards to a table full of opponents with a large pot at stake. Furthermore, when your hand holds up you cost yourself money by failing to bet it.

  When the bettor folded there were 12 big bets in the pot and it costs him only 1 big bet to call with only one opponent. It seemed strange that he would fold. But who is to say that everyone would not have folded if you bet the flop or that maybe only one or two players would call and then fold when you bet the turn?

  I think it would have been almost poetic if some doofus with an unsuited diamond king suddenly picks up a flush draw on the turn and now makes a flush at the river when he might folded on the flop for a bet having only a king overcard and a runner-runner flush draw.

  • Re: Hand to Talk About
    Posted by: Dan Z.
    Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 1:39 p.m.

    Jim,

    Please explain what hands can't call here for a small bet. there are 19 of these in the pot if Mason bets. So every pockt pair, overcard, or gutshot will call. Anyone with a backdoor flush and backdoor straight should probably call.

    Mason played the hand perfectly - the pot is very large, all he should care about is winning it, not winning more bets.

    This is right out of loose games section in HPFAP.

    Good luck.

    Dan Z.

    • Re: Hand to Talk About
      Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 1:57 p.m.

      True, except there's the fact that the bet might not come from your immediate right on the turn.

      And other problems can stem from this play as well. I remember about a year and a half ago, when the subject of this play was first broached on this forum, a number of posters (skp in particular, although there were others) were wary of checking the flop here, if only because you could get stuck in a jam where the blind bets his A8 (or whatever), and the next guy raises with his Ad Ks. The next guy cold calls with his Kd Qh, leaving to you to figure out a) whether or not your hand is good, and b) whether or not it will be good one card from now.

      Too, if the blinds are that loose there's a chance this flop hit one of them, which means a bet on the flop may illicit a check-raise.

      This is not to say that playing it Mason's way doesn't have its merits. Since someone's going to play back at you with a hand anywhere from pocket 9's to trip 8's it's going to be hard to know if your overpair is any good if there's a lot of flop action. So, you might want to slow down, figuring that overcards are calling anyway, and see if anyone has a hand they really like on the turn. And, you'll put more pressure on the goofy gutshots likely to be held be either of the blinds (Mason did say they were loose) if you wait 'till the turn. Howeverr, on the flip side you do put yourself in something of a guessing game is a fairly scary card (but not an overcard to your pair) hits the turn.
    • Re: Hand to Talk About
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 2:47 p.m.

      Because players do not always play correctly. The fact that they may or may not be getting the "mathematically" correct odds to play does not mean they will play. Suppose Mason bets the flop and someone check-raises? Now a guy with a hand like Kd-9c may well fold rather than calling two bets cold. He might even decide to fold for one bet having just overcards and a backdoor non-nut flush draw out of fear that it may get raised behind.

      The point is that by failing to bet your hand in these situations you never give your opponents a chance to fold and you frequently open up Pandora's box when you hand out free cards to lots of players who can easily pick up all kinds of hands or draws that they would have folded otherwise.

      Yes, the play is right out of HPFAP and I suspect that is why the hand was posted. But if the hand had been lost because some guy made a big runner-runner diamond flush for instance, would we have still heard about it?

      Finally, it sounds like the hand would have been won anyway if the flop gets bet since in all likelihood only one person would have called and then folded when the turn got bet so I suspect the play made no difference in the outcome.

      • Re: Hand to Talk About
        Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
        Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:32 p.m.

        "Yes, the play is right out of HPFAP and I suspect that is why the hand was posted. But if the hand had been lost because some guy made a big runner-runner diamond flush for instance, would we have still heard about it?"

        If the hand would have been lost you wouldn't have heard about it because it wouldn't be interesting anymore. But a flop bet would probably not stop a runner-runner flush from beating you since that person would have to hold a king or ace of diamonds and he would call the flop anyway. Note that the key to this play is that the players are loose and the pot is big. No one is going anywhere.

        I think your post illustrates a problem that many players have. It is the idea that "Since I have the best hand I should bet." This usually makes sense in pot limit because you can control the odds your opponents are getting, and it also made sense most of the time in the old structure game (one $5 blind for $10-$20 hold 'em) because the pots were almost always much smaller than this. (I bring this up because Doyle's book is written for this game and if you were to follow his advice you would never make a play like this [and would do very little check raising for that matter]).

        It is also very unlikely that a play like this would be correct in a tournament because this type of multiway action hardly ever develops. But we are talking about loose, action filled limit hold 'em ring games which are more the norm today than not. These type of plays are part of what seperates the experts from the merely good players. If you don't use them, and/or don't have the reading skills to recognize when they are right to implement as opposed to just making them at random, you will be well behind those who do.

        • Re: Hand to Talk About
          Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:55 p.m.

          "These type of plays are part of what seperates the experts from the merely good players. If you don't use them, and/or don't have the reading skills to recognize when they are right to implement as opposed to just making them at random, you will be well behind those who do."

          I don't doubt this a bit. However, since it was an early position player who raised, it seems that your chances of making it two bets cold to the field have dwindled dramatically, since there's a fair probability that the original pre-flop raiser will lead out on the turn when the flop gets checked around.

          You made a post a while ago on a similar hand, except you mucked on the turn when four to a straight hit and someone led out. Yet in that hand the board was dangerous, and there seemed a good chance that the original pre-flop raiser (who was to your right) would bet the turn after you checked the flop, thereby giving you a shot at cutting out the rest of the field. It's not clear how those conditions apply to this hand.

          • Or that these conditions are relevant.
            Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
            Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:04 a.m.

            I probably should have added this last qualifier. But, if the fact that you have an excellent chance to narrow the field on the turn isn't one of the conditions needed to make this kind of play, then I guess I'm not clear on what are the necessary conditions.
• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 6:50 a.m.

  This is interesting. Reminds me of something.

  Your play seems right. Two things can happen on the turn: an ace or king can land, letting you get away from the hand is someone bets, or a safer (looking) card hits, in which case someone will bet anyway and you'll be able to raise. If raising on the turn increases your chance of winning by only 10%, you'll win 1.8 small bets of preflop money for that reason alone. So the question is whether betting the flop is will both (1) turn a fold on the turn into a call and (2) win more than a couple of small bets.

  Your chance of winning this hand after the flop after everyone checks to you looks to be no more than 60% if everyone sticks around; probably less. Betting the flop and getting 3 callers -- assuming you don't get check-raised -- gives you an ev of just over half of what you'll get by driving out one caller on the turn. Sometimes raising the turn will increase your chance of winning by 20-30% or more, as it did in this case, which makes this fairly counterintuitive play the obvious one.

  • To Mason and Chris
    Posted by: gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 9:44 a.m.

    At first I wondered why you didn't bet the flop when you probably were in the lead and then bet the turn when the board put a 3rd diamond. Chris's reply explained why it was possibly the correct play.

    However, don't you think it still may have been correct play to bet the flop

    1...because you most likely have the best hand at that point.

    2...To give small flush draws and/or small pairs with a gutter a chance to fold.

    3...to gain information because you most likely would be check raised from one of those holding by loose players as you decribed this game to have.

    I know you like your hand on the turn with an over pair and the 3rd nut flush draw. However, being no one called your turn bet, it seems if you would have bet the flop you probably would have won the pot right there. Wouldn't you have rather won the pot on the flop than being check raised on the turn and having to decide if someone had diamonds?

    Knid Regards,

    Gene (holdemdude)

    • Re: To Mason and Chris
      Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 2:22 p.m.

      "2...To give small flush draws and/or small pairs with a gutter a chance to fold."

      None of these hands will fold. This comes up every now and then on these forums and I wonder why some people think they might fold. These hands will call on the flop and the turn, and they will make these calls even if it is raised.

      "However, being no one called your turn bet, it seems if you would have bet the flop you probably would have won the pot right there."

      My estimate is that a flop bet would get three or four callers.

      • Re: To Mason and Chris (One More Question)
        Posted by: gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
        Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 3:52 p.m.

        Mason and Chris.. It seems still that everyone thinks you should have bet the flop. Thank you both for your explanations. I understand now why you didn't. Unfortunately I did not think on that level. One more question please (and I hope you don't think it is a stupid one). If your turn bet is check-raised is it an automatic fold?

        Kind Regards,

        Gene (holdemdude)

        • Correction: MOST think you should've bet the flop
          Posted by: gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:02 p.m.

          Sorry, there were some of you that were on the same level as Mason and Chris.
        • Re: To Mason and Chris (One More Question)
          Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:39 p.m.

          I don't think so. A check-raise from a better hand would be so rare in this situation that you'd have to suspect some kind of play at the pot. It's hard to believe that someone would fail to bet a flush draw or a better hand than queens on the flop, or would either (1) let the flush go by on the turn or (2) risk another free card on the turn without a flush. So the money's there to justify a call.
        • Re: To Mason and Chris (One More Question)
          Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:41 p.m.

          No. You have to keep in mind that when you make unusual plays it will sometimes make opponents react in unexpected ways. If it goes to three bets you won't like it, you will probably lose, but given the size of the pot and the fact that you just made an unusual play, I have found that if you pay it off you do win often enough.
        • Re: To Mason and Chris (One More Question)
          Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:46 p.m.

          If check-raised on the turn, you're probably going to have to show the hand down; unless a third diamond hits and there's inordinate action. The reason for this is that nobody can put you on QQ, which means you could be check-raised by as little as an A4s, or 88.
      • questions for mason
        Posted by: mike l. (asd@asdf.com)
        Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 7:24 p.m.

        mason said: "None of these hands will fold. This comes up every now and then on these forums and I wonder why some people think they might fold. These hands will call on the flop and the turn, and they will make these calls even if it is raised"

        arent the gutshots and backdoor flush draws making a mistake to cold call here on the flop if it's raised though? isnt part of the point of winning poker to get your opponents to make mistakes?

        if you had bet the flop then it seems very likely that one of the blinds would have raised--that's standard flop protocol for a big pot like this, even many bad players know that. you build a pot for yourself if your queens hold up and you encourage your opponents to make mistakes. in hpfap you teach that in loose games getting your opponents to make these mistakes is key. your play here seems to contradict that.

        everyone folding on the turn is weird. in a way, it doesnt make a lot of sense for you to post hands you played mason because at least some of the people at the table have to be aware of who you are and they will play much differently then if it was someone else cold calling 3 bets preflop, checking the flop, and then raising the turn. it removes things even more so from regular poker and makes the hands you post (though entertaining) to some extent irrelevant, more so than anyone (except sklansky or doyle) who posts here.

        • Re: questions for mason
          Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
          Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 7:32 p.m.

          "arent the gutshots and backdoor flush draws making a mistake to cold call here on the flop if it's raised though? isnt part of the point of winning poker to get your opponents to make mistakes?"

          My comment was referring to flush draws and gutshots with pairs.
        • Re: questions for mason
          Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
          Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:57 a.m.

          "and makes the hands you post (though entertaining) to some extent irrelevant, more so than anyone (except sklansky or doyle) who posts here."

          I think Mason's posts are among the most instructive on the forum. His "Hands to Talk About" are always provocative and go against conventional wisdom on this game. They bring out certain concepts and spark good debates that help all of us improve our game. With regard to the current hand, it has become apparent to me that there is some real value in playing it the way Mason did. While it is not a play I would make right now at the table and I believe there are drawbacks to it, it may well have been the right play.

          In the world of poker, there is not much of an incentive for a good player to reveal how to play or at least how he plays. As you move up in limit, there is even less incentive. So when we get a $30-$60 or higher limit player like Mason Malmuth or Roy Cooke to discuss specific hands with us and reveal their thinking, I don't believe they should be discouraged from doing so.

          • Re: questions for mason
            Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
            Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:18 a.m.

            "While it is not a play I would make right now at the table and I believe there are drawbacks to it, it may well have been the right play."

            There is no doubt that there are downsides to these types of plays. In fact, there are downsides to almost all poker strategy plays. The key is comparing the upsides to the downsides and being able to accurately evaluate the overall expectation. This is not always easy to do.
      • Re: To Mason and Chris
        Posted by: Goodie
        Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:50 p.m.

        I don't understand how you can possibly justify a flop check in this situation when there are about a million cards that could kill your hand. If someone has AK without the king or ace or diamonds, how can you give them a free look at six outs that can possible beat you. Why give any low pair a chance at five outs to trips or two-pair. This play is ridiculous, and I can't imagine that it's even close to profitable in the long run. What ever happened to charging people to draw against you? Betting when you have the best of it?

        Peace

        Goodie

        • Re: To Mason and Chris
          Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
          Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 9:05 p.m.

          What you are missing is that given the size of the pot these people are going to call your bet on both the flop and the turn and be correct to do so. But by playing it this strange way your raise on fourth street can knock them out so they won't be able to draw out on the river. See HPFAP-21 for more information.
    • Re: To Mason and Chris
      Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
      Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 2:23 p.m.

      gene:

      You wrote:

      [D]on't you think it still may have been correct play to bet the flop

      1...because you most likely have the best hand at that point.

      This is a rare exception that's justified by the pot size. Not betting the pot on the flop in this case is sort of a corollary to the principle that failing to bet a big pot when there's any chance that all of your opponents will fold is a disaster. In both cases, the ev of the play is largely determined by the size of the pot and the chance your opponents will fold. Since there's no chance that Mason's opponents will all fold -- the naked Ad having a justified call here -- the better play is to "draw" to a safe card and shut down the action on the turn if one comes.

      2...To give small flush draws and/or small pairs with a gutter a chance to fold.

      The chance of this happening is zero.

      3...to gain information because you most likely would be check raised from one of those holding by loose players as you decribed this game to have.

      He doesn't need to gain information because he knows his opponents have overcards and/or pairs less than queens, which is what everyone probably muttered under their breath when Mason stuck his chips in before the flop.
• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 10:43 a.m.

  This is quite interesting because it is not the type of situation in which it would have occurred to me to wait until the turn.

  Summing EV's for various scenarios (as Chris Alger has done to some extent above) will probably give a good guideline as to whether it was correct here. If this is be shown to be correct then it is really worth considering many other types of scenarios as potential candidates for this type of play--and many of these scenarios may not be at all obvious. This scenario in particular is surprising at first glance especially since you are last to act and you have a hand that is very likely good at this point but is also likely quite vulnerable.
• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: wgb (wgb_llb@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 12:31 p.m.

  I assume that you had reason to believe someone was going for a checkraise with AA or KK. I suppose it depends on the reraiser (his reraising standards and the "trickiness" of his play). I would have bet the flop 80% of the time.
• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 12:52 p.m.

  I would have put the early/middle players on big cards or medium-big pairs. Agree with just calling pre-flop. However, if the blinds were very loose and saw 3 bets I would be worried about their hands combining with the coordinated flop of 6,5,2. I would want to put pressure on them as much as possible and cut down on straights, 2 pairs, etc from blinds. The early players are more easily read and are A,K worry factors. Like your raise but I would have been earlier. I only play low limits but it sounds to me like this table was not playing all that high. Regards, Dave Someone please comment as this is my first attempt to answer a middle level post and I am thinking seriously of moving up soon. Thanks.
• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: Paul 3
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:24 p.m.

  Mace,Without reading any responses Id say you were increasing your chance of winning the pot by waiting to raise on the turn when the raise is more effective.As long as the brick hits.Pot odds manipulation?Almost any hand is worth calling on the flop here right ?But 2 cold on the turn is differnt ...now players will be more inclined to make the wrong play,and the raise elimnates hands that might call one that could beat you,and causes those that want to play bad on the turn alot.

  • Re: Hand to Talk About
    Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
    Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:43 p.m.

    Also, no bet on the flop may encourage someone to bluff at it.
• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: Kevin J
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 11:21 p.m.

  The way I see it, there are 3 reasons to check the flop:

  1). To make more $$ on the turn

  2). To cut down the odds of other players on the turn

  3). To lose less $$ on the turn

  You state in a response that you must look further than "I have the best hand, so I should bet", but at what point does it become better to check the best hand than to collect $$ from worse hands even if they are correct to call? Surely there are many spots where you should bet (or raise) the best hand even though you are sure your opponent is correct to call. 5 card flush against a set for example.

  DS stated in Jim's most recent HPFAP problem that if you can increase your chance even slightly with a bet, then a bet is well worth it. Checking here lets a guy with a Ks,7s go on to catch a perfect-perfect str8 for example.

  Also, doesn't this increase the chances slightly that you will be raised out of the pot? What would you do if there was a bet on the turn by say a pair of eights and now a guy decides to raise with a lone Ad?

  I'm not saying checking the flop is wrong. It does make sense. But what are the important factors in identifying these situations?

  • Re: Hand to Talk About
    Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:21 a.m.

    "DS stated in Jim's most recent HPFAP problem that if you can increase your chance even slightly with a bet, then a bet is well worth it. Checking here lets a guy with a Ks,7s go on to catch a perfect-perfect str8 for example."

    Yes, but this situation works the opposite. Here you increase your chances a fair amount with a check.
• Re: Hand to Talk About
  Posted by: Shawn Keller (skeller1_2000@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:16 a.m.

  This is a rare occasion when I disagree with your play Mason, I think a flop bet is definitely called for because one of the blinds might checkraise you with a variety of hands, and this could greatly limit the field, for example AK might even fold on the flop for fear that his hand is drawing dead.

  There are a many other reasons why I think a bet is correct but I'm too busy to get into them now :D

  interesting hand,

  skeller

  • Re: Hand to Talk About
    Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 7:54 a.m.

    This thread has been really good. I'm not necessarily defending the play but what about if you anticipated the action that took place and that you reasoned that such a check raise was not forthcoming or very likely to happen? This to me is the key to making the play, Mason was able to read the situation extremely accurately.

9 handed game on the small blind of $4 (8-16 game). all enter the pot and big blind is already saying go.i call $4. the flop is 455 two suited.i decide to bet out because of the flush and straight possibilities.get 3 callers. turn is 5. i check and big blind bets $16 with one caller and i checkraise and get only one caller. big blind had a 4king. how bad did i play this hand or should i have played it at all. the game was loooose and people were stuck $1000.

• Re: 5-6 offsuit
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 4:19 p.m.

  You wrote: ”9 handed game on the small blind of $4 (8-16 game). all enter the pot and big blind is already saying go.i call $4.”

  This is an easy call IMO getting 17 to 1 on a hand that will rarely get you in trouble (unlike K9 offsuit for example) .

  ”the flop is 455 two suited.i decide to bet out because of the flush and straight possibilities.”

  I like the bet for your reasons and the fact that so few bet trips out of the blinds. You get more action AND protect your hand to a degree.

  ”get 3 callers. turn is 5. i check”

  Good play. You have to hope someone else catches something on the river if it gets checked through or has an overpair, draw or five that he will bet.

  ”and big blind bets $16 with one caller and i checkraise and get only one caller.”

  I like the checkraise. If you just call there is a good chance the river gets checked through or you get no callers.

  ” big blind had a 4king. how bad did i play this hand or should i have played it at all. the game was loooose and people were stuck $1000.”

  I think you played it fine.

  Regards,

  Rick

  • Re: 5-6 offsuit
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:49 a.m.

    Agreed. When you flop trips in a volume pot I'm totally with Rick in that the hand should be played fast. When you turn quads you check-raise is nifty, since nobody can put you on this hand and you'll routinely get called by big A's. On the river you've got to bet, as you can't assume that anybody's going to do it for you.

    Well played.

    • Re: 5-6 offsuit
      Posted by: MD
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:41 a.m.

      I think I might've gone for the overcall on the turn, and the checkraise on the river, though this is riskier, as you may not get an overcall anyway, and you might not get a bettor on the river (though in this situation i would expect somebody to bet behind you)

I might be wrong, but I don't think this aspect of Mason's hand was brought up in "Hand to Talk About". I'm not disagreeing with his play because I DO see some benefits to checking the flop.

But here's something that always concerns me when making this type of play...

What if one of the blinds now bets the turn after the flop gets checked around? He may be betting anything from a made hand, to an overpair such as JJ thru 99, a lone pair of eights, 77, or a Kd. Now what if the initial pre-flop raiser decides to raise with Ad,Kc? (This might not be too terrible of a play from his perspective and even if it were, there are many players who would make it)

It's not hard to imagine other scenarios where checking the flop might have Mason facing two cold on the turn with the best hand.

Of course, these scenarios might've occured whether Mason bet the flop or not. Still, it's probably a little less likely. Even if it did happen, I would think betting the flop allows for a little more accuracy in hand reading. He could now make an assessment if the bettor and/or raiser are the type that would've check/raised the flop with a legitimate hand/draw, etc. whereas, he now knows nothing. My main point is, that once the flop gets checked around in a pot this big, there are many hands that are going to be betting the turn, AND many types of hands that are going to raise. Could Mason concievably call two cold here?

So there are reasons other than letting a freak hand go on to win, that makes checking a potentially pot costing play. But I'm not sure if this is important or not. Perhaps others could comment.

• Re: Another thought
  Posted by: Mike Norton (nicerivercard@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:26 a.m.

  I think another reason that Mason chose to check the flop was that if he bet, everyone might call and be correct to do so since the pot has gotten so large.

  IMO, Mason makes a gutsy choice on the turn to raise, giving him the best chance to win the pot. This turn raise will be what knocks people out, not a flop bet or raise. Calling 2 bets cold on the turn in the face of a possible flush is not a comfortable choice for most players to make. If Mason gets 3 bet here, I think he probably folds (help me out here Mason).

  Just an idea as food for thought. I welcome any comments and would like to here from Mason on this if at all possible.

  Best wishes, Mike

  • Re: Another thought
    Posted by: Kevin J
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:31 a.m.

    I believe Mason has already stated that he probably would not fold given that he has played his hand in an unusual manner making it less clear what his opponents are thinking about his hand.

    But calling two cold is another story. This is because it could now get re-raised by the original bettor.

    • Sorry...
      Posted by: Kevin J
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:37 a.m.

      That was dumb. Of course, it could still get re-raised by the original raiser in your example. (I'm in a hurry, it's late, and past my bed time).

      Still, calling two cold with the prospect of more raising is slightly different than calling one more.

      Sorry.
  • Re: Another thought
    Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:36 a.m.

    One thing to keep in mind when making these strange plays is that sometimes players react to them in unexpected ways. Because of this, if it gets reraised I will probably pay it off (but I won't like it).
• Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:09 a.m.

  I think it would be very difficult for Mason to call two big double bets cold on the turn when a third diamond shows up regardless of whether or not he bets the flop. He has a diamond draw himself but it is only to the third nuts. Suppose he bets the flop and gets two or three callers. Now on the turn it is bet and raised to him. He still has the same dilemma. I think he has to fold in either case.

  • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
    Posted by: Kevin J
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 9:27 a.m.

    Jim-

    I acknowledged that he might have been faced with two cold whether he bets the flop or not. My only point was, that a bet on the flop may decrease this chance slightly.

    If betting the flop reduces the number of times that a different hand would bet the turn (because the flop was checked) there is one less bet that can now be raised. In other words, it slightly decreases the times there will be a bet and a raise to him.

    Sklansky states that increasing percentages to win a pot by even by a small amount can become quite important. On the other hand, the reason Mason checked the flop in the first place, was to increase his chances in another way. It's weighing which of these increased percentages is more important. Something he is certainly more adept at discerning than I.

    • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
      Posted by: MD
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:33 a.m.

      It's important to remember that you cannot bet the flop to avoid giving a free card; remember, everyone was going to at least call anyway (due to the size of the pot), you couldn't deny them a peak at the turn. By checking the flop, you avoid making the pot large enough that drawing or second-best hands would be correct to call 2 bets cold on the turn, which they may very well be right to do if you had bet the flop. Again, you're more concerned with trying to raise people out of the pot when you have the best chance of being successful (the turn) than you are with trying to make the turn card expensive on the flop, as you can't make it expensive enough anyway.

      • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
        Posted by: Kevin J
        Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 1:07 p.m.

        Maybe this is where my problem is, since I can think of a few hands I would fold even at the relatively high price the pot is offering. I'm not sure I'd consider singleton cards such as an ace, king, queen, etc., as outs given the 2 diamonds on board, an early pre-flop raiser, and the fact that a prominently tight player such as Mason called 3 cold pre-flop! Granted, the hands I would fold are not many though.

        I might even fold hands like Ks,7s (assuming I was somehow foolish enough to have gotten trapped in for 3 bets). I certainly wouldn't call a raise with these type of hands, thinking that my sidecard might make someone else a str8, a king is no good, and even if I do go runner-runner, I could lose to diamonds. Do you think this would be wrong?
    • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
      Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:34 p.m.

      The only time folding to a bet and raise is bad for Mason is if he is in fact ahead, or his draw is live. If Mason is ahead, convincing his opponents to bet and raise into him incorrectly is a good thing. All Mason has to do is call most of the time.

      As Mason says below "You have to keep in mind that when you make unusual plays it will sometimes make opponents react in unexpected ways... given the size of the pot and the fact that you just made an unusual play, I have found that if you pay it off you do win often enough."

      Adopting a "pay it off" strategy is generally not far wrong in very big pots, if wrong at all. So, if you are likely to pay it off anyway, the actions you describe don't much hurt you, and are often a bonus.
  • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
    Posted by: mewhoelse
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 12:00 p.m.

    What about betting the flop to give the pre-flop raiser a chance to check raise you to narrow the field?

    • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:59 p.m.

      Well this was one of the things I mentioned in my response to Mason's orginal post. By betting the flop, it may get check-raised and drive out some players anyway. A preflop raiser will frequently check to the reraiser once the flop comes expecting him to bet. The reraiser will usually have a big overpair and will bet this flop.

      • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
        Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:19 a.m.

        "By betting the flop, it may get check-raised and drive out some players anyway"

        Not in this hand. Because of the loose players and the size of the pot they should call anyway.
  • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 10:03 p.m.

    My guess is that Mason was planning on showing the hand down unless an A or a K hit on the turn, or if a third diamond came and there was inordinate action (by which I mean a bet, a raise and at least one cold call). The pot is way too big to let go just because the third diamond hits.
• Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
  Posted by: Paul3 (prev333@aol.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 10:24 a.m.

  in this case of looseplayers,a table full of them,this is the play that increases your chance of winning the pot.The scenario's youve conncocted would most likey go down whether or not the flop was bet and a bet might in fact might invite some goofy scenario's to unfold on the turn with loose lousy players gettin in and gambling on the come,with the pot size now really huge after a flop bet and for sure some calls,the chances of a win decrease as the number of loose players see the river lured by the pot size.Also in this case you'd think one of these LOOSE players would take a stab at it on the flop but no.AS proved by the takedown on the turn,nobody had anything cept Mace.I suspect he had a good enuff read.It also makes Mace's hand appear huge like he checked a monster on the flop.Typical loose players play very aggressive before the flop then alot of them shut down.also the goofy draws are going to be there for sure .Loose players typically call a "small bet" just to pick up a draw.whats the difference?Well.....If they do ,they WILL NOT lay it down on the turn .so why not hit them on the turn for 2 bets instead of one?,if you bet the flop and they call you wont get to raise the turn,everyone will check to you on the turn in effect reducing your firepower to one barrel instead of Two.To win the pot with qq's here is the priority and I think this was the best way to protect that hand with these players.

  • Re: Another Problem w/Mason's Flop Check?
    Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:33 a.m.

    You bring up an interesting point. I will often see terrible players calling a raise cold on the flop but then folding for one bet on the turn when a blank hits. My guess is that in many of these cases you are looking at someone with a three flush and a three straight who is calling trying to pick up a draw.
• does mason check the flop without the Qd?
  Posted by: nate foster (nate7out@aol.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 9:13 p.m.

  I say no. Also, i would have a hard time checking that flop, but i can see it is an option.

  • Re: does mason check the flop without the Qd?
    Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:41 a.m.

    It's probably more important to check the flop when you don't have the queen of diamonds than when you do. Think about it and try to see why.

    • Re: does mason check the flop without the Qd?
      Posted by: nate foster (nate7out@aol.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:35 p.m.

      maybe because when you dont have the queen of diamonds and a card hits the turn that puts you behind, you are basically dead, and this way you lose less?

      • Re: does mason check the flop without the Qd?
        Posted by: nate foster (nate7out@aol.com)
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:36 p.m.

        and this allows you to lay it down easier?

        • Re: does mason check the flop without the Qd?
          Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
          Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:57 p.m.

          The reason is that when you do have the queen of diamonds you may have another out (the flush) so it is not quite as imperative that you win the pot as fast as possible.

          • Re: does mason check the flop without the Qd?
            Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
            Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:08 a.m.

            Also, with the Qd in your hand, it prevents the possibility of you hitting a set on the turn that completes someone's flush. One of the oft-overlooked gems from HPFAP, and one factor that is considered by few players, IMHO.

            Maven

Hollywood Park, loose $40-$80 Holdem game.

In the cutoff, I hold AdJs, and raise first in. Button cold calls, and the BB calls. $260 in the pot, 3 way action. BB seemed pretty solid, but could be tricky, button is getting beat up all night, and is a pretty loose player.

Flop comes Qd9dJd. BB checks, I bet, button calls, BB calls. $380 in the pot. Turn, 4c. BB checks, I check, Button bets, BB calls, I call. $620 in the pot. River blanks off, 2s. BB checks, I check, button bets, BB calls. What do I do? Over-call or fold my second pair, top kicker?

Results to follow...

• Re: $40-$80 Problem
  Posted by: ChrisVWH (cvinall@smug.adelaide.edu.au)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 5:14 a.m.

  I think you should have bet the turn. You could then fold the river either if you got raised on the turn, or if the button bets the river after you check.

  Given the way you played the hand, I would call if the button is capable of running a bluff here.

  Chris

  • Re: $40-$80 Problem
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:15 a.m.

    This isn't going to be an easy fold on the river if you check and the button bets. If he had a Q you think you would have heard about it by now; likewise with a made hand.
• Re: $40-$80 Problem
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 2:51 p.m.

  You need to bet the turn here. Your hand may be good and you have a lot of outs when it is not. It is critical in these shorthanded, steal-type situations to follow through with a bet on fourth against only one or two opponents who have shown no strength. At this point they will frequently fold.

  At the river I would still call despite the button betting both the turn and the river with the big blind overcalling on the end. With top pair someone might have raised your flop bet and there are too many busted draws out there for the button to be betting and the big blind to have overcalled if he happened to make a pair but not top pair. The fact that you have the top kicker with your middle pair is critical.

  • Re: $40-$80 Problem
    Posted by: mike l. (asd@asdf.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:20 p.m.

    they said bet the turn but wouldnt a checkraise on the turn have been the very best play?

    • Re: $40-$80 Problem
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:47 p.m.

      The problem with attempting a check-raise is two fold. First, the turn may not get bet which would be very bad for you since your hand is fragile at this point and you should really want to get your opponents to fold if possible. Second, given that someone is willing to bet after you check increases the likelihood that your hand is no good so check-raising is simply dumping more money in the pot when you probably have the worst of it. It is unlikely that both your opponents will now fold. The button will usually call and have a better hand.
  • Re: $40-$80 Problem
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:24 a.m.

    The problem with betting the turn is that no one is probably going to fold, since they called with such a terrifying flop. Even bad players usually won't 'peel one' on a board like this in a relatively small pot.

    Still, you probably have to bet since the probability that a Q or a flush would have raised the flop is fairly high, which leads you to believe that you've got the best hand. Someone certainly has the Kd-- probably with a pair-- so you have him nutted. As for the other one who knows-- maybe the Td.

    Things do get tricky on the river if you check, which is why I'd probably follow through with a bet and hope the Kd paired up somewhere along the line and decides to call. If raised I'd let go; if someone wants to two-bet the river with a hand worse than mine more power to 'em.

    This is one of those Sklansky situations where you're probably stuck betting the river. Even though you're probably a dog if you're called, you're an even bigger dog if you check and someone bets. Further, there are plenty of second best hands out there who could call you.
• Re: $40-$80 Problem
  Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:37 p.m.

  BB could very easily have JT for instance, and button a bluff. I would call.
• Fold !
  Posted by: Bob J.
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:38 p.m.

  I agree with your play so far.

  The button cold called your raise on preflop, and called your bet on the flop. BB also called on the turn.

  The check on the turn is correct because you have outs, and don't want to call a raise (as explained in Theory of Poker). Why call the end ? You're beat.

  Bob J.
• Results...
  Posted by: SLW
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:56 a.m.

  I ended up folding the river after about 10 seconds of thought. Button called out "nine" and the BB showed KJ no diamonds. I folded the winning hand.

  This was an interesting hand- the main thing that affected my thought process was being stuck the whole night. I should have bet the turn, or better yet, check-raise. But in my state of mind, check-raising was out of the question. If I would have bet the turn, I would have won the hand. I play most of my poker in Vegas, where the games are much tighter than LA. This is a much easier fold than in Vegas than LA. Nevertheless, I should have taken more into consideration before laying down this hand.

  Thanks for all your input.
• Re: $40-$80 Problem
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:44 a.m.

  I think you have to call. You checked the turn, so this could be inviting a bluff. I also think you should have bet the turn, or even raised after the button bet. If you bet on the turn and were raised then I think you should probably fold.

  Pat
• Re: $40-$80 Problem
  Posted by: suspicious
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:41 p.m.

  I think you should bet the turn. If you get raised you have an easy call and you have a good chance of having the best hand.

  Anyone w/Td and anyother card could easily play this hand as the button did.

  Now by checking the turn and the river you might think a) the button could easily be bluffing and b) the blind thinks this also, do you have a hand which can beat a bluff catcher!? Maybe.

  I think I would call.

1). I have QTo on the button after a tight/tough player limps from early position and it gets folded to me. I will almost always throw this hand away (even QJo), and not just because we pay an exhorbinant rake here in Chicago. Even without the rake, I do not feel my position makes up for the times I will be behind when each of us flops a pair, causing me to lose more than I can win with these hands against a tight/tough early limper.

Question: What effect would 3 additional callers have on the value of my hand? What additional effect on value would it have if these 3 callers also played poorly?

2). I have 97s in the cutoff against two tight/tough opponents who have limped. Again, I will normaly throw the hand away thinking I am not getting a good enough price for my hand. What if 5 players limp in to me? I don't think too many would argue that the value of 97s has improved dramatically enough to play. But what if there are only 2-3 limpers, but they play poorly?

Maybe what I'm asking is how do you place a value on not just multi-way action, but on poor player's action?

The reason for this post is that I fear I've developed a leak over my last couple of sessions. Namely, I am playing too many hands. Not due to tilt, but an egotistical thought process. I am over-valuing both my hands and the quality of my own play. When poor players enter the pot, I'm becoming inclined to start thinking I can play more hands to a profit.

While there is probably some merit to this, I am taking the idea too far. Making too many loose calls pre-flop. It's even carrying over to after the flop, where I'm hallucinating that the implied odds are there to take a loose one off against a poor player who has the propensity to lose excessive bets when I snag a 5 outer, etc. Or, that I can otherwise outplay them later in the hand. The problem is, there have been too times where I have become the poor player giving too much action! Luckily, it's only been a couple of sessions, but the fact is, I'm starting to play bad. In close proximity to SPM's Border Town... AARGHH!! I've left the V.O.P.

Seriously, what are some criteria for evaluating how the number of opponents Vs. the quality of opponents can affect a given hand's value? This even goes for hands like AJo after 6 limpers. I've know some who say it's value goes down so far multi-way, that it's not worth playing. Others feel that the multi-way action make it necessary to play AJo, if for nothing else, a miracle flop. I'd appreciate any help with this. Thanks.

• Re: Changing Hand Values
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:13 p.m.

  With regard to question #1, I think you are making a mistake folding queen-ten offsuit and queen-jack offsuit on the button in the face of one early limper regardless of how tight he plays. If you flop top pair it will probably be good and a tight player will let you know when it isn't. Having position over him and the big blind is a large advantage in a shorthanded situation. If you flop top pair and get heat you can fold especially against a tight player so you do not have to pay off all the way to the river. Sometimes neither of your opponents flop anything and when they check to you, you can bet and pick up the pot without a fight. With more callers you are hoping to flop a straight draw or two pair. It is still a good gamble from the button. Again, you do not have to get trapped if you flop top pair with no draw and get heat.

  With regard to question #2, nine-seven suited is a piece of junk and should normally not be played unless you are on the button and several players have limped in. Even then it is marginal and you would not be giving up much by just folding even on the button.

  • Re: Changing Hand Values
    Posted by: Kevin J
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:53 p.m.

    Thanks Jim- Just a couple of follow ups...

    You wrote: "If you flop top pair it will probably be good and a tight player will let you know when it isn't."

    Do you really find this to be so? I should emphasize I was talking about a tight AND good player who may not let you off the hook so easily. It's easy to say we'll simply fold against heat, but what if you're against the type of player who may rope-a-dope and stop-and-go with you, realizing he probably has the best hand heads up, and is in jeapardy of losing you. While at the same time, he loses a minimum if you've flopped really big.

    When you both flop top pair with a queen, it is almost impossible to hold the best queen (unless you've also hit your kicker), against a tight early position player. Even so, do you really want to be folding top pair too often heads up? I'd rather not make the pre-flop call to begin with, since folding the best hand seems to be the worse mistake.

    I agree you can often pick up the pot when it's checked to you, but isn't this slightly offset by the fact that he will also be picking up many pots? He may very well bet two overcards when the flop comes ragged. This might become a value bet against you or I since he knows we don't play junk like 97s :>) He also will be using semi-bluffs with correct frequency and be betting flush and even gutshot str8 draws with overcards, as well as with his legitimate hands. This would make it hard for us to pick up our fair share of pots with nothing.

    All I'm saying, is that the situation seems ripe for losing more than you'll ever make in the long run against a tight/aggressive player who knows what he's doing. When you're ahead with top pair (and he has nothing), it doesn't seem possible to recoup what you'll lose when you both hit the flop and you're trailing to 3 outs.

    You also wrote: "nine-seven suited is a piece of junk and should normally not be played unless you are on the button and several players have limped in Even then it is marginal and you would not be giving up much by just folding even on the button."

    This is why I made this post. I truly feel I am not placing an accurate value on these hands. If 97s is a piece of junk multi-way and with position, would you also have similar feelings for 98s? If not, can you explain how the absence of 1 gap, makes the latter nine-high hand so much better than the former nine-high? Thanks again Jim.

    • Re: Changing Hand Values
      Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 6:42 p.m.

      Let's talk about queen-ten offsuit on the button against an early limper. A tight early limper will have AJ, AT suited, KQ, KJ suited, QJ suited, maybe JT suited,99,88,77, or maybe 66. Suppose it is a $10-$20 game and you limp from the button with the Qs-Th and the small blind folds and the big blind does not raise. There is $35 in the pot and three players. Consider the following flop:

      Qd-7c-2h

      Before discussing some cases, it should be immediately obvious that you beat the vast majority of hands the limper could have at this point. Given two queens, a ten, and a seven are all accounted for you are only losing to 13 hands from the 57 possible hands.

      Case One: It gets checked to you and you bet with both players folding.

      Case Two: The big blind checks, the limper bets. You should raise. The limper would bet any piece of the board or just a good second pair (a pair higher than middle pair but lower than top pair) and your top pair might be good plus you want to drive out the big blind. The tight player might fold right then figuring he is playing two outs in most cases. If he calls and checks to you on the turn, you can usually bet him out of the hand. If he reraises you and then leads into you on the turn when a blank hits you can fold knowing you are probably up against king-queen, queen-jack, or some better hand.

      Case Three: The big blind bets and the limper calls. You should still raise since the big blind might be leading with any piece of the board.

      Case Four: The big blind bets and the limper raises. You can now fold knowing that you are probably up against a bigger queen.

      A similar argument can be constructed for when you flop a top pair of tens.

      With regard to nine-eight suited versus nine-seven suited not only do you have more straight making possibilities using both your cards but having an eight is better than having a seven since a pair of eights has a better chance of winning than a pair of sevens. Also the straights you make with nine-eight are less likely to lose than those with nine-seven. It is really a fine line.

      • Re: Changing Hand Values
        Posted by: Kevin J
        Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 10:30 p.m.

        I see your points, but let's take them further. First, I would add to the number of hands that a good tricky player might limp with depending on the game. I'd include AQ and less likely but still possibilities are AKs,AA,JJ,or TT. (again, depending on the game). I know you don't approve of these limps and as a rule, neither do I. Still, I see strong players occasionally make them when they feel the situation is right. I will also. But when I do, I pray not to further mis-play the hand, so as to not have to post it here and have you reprimand me for not raising : ) All I'm trying to say, is that if you assume a good player will always play the pre-flop round by rote, you could be getting into big trouble.

        So the flop comes Q72 rainbow. In your case 1 and case 2 scenarios you will win $25 and $45 respectively. (or $35 if he immediately folds to your raise) But what if he isn't so kind as to always 3 bet you as if to say, "I have a GOOD kicker with MY queen".? Again, aren't we assuming he is playing by rote? What about when he calls your raise and checks the turn? Either to check/raise, or to call again only to lead out on the river? He may even check a queen to you on the flop if you are the type who bets too often when checked to. These are all viable plays when heads up with no draw in sight. Here, you probably lose at least $50 when you don't improve and more likely $70. Now this is a very good flop for QT, no? Yet, you are only winning $25,$35, or $45 when dragging, yet losing $50 and $70 when lagging. Even your way, when he is gracious enough to let us know we are beat, the minimum loss is $30. $5 more than our minimum win.

        I guess what I'm trying to prove (to myself more than you), is that position can't always make up for poor situational hand selection. Also, you happen to have chosen a dream flop. Most flops are not so benign.

        What if we take the slightly more complicated flop of Qs,Jh,7s? The bb checks and now our player bets? Now how many hands could he have? We may be drawing almost dead against hands like QJs, 77, to slim against AQ, KQ, etc. He may also be betting As,Js, in which case he is a slight favorite even with the current worst hand. He may also be betting a hand like ATs suited in spades or not. With almost all of these hands he may 3-bet the flop and follow through with a turn bet when heads up. His thinking being there are just too many ways to win especially against a player looking for ways to fold a queen!

        What about ragged flops like 7d,6c,3d, etc.? QT is pretty hard pressed to call a bet even though you're pretty sure it didn't help his hand any.

        I guess all I'm saying is that it's close. The expectation on QTo against a good tight player can't be much if anything. Factor in the rake and it's even less. This is what I'm struggling with now. Even if there is a small edge, I am not a good enough player to push it. I feel better off simply folding and picking a better spot to get my money in. Make it Mr. Craps shooter who's trying his luck at the hold'em table, and I'll surely play QTo. But I wouldn't want to play QTo against even me. Thanks for all your help.

        • Re: Changing Hand Values
          Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
          Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:04 a.m.

          These are all good points. However, remember that in HE you're position counts for a ton, which should allow you to overcome the handicap of having a slightly worse hand. Also, most tough players will raise coming in with hands like AJ, AQ, and AKs, and usually even ATs, so you're chances of being dominated are slightly negated. The only hands I'd really worry about are QJs and KQ (offsuit or otherwise), since most other hands that dominate yours will raise coming in.

          Still, it isn't a huge money-maker either way. But you are going to catch situations where you can bluff yourself into a winner, and other times where he'll have 99, a ten will flop and you'll take him for a couple of big bets.

          One play I like to pull against fairly cognizant players is to raise the flop with top-pair goofy kicker, then check the turn and hope to either induce a bet or a call on the river (note that a big ace will be sorely tempted to call the river here, since it looks like you raised with a draw and went for the free card). If you can get either a bluff or a call on 5th you've increased the size of your win by a substantual amount (7 sb's as opposed to 5), AND your guaranteed to keep your losses to 2 BB's if you're behind. Also, free cards aren't the problem they appear to be since you may be in deep doo-doo anyway.

          • Re: Changing Hand Values
            Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
            Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:03 a.m.

            "deep doo-doo," is that a technical poker term? :)

            Pat
          • Re: Changing Hand Values
            Posted by: Kevin J
            Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.

            Thanks GD-

            I like (and often use) this play of checking the turn.

            I must admit, I'm still lost on how QTo is profitable against most solid early limpers. Would you concede that WHO is in the pot and from WHAT position, should have an affect on the MIX of hands you play? You're not saying that QTo's value does not change a bit no matter who's in and from what position, are you?

            Maybe you can provide some more concrete evidence of how this hand can be played profitably. I'm not the best example to use, because I'm not that good of a player yet. But even explaining where you're edge on me is, would be a start.

            I limp UTG. Yes, I am probably pretty normal with what I'll raise with here, but I will do some limping occasionally and AQ is certainly within the realm of possibilities (as is TT, although not nearly as often, but much more so than AA,KK AKs, etc.)

            Now if I have a queen you're in trouble plain and simple, since I can't remember the last time I played Q9s UTG in a full tabled game. I may have JTs, but if the game is tight aggressive behind me, I probably won't have that. So if I have a ten, there is a great chance it is ATs with a much smaller chance of TT. Anyway you slice it up, QT isn't looking too good. But Jim had a point. I am being far overly simplistic by trying to table these precise hands and saying let's go take some flops. There is more to it than this.

            For one thing, you certainly don't have to have QT. There's a much wider variety of hands you could hold than I. This alone, can create problems for me. Your positional advantage only adds to these problems. Still, perhaps you can show me how position and difficulty in nailing your hand down is going to make up for being severly dominated in most cases.

            If I play you tenaciously enough when heads up, so as not to let you pick up every pot I don't hit, I still can't see where your profit is. Sorry if I'm being frustratingly dumb. I'll take your next reply, then leave you alone on this. But while we're on the subject, we haven't talked about how often you might raise my limp here with QTo? Thanks.

            Kevin
        • Re: Changing Hand Values
          Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
          Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:31 a.m.

          But Kevin, now what you are doing when you add preflop raising hands as limping hands is basically making it impossible for the button to limp in with even hands like king-queen, ace-jack, etc. which are hands he would only fold for a raise not a limp. Using your logic line, you should simply treat the tight early limper as a preflop raiser and fold any hand that you would not raise with yourself. But this would be playing way too conservatively. I don't think you should assume the limper is being tricky and really has a raising hand.

          With regard to flopping a top pair of queens, you are assuming a worse case where your opponent has you BOTH dominated AND is playing perfectly as if he could see your cards. I think this is a very low probability situation.

          Against a ragged board that misses you completely, you simply fold your two anemic overcards and escape with a $10 loss.

          • Re: Changing Hand Values
            Posted by: Kevin J
            Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:16 p.m.

            Jim-

            Thanks for all your input. I will certainly think much more about this situation. In the meantime, let me tell you about one of the first profound comments ever made to me about hand selection.

            It was a full tabled game, mixed with loose and tight players alike. I had mucked in early position, four of the worst players had limped, and one of the clearly better players in our area limped with Q9s. To make a long story short, he rivered a flush to win an enormous pot! Afterwards, I told him how lucky he was. "I had folded AX of the same suit! Imagine the money you would have lost!", I told him. His reply was, "Kevin.. I wouldn't have lost a dime! If you come in, I throw that piece of sh-- away in a heartbeat!".

            Whether this was right or wrong, it got me thinking about hand selection... Who is already in the hand, should have some affect on the mix of hands we play. I'm not sure if you are saying this isn't so. Are you saying that a particular hand's value does not change one iota whether it finds itself against player A's hand selection criteria, or player B's?

            Anyway, I'll think a lot more about this. Thanks again.

            • Re: Changing Hand Values
              Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
              Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:58 p.m.

              In your example, I would not expect a tight player to limp in from early position with ace-little suited. But a good player should limp in behind several others with queen-nine suited. Both ace-little suited and queen-nine suited are speculative drawing hands that want an unraised pot and lots of company. In your position, you cannot come in because you do not know how much it will cost to take a flop and how many players will be involved. But a good player in late position seeing four others limp in is in a much better situation. He knows it will probably only cost him one bet to take a flop and he will get the multi-handed action needed to make his hand profitable.

              If you have only opponent, knowing how tight or loose he is does make a diffence. Suppose a tight, solid player raises under the gun and everyone folds to me on the button and I have ace-queen offsuit. I would fold because I know a good player will have a big pocket pair or two big cards headed by an ace for his raise. I can easily be dominated and my position does not compensate me enough to play this hand. But suppose a loose, goose raised under the gun? If the raiser is a guy who will open raise with any suited ace, any medium pocket pair, or just any two big cards then I would reraise him. There is an excellent chance I have the best hand and I want to isolate him with position. So whether I fold or reraise with ace-queen offsuit on the button depends upon what I know about the raiser. If I know nothing about the raiser then I will usually just call.

              From the button, sometimes I will raise an early limper with a hand like ace-jack offsuit or pocket eights if the early limper is very loose and weak such that I may well have the best hand and can drive the competition out with a raise. But I would not do this against a tight limper.

              Yes, knowing the player makes a difference but usually when there is a decision regarding reraising, raising, or folding not when just limping.
    • Re: Changing Hand Values
      Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
      Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:41 p.m.

      "If 97s is a piece of junk multi-way and with position, would you also have similar feelings for 98s? If not, can you explain how the absence of 1 gap, makes the latter nine-high hand so much better than the former nine-high?"

      These hands are basically the same. The no-gapper will flop either a four flush or an eight-out straight draw 16% of the time, whereas the one-gapper will catch this flop 15% of the time. And, if you flop two pair with the 97 it's slightly less likely to put a straight draw on board for someone else, which helps this hand a little bit.

      Basically, with the suited connectors you're looking at flopping good about 19% of the time; which sounds good, untill you realize how often you will a) be outkicked when you flop trips, b) lose to a straight when you flop two pair, c) will miss your big draws, and d) will lose when your big draws do come in. While the probablility of each of these things happening is small, in their totality the odds are rather prohibitive, and in each case (with the possible exception of c) you're going to lose a bushel full of chips. That's why you need solid multi-way action for these hands, and would prefer not to play them for a raise.

      As for AJo-- you're not losing anything by mucking this hand in a seven way pot before the flop, although I'll be the first to admit that it's hard to do.
  • Re: Changing Hand Values
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:26 p.m.

    I think Jim is right on in the first scenerio (re: QTo, etc). In regards to 97s, I think you need to have about six way action-- including the blinds-- to make this hand profitable, although I don't have any concrete evidence to suggest such. Just a hunch. I've been using this general rule for quite a while, and it seems to work for me, although I'll be the first to admit that I could be missing profitable opportunities with it.

    In regards to the much despised 5 outer... the trick to this draw is to go for it only when the bet has come from your right-- (meaning you have last or second to last action), you've got either an overcard or a back door flush, it's not obvious what draw your kicker could bring in if it hit, the board isn't two suited, and you've got at least four way action going into the turn. Of course, you can balance all this... for instance, if you have four guys seeing the turn, but you have last action, you may want to peel even if you don't have an overcard or back door possibilities but the pot was raised preflop... but generally you want to keep your eyes on the above factors.

    Hope everything works out for you,

    Guy
• Re: Changing Hand Values
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 3:29 p.m.

  I am recently struggling with similar issues, especially with regard to unsuited high card hands in multiway pots. In the first circumstance I think you clearly should raise, especially since you describe your opponent as tight, which means that you not only can read him easier, but that you also might be able to play him off his hand if rags flop. With position you should be playing this hand, I think.

  In the second scenario I would fold against two or three limpers, but play if there were five players and no raise. In the AJo situation I would not cold call a raise, and if there were six limpers who I knew were loose so that I could expect a multiway pot I would fold even if they are bad players.

  Pat

  • Re: Changing Hand Values
    Posted by: Kevin J
    Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 5:10 p.m.

    Pat-

    I see your point about raising, but I'd be more inclinded to make this play against a tight/predictable early position player, than against an early position player who also plays well. I could be wrong (Jim seems to think so), but I want to aviod playing situations against the latter. Also, don't forget there are still two hands to be heard from in the blinds. I don't consider a queen "high card" strength against a tight player who has limped early in a full ring game with both blinds yet to act.

    As for AJo, this seems to be open to opion with a lot of players. Thanks for responding.
• Re: Changing Hand Values
  Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 4:59 p.m.

  97s is definitely playable after 5 limpers.

Suppose you have 8 outs after the flop. If you can see 5 cards, I calculate the odds at 4.88 to 1 against, if you can see 15 cards I calculate the odds at 3.63 to 1 against. Just talking the numbers, not the control you have at the table, do you start out after the flop with a 25.64% better chance of hitting your outs?

“mathsnob” was kind enough to reply:

Yes, if none of your outs are in the hands of your opponents. This is a good point that you note

Of course, what is in the other 4 hands (at a 10 player game) is unknown same as usual.

I made a table of outs/odds and determined that you would have an advantage of between 22.22% (2 outs) to 31.25% (15 outs) averaging a 26.26% advantage of hitting your outs over a player only looking at 5 cards.

Next questions:

If you are a 2 BB per hour winner and go up against a situation, however created, where you can see 5 cards and 6 of your opponents can see a collective 15 cards, how will your average earn per hour be affected?

If you are a 2 BB per hour winner and enter a situation, however created, where you can see 15 cards in 6 hands and your 4 opponents each can see only 5 cards, how will your average earn per hour be affected?

Can this be calculated with only the above information? This is the point where my mathematical prowess draws a blank.

What would one need to take a shot at 75-150 while on a trip? My bankroll is still very valuable to me and I cannot afford to replace it. So, my question is how much would I need to put in play in a California 75-150 to give myself a a fair shot at the game. Thanks in advance.

• Re: Taking a shot
  Posted by: Paul3 (prev333@aol.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 7:01 p.m.

  Matt,thats kinda like going to the Ferrari dealer bro.....if ya gots ta ask you cant afford it.
• Re: Taking a shot
  Posted by: Boris (hiboris@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 8:53 p.m.

  never played that high but I'll put in my 2 cents anyways.

  Bring however much it costs for 3 racks. if you lose three racks then maybe its bad play and not bad luck.

  one more thing... do you really want to jump into 80-160? From your posts it sounds like you play in a really good 20-40 and that it would be a huge leap to 80-160 in terms of the skill of the opposition.
• Re: Taking a shot
  Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 10:46 p.m.

  It depends on what you mean by a shot. If you mean one good buy-in, I'd say somewhere in the vicinity of 2600-- and that's at the low end.

  • Re: Taking a shot
    Posted by: Pro
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:45 a.m.

    This is terrible advice. If this is all you can buy in for don't bother. You will lose all of it.

    What is the highest limit you've played in? In the past, how comfortable have you been moving up? IE the first time you went from 10-20 to 20-40, did you feel just as at ease?

    If not, you are going to lose your money.

    Your bankroll, if you are indeed a good, winning player, should be large enough to handle the game - IE at least 50K ( and thats the low end). if it isnt that big then you probably aren't that good of a player and will get crushed in this game.

    Ive been in this bizz for a long time so you can take my advice or leave it at your discretion.

    • Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:28 a.m.

      I would think that if you bought in for somewhere between 17 and 20 BB's you be taking what's called 'a shot'. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.

      If by 'a shot' you meant playing for an entire weekend, or even committing yourself to an entire day of play, then I know the number would be much higher.

      • Re: Taking a shot
        Posted by: Pro
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:00 p.m.

        'Taking a shot' with 20BB or less is just plain stupid. I'm not trying to be harsh here - there are a lot of pros who would encourage you to take a shot with 20BB. Because they know you will lose it to them.

        It's your money so you can do what you want with it.
    • Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 7:35 p.m.

      "- IE at least 50K "

      What a friggin idiot you are. I hope no one listens to your dumb advice. 50k to TAKE A SHOT at 50-150? What bizz have you been in for a long time? The dumb advice bizz. Or maybe you don't understand the concept of take a shot. Pro, right.

      vince

      • Re: Taking a shot
        Posted by: Pro
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:45 p.m.

        Vince, I know you aren't too bright, but learn how to read and then go back and think about what I said. I didn't say you needed 50K to take a shot. I said if your BR is less than 50K then you aren't good enough and can't afford to take a shot.

        Read some of my other posts and you might learn something. God willing, maybe one day youll be able to afford not to look like a filthy derelict.

        • Re: Taking a shot
          Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
          Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:42 p.m.

          Pro,

          Look you ignorant pig, this is what you said and I quote:

          "Your bankroll, if you are indeed a good, winning player, should be large enough to handle the game - IE at least 50K ( and thats the low end). if it isnt that big then you probably aren't that good of a player and will get crushed in this game."

          Now you stupid ignoramus, you said this in a response to a "taking a shot" question or don't you remember? Or maybe you are such an idiot that you answer things without realizing what you are answering. You say that a person needs a 50k bankroll to handle a game. If you didn't mean they need a 50k bankroll to take a shot then you what did you mean? You are another freakin loser like your buddies that attack someone else when it is in fact you yourself that is the moron. You are a sick puppy with an overbloated ego. Everyone else is a "low limit loser" or a moron and you, why, you are a genius.

          "Read some of my other posts and you might learn something."

          Yeah how to be a big a......!

          vince
• Re: Taking a shot
  Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
  Posted on: Monday, 14 May 2001, at 11:51 p.m.

  Whenever I play 80-160, I buy in for $2000, one rack. If I lose that, I go back to 40-80 until I win it back. So far, I've only had to do that once.

  • Re: Taking a shot
    Posted by: John Feeney
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:36 a.m.

    This is known as the "human card rack phenomenon."

    • Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: Pro
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:03 a.m.

      John, don't waste your time responding to there low limit losers who try to give advice and sound like they are 'players'. We should discourage the low limit players from listening to them.

      Anyway, I'll be in Milan with the wife all next week but hopefully we can have you over for dinner when we get back.

      Bob

      • Why be like that?
        Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:54 a.m.

        Your post calling people 'losers' was probaby better sent over private mail to John rather than posted.

        If playing poker professionally is so great, why do so many "Pro's" sound like such bitter, unhappy people who feel the need to castigate others to make themselves feel better?

        I don't think for a second that all pros are dickheads, but I see this type of behavior in forums and at the tables pretty often.

        • Great General Comment
          Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
          Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:50 p.m.

          His points are valid, but I have the same feelings as you Dan.

          Kind Regards,

          Gene (holdemdude)
      • Re: Taking a shot
        Posted by: John Feeney
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:24 p.m.

        For the record, I'm not sure I know who "Bob" is. I thought I did upon reading the response to me, which I thought was funny (i.e., a joke). But on reading the other posts I'm not at all sure. Bob??

        • a little further reading...
          Posted by: John Feeney
          Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 6:04 p.m.

          ...and it's pretty clear I don't know this Bob. Still, I might be available for that dinner. :)

          • Re: a little further reading...
            Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
            Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:05 a.m.

            From the tone of his posts, I just assumed Bob is one of your patients. If he isn't, he should be.

            My advice: Don't eat the dinner.
  • Re: Taking a shot
    Posted by: Pro
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:51 a.m.

    Here we go again, another low limit fish trying to talk it up like a pro.

    Exactly how many times have you played 80-160? I bet i could count them on one finger and I might not even have to use it.

    Of all the pros I know who have ever played 80-160 on a regular basis, the number that have ever gotten stuck 2000 or less in the game is exactly equal to zero.

    14 BB - thats what 2000 is. If you tell me that you have only gotten stuck 14BB at a particular limit one time, you are telling me that you are completely inexperienced at that limit.

    Tell you what - save the advice giving for those who have some kind of clue.

    • Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: hetron (hetron@talkcity.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:08 p.m.

      Oh great, just what this forum needed- a high limit snob. Some guy asks what kind of money he needs to "take a shot at 75-150, and you tell him he needs $50K. Gee wilikers, he said take a shot, not play for a living! Next, a 40-80 player tells about how he takes shots at the 75 game and you dismiss him as a "low limit fish". Could you be anymore abrasive?

      Anyways, you state that any player that doesn't have the BR to play at a higher limit shouldn't do so. Maybe that's good advice for a pro who has to live off his BR and will be broke without it. However, a recreational player who may be able to regenerate a portion of his bankroll through other sources of income might not mind playing a higher limit IF he sees holes in the game. I don't think there is much sense in playing higher unless you see a game you think you can beat. To ensure yourself you can stay in the game long enough to take advantage of fishiness, take a look at your records. What was the biggest hit you ever took in a session of 20-40. What about in a weekend? Over 20 hours? Compare this to how much $75-150 you are going to play. Multiply the relevant numbers by four and you begin to get a taste of how much you will need to avoid going broke even if the deck goes cold for a while. If your biggest losses were extreme anomalies you might start looking at your next biggest losses.

      • Re: Taking a shot
        Posted by: Pro
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:17 p.m.

        You can take my advice or leave it. Its totally up to you.

        But there is a reason why they say you need to have at least 300BB to play at a given limit. If you have less, then in all probability, you will go broke.

        I have never gone broke. It's not because I am a great poker player. I'm not one of the best. But I have a 6 figure BR and I pay myself a salary of about 85K per year. That is pretty good for any pro. There are a lot of other guys who are much better players than I am and know what? Most of them have gone broke. Even though they are better than me. How can that be? They over played and/or over spent their bankroll.

        Do whatever you want.
    • Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:06 p.m.

      I've gotten up from many a table at various limits being stuck far less than 14 BB. I also know and have seen many that play full time do the same. I think that's one sign of making the correct decision.

      IMO this forum is for students of the game (and pro's especially should always be students and remain teachable) and everyone has the right to their opinion.

      It's not my place to doubt that you are a professional. However please encourage ones that may have less knowledge or experience than you, not belittle them.

      Kind Regards,

      Gene (holdemdude)

      • Re: Taking a shot
        Posted by: Pro
        Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:26 p.m.

        Here is a little pop quiz for you.

        Let's say you could beat a given game for 1BB per hour. You sit down in this game with exactly 14BB on 100 separate occasions, and get up and leave if you lose the 14BB.

        What % of the time will you go broke? Let's say you must play for at least 4 hours.

        Anyone that tells me that they never get stuck over 14BB at any given level obviously doesn't know enough about standard deviation to lie convincingly.

        • PRO :***PLEASE TAKE NOTICE***
          Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
          Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:14 p.m.

          I believe you may have misunderstood what I was trying to convey to you.

          Pro said this in response to 3-Bet Brett:

          "If you tell me that you have only gotten stuck 14 BB at a particular limit one time, you are telling me that you are completely inexperienced at that level".

          Sure, there have been more times than I care to mention that I have lost far more than 14 BB at all levels. What I was trying to say that it is often correct to get up after losing 14 BB or even less.

          The answer to your little pop quiz is not one that can be calculated.

          The other thing was to ask you to soften up a little. You sound like you have a lot to offer this forum. Please try to understand that so your posts will be anxiously opened and not wondering if you're gonna give a lashing with your words of wisdom.

          Kind Regards,

          Gene (holdemdude)
• Re: my 2 cents
  Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:33 a.m.

  im not sure taking a shot at a higher game is a good idea when you are playing in a completely new game in a completely new area (california). i would think the ideal way to do it would be to play the higher game against the same players you usually play against, just for a higher limit.

  brad

  • Re: my 2 cents
    Posted by: Terrence Chan
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:43 a.m.

    That's odd, I would think that if you're planning on playing higher than your normally do, California would be the place to do it.

    • Re: my 2 cents
      Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
      Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 6:55 a.m.

      well, yeah, i just meant that there's always an adjustment period (to a new environment). if you just play once or twice, that's a pretty big disadvantage.

      brad
• Re: Taking a shot
  Posted by: Dan Z.
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:16 a.m.

  Take a second shot at that very tough 20/40 game before trying 75/150. It probably will be a lot cheaper.

  Taking a shot at a 75/150 with your bankroll (esp. if it matters to you) won't be that helpful, as you'll never win enough to sustain play at that level, and you can't play that high anyway within a day's drive of your home.

  You can also probably find a 30/60 or 40/80 game to "take a shot" at on your California trip.

  Just my 2 cents. Good luck whatever you decide.

  Dan Z.
• Re: Taking a shot
  Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:11 a.m.

  Alright, everyone seems to have convinced me that taking this shot isnt such a great idea. I must say, though, that my first few "shots" at 20-40 were limited to 20 big bets. During these "shots" I got a taste for the game and did better than break even. Twenty big bets was something that I was willing to risk but not much more.

  Perhaps there is such a significant difference between 20-40 and 80-160 that I will just take my shot at 40-80. Thanks for your help, I really do appreciate it.

  One final note, I certainly do not think one needs $50,000 to take a shot at an 80-160 game given that 300 times the big bet is only $48,000 and that is a bankroll to play the game regularly--not take a shot.

  • To MATT and PRO Re: Taking a shot
    Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 9:43 a.m.

    Pro...The questions you posed to ask yourself when thinking about moving up are about as sound of advise as one could give. You also state a minimum of $50k would be necessary. Didn't you mean that as a BR, not what is necessary to sit in the game? I don't think you meant to say you needed $50k to sit in a 75-150 game, did you? When I played for a living I used 300 BB for my BR requirement. Even now as I play to supplement my income I use 200 BB for my BR. Matt's talking about taking a shot, not playing at these stakes regularly. We all have taken these shots (or at least should) before moving up and playing regularly. IMO, 25 BB buy in would be a rational starting point and an additional 50 BB ready, depending upon how strong his emotional status is to be willing to rebuy. Matt's claiming that he really can't afford to lose his existing BR leads me to believe he's probably not ready to take this step to this $ level. His last reply re-affirms my thoughts. He's apparently winning and emotional comfortable at the $20-40 level. $30-60 or $40-80 comes before $75-150, Matt. Also, if you think your playing skills are good enough to move up (of course you don't know if they really are until you do), IMO that factor is not as important as your emotional skills and BR requirements. Comments, please?

    Kind Regards,

    Gene (holdemdude)

    • Re: To MATT and PRO Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 10:10 a.m.

      Thank you very much holdemdude. I agree with what you have to say here concerning taking a shot. I did and do understand there is a huge difference between taking a shot and having the bankroll to play in a game.

      A somewhat well known player, Boonie, was once asked, "How do you get the bankroll to play at any level?" He replied, "You win it. Just because you don't have the bankroll to play a game doesn't mean you don't ever play it. It is just means it isn't your regular game"

      All that being said, I do agree that the move from 20-40 to 75-150 is too big. I have played 30-60 and do indirectly do that often since our 20-40 game has a 1/2 kill on it. I do not believe that 40-80 would bother me emotionally.

      Thanks again!
  • Re: Taking a shot
    Posted by: Pro
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:10 p.m.

    My point was that if your bankroll is less than 50K then you aren't good enough to play 80-160. Do you see the difference?

    Here is some advice I can pass on to you, having played as a pro for several years now, and having lots of pro friends.

    If your BR is less than 50K and poker is your only, or major source of income, you WILL go broke.

    If you take shots at games and put 1/3 or more of your BR on the line, you WILL go broke.

    These are observations I've made over the years and I do not know of any exceptions.

    On the positive side, almost all pros go broke at some point, and many do it several times. But it is no fun. Want to know why they go broke? They overplay their bankrolls.

    I, incidentally, have never gone broke. My poker BR is in the 6 figures and *I* don't play 80-160 very often (maybe once a month and only when the game looks especially good.)

    Just some free advice - feel free to disregard it.

    • Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:50 p.m.

      Thanks for your clarification. I had a feeling that's what you meant. I particularly agree with the reason why most pros (when they do) go broke being they overplay their bankrolls. In addition to playing in limits too high for their BR, they play other games of chance or use part of their BR for expensive pleasures. On a final note, your BR is just that and should always remain just that. It's kind of like a hot water heater. If the water level gets too low we all know what happens.

      Kind Regards,

      Gene (holdemdude)
    • Response to Pro
      Posted by: IowaMatt (Regents7@interl.net)
      Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:30 p.m.

      Pro:

      I certainly agree with you comments. I have also decided almost certainly to not take the shot. I never liked putting 1/3 of my bankroll on the table to play 20-40 as I was building the bankroll. Unfortunately, for all practical purposes, I didnt have a choice. The game was either 3-6 or 20-40...nothing in between.

      I would also concur with you that a bankroll below 50,000 isnt something you would want to use to make a living. Actually, I have my standard set much higher than that before I make the turn to playing for a living.
    • Re: Taking a shot
      Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:28 a.m.

      With all due deference to your greatly esteemed abilities and experience, let me offer the following:

      *** Quote A: "You can take my advice or leave it. Its totally up to you.

      But there is a reason why they say you need to have at least 300BB to play at a given limit. If you have less, then in all probability, you will go broke.

      Re: Taking a shot Posted By: Pro Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:17 p.m. ***

      *** Quote B: "Here is some advice I can pass on to you, having played as a pro for several years now, and having lots of pro friends.

      If your BR is less than 50K and poker is your only, or major source of income, you WILL go broke.

      Re: Taking a shot Posted By: Pro Date: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:10 p.m. ***

      These two statements seem to be in clear contradiction to one another. If we take your statement from Quote B as scripture, then how could the following be possible?:

      Imagine a solid 30-60 player who averages exactly 1 BB per hour over 4000 hours of play (large enough sample for a reliable win rate measurement). This player plays 1500 hours per year. He will be expected to make $90,000 per year.

      Conventional wisdom tells us this player requires a bankroll of 300 Big bets ($18,000). How then can you make the claim in Quote A that "If your BR is less than 50K and poker is your only, or major source of income, you WILL go broke. "??!?

      Even with a bankroll of 700 big bets ($42,000) you claim that he will most certainly go broke (since his bankroll is below $50K.

      Please clarify for us, o wise one.

      • Re: Taking a shot
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:53 a.m.

        I am going to hate myself for stepping into the middle of this but let me add my two cents worth.

        It is pointless to just take a shot at a bigger game unless you know you have an edge against the line up you are facing. Otherwise you are simply gambling. But to know that you have an edge in a $30-$60 game means that you must be an experienced winning player with a proven track record. The only way you know that you fall into this category is to have played a lot in lower limit games where you have won a lot of money. If you have not won at least 50 grand in lower limit games, in my opinion it is a mistake to play in a big game like $30-$60 if for no other reason than you are probably not good enough.

        With regard to the 300 big bets or $18,000 bankroll that is theorectically required for someone to who can beat the game for one big bet per hour, I want to make a couple of points. It is very rare to find someone who can beat a big game like this for one big bet per hour. Of the scores of players that play in the Bellagio $30-$60 game, there are probably not more than five who can average anything close to one big bet per hour over many thousands of hours of play. Furthermore, the swings are enormous. I know of one prominent player who lost over 11 grand in a week in that game. I know of another player who lost over 20 grand in a month. There is one excellent player who is known by Mason Malmuth and myself who ran so bad last year in $30-$60 that he stopped playing that game altogether and plays $20-$40 at the Mirage. Another well known middle limit player with a national reputation avoids the $30-$60 game like the plague.

        • Good post Jim n/t
          Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
          Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:49 a.m.

          n/t

I am playing a five handed 20 40 short game with loose players and dealt JJ in small blind (one is the J of clubs). 1st position calls, 2nd raises, and button reraises (often does so with medium pairs). I call and all players call paying $60 each before the flop.

Flop is J105 with two clubs. I bet, blind calls, 1st raises, 2nd folds, button calls, and I reraise and all call. Turn is 4 of clubs. I check and board checks. River is 6 of clubs. I check and board checks. I win $540 with J high flush.

Comments appreciated on before flop action and the turn.

Matthew

• Re: JJ in the small blind
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:42 p.m.

  Preflop it is clearly correct to call, although if you were not the blind a call might be incorrect. On the turn I would have bet,and I would also have bet the river.

  pat
• Re: JJ in the small blind
  Posted by: suspicious
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:54 p.m.

  I think in a five handed game you should assume you ahve the best hand preflop, and play accordingly. I suspect if you want to just call that is ok, but I would reraise to hopefully play heads up against the button. Note in a five handed game I suspect you pbly should call a cap w/this hand cold unless you are playing w/peopel so weak that they only cap w/hands stronger than yours (AA KK QQ).

  I think your play on the flop is good.

  It is generous to assume soneone has a flush once the third club hits, and you do have the 4th nut flush draw and more importantly the nut boat draw. YOu gotta bet this especially in a shorthanded game!

  I think in a shorthanded game you have to be prepared to push weaker than usual hands harder and take them further. I think you should even bet the turn if the action started full handed unless you positive one of your adversaries have a flush, and even then a bet may not be so bad.
• Re: JJ in the small blind
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:38 p.m.

  Shorthanded games have their own rules. With top set you should follow through with a bet on the turn despite the flush possibility. No one may have a flush and you have 10 outs to beat a flush anyway. At the river, when the fourth club arrives all you can do is check it down. It is too easy for some to have a bigger club. Of course, you call if anyone bets.
• Re: JJ in the small blind
  Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:21 a.m.

  1. I prefer a fold preflop, even short handed, there are real hands out there on this deal. You're are putting in two and half bets with what is most likley not the best pair and playing from up front. On flop or turn, any over cards will kill your hand.

  2. I like bet out on flop and reraise.

  3. I would have bet out on turn.

  4. Check and glare at dealer, is the play on the river. I don't like paying off any bet at river except maybe button.

  MS Sunshine (mr)

  • Re: JJ in the small blind
    Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:43 a.m.

    I'm pretty sure I was in that game, and the biggest hand he was up against was KQ. You should play in one of these 5 player max games. Some of them can get very very aggressive.
• Re: JJ in the small blind
  Posted by: Doug Dunn (dunn_d@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:40 a.m.

  I think I was in that game, you're talking about the 5 way on planet poker right?

  • Re: JJ in the small blind
    Posted by: Matthew Hilger (dream12cometrue@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:04 a.m.

    Yes. 5-way at Planet Poker. I was happy winning the hand but did lots of turns in bed about my play on the turn. Felt I played everything right preflop (capping the flop was an interesting option although in that game I don't think anybody would have folded), flop, and river, but the turn was a big ?. I was surprised with all the action on flop that there were no flush draws but seems the consensus is to bet the turn and after reading the comments I agree, especially given to # of outs I had. So next time be ready for a turn bet!

I had KdQd in a multiway pot preflop in a recent game and flopped a flush. I raised preflop. On the flop it was bet in early position with only 1 caller and I was in late position. The flop was Td6d2d. I decided to just call and raise on the turn. The next card is a 5h. It is bet again, 1 caller and then I raise. The bettor calls and the caller folds. The turn brings the Jd. The bettor again bets and I raise, he calls and shows the Ad8c.

The players were both typical AC players that were fairly weak. Should I have raised the flop? Any comments welcome.

Pat

• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: Riff Raff
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:19 p.m.

  The bettor again bets and I raise, he calls and shows the Ad8c

  He's got the mortals on the river and doesn't re-raise you? I'd like this guy at my table =)

  Aside from that I think you played it fine. He has a draw to the nuts, you charged him as much as possible to get there... a raise on the flop would not save you this pot. He let you off the hook by not re-raising you on the river.
• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: suspicious
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 12:24 p.m.

  I think you played it alright. If you raise the flop they probably all check and call on the turn. And by raising on the turn you are a much bigger favorite to win against say Ad x or two pair or trips than on the flop.

  Did your opponent just call on the river w/the nuts!?

  Of course depending on the players it might be correct to play it differently. (If you think they might raise you on the turn as semi bluff w/the lone Ad, then maybe raising the flop and trying to reraise a raise on the turn, but this plan is not so good if they only reraise w/better hands on the turn.)

  YOu don't mention how many people saw the flop etc.
• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 1:24 p.m.

  Pat,

  There is no guarantee it will be bet again on the turn with a flop this scary so I would put in a flop raise given that your raise from late position is not driving anyone out. Your turn raise was fine of course.

  On the river the better bets out with the nuts and then just calls your raise (BTW, I would just call here). Am I missing something?

  Regards,

  Rick

  • Re: slowplaying a flush
    Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
    Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:21 p.m.

    You all are reading it right--he just called with the mortal nuts.
• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: Pro
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 2:39 p.m.

  Why on earth would you raise on the river? You must not like money.

  Would you have called if he had reraised? (He should have - he had the nuts.)
• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: Dan Z.
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 3:25 p.m.

  Well, I raise the flop here, since someone is likely drawing to an ace, and thus unlikely to bet on the turn. Also, the turn raise will knock out lots of players with top pair, where the flop raise and a single turn bet won't (but it depends on the opponents). You want to hold a top pair in the pot drawing dead, since you might drawing dead. Since it is very likely one of your opponents is drawing dead, you should not try to knock them out on the turn. This is similar to "going for the overcall".

  If another diamond shows up, you have a calling hand at best. In fact, since it was the jack of diamonds, you should fold to the river bet! This may be tough to do, but against most players it is correct. Since we have accounted for the K,Q,J and T, just what is he betting on the river? Can he possibly think you will fold? Does he think your hand is weak and he can bluff? Neither is possible for most players. At most ou have a crying call, but I think it's a fold.

  Good luck.

  Dan Z.
• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:33 p.m.

  In a jammed pot like this, I think you should raise on the flop. If the pot were smaller or your opponents fewer then a slow play may be okay. When the fourth diamond arrives at the river and you are bet into, you should just call expecting to lose. You cannot fold the second nuts with all that money on the table but raising is also bad since it just invites a reraise.

  Your opponent learned poker in a forest.
• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:49 p.m.

  I like your play of merely calling the flop and then raising the turn. I wouldn't do it all the time, but it can A) cause them to bet into you again on the turn; and B) cause them to think twice about betting in future hands when you check behind them on the flop.

  I don't like your play of raising on the river since you have both the K and Q of diamonds; with just the K, Q may call your raise. But with both the K and Q you're either looking at the A or a J or worse, which would likely fold to your raise.

  If I were your opponent, I would have re-raised you on the river. :-)

  Sorry the diamond came on the river.
• Re: slowplaying a flush
  Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:52 a.m.

  1. Call the flop; raise the turn. This is not even close.

  2. Dan is right, what can he have, but the ace, certainly not the nine to bet out. But I don't play that well, so I call the bet at the river.

  MS Sunshine (mr)

Here's a hand I played recently at PP 10-20.

I am in early middle postion with KK. I raise first in. A middle postion player calls, as does the SB.

Flop is QT9 rainbow. SB checks, I bet, MP calls, SB raises. I just call, MP calls.

Turn is a 3, no flush draw out. SB bets, I raise, both call.

River is a 4. Checked around.

SB shows AQo, I win. MP doesn't show My guesses for MP are AK, AJ, JJ, QJs, JTs, possibly KQ, though that's a stretch.

In other words, I don't expect a call or raise from him unless he was slowplaying or afraid with a better hand. I figued the SB for either AQ (most likely), 2 pair, or a set of nines (possibly even tens if he is a real wimp).

My plan was to bet the river if the board paired low (so I beat anyone with 2 pair) or maybe if a jack fell, and check otherwise. How is this reasoning?

Advice/comments appreciated. Thanks.

Dan Z.

• Re: KK, scary board
  Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 4:12 p.m.

  A board of Q-T-9 is pretty scary even for KK. If you are behind, another king may not help you since it gives anyone with a jack a straight. A check-raise move on the flop followed by a lead on fourth is a pretty strong sequence coming out of the small blind in the face of a preflop raiser. The small blind will usually have a much stronger holding than just top pair, top kicker. I think raising on the turn is overplaying your hand so checking it down at the river seems prudent. You are lucky you didn't run into two pair, a set, or a straight.

  • Re: KK, scary board
    Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:28 a.m.

    I like the raise on the turn. When they both call, there is little chance of a made straight, most likely draw with a pair.

    I would have bet the river. If the player behind you has two pair he will most likely just call, but if you check he'll bet two pair and your stuck making a crying call. This way you make money if you have the best hand and lose no more money with the worst hand, than if you had checked.

    MS Sunshine (mr)

Ok, I think I know the answer here, so i'm venting a bit but I want to run it by ya'll. 15-30 game, 11 players, a few pretty good players, some decent and some who play it like it's 4-8. I'm in BB with AQo, one fold, three players limp, a raise( not one of the good players), three cold calls, I call, player who started the limping (one who treats the game like 4-8) re-raises, called all around, so about $360 in the pot. Flop is Q-4-6- with two diamonds. Here's where I know I screwed up, though I may have lost anyway. I check, figuring there's got to bee a higher pair out there, thought the re-raiser limped-raised with AA or KK. Anyway, calls damn near all-around. turn is a 2, not the diamond. I checked it was bet and rasised. a couple of calls, I folded. river was a five so there could have been a straight, but the duece made the third pre-flop limper a set. He won huge pot. So, if I had bet the flop, he may have called anyway, or the original re-raiser may have raised me and knocked him out(he wouldn't have called two bets cold with 22. anyway, the re-raiser had 1010 and I would have won the pot. comments, critiques, please.

• Re: AQo
  Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:33 p.m.

  I think you should have bet the flop, not just because it was unlikely original limper/3 bettor had A-A or K-K, but more importantly, even if you thought he did indeed have A-A or K-K and would have raised. Use his raise to eliminate the competition even if you think you're only 2nd best. 2-2 might have folded for 2 bets. You're not thinking of saving bets in a big pot like this but of winning the pot. Since the most likely player to raise you was immediately on your left, you should have bet the flop, IMHO.

Here's one of the most nauseating hands that I've ever played. It makes me sick, not because of the way it turned out, but because I think the answer is obvious, but part of me still doubts myself. Here's the situation:

9-18 N. Cali game ($3 drop on button, it's live) I get 7-8 offsuit in a passive, weak game. There are a few new players to the game that just sat down, but they don't exactly look like players (I think that I could smell the fish scent!) Early (EP) limper, called by MP, and called by guy on my right. I call for 6 bucks. SB calls, BB checks.

Flop comes 8s-7s-5c (I have no spades).

SB bets out, BB raises, EP reraises, MP caps, dude on right CALLS COLD!!! I call time, and everybody proceeds to call out of turn on my left. This is pretty scary.

Realize that action like this HAS NOT happened yet on any hand all night. I figure that somebody's got a made hand already, and that I'm drawing to 4 outs, although the possible straight flush could negate this # slightly. I need to put in 4 SB, which is pretty big on a pot with a little less than 6+5X4= 26SB. I don't think I'm getting odds, so I FOLDED TOP TWO PAIR. At best, I figure that I'm against an overpair or two (probably AA or 99), although this is unlikely with the lack of a preflop raise (although 99 is possible), straight and flush draws, a combo pair of 8's with some draw, or a set. I'm a decided dog to win the hand even against these draws in total, so I didn't feel too good about my hand here.

Feeling like I just made a good fold, I see the turn: 6c. Now I figure that my hand has no chance in hell of winning. SB checks, BB checks, EP bets, MP raises, dude on my right calls, SB folds, BB calls.

River is a blank. blinds check, EP bets, MP calls, everyone else folds. EP turns over 8-6o and wins the pot! I feel sick, but still did well in the game.

Was my fold correct here? If yes, let me know so that I can have peace of mind. If not, I need to know if I'm being too tight or if my reasoning was 100% off. I'm sure that people won't like my initial limp in with 7-8o, but it's surely correct given the game and my position.

• Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
  Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 8:38 p.m.

  Calling with 8-7 offsuit was surely incorrect. And the game was not passive, apparently, given the fact that everyone called for a cap with, at best, 8-5 on a flop of 8s-7s-5c.

  • Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
    Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:59 a.m.

    Andy, you wouldn't call on the button with $3 already in the pot with this hand?

    • Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
      Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:42 p.m.

      No. See Rick's post below, with which, in regard to the pre-flop call, I essentially agree.
• Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
  Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 10:24 p.m.

  Unless you know that these players are prone to cap with very little, your fold is probably correct. One of the problems with your hand is that someone else, given the way the hand is being played, could easily have 87 with you.
• Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
  Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Tuesday, 15 May 2001, at 11:46 p.m.

  "Was my fold correct here? "

  No. Stop referring to people as fish and play poker and you may see things more clearly.

  vince

  • Wonderful statement(nt)
    Posted by: PasserBy
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 6:05 a.m.

    it really is.
• Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:27 a.m.

  This is another example of a post where you get more objective answers if you don’t go beyond the point of your primary decision, which in this case is on the flop. We all tend to be influenced by results to a degree. You can always fill in the result of the hand later after you get some responses.

  I do think your preflop call was marginal with only three limpers for 2/3 a bet. I know I wouldn’t call for a full bet with unless I had four or five limpers, especially in the 9/18 where the 1/3 size small blind does not come in as often.

  Since you said the game is passive, I am assuming your opponents had something to give all this action (I’m trying to forget the result). So with this action on the flop I think you have to worry about a set of fives, a smallish overpair (to which you are very vulnerable), a made straight or straight draw, a pair with a straight such as 98, another 87, and a flush draw. Before this round the pot is small. Now you have to pay the absolute max for a hand that no longer looks that strong. Even if it is leading a lot or turn cards could cripple it. And as you said, it only has four redraws.

  I think it is a reasonable fold and wonder what Andy, Mason, and Vince think.

  Regards,

  Rick

  • Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
    Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:47 p.m.

    I agree with the fold. It's capped before the action gets to you. Although you have top two pair, there are many cards higher than your top pair that could give someone else a higher two pair on the turn or river. There's a flush draw on board. There might already be a striaght out there against you. You have to worry, as you point out, about a set and, as Mason points out, about the possibility of someone else having 8-7 as well. Call 4 bets cold? Not me.
• Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
  Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:39 a.m.

  Your limp on the button is correct. You've got three limpers with the blinds likely to play. It costs you $6 to see the flop, in best position, with a hand that is easy to get away from if you don't hit, with $36 and probably $45 in the pot. Excellent limp.

  If the game is truly normally passive, limping is even more correct.

  It sounds like you were new to the game because you obviously misjudged the level of passivity at the table. That was your only mistake.

  Normally, in a passive 9-18 (especially if you're talking about the one at Lucky Chances), your hand in this situation is drawing slim if not dead.

  Your fold was correct. That's what position is for! You got to see everyone act before you did. If you had been in middle position, you might have put in the first raise, and then felt compelled to call two more to see the turn. And under normal circumstances, that would have meant you lose four bets more than if you had been on the button.

  In this rare instance, your two pair would have been good. However, even in that case, you were probably facing a flush draw, a straight draw, and an overpair, which makes your two pair very shaky indeed. Any spade, nine, four, five, or running pair would have beaten you. In addition, you might have been killed by a 6 (gut shot draw) and possibly any ace as well if you were facing A7 A8 or A5, which is not unlikely in that game. In fact, with FIVE people staying in on a capped flop, I'd say the chances were excellent that they were holding those exact hands and you were facing over 20 outs against you. In that situation, you would obviously stay given the pot odds but that is your BEST CASE SCENARIO. 95% of the time, there's a made hand out there when the action is like this.

  I think you played the hand PERFECTLY, other than your misread of the table's passivity.

  natedogg

  • Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
    Posted by: Just Another Sucker
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:57 p.m.

    Thanks for the input. The game was at Garden City, which plays very similar to the game at Lucky's. I figured that I'm dead there for the reasons noted earlier.
  • Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
    Posted by: GD (boopotts@yahoo.com)
    Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 12:11 a.m.

    Nate-

    I doubt that's a quality limp. True, he's getting about 7-1, but he'll only catch a quality flop; i.e., an open ender, two pair or trips, about 13% of the time. And this doesn't include the times that he flops open ended on a one-suit board, flops two pair with a three-straight on board (like this), catches trips on the flop and loses to a flush, etc.

    Andrew Prock did a sim a while ago and determined that you need about 13-1 immmediate to limp with smallish offsuit connectors. This sounds about right to me.

    Good luck, Guy
• Re: Is this the most butchered hand ever?
  Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:47 a.m.

  Wrong Forum, this is the medium stakes board.

  • Correction
    Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:50 a.m.

    Sorry, this is the correct forum, I misread your original post "called for 6 bucks" and thought you were in a 6-12 game. In any case, I have never seen a rake on the button played as "live." Weird method of collection there.

    • Re: Correction
      Posted by: Getalifemaven
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:18 a.m.

      Seems you shoudl have better things to do than make fun of people because they post on the alleged wrong forum.

      ANd then say the collection is weird, when this is standard in Calif.

      • Re: Correction
        Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:42 a.m.

        I didn't mean that the collection method is weird, only that it is live. I have played in northern Cali, and I seem to recall that the collection on the button was dead in the pot.

        PS, Please forgive my bad impression of Wrong Forum man, it was meant mainly as a bad joke in the first place.
• let's look at it another way
  Posted by: Dan Osman (enderw19@aol.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:28 p.m.

  Assume the situation came down where the flop was 8-7-5, capped before it got to you and you folded your top two pair. Turn comes and it's a 7. River comes and it's a 7. You just folded away the nuts. My goodness, you'd probably be kicking yourself, right? "If I had just called 4 bets cold and then another 1-4 bets on the turn, I really could have raked in a nice pot." And you would have been the envy of the table as that set of 5s, the 6-4, the 9-6, and the A-A all clamored for your blood. But what's wrong with this scenario is that you're only looking at the results. In real life, in the long run, calling four bets cold against normally passive opponents is a losing proposition. You really will have four outs (hoping to God that no one else is holding a 7 or 8 to steal one of those four), and the odds you're getting don't justify that kind of gamble.

  You made a good judgement call. You lost money anyway. It happens.
• Misc Replies
  Posted by: Just Another Sucker
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:54 p.m.

  Thanks for all of the input. There are a few things that I want to clear up though:

  1. My statement that the game was passive. I had been in the game for a few hours, and it seemed like the standard crowd (i.e. many weak hands being played, lots of free cards, many flops seen for one bet, blinds didn't raise very much). This was just the normal Garden City 9-18. These factors made me call with the hand 7-8o preflop.

  2. Andy said it didn't sound passive to him with all of the capping. This was the first hand where this happened, and that's precisely folded.

  3. Vince criticized me for "referring to people as fish" and told me to "play poker and you may see things more clearly." You don't think that playing crap like 8-6o from early position is a bad play? You don't think that at least some of those players made HORRIBLE mistakes by calling the cap on the flop? That, coupled seems pretty fishy to me. However, I think that many of the posters here (myself included) get a little sharp with our labels of other players and this is a downfall of many otherwise good players; they let their ego get in the way of good judgement. It's human to do so. Maybe I shouldn't have called them "fish," but "people who have no idea how to play poker" might be a better label. Really, what's the difference?

The other days we were playing cards and this new fellow walks in and starts to play for about an hour. He was about even. Then this other guy walks in and starts to introduce himself to the others. Well what do you know, about half hour later and the new fellow won more than $900. The problem with this is that I suspected collusion and not only that I carefully watched one of the guys cutting at the crimp everytime. I have been in these situations many times with monster hands like a full house and then someone comes back on top of me with quads.. How can I stop these two people from cheating without revealing that they are cheaters?

Thanks for all your help.

• Re: Cheating with a partner
  Posted by: Just another egg (rockin'.it.down.hard@valleyofpatience.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:02 a.m.

  I am not familiar with the expressing “cutting at the crimp”. Please clarify.

  First off, you suspect they are cheating, you don’t know it…so be very careful. If it’s the standard collusion thing, one betting, the other raising to either blow you off a hand, or build a pot when one of them has the nuts, there’s a few things you can do.

  1st be very careful about getting in a hand when they are both in. Only come in with very strong hands. Let them bet the hands for you. If you have the nuts and they are raising and re-raising each other… you stand to make a nice profit off their cheating.

  If you observe a hand, or are in a hand where they both end up holding cards at the end, ask to see both hands. Of course they wouldn’t be very good cheats if they found themselves in this situation. But if you can do this a few times, they will probably back off.

  If you have friends in the game, talk to them, ask if they suspect anything. The more people that are aware of the situation the better. Again, you just suspect something, you don’t KNOW anything right now and an accusation of cheating is serious so be careful before you call the floors attention to the situation.

  Just my opinion

  Just another egg.
• Re: Cheating with a partner
  Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:02 a.m.

  Why would you not want to reveal that they are cheating?
• Re: Cheating with a partner
  Posted by: William Seabrook (calmmaster@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:03 p.m.

  Okay, so let's see...

  It sounds like a mechanic stacking the deck and his partner is on his right. After the deck is stacked, the dealer places the stack in the middle of the deck. As he is moving the stack to the middle, he crimps a card so that his partner can cut the deck at the crimp and thus put the stack back top of the deck.

  One thing you can do which may somewhat neutralize him is to randomly sit out just after the cards are passed to be cut, but before the mechanic starts to deal. That will do three things. First, the stack will no longer be in the correct order for distribution because the number of active players has changed since the deck was stacked. Second, since your behavior is random, the mechanic will never know whether you are going to sit out or not. Since he does not know if you are going to sit out, he will not know how to stack the deck and far as how many cards go between each of the cards intended for his partner. Third, if the mechanic has a brain, he will know within a few rounds that you are on to him and probably find a reason to leave.

  William

Okay, there is no real controversy with Izmet Fekali other than he watched me play a hand of $15-$30 and completely disagreed with my play. I said I would post it and let my good buddies on the forum decide.

A $15-$30 game. I am on the button with the Ks-Jd. A solid player named Tony comes in and posts a late position blind in the cutoff seat. It is folded to Tony who checks. I raise, because I believe my hand is a good one against two blinds and a late position poster who doesn't raise. The blinds fold and Tony calls. There is $85 in the pot and two players.

The flop is: 7h-5h-4s

Tony checks. I bet hoping my lone opponent will fold and having some outs perhaps if I am called. Tony raises.

Question 1: If you would call, in your opinion how bad a poker decision is it to fold?

Question 2: If you would fold, in your opinion how bad a poker decision is it to call?

Scroll down to see what happened.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I folded rather than call for another $15 with $130 in the pot. I put Tony on something like a pair with a flush draw or a pair with a straight draw. He might even have two pair. Izmet thought this was horrible and would at least call or even reraise because of the pot odds coupled with the possibility of getting faked out.

About an hour later, I asked Tony what he had. Tony said he had the 7d-6h for a top pair of sevens with an open ended straight draw plus a backdoor flush draw.

• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:21 a.m.

  Jim,

  I copied the top half of your post into my MS Word workspace so I haven’t scrolled yet. BTW, say hi to Izmet for me.

  I assume that Tony knows your play fairly well. And if he is solid than he is capable of making tricky moves and getting inside your head here. Since he didn’t raise before the flop from his late post he probably didn’t have a hand he would try to steal with, so I would doubt he has a pair, an ace, a king, maybe a queen or any decent connected type hand. My guess is his pre flop hand is most likely disconnected garbage headed by a card no higher than a jack.

  On the flop he knows you will probably bet after he checks and you are a big favorite to have overcards (or a single big overcard) rather than an overpair. So I think his move with any pair might be to checkraise rather than bet out and bet again if a baby comes on the turn (if you only call). After his checkraise there are almost nine bets in the pot. I would think any ace or paint would be scary to him on the turn unless it makes him two pair, which is unlikely since I think he would have raised pre flop with any ace, king, and maybe queen as previously mentioned. Of course he could already have two pair, but I think he would make his move later with a hand this strong head up.

  Note that two of the paints give you a good hand and the ace gives you a hand you can represent with a turn bet or raise. With six decent outs and four “ostensible outs” getting almost 9 to 1 I think you have a reasonably solid call. So if you folded I would say you made a moderately bad mistake. I’ll paste this in then scroll down

  Regards,

  Rick
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: MS Sunshine (jbuchan3@midsouth.rr.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:39 a.m.

  In any difference on the play of a poker hand I like Izmet's play over mine. That said, I like fold, with raise second choice. I think a call is terrible. Let me repeat that, a call is terrible.

  MS Sunshine (mr)
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Rounder
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 8:01 a.m.

  Problem here is building a pot to the point that it gets to be a marginal decision to fold cuz the pot is big. I think you blew a couple of bb on a piece of cheese and got out played in the process.
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: backdoor
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 8:18 a.m.

  Jim Brier,
  

  Knowing the hand he held, and including redraws, you would hit and hold with the KJ about 9% of the time, which excluding implied odds, means about 10-1, if only you were to stay to the turn. You were getting 8.5-1. This is fairly close considering he held a much stronger hand than could be generally expected (I am assuming he told the truth).
  

  Importantly, this is a "move at the raiser" flop. When I see a flop like that I know there is a fairly large chance I will be seeing a move soon.
  

  Another point is: I think it is an important idea to make someone who may be moving at the pot against you pay for it. This means making them bet the turn where the bets double. If you look at it from Tony's perspectve, he is getting 3.25-1 to take a shot at the pot if he has very little. By at least calling the raise, you now force Tony to put twice as much money at stake for only a small bet more in value. He would have to put in 4 small bets to win 7.5 small bets. This is less than 2-1, more expensive than 3.25-1 bargain.
  

  If we were to consider his fulcrum hand to be, say(as I do not have a ready made one for this situation, as it lies in opponent hand ranges and tendencies), a pair (a board pair with five redraw outs) with no other draws, then here's what happens. You now would have about a 11.5% chance of hitting a pair on the turn and holding. This means just under 8-1. You are getting 8.5-1. This does not include implied, which favors you. This does not include times the opponent gets frightened on the turn and checks (this happens when you are known to call reraises and raise the turn).
  

  With regards to your questions, I think the answer lies in the assumption of the fulcrum hand (by this I am trying to find a neutral ground). Mine places folding the flop (raising here might be right but we this needs to bring into play bluff win percentages which are highly opponent dependent), as a small but definite mistake. Perhaps equivalent to folding a clean gutshot nut straight draw with 12-1 in the pot, excluding implied. But I could be wrong as there are lots of assumptions that are open for debate. And I am just learning. If I were forced to adjust one odds point in either direction, it would be in favor of at least calling (again, the raising thing is going to need several more paragraphs and I am playing online...lol)
  

  Regards.

  PS. How is the "project" going?

  • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:50 p.m.

    Hi Backdoor!

    My input to the project is completed. Ciaffone is now working on his end of it. He is going to start featuring selected material from the book in his CardPlayer'columns to whet appetites. Our plan is to get the book published around August or September.

    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:34 p.m.

      Jim,

      I knew you two had to be up to something. It is a natural match and I expect to be first in line to buy it!.

      Regards,

      Rick

      • Thanks! (n/t)
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:44 p.m.

        (n/t)

        • Re: Looking forward to it, Jim (nt)
          Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
          Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:45 p.m.

          x
    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: backdoor
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:25 p.m.

      Jim B,
      

      Good to hear about the project. Anyone who posts here knows what work it takes to make even one itty bitty post so we can imagine the effort you have made. Knowing full well how the book will be picked apart. (Actually an RGP war might boost sales...hmmm.)
      

      Regarding the hand, if you could give a general hand range preflop we could pin down a baseline solution fairly easily.
      

      Your post title was good marketing. When I first read it I actually thought (before reading the post content) that it was an imposter.
      

      By the way, some of us are expecting special edition autographed copies...

      Regards.
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Erin
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 8:23 a.m.

  I would fold for a different reason.

  He should have a high pocket pair because he didn't raise Preflop.

  • I like this answer the best n/t
    Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
    Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 1:44 p.m.

    .
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Scott Wyler
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:19 a.m.

  I would call. Unless you know Tony to be incapable of checkraising with just a pair, I think you have 6 clean outs, and he might slow down when you call if any kind of face card comes on the turn, so you could get two bites at the apple. That said, I don't think it's a bad fold -- just slightly conservative.

  I think you are right that most players would not check raise if they just caught an edge of the flop there (like with K5 or something), so I was not surprised to see he had 67. I think he should have come in raising preflop, by the way.

  SW

  • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
    Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:47 p.m.

    I disagree. Most players would checkraise the flop if they hit a pair or an open-ended draw or what have you. I am not saying that that is correct but that is what most players do against a late position preflop raiser.

    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: Scott Wyler
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:57 p.m.

      You may be right, but I play with a lot of loose passives who would check call or bet.

      Do you think the 6-7 poster should come in raising since it's folded to him? Seems like a tight game....
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: hosh (hosh115@aol.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:47 a.m.

  Jim you are getting about 2.9 to try to take it away from him on the turn with a reraise to his bet. + or - the bluff ratio. This could be a good opportunity to resteal.
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 9:53 a.m.

  How many worse hands can he have that will force him to see the turn and therefore make it worth his while to raise? About a zillion. How many preflop check-call-a-raise hands can he have where I'm drawing dead? One: 86s. How much will I lose if I let opponents typically blow me off the pot here, giving them good odds to call my steals with junk? A lot.

  Call/reraise.

  • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:04 p.m.

    "How many hands can he have where I am drawing dead/"

    8-6 (16 hands), 6-3 (16 hands), 7-7 (3 hands given the board), 5-5 (3 hands given the board), and 4-4 (3 hands given the board). This is 41 hands.

    With Kh-Jh he has me freerolled which is 1 more hand.

    With 7-5 (9 hands given the board), 7-4 (9 hands given the board), and 5-4 (9 hands given the board) or 27 hands where I am dead to perfect-perfect.

    Of course many of these hands are very unlikely given that he called my raise preflop but then again he was already half-way in so he might call with any two suited cards that are one or two gappers. He would certainly call with any pair.

    Some players check-raise on the flop rather than try for a check-raise on the turn because they cannot be sure the turn will get bet.

    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: Scott Wyler
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:25 p.m.

      Jim:

      As I said before, I could make a case for raising -- even with 67off -- since I am first in and have posted. Maybe checking is correct there, but certainly he would not have checked a pocket pair, KJs, and maybe a few of the other hands you list. Plus he is unlikely to call you preflop with 3-6 or 4-7, though I realize lots of guys would.

      I think that's why Chris was able to narrow it down so much.

      SW
    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: DeadBart (deadbart@yahoo.com)
      Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 11:25 a.m.

      "Of course many of these hands are very unlikely given that he called my raise preflop but then again he was already half-way in so he might call with any two suited cards that are one or two gappers. He would certainly call with any pair. "

      I think many of the hands you listed are very unlikely because he did not raise preflop himself. The last line could be "He would certainly raise with any pair".

      • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 6:25 p.m.

        Good point, DeadBart about pairs. Most good players will raise having posted a late position blind with a pair when the rest of the field folds to them.
    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger1@home.com)
      Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 1:43 p.m.

      "8-6 (16 hands), 6-3 (16 hands)"

      He'll fold all but 86s to your preflop raise. Wouldn't you?

      "7-7 (3 hands given the board), 5-5 (3 hands given the board), and 4-4 (3 hands given the board)."

      He'll raise with these. Wouldn't you?

      "With Kh-Jh he has me freerolled which is 1 more hand."

      He's going to check this hand in a lpb after everyone drops? Maybe as a slowplay?

      "With 7-5 (9 hands given the board), 7-4 (9 hands given the board), and 5-4 (9 hands given the board) or 27 hands where I am dead to perfect-perfect."

      I'll give you 54s. But if he'll play the others for a raise from a reasonably tight blind raiser he can't be that "solid."

      • Good Points! (n/t)
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 6:26 p.m.

        (n/t)
• i would call, but I folding is not a biggie
  Posted by: counterfieter
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:13 a.m.

  I would call...but I would think the expectancy of folding/calling in this case is close to even
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: johnm (oonwayvos@aol.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:02 a.m.

  I think a call is correct. You can fold on the turn if no paint appears. This is for me. I think the fold was the perfect thing for you to do with a respected and outspoken kibitzer, thus creating this "controversy". This post and the responses that you have gotten should get you many many bets over the next few weeks because it looks like you are ripe for a mugging when in fact you are smarter than the fox. (Mixing metaphores is ok because I can't spell either)
• Well Played
  Posted by: Bob J. (bobj50@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:17 p.m.

  A good player doesn't throw away his money when he doesn't have much, and his opponent likely already has something and / or a better draw.

  Bob J.
• What About the Raise Here?
  Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@aol.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:20 p.m.

  Seems to me your chances of stealing TWO big blinds is pretty small to me. You stated Tony is a solid player and to me this further lessons the chance of making this pre-flop raise +EV. If the blinds are solid as well I know this raise is –EV. If Tony, the SB, and BB call now the pot is pretty big and you have a decent hand but not a great one. If it's heads up and you have a hand that probably needs to improve on the flop. When you miss this flop Tony probably has a real good idea that you missed it. If you do flop top pair you probably won’t get much action. You have a hand that doesn’t have a lot of showdown value when unimproved.

  When you play the hand this way I assume that you were hoping to win the pot pre-flop but if you didn’t being heads up with position was ok too. So assuming that you thought that I think must go to the river with this hand unless something tells you that you were obviously a big dog and the action to me certainly doesn’t indicate that you were. To me it’s a matter of how well you read the situation and in this particular case with all due respect you didn’t have a very good read. If you came and asked me the same question you asked Tony I would have certainly lied.

  • Re: What About the Raise Here?
    Posted by: Bob J. (bobj50@hotmail.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:27 p.m.

    I agree a steal is unlikely, but I believe the preflop raise was for value.

    • Re: What About the Raise Here?
      Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@aol.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:55 p.m.

      I understand your point but what's the value of giving your hand away to a solid player?

      • Re: What About the Raise Here?
        Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:54 p.m.

        Tom,

        I don't undersatnd why you say that the preflop raise gives Jim's hand away. Jim should be raising with a whole bunch of hands when on the button and against 3 blinds.

        Besides, if I am going to play KJ, I would most certainly like to play against 1 opponent rather than 3. Also, by raising, I get some idea of what the guys calling my raise may be holding. I can play a K55 flop pretty confidently postflop if I raised preflop. If I didn't raise preflop, I am left to guess whether that 5 just hit one of my opponents.

        • To skp and Jim
          Posted by: Tom Haley (codesavvy@home.com)
          Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 5:56 p.m.

          I agree with your points. I'm not sure how liberally Jim would raise in this spot. What I was thinking that if you're going to give up too easily here when it's heads up then the raise is counterproductive. Most of the time Jim won't flop a pair with KJ and if he is unwilling to go to the river with the possible best hand often enough when someone shows some aggression I would think that he is giving his money away. Yes KJo is a decent hand heads up against a random hand but part of the reason is that you often win without improving by high carding your opponent or winning because of a scary board to your opponent. Any thoughts on this?

          • Re: To skp and Jim
            Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
            Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 6:34 p.m.

            I don't think that an unimproved king-jack is likely to win heads-up against one opponent who stays with you. There is a HUGE difference here between king-jack and ace-jack. A decent ace to showdown will frequently get the cheese but king-high rarely will.

            But preflop, king-jack will flop top pair or middle pair with a good kicker about a third of the time. It will flop some kind of draw a small percentage of the time. But the fact that you raise preflop does not commit you to calling bets and raises all the way to the river when the flop misses your hand. Furthermore, I would make the same play with any big or medium pair as well as with any two big cards plus some other holdings so your opponent does not know how strong or weak I am.
          • Re: To skp and Jim
            Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
            Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 7:46 p.m.

            I agree with Jim's response, Tom.

            Let's not forget that when Jim raised preflop, he was not expecting a 765 (or whatever it was) flop. Suppose the flop was 422 or T95 or...you get the drift...then, I am sure that Jim would not give up on his KJ that easily even though the flop has missed him (to varying degrees).

            The point is that on most flops, you will have wished you had raised preflop with KJ against 3 blind opponents.
  • Re: What About the Raise Here?
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:42 p.m.

    Tom, king-jack offsuit is a strong hand against two or three random holdings and will win more than its fair share of pots. Furthermore, I have the best position. There is already $40 in the pot and I would certainly play for $15 so I might as well invest another $15 to drive the small blind and the big blind out or at least make them pay to take a flop against me. Occasionally, a raise here will win the pot outright.
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Winger
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 12:56 p.m.

  If Tony is the type of player I could re-steal it off on the turn should a big card come down, I would call. I don't think a fold is terrible here.
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:09 p.m.

  If Tony is solid, yet didn't raise pre-flop, he has either A) weak cards of little value,B) weak cards with some value (suited connectors) that he'd rather play against more than one opponent, or C) a monster with which he is trapping.

  Since he called your raise, I rule out A). I also discount C) because his position would disguise a raise with pocket biggies.

  So he's probably caught some of the flop and realizes that you probably missed completely. I think I would call his raise for the size of the pot but folding can't be too wrong, even assuming that he know you and feels he could get you to fold by raising. Sometimes it's not wrong to fold even if you think your opponent is trying to get you to fold. Fekali enemas can be administered as well as absorbed.

  What could he have to be "faking you out" with? With two big cards smaller than yours (Q-J or J-T) he would have raised preflop. With smaller cards he's likely caught some of the flop.

  • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:31 p.m.

    "What could he have to be faking you out with"?

    None. He has either a better hand once the flop comes or he has a better hand with a better draw. In either case, I am the guy who is chasing and I have six outs at best which is a 7-to-1 shot. But my outs are only to a pair which will not win 100% of the time even when I hit. That is why I folded. Regardless, I refuse to believe that this is a major poker decision one way or the other.

    • Agree with all your points (N/T)
      Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:36 p.m.

      .
    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:22 p.m.

      Jim,

      Don't you think the ace is an "ostensible out" since he almost cannot have it given his lack of a pre flop raise?

      Regards,

      Rick

      • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
        Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
        Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:43 p.m.

        Yet another reason why it is better to call in this situation with something like QJ (as opposed to AK). If you just call the flop checkraise, Tony will likely put you on AK and if that's in fact what you have..well...that's no good. On the other hand, if you have QJ, you could possibly catch him off guard by getting an opportunity to raise his turn bet if a Queen or Jack comes; secondly, you may be able to wrestle the pot away from him if an Ace or King comes and he checks (although it's tougher to wrestle it away from him if he has any kind of follow through and bets the turn even if an Ace or King comes).

        Bottom line: I like the "ostensible outs" theory as an additional reason for Jim not to fold so easily on the flop (here, the Ace and to a much lesser extent - the Queen - would be ostensible outs).

        • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
          Posted by: Anon (zarchan@fas.harvard.edu)
          Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 8:10 p.m.

          This is consistent with a more general notion, which is that it is best for the your hand's outs to not be those opponent(s) would expect. This allows you to get paid off more when you hit your true outs, and it gives you more total "outs" (including "ostensible" outs). While the importance of this idea is much greater in pot-limit, it still plays an important role in limit.

          -Anon
      • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 6:42 p.m.

        backdoor has started another thread on this idea at the top of this forum. But I think a good player who makes a strong move on the flop by check-raising will follow it up with a bet on fourth virtually every time since he may win the pot outright and he will have a lot of outs if he is called assuming that he was check-raising on a draw and not a made hand. If he has both a made hand and a draw, as was the case here, he will surely bet the turn. The ace is a good scare card for him as well as you. Therein lies the problem with calling the raise on the flop. A good player will usually bet again and how can you call on the turn when you fail to make a pair? (God this is fun!!!)

        • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
          Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
          Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 2:26 a.m.

          Jim,

          I've been mostly under the weather today so I can barely sit up at the CRT but the more I read the more I agree that my "ostensible outs" idea doesn't really apply here.

          Regards,

          Rick
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Tommy Angelo (tomium@aol.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:32 p.m.

  I would RARELY call his flop raise. I'd either fold or reraise. In this case, with him not open-raising from the cutoff with a post out, I'd be more likely to fold.

  Tommy
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:44 p.m.

  Well, I agree with the preflop raise.

  As for the flop play, I don't have a problem with your fold per se so long as you are not making the initial bet *knowing* that you will fold to a checkraise. In other words, I might fold this to a flop checkraise now and then but I certainly wouldn't make it a habit of getting pushed around by a simple checkraise on the flop. You need to mix it up. Heck, if you are of the view that you will fold to a checkraise, you may be better off chceking the flop and taking the free card. You should of course then bluff the turn if an Ace or Queen comes off. A check on the flop can also have alarm bells go off in Tony's head (i.e. "hm..wtf..he must have a set" etc.).

  Bottom line: your play on this hand when viewed in isolation is not a big deal but if you play overcards this way all the time, then you may be in for a rough ride.

  BTW, I say "you" here loosely. I know that you know all of the above.
• An alternative....
  Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:28 p.m.

  Jim,

  This is an interesting problem, and something Andy Fox and Erin (and others) said made me think about an alternative playing of this hand. Please tell me what I've got wrong here:

  Jim said:

  The flop is: 7h-5h-4s

  Tony checks. I bet hoping my lone opponent will fold and having some outs perhaps if I am called. Tony raises.

  Andy said, I paraphrase:

  I rule out A and C, leaving B (low/medium connectors).

  And Erin said:

  He has a pocket pair

  And many others said they'd fold.

  Why then bet this flop? If he checkraises, then you have the tough decision. Some players might check raise you with anything, making you make the tough call. I think I would, since this flop probably doesn't help you, and I would have the hand or the outs.

  What if you check this flop? Then, after the turn, you will know if Tony has 86h or 76 or AA and was waiting to pounce, or whether he was weak. (He won't check again on the turn unless he is very weak). Also, you might have a K or J by then, and be raising him.

  What am I missing?

  Mark

  • Re: An alternative....
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:37 p.m.

    I might get a bare ace to fold on the flop by betting. For me, when I bet and get check-raised it is much easier to let go of the hand then when I check the flop and invite him to take the pot away from me by betting the turn. By checking, I show weakness and tell him that I have nothing. But when I follow up my preflop raise with a bet on the flop, I have shown nothing but strength. For all he knows I could have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT, etc. since I would play these hands the same way.

    • Re: An alternative....
      Posted by: Riff Raff
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:59 p.m.

      I might get a bare ace to fold on the flop by betting.

      Wouldn't he raise any bare ace pre-flop given his position? QT or anything else he might drop in this case would also seem like candidates for him to raise.

      just my 2 cents.

      • Re: An alternative....
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 6:45 p.m.

        He might but I am not sure how he plays preflop after posting with everyone folding to him. A good player usually would raise but I cannot be sure.
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:01 p.m.

  Jim I have thought about this question from your and his standpoint with my experience guiding me. I like your preflop raise and reasons but if I was the opponent I know I would put you on two high cards. As the flop has missed you, he has an ideal chance to pressure someone he is a) sure has missed the flop b) is a solid player who realized that the post hand could have hit this flop. Although a common move, a lot of solid players don't like to fool around with these situations and just throw cards away and wait for a better hand. I would think he might be reading you this way. Choice is fold or raise and take it to river. I don't know game theory well enough to figure out what to do. I have picked off quite a few bluffs after playing tight when situations like this come up. Regards, Dave
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@nationalbooking.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:23 p.m.

  YOU PLAYED THE HAND PERFECT! - You just lost.
• Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
  Posted by: Terrence Chan
  Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 3:32 a.m.

  A $15-$30 game. I am on the button with the Ks-Jd. A solid player named Tony comes in and posts a late position blind in the cutoff seat. It is folded to Tony who checks. I raise, because I believe my hand is a good one against two blinds and a late position poster who doesn't raise. The blinds fold and Tony calls. There is $85 in the pot and two players.

  The flop is: 7h-5h-4s [Tony check-raises]

  I don't need to scroll down to know that Jim folded and Izmet hated the fold. Izmet is always fearful in these blind-vs-blind or blind-vs-button situations that someone is betting a draw. And I read Jim's overcards article in CP and he hates calling when there's doubt the overcards will be good.

  As for the play, I think the overcards have an excellent chance of being good. I think Tony being a solid player and knowing you could check-raise you with any two overcard hearts to the board, any 6 and any pair. Yes, it is true, he would also check-raise you with lots of good hands you're drawing thin against. But I don't think it's prudent to assume that just because someone check-raises you heads-up means that they have two pair. Or even one pair for that matter. I would call and peel off a turn card. If I miss the turn and Tony bets, I dump. If I had something like AJ and missed the turn, and Tony bets into me, now I would have a real decision on my hands.

  • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
    Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
    Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 1:31 p.m.

    But Terrence, not to play results, but I think what Tony actually had is very typical of what I would expect him to have given this betting action. Assuming he bets the turn 100% of the time then here is what you are faced with.

    Case One: You miss completely.

    This will happen 39/45 or 87% of the time. You have to fold. You lose one small bet.

    Case Two: You catch the Kh or the Jh

    This will happen 2/45 or 4% of the time. Now you are ahead but any seven, any six, any three, any eight, or any heart that shows up at the river beats you. By my count this is 9 hearts, 3 non-heart eights, 3 non-heart treys, 3 non-heart sixes, and 2 non-heart sevens for a total of 20 cards from 44 unseen cards. In other words even when you catch two of your six outs you will lose 45% of the time anyway.

    Case Three: You catch a non-heart King or non-heart Jack.

    This will happen 4/45 or 9% of the time. Now any seven, any six, any three, or any eight beats you at the river. I believe this is 13 cards from 44 unseen cards. So you lose 30% of the time in this situation.

    Bottom line is that you do not have even 6 effective outs. It is more like 4 effective outs and the problem is that you go on to lose two big double bets when you hit one of your outs and lose.

    • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
      Posted by: Terrence Chan
      Posted on: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 10:54 p.m.

      I agree that the way Tony played is consistent with his hand. Tony knows he's in a great situation when that flop comes down. Top pair with an open-ender against a blind steal is huge. The problem is, the play is also consistent with how I think a strong, aggressive player would play many weaker hands. Heck, when you steal-raise from the button and the flop comes rags, you shouldn't be surprised if an aggressive player check-raises you with JT.

      Given Tony's implied weakness preflop (check-call), he has close to two random cards. You can't expect close to two random cards to have flopped something big just because he check-raises you, if he's a good player.

      • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
        Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
        Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 4:58 a.m.

        But Terence a strong aggressive player would almost always raise when it is folded to him and he has posted a late position blind. When Terence just checked after posting his late position blind, he denied having any kind of a strong hand like two big cards headed by an ace or a king or medium pocket pair or a decent sized connector like jack-ten. By just checking preflop instead of raising, he would have the kind of hand that would fit that flop.

        • Re: IZMET FEKALI CONTROVERSY
          Posted by: Terrence Chan
          Posted on: Saturday, 19 May 2001, at 11:55 p.m.

          I suppose we have to agree to disagree here, Jim. I agree with you (strongly) that a player should raise very liberally when it is folded around to him in a late-position post. But you said yourself in your response to Riff Raff that you don't know how well he plays preflop, so he's certainly capable of making the mistake of being too passive here.

          This player chose to be passive preflop, and elected to check-raise you on the flop. But based on your description of him, he is a strong player (which means he is definitely capable of check-raising you on a heads-up pot with lots of dead money holding very little). This is my primary concern here. I simply don't believe that every time you get check-raised here you are drawing thin. Or even drawing at all, for that matter: I think against a strong aggressive player your KJ has a good chance of actually being the best hand even after his check-raise.

          If you don't think Tony is capable of playing passively preflop with a marginal hand and then playing very aggressively post-flop with a marginal hand, you are probably right. You play with him, and I don't, so I'm sure you know the man better than me. But against a generic "tough" opponent, I wouldn't lay the hand down.

          • Thanks! Good Post! (n/t)
            Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
            Posted on: Sunday, 20 May 2001, at 5:11 a.m.

            (n/t)

Two hands that raise similar issues which come up frequently:

Hand 1: I have Ah10h in the SB. There is a poster I have never seen before in the cutoff. The BB is tight-ish. Fold to the poster who checks, button folds, I raise, BB folds, poster calls.

Flop is Jh3c6s. I bet, he calls.

Turn is: Jc. Bet, check/fold or check/call?

Hand 2: I have AsQs in late position. One early limper who is loose passive. I raise, BB and limper call.

Flop is 10c4s4h. Check to me, I bet, BB folds, limper calls.

Turn is: 7d. Check to me. Bet or check? If you check, should your strategy be to call the river if a rag hits and the limper bets? I find that this works okay in loose games (which are what I usually play in) where guys will call with QJ, KJ etc. on the flop and then make a move at the river since you showed weakness on the turn.

• Re: 10-20 Follow Through Issues
  Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 1:54 p.m.

  Hand No. 1 probably calls for a bet as you would think that the other guy would have raised on the flop if he had a Jack. The second Jack just made his draw (if say he had middle pair) that much worse in his own mind.

  Hand No. 2 also probably calls for a bet precisely because you will likely have to call the river anyway if you check the turn. Bet the turn and check down the river.

  • Re: 10-20 Follow Through Issues
    Posted by: Scott Wyler
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:07 p.m.

    I bet both hands but I considered checking. On hand #1, I am sure he has no jack for the reason you mention but there's no draw out there. So what is he doing? I guessed he was just plain loose (and I was right -- he had 10-4 or something), but if I knew the player to be reasonably tight I might put him on a 6 and check the turn, hoping to stroke one of my outs on the river. Too wimpy?

    On #2 I like your plan, which is what I did (and he showed J-Q, I think).

    thanks for the input

    • Re: 10-20 Follow Through Issues
      Posted by: Steve Fiete (sfiete@hotmail.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:43 p.m.

      In hand 1 he might have had 54 since he had posted.

      Even if you knew that he had a 6, you could consider betting since a tight player could fold. If you check, then he is more likely to bet his 6, and then you will have to fold.
• Re: 10-20 Follow Through Issues
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:20 p.m.

  1. In the first scenario I would bet. He likely does not have a high pocket pair or a J, since he would have raised preflop with a high pair, and would likely have raised with a J on the flop. he could have a 6 with a kicker higher than a J or a middle pocket pair that he might throw away. There is enough doubt that a bet is probably worth it. A check/call is not a bad play either.

  2. In this situation I would again bet on the turn. Your opponent could have a threeflush that is now busted, or could have virtually anything. If he is loose passive and a high card hits on the river and he bets I would fold, and if a blank hits I would show it down if he checks.

  Pat

I had KK in late position. The second player calls and All fold to the player to my right who calls the BB. I raise, and the BB and the player to my right call. Flop is J-8-8. Player to my right checks after the BB,I bet, BB folds and player to my right raises. The turn is a blank. Player to my right bets and I fold. He shows A8 offsuit.

Any comments welcome.

Pat

• Re: Playing pocket kings
  Posted by: Scott Wyler
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:16 p.m.

  Was the player to your right playing with his cards face up? If not, I would have to say you should have called him down.

  • Re: Playing pocket kings
    Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:21 p.m.

    He was a relatively new player to holdem, who also knew that I could play OK. I figured he would only checkraise me with a strong hand.

    Pat

    • Re: Playing pocket kings
      Posted by: Scott Wyler
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:17 p.m.

      There are some players you can fold against in that scenario, but not many. I would have to be VERY sure....
• Re: Playing pocket kings
  Posted by: neil (neilg@andovertrading.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:26 p.m.

  Sounds like he played the hand BEAUTIFULLY!
• Re: Playing pocket kings
  Posted by: Winger
  Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 3:22 a.m.

  I'd have to have an awfully accurate read on my opponenent to make this laydown. In most cases it would be a reraise.

Im in late position with kd,qh

Everyone folds to the guy to my right who calls, I raise, button calls and the big blind

(One of the reasons I raised was to get the button out but it didn't work)

flop, 6s, 9s,5d, checked to me, I bet, button folds bb calls, the guy to my right raises I reraise.

I have a good read on this guy and Im 80% sure that hes on a flush draw. Comments?

turn is a 4d, He Checks I bet he calls

River, is a Jd He checks I bet and the guy makes a crying call. He wins the pot with As,Js

What do you guys think of my play I like the way i played this and I also belive that if the jack does not fall on the river or a spade I win this pot.

Comments

• Re: Rate my play
  Posted by: Scott Wyler
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:14 p.m.

  I like it that it was based on a strong read and all, but I would not have tried it. I don't like it for the exact reason that you could easily be "right" and still lose, which is what happened. Plus you are multi-way and counting on a bunch of things to go right, including everyone else folding. I would have checked the flop with 3 opponents and folded the turn when he bet his big draw. Interesting move though, Mav.
• one more thing to add
  Posted by: dorrex (dorrex@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:35 p.m.

  One more thing to add is that I should have known that that button hadled his chips that he had a good hand before the flop and would play, but I was to busy watching the other players and not him, I was already in the mtion of raising When I realized it.
• Re: Rate my play
  Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 3:57 p.m.

  Pre-flop: I like your raise with K-Q; you are trying to buy the button and get out the A-x hands.

  On the flop: They all check to you expecting you to bet. It's a dangerous flop which has missed you completely. I might also have bet in an attempt to win it right there (under my dubious theory that when in doubt you should bet), but once BB called and other opponent raised, I would have given it up right there. You can only like a non spade K or Q on the turn and then you might be beat by a redraw on the river.

  If I were sure opponent was on a flush draw, I would have considered that, in his mind, he had 15 out cards with which he could call you down on the river (9 flush cards, plus 3 of each of his hole cards to give him a pair). The way you played it you put a lot of money into the pot such that he called you when he made a pair on the river even though he put you on a bigger pocket pair.

  Plus he might have had As-5s or a pocket pair of 7s or 8s (you said you were 80% sure he was on a flush draw; you still have to consider the 20% of the other hands he might have).

  I'd rather have more outs with my semi-bluffs.
• Re: Rate my play
  Posted by: Gene (holdemdude) (shalomgene@hotmail.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:01 p.m.

  Pre flop: I prefer to limp also. If the LP limper has any pair or Ax you are already behind. If not he/she probably hit a piece of that flop.

  Flop: Fold or check fold. 3-betting with that board? You have nothing. Trying to out play opponents in a muti-way pot and in limit play...you end up out playing yourself. Save that play for your legitimate semi bluffs or when you are heads up and know your opponent very well. Even then I wouldn't do it often.

  It seems that you could have gotten away from this hand for probably 1 SB or 1 BB at the most.

  IMO you overplayed your hand.

  Kind Regards,

  Gene (holdemdude)
• Re: Rate my play
  Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:22 p.m.

  Dorrex,

  He has AJs, right? You read him right about the spade draw. If you think there is any chance he has a high spade (like the A he had): You are the one drawing thin. When he raises you on that flop with two spades and an A, you have exactly 4 outs on the turn (2 K's and 2 q's) and then he has 12 outs to crack you on the river, with any A or any spade. If he gets a spade or an A on the turn, you are drawing dead; which is 12 of the cards...

  Once he raises this flop, you should be pleased you figured out he had 2 spades....then think about what spades he might have, then duck for cover.

  Also, you said, "What do you guys think of my play I like the way i played this and I also belive that if the jack does not fall on the river or a spade I win this pot." That's not right. You have only 4 outs, he is WAY in the lead.

  Mark
• Re: Rate my play
  Posted by: AFish
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:06 p.m.

  Preflop: I don't think KQo is strong enough to raise, given that there was already a limper. I would have called.

  Flop: All the players checked to you -- the preflop raiser -- on a highly coordinated flop. It is highly unlikely that a bet will win the pot, so check along. When check-raised, I would fold. I don't think this is close. You have absolutely nothing, and even if a nonspade K or Q falls, you could still be behind two pair or a set. Reraising is a lunatic move.

  Turn: Another scare card. Again, you have nothing and the raiser isn't going anywhere. Take a free card.

  River: Ditto.
• Re: Rate my play
  Posted by: patrick dicaprio (patrickdicaprio@gateway.net)
  Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 9:01 a.m.

  1. I would have just called on the flop unless I thought the big blind would fold also to a raise in addition to the button.

  2. In my opinion reraising on the flop without an A or a draw is clearly wrong, since if you are called by a player with an A and a draw you are drawing extremely thin. I would fold here. I presume you also thought that because there were few players your opponent might raise preflop with a smaller draw than AJ, which ic a mistake. Do you think he would raise with a draw that you could beat? It would have to be JTs or something like that, and even that hand is extremely unlikely. The most likely hand for the raiser if you knew he was on a draw is a draw that is at least as high as your offsuit cards, such as his AJo or some other draw that is at least K high.

  Pat
• Re: Rate my play
  Posted by: Just another egg (rockin'.it.down.hard@valleyofpatience.com)
  Posted on: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 11:14 a.m.

  I guess your three bet was to loose the bb and maybe get a free card. Not a bad strategy, although you didn't take the free card... hmmm so the three bet cost you money.

  How about this, since your sure he's on the flush draw, call his raise on the flop. He is then likely to bet the turn and if his flush card doesn't come raise him there. He is much more likely to put you on a big hand with the call and the turn raise. Might not even "pay you off" when the J comes.

  Just my opinion

  Just another egg

Hand 1. I would bet the turn. Even if you don't have the best hand, your oppent may well fold a small or medium pair. If he raised, then I would fold.

Hand 2. Since I have been playing internet games recently, I probably have too much aversion to betting the turn here. Some internet players will check-raise bluff with anything trying to represent a 4. But in the case of a typical loose-passive casino player, you should bet. Most likely he called the flop with just 1 or 2 overcards, and now he will fold if you bet. If you get check-raised, then you should probably fold.

10-20, typical game.

1 early limper, I had A-K offsuit in the cutoff and raised. BB called, limper called. We see flop 3-handed.

Flop: A K 8 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet, BB called, limper folded. Hmm, I was hoping BB had a weaker ace. He's a decent and fairly tight player.

Turn: offsuit 3. BB checks, I bet, BB checkraised. What should I have done? I figured it was unlikely BB had AA or KK, as he probably would have 3-bet preflop, and there was only one combo of each available. Pocket 3s he probably would have folded previously. I was worried he has pocket 8s, and hoping he had a weaker 2-pair. A tie w/A-K was also possible. Anyway, I just called his raise. In retrospect, I think a reraise might have been a better play. He had to fear AA or KK from me since I was the preflop raiser, so he probably wouldn't have 4-bet even if he had a set of 8s. And if I don't catch an A or K on the river, I'll hopefully be able to check behind him. Also, there's a very slight chance he might have layed down A-K giving me the whole pot. Any opinions?

River: blank. He bets, I call. He shows 8-8 and takes it with the set. I believe I had to pay off here w/top 2. And I lost the same amount that I would have if I had 3 bet the turn and checked the river. However, even though it didn't cost me here, I think not re-raising the turn was probably a mistake. What do you folks think?

Thanks,

Caddy

• Re: Missed a Turn Re-raise?
  Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 4:19 p.m.

  Caddy

  Argh (sp?) Revealing what your opponent had will probably color the responses but since my short term memory is so bad I should be able to provide an honest answer.

  You had an easy reraise on the turn with top two pair. He is far more likely to have K8s, AQ, AJ or A8 than 88.

  In general, if you don’t lose a lot of money with a very good hand when you run into a set then you are not playing aggressively enough.

  Regards,

  Rick

  • Re: Missed a Turn Re-raise?
    Posted by: Andy Fox (andy@frenchcraft.com)
    Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:47 p.m.

    I never let the results color my responses.

    I would have checked behind him when he checked the flop, checked again if he checked the turn, and folded if he bet the river. It's foolish to bet two pair into a set.

    Seriously, I calculate the odds of exactly A-K-8 flopping when you hold A-K and your opponent holds 8-8 as 395-1. Is this correct?

    • Re: Missed a Turn Re-raise?
      Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
      Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 8:23 p.m.

      I got the exact same flop the other day on Planet. Fortunately, I had the 88 and it went 40 on the flop (my opponent who had position slowplayed) and 160 on the turn. I bet the river and he just called. If I am going to lose set over set, I am going to lose a bundle...that's all there is to it.
• Re: Missed a Turn Re-raise?
  Posted by: Just another egg (rockin'.it.down.hard@valleyofpatience.com)
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:23 p.m.

  Raise again. Call his re-raise and his bet on the river.

  Just another egg.
• Re: Missed a Turn Re-raise?
  Posted by: Riff Raff
  Posted on: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 11:21 p.m.

  Re-raise the turn, call his raise, spike an ace on the river.. what's so hard about that? People do that to me all the time when I flop a set vs their AK top 2 ;)